241 Last modified August 22, 2016.
How we know
Assuming the photonic construct of mass we can predict the phenomenon of relativity. The equations that describe relativity naturally develop from the postulate ( 1 ) that mass is made of photons and postulate ( 2 ) that space and time behave in the classic sense. Relativity phenomena is observed and measured in accord with the equations that naturally develop (above). No need to re-do the math; these are the well known Lorentz transformations.
This is not a new thing. Seldom published, the fact that a photonic construct of mass would produce relativity phenomena in classic space-time stands and has been known for at least a hundred years. Any scientist who wishes to ponder will immediately see that a photonic construct of mass would cause relativity in a classic universe. H. Ziegler realized this in 1909. He said to Max Planck and Albert Einstein, If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter-like states and electrodynamics phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted."
Too bad Max and Albert paid him no mind.
Now, if the photonic construct of mass is not the reality of how nature is built, how in the world could there be the phenomenon of relativity ? Relativity phenomena is a reality; the photonic construct of mass is a reality; the photonic construct of mass is the cause of relativity. Nature could not possibly be otherwise given what we observe.
We know it because E = MC2
The mass-energy equation really demands a photonic construct of mass. Otherwise weird transformation ideas must be developed to explain why it is that mass and energy readily convert from one to the other. Given the photonic construct of mass, mass must necessarily yield up its electromagnetic energy when it comes unglued. Nature could not possibly be otherwise.
Modern scientists are hampered by an idea that crept into scientific thinking in the last few decades; that energy is not a thing in itself but is only a property that real things may possess. This idea makes thinking about mass-energy conversions very difficult; much easier to dump that absurd notion and consider energy a thing that can convert to mass; just like mass is a thing that can convert to energy.
We know it because of the way an electron strikes a target.
We can predict precisely an electron's path through space but even when knowing the path precisely, we cannot predict precisely where on a target an electron will strike. Since electrons are comprised of photons they will be absorbed or reflected by a target depending upon the phase-state of photons comprising target elements. In-phase or out-of-phase states will react differently. The impact point will be that point were the momentary phase relationships of the target best fit those of the projectile electron. Out-of-phase points tend to reflect; in-phase points tend to absorb etc.
We know it because of the wave behavior of the elementary particles.
The photonic construct of mass predicts interference patterns when particles interact because particles made of light must necessarily produce interference patterns just as light produces interference patterns.
If the photonic construct of mass is not reality this phenomenon is not predicted nor explained. It is one of those queer things about the mainstream faithful beliefs that just keep getting more queer as they make up strange new ideas to explain them.
We know it because light bends in gravity twice as much as it should.
Einstein predicted that light would bend twice as much as it should in a gravity field. This was measured soon after Einstein predicted it.
This is consistent with a photon construct of symmetric electric and magnetic fields. When the photon's path is bent the symmetry of the electric and magnetic fields is broken because the area of the outside of the bend is greater than the area of the inside of the bend. This observed positive feedback of photons must necessarily be the result of an electromagnetic force field; because that is the only kind of field known to be in a photon. We can predict then that bending the path of a photon produces an electromagnetic field. We can then predict that this is the source of the charge on the elementary particles. Coincidence?
We know it because Planck's constant is a constant.
Electromagnetic wave length may be varied smoothly over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The shorter the wave length, the greater the energy. Scientists assumed until Max Planck showed otherwise that the energy in a given wave length was variable by increasing the amplitude of the wave just as one might increase the amplitude of a water wave or a sound wave. Max Planck showed that the electromagnetic amplitude of any given wave length of light was a constant value. This value was the same for all wave lengths of light. This little twist in the way we view Planck's constant predicts the phenomenon of gravity. Coincidence ?
We know it because all massive particles can be reduced solely to electromagnetic fields.
Theory predicts and observations show that every particle of mass can become an electromagnetic field. This would really be weird if the particles were not made of electromagnetic fields. This fact alone should be proof enough; especially so since there is no evidence and has never been any evidence that contradicts the photonic construct of mass. Coincidence ?
We know it because colliding electrons and positrons can produce every known particle of mass.
There is no particle of ordinary mass that we cannot create by slamming together electrons and positrons. Some super massive short lived particles require more energy than we can presently generate in electron-positron accelerators but there is no reason to suggest that these particles could not also be created. How could this possibly be so if the particles were made up of other than the electromagnetic fields created by the colliding electrons and positrons. The new particles can't possibly come from the colliding particles because most are much more massive than the colliding particles. The total mass of all the particles generated in the collisions adds up to much more than the mass of the colliding particles. Coincidence ?