Does light have Mass?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-bang-light-reveals-lifetime-photon/
This study.

In here,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay
under energy released, energetic beta particles seem to be part of the decaying process in an electron. Do these particles decay?

Here they explain particle decay
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
Can we detect what the decaying material becomes? Or would it be a candidate for part of what is feeding the dark sectors of the Universe?

If this wild speculation is even true, you're talking about a billion billion years, and I have no idea what happens to the photons. However, if you're talking about anything in the world as we know it, you'll have to tell me how the photons stop being photons, before I can tell you what happens to them.

No, neither electrons nor positrons decay, although a positron will probably eventually collide with an electron and turn into gamma rays.

Yes, it becomes some other particles. Which particles depends on which particles are decaying.


Not as far as anyone knows.

Relevant question: Is light Catholic? Or Episcopalian/COE?

Basically quarks
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/quark.html#c1
In the process were the energy is transferred from a photon atom
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
and here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
does the quart itself get absorbed to be transformed into a new substance?
Do a quark itself have any decay?

If a quark's structure is so that it can carry heat for billions of years, yet it transfers it when it comes close enough to certain structures. Wouldn't it there be a huge build up of it?
Or maybe most of it is transferred, but some residue is left behind?
95% of the Universe that is falling under the Dark categories.
And growing.

If the quark can keep energy, wouldn't some of it's residue (if there is any) reflect structures of energy that we know about? Making the material fall under one of the dark categories?

Over here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
under nature of dark energy and effect of dark energy. The mass and volume content is measured over time.
It says that it is not very dense and that it is uniform.
It also explains how it must be coming from a denser material because it's volume is growing.
What part of a quark could be a candidate for such a structure?

Maybe a somewhere in this area?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
By having the density of dark energy, you can know what part of the structure to look at? If it happens to be one of the sources?

Peter, are you seriously looking for dark matter..... Because people with billions of dollars of equipment are also looking, and coming up blank, so your odds are not very good. Not trying to be negative here, just practical.

Dark energy. Should be simpler to understand because it's uniformity and it's weigh.
It's already been found. It is about understanding it's structure.

If it was found, it would no longer be dark, as dark just implies that it is not there, but should be, as predicted by equations. There is no requirement that humanity be able to understand the universe, in fact it is no more logical, for humanity to understand the universe, from the Earth, than it is for a small crab, that lives under the ocean, under a rock, to understand the crest of mount Everest.

When the first caveman or Neanderthal came down from the first tree, 99.999 percent of all universal knowledge was unknown, today this percent has not changed, not at all.

I understand the concept of someone's choice of not wanting to understand.
But isn't fun attempting to understand.
We found Dark energy because it's pushing the Universe apart as it's volume grows.

What is pushing the universe apart is not known, that the universe is being pushed apart is not known. The universe could be being pulled apart? or static like Albert once said.

You do not know, the people who say they know, do not know, you can not know what is under my foot now, but you can understand the rest of the universe, is this logical?

The likelihood that you or any person will figure out the universe, from the Earth, is as I said, equal to the crabs..... Thus the fun, can only be in failure.

If you really wanted to understand, it might help to take a physics class or read a physics book instead of making wild, uninformed guesses. You have about the same probability of succeeding doing that as you do of performing successful brain surgery with no medical knowledge.

There is no book or class that can help one understand, what is not known, and thus can not be taught.

That's not true. For example, we do not know exactly the cellular mechanisms that cause aging, but knowledge of cellular biology and chemistry would be helpful in figuring it out. Likewise, to understand a temporarily unknown physics phenomenon, it would be helpful to know physics. If something is unknown about particle interactions, a knowledge of general physics and particle physics would be helpful in figuring it out. Maybe the solution to the particle question at some point involves conservation of momentum and it helps to know what momentum and conservation of momentum mean. What you are saying is that explaining an unknown in a field is in no way assisted by knowledge of the field, which is just on the face of it wrong. Maybe the next great physics stride will be made by someone who has no knowledge of physics and failed his algebra class, but I doubt it.