[alan wales - dennis sparkes (OP)]

Preliminary statement: Our question is based on the law of conservation of mass. Therefore, we take it that when a light particle is brought to rest, its mass remains unchanged. This is known to be true as shown by the Lorentz contraction equation.  (L=L0√1−v2c2) LO = Rest length L = Shortened length

The Lorentz contraction equation predicts that light particles have zero length in the direction of their velocity and hence zero volume. Consequently, we suggest that light particles have the mass density of black holes (mass density = mass / zero volume).

For explanation, we take it that a light particle is spherical. This allows us to use the radius to calculate the volume of the particle, to use in the Lorentz contraction equation.

The volume of a sphere is directly proportional to the cube of its radius (radius3)

Where the radius of the light particle is known its volume can be calculated, however when travelling at velocity c its volume is 0. This is shown to be true using the Lorentz contraction equation. (L=L0√1−v2c2)

We get a mass density equivalent to a black hole by taking the volume of 0 and dividing it into the rest mass. (Rest mass /radius3 = mass density of light particle)

[Janus]

Photons can never be at rest, they don't have any "rest mass", and c is not a valid inertial frame to which you can apply the Lorentz contraction.  That's three strikes right there.

[alan wales - dennis sparkes (OP)]

The post is about light particles and length in relation to velocity as perceived by Lorentz.

Perhaps the post is over worded and so we offer an abbreviation to improve its readability:

 ?Our question is based on the law of conservation of mass. Therefore, we take it that when a light particle is brought to rest, its mass remains unchanged.

?The Lorentz contraction equation predicts that light particles have zero length in the direction of their velocity and hence zero volume. Consequently, we suggest that light particles have the mass density of black holes (mass density = mass / zero volume).?

[Origin]

 ?Our question is based on the law of conservation of mass. Therefore, we take it that when a light particle is brought to rest, its mass remains unchanged.

As noted earlier photons have no mass and can ONLY move at c, it seems you missed those points.

?The Lorentz contraction equation predicts that light particles have zero length in the direction of their velocity and hence zero volume. Consequently, we suggest that light particles have the mass density of black holes (mass density = mass / zero volume).?

This incorrect conclusion is based on incorrect assumptions.  Why did you completely ignore the reply from Janus?  You should listen to him, he know what he is talking about

[Halc]

Origin is spot on. You're ignoring replies, very good replies at that.

One problem is that you seem to be conflating between at least four very different theories: Newtonian mechanics (N), relativity theory (R), absolutist theory ((L) for LET and others), and quantum mechanics (Q).

Our question is based on the law of conservation of mass.

Mass is conserved only under (N). Your post doesn't seem to be a Newtonian question.

None of the rest of either post seems related to mass conservation except for this opening assertion. 'Conservation' is subsequently never mentioned at all.

Therefore, we take it that when a light particle is brought to rest, its mass remains unchanged.

Light is not a particle under any theory. Quantum mechanics has the photon, but a photon is not a particle, nor does a photon have dimensions or a 'shape', or even a location.
You ignored the reply by Janus: Light moves locally at c and cannot be locally brought to rest, period, not in any of the four theories.

We can, if you will, consider a meter-square laser that emits for 3 billions of a second, forming a sort of 1 meter cube pulse of light. Now, under (R) at least, you have a pulse of light whose energy, volume, and momentum are frame dependent. This is not true under (N) or (L).  The block of light still has no proper volume or mass under any theory.

The Lorentz contraction equation predicts that light particles have zero length in the direction of their velocity and hence zero volume.

The equation says no such thing. Under (N) or (L), the light cube has a length of 1 meter, period. Under (R), the length of the pulse is frame dependent, but never zero.

Consequently, we suggest that light particles have the mass density of black holes

Black holes only exist under (R). There is no theory that gives one a meaningful density since space inside the event horizon is not clearly defined, and is infinite in at least one dimension.

(mass density = mass / zero volume).

Dividing by zero gives results that are undefined, not results that can be meaningfully compared to other undefined results.

What's the point of your trying to do this? Of what possible use would the concept of light density be to you?
To answer the title question: Light doesn't have a meaningful mass density, especially since is is massless.

[alan wales - dennis sparkes (OP)]

One problem is that you seem to be conflating between at least four very different theories

Our question is a synthesis based on theories by Lorentz and Broglie. The synthesis suggests that when material particles are accelerating toward the velocity of light they are losing volume (Lorentz) and so are increasingly behaving more like waves than particles (Broglie).  If we reverse the process, would the six components of white light behave as a light particle as observed by Newton?   The aforementioned is, of course, hypothetical and is the reason for our question.
Our question is a topic for physics and any replies with this in mind would be greatly appreciated

[alan wales - dennis sparkes (OP)]

As noted earlier photons have no mass and can ONLY move at c

Our question is a synthesis based on theories by Lorentz and Broglie. The synthesis suggests that when material particles are accelerating toward the velocity of light they are losing volume (Lorentz) and so are increasingly behaving more like waves than particles (Broglie).  If we reverse the process, would the six components of white light behave as a light particle as observed by Newton?   The aforementioned is, of course, hypothetical and is the reason for our question.
Our question is a topic for physics and any replies with this in mind would be greatly appreciated

[alancalverd]

The question is based on a lot of misconceptions.

Light doesn't consist of particles. Electromagnetic radiation can be modelled by continuum wave equations to predict classical optical phenomena like propagation, refraction, etc., but when the frequency is high enough to initiate electron or nuclear interactions, the interaction and emission are better described by quantum mechanics.

White light doesn't consist of "six components" but is a continuous spectrum, sometimes crudely and arbitrarily divided into so-called primary colors based on the average human interpretation of their effect.

Newton didn't "observe" particles but presumed visible light to be composed of  corpuscles. Kind of a premature (by 400 years or so) lucky guess at what Planck and Einstein eventually demonstrated, but it didn't explain what he had observed in his studies of refraction and dispersion (see above!).

Whilst em radiation is generated by the acceleration of charged particles, the relativistic phenomena associated with mass and length apply to the charged particle, not the emitted radiation. Light always and only propagates at c.

[Origin]

The synthesis suggests that when material particles are accelerating toward the velocity of light they are losing volume (Lorentz) and so are increasingly behaving more like waves than particles (Broglie).

Photons don't accelerate, they ONLY move at c.