# Greatest relativistc mass possible for a single photon [closed]

I have been told that photons can not be blue shifted to the point where they become black holes, although a photon with a Planck scale wavelength would also have a relativistic mass equal to a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius on the scale of its wavelength. (Imagine a photon stuck in a loop around its own relativistic mass).

So my question now is, what are the limits of relativistic mass or momentum that a single photon could have?

Also, by extension, how short a wavelength could it have? If the wavelength gets to the Planck scale does it become a particle, or matter?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by ZeroTheHero, Jon Custer, Kyle Kanos, Cosmas Zachos, Roy SimpsonAug 25 at 20:28

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/3436 – Ben Crowell Aug 20 at 3:17
• You may get a different answer if you ask about too very blue photons getting close. – safesphere Aug 20 at 4:57
• A photon is by its definition a partile and has mass zero. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… There is no relativistic mass for a single photon, no matter what its wavelength. – anna v Aug 20 at 5:52

In modern terminology, mass means invariant mass. See Why is there a controversy on whether mass increases with speed? . The mass of a photon is zero. So to make this question more intelligible based on modern usage, a better title would be "Greatest energy possible for a single photon."

I have been told that photons can not be blue shifted to the point where they become black holes

This is true because the criterion for being a black hole (light can't escape to infinity) is observer-independent. It doesn't mean that there's a limit on how much of a blueshift you can have. There is no such limit. Although it is true for a collapsing star, in its rest frame, that $$r/m \lesssim G/c^2$$ is a criterion for being a black hole, this is not true in other frames of reference. It would make sense in terms of Newtonian mechanics if the criterion was $$r/m \lesssim G/c^2$$, but general relativity is different because in GR the source of gravity isn't mass, it's the stress-energy tensor.

Also, by extension, how short a wavelength could it have.

We don't have a theory of quantum gravity, so we don't know for sure how to interpret the Planck length. However, it probably shouldn't be interpreted as a minimum length scale. That would violate Lorentz invariance.

If the wavelength gets to the Plank scale does it become a particle, or matter?

A photon is both a wave and a particle regardless of its wavelength. Modern physicists don't really use the term "matter" much, but to the extent that they do, they mean fermions. A photon is a boson regardless of its wavelength.

• So can a photon have an energy density greater than a black hole? Also, if it did, could it be bent around its own center of mass? – Joseph Hirsch Aug 20 at 0:12
• Pions aren't matter? – Danny Aug 20 at 0:57
• @JosephHirsch: So can a photon have an energy density greater than a black hole? As stated in my answer, density (or rather $m/r$) is not a general criterion for a black hole to exist. See the question linked to from my comment on your question. – Ben Crowell Aug 20 at 3:17
• "Modern physicists don't really use the term "matter" much, but to the extent that they do, they mean fermions." Not really. To a relativist, matter is simply anything that contributes to the energy-momentum tensor. To a cosmologist, matter is anything that obeys the non-relativist equation of state. To a condensed matter physicist, a Bose-Einstein condensate is most definately a state of matter. – mmeent Aug 20 at 6:20