What is the truth about photons and their mass?

[ImAnEngineer]

sorry but I was not aware that people don't like PM discussions. I give you the reference :

S; Gleyzes et al., Nature, 446,297, 15 march 2007

Best regards

FD

Thank you

 

[Vanadium 50]

Recent experiments showed that photons are not wave and not particles.

The Gleyzes measurement shows no such thing - unless by "not wave and not particles" you mean "quantum mechanical objects with both wave and particle properties", which, as I mentioned before, is a century old - hardly recent.

 

[delplace]

Sorry but even if i confess that interpretation of this experiment is not easy, there is a strong debat around this question being more a vocabulary way of explaining things. If I try to be accurate : let me say : they can behave as both particle and wave but photons are not particles and not waves.

 

[ImAnEngineer]

Sorry but even if i confess that interpretation of this experiment is not easy, there is a strong debat around this question being more a vocabulary way of explaining things. If I try to be accurate : let me say : they can behave as both particle and wave but photons are not particles and not waves.

Then it's nothing new. It's been known for a long time that photons can behave as waves, as well as particles (and they can't be both at the same time, right?).

What I was more interested in, is that you posed that photons are a part of time-space detached from continuum (?) and therefore have no mass. Could you explain that a bit more?