Massless Particles

From a reader:

“I understand from reading TSW that there is no such thing as a massless particle. However, the recent announcement "proving" E=mc² confuses me.
Resolving Einstein's equation seems to rest on the interaction of quarks and gluons. Gluons, the article says, have "zero" mass.
Is this just a case of our inability to measure?
How does this "corroboration" affect the IUT?

I am ever so grateful for your insight.”

Frederic:

Thanks for the perceptive question. First, let me state unequivocally that I believe that E=mc² is correct. I simply object to the indeterministic interpretation that generally is laid upon it. Second, you are correct that the assumption of INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) implies that there can be no massless or partless particles. From time to time indeterminists will claim that they have found a massless particle. That, of course, is an oxymoron: a thing that is not a thing. It illustrates once again that mathematics never can be the final arbiter of reality. When I was working on the first draft of TSW (before 1984), neutrinos were considered to be massless. INFINITY convinced me this would be impossible. Today, of course, neutrinos are considered to have mass. Similarly, I predict that gluons, if they exist at all, also will be found to have mass. When this happens, INFINITY will be “corroborated” once again along with the IUT (Infinite Universe Theory). But don’t hold your breath. There always will be yet another particle claimed by some to be massless. I kept the quote marks around “corroborated” so as not to forget that complete and final corroboration is an oxymoron in an infinite universe. As you know, this is where I depart from Newton by using the consupponible assumption of UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).

This problem also can be resolved by using the assumption of INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). In the case you mention, gluons are being considered as matterless motion, which, as you know, is a favorite of indeterminists everywhere. Lacking an ether filled with particles capable of transmitting electromagnetic motion, the conventional interpretation of E=mc² implies that matter can be converted into matterless motion. At the quantum level, it is claimed, matter can be converted either into waves or into a “cloud of probability.” The chapter on neomechanics pretty much covers what I have to say on the conversion of one kind of matter in motion to other kinds of matter in motion. E=mc² simply describes this conversion at the atomic level. The motion of the submicrocosms within the microcosm of the atom is transmitted to submicrocosms in the macrocosm. The equation would not work if the macrocosm consisted of pure empty space. Recent work proving that there is an ether, as well as the conventional speculations on “dark matter” fall into line with this view. With your encouragement, I might have to write my paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²” sooner than I thought.