e=mc^2?

[DuctTape-On]

At the risk of making myself look like a complete idiot, I need to ask this question which has been bugging me for a while.

I am about to go to university, and I want to study Quantum Mechanics, yet I dont understand why such a popular equation contradicts the field I wish to pursue.

I had endeavoured to teach myself some basics of the Standard Model so I found a basic chart, http://www.cpepweb.org/cpep_sm_large.html.

Yet on the chart, the photon, is determined to have no weight, from the equation m = e/c^2 = 0

We know c doesnt = 0, so in order for this equation to make sense, e must = 0.

However I see this as a contradiction because shorter wavelength light is proven to knock electrons free from metals, due to the photoelectric effect. :confused:

Also, photons absorbed into photovoltaic cells, and the heat produced can be turned into electricity.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I am just really confused with how a photon carries no energy, yet moves at this cosmological constant, c, in all reference frames.

[Epsilon=One]

However I see this as a contradiction because shorter wavelength light is proven to knock electrons free from metals, due to the photoelectric effect. :confused:

Also, photons absorbed into photovoltaic cells, and the heat produced can be turned into electricity.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I am just really confused with how a photon carries no energy, yet moves at this cosmological constant, c, in all reference frames.You must realize that none of the standard models are, internally, logically consistent; nor, are any of these paradigms reconcilable with one another.

Currently, academic physics is entirely based upon metaphysical forces (generally three to five forces depending upon your sect's doctrine); all of which is defined by systems of mathematics and dimensions that physicists are unable to prove and/or define.

Physics can be considered a science of forces and motion; yet, physicists cannot define force with equations that reconcile with, or even resemble, one another; and motion and speed depend upon a concept of time which is currently indefinable.

The symbolism and concepts of academic physics has been tweaked and contrived to generally adhere closely to much observation; however, as each year passes the anomalies and enigmas are increasing in all the physical sciences. The harder that you look at Nature, facts and theories; the truer my statements become.

Hopefully, your generation will be the vanguard of a "new" physics. You have the advantage of not being as mentally impressed as today's practitioners.An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way
by gradually winning over and converting its opponents:
it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul.

What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out
and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

Max Planck [1858-1947]
The Philosophy of Physics, 1936

[DuctTape-On]

Thanks for your quick reply Epsilon=One. Before I joined this forum I had a chance to browse quite a few topics, and judging from that, I guessed you would be the first to answer my question.

Only knowing Classical Mechanics after high school left me pondering with a few questions, like the definition of time. After a lot of searching, I couldn't come up with an answer. As you say, current physics cannot define time, which was why I couldn't come across an answer. So maybe sometime in the near future (hopefully during my lifetime), Physics will have an answer for all its current unknowns, and in doing so, creating more unknowns.

For now, my eyes are fixated on the ATLAS experiment.

But once again thanks for your enormous input to this forum. You can only learn so much from reading text books, and your explanations make things seem a lot clearer. I'll try and sleep a little easier.