Depends how much detail you are modelling the surface in though I have to say I think the paper you cited that had an imaginary mass has probably done something silly somewhere and I see that by the end of the introduction it's misrepresenting three of its references so I don't think it's the highest quality.
Well yes, in one sense it could be posited that way. The word potential has several definitions. In this case, it would answer to; Potential = That which may become reality. Here is the wiki definition, Added mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Added_mass
This is not of the highest quality? Are you qualified to make that judgement? Rest mass of photon on the surface of matter https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943#
The best possible interpretation of you presenting that wiki definition of "virtual mass" is that you didn't bother to read it because fluid displacement has nothing to do with photons in a vacuum but frankly the more likely interpretation in my opinion is that you don't care whether what you are saying makes sense or not. I already explained the basis of my judgement.
This was the question. You keep avoiding the question and keep talking about the "vacuum". I am talking about the "surface", a physical object. Answer my question; How do you explain that? Perhaps you may want to reconsider that hasty judgement.
I've read the whole article now and no I do not want to reconsider and you might like to note that the article is over a year old and is cited exactly once and that citation is from its own authors and then there's this gem "Rest mass energy of photon [1] \(E=h\nu_p\) and \(E=m_0c^2\) then the frequency becomes \(\nu_p=\frac{m_0c^2}{h}\)" where they equate the energy of a moving photon with its rest mass. I suppose since this is in a journal it's fringe science not crackpottery but it's a close thing in this case.
Annavarapu has a quite lengthy publication history in fields completely unrelated to photons and only three that I can see with anything to do with them all coauthored with Goray whose work seems to consist of these three papers the last two of which are the only ones by anybody to cite any of the three. No publication record isn't necessarily a bad thing because everyone has to start somewhere but this paper is using nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (which doesn't describe photons because they are relativistic) and general relativity (which doesn't describe photons because it's a classical theory) to try to describe photons (which are concepts in relativistic quantum theory).
...so to answer the question I don't think the paper you are basing it on is plausible so the question doesn't have an answer any more than "if I could fly by flapping my arms why do I take the train" has an answer.
And speaking of avoiding the question Write4U where is that reference about Bohm's work that said that it "assigned an inherent potential that a zero value particle @ c acquires mass, whereas the potential of a collapsing wave function @ c, converts energy into mass, however small"? Or you could just admit that this is more stuff you made up.
What do you think I have been talking about? Whether we are talking about a particle or a wave function duality we are speaking of an encounter with a solid surface, such as in the double-slit experiment, no? You are the one who is beginning to waffle now. Again : Rest mass of photon on the surface of matter Is this incorrect, yes or no?
There are no references to Bohm in the paper that you have cited and it says nothing about pilot waves so it no way addresses my request for a reference. It's incorrect. (Edit: of course that's my reading of it but the point is that there are zero citations from anybody else so it looks like nobody else agrees with them either)
So, I am not allowed to introduce Bohmian Mechanics into the discussion because it isn't mentioned by someone else? Yes, by all means, keep science fractured. Nothing relates to anything else. And what are your qualifications? I cited them. What do you know about my qualifications?
I asked specifically for a reference that Bohmian mechanics says something you claimed it does. You have not provided one. Are you going to do so? A doctorate in physics. What I've read here which says more than enough about your competence or lack thereof in the topic.
I am very accommodating. Just trying to keep everybody happy.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK. In Bohmian Mechanics, particles have no duality. A particle is a particle, always. Assuming that De Broglie and Bohm knew what they were talking about, the problem I have is why the standard definition of a photon has to include the qualifier; "rest mass" = 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory Especially if a photon is never at rest and that definition is only theoretical. If a photon never has any kind of mass, why not just say a photon has zero mass, regardless of momentum? If momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so, by this definition, massless photons cannot have momentum. The qualifier "rest mass" suggests that in motion this "rest mass" changes to "relative mass", no? From stack exchange: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum
We do. It isn't. No as I have already said in this thread invariant mass (or rest mass if you insist) is a different thing from relativistic mass since \(\sqrt{|p_\mu p^\mu|}\neq |p_\mu u^\mu|\) in general. Anyway from all that I take it that you have no reference for your stuff about Bohm "assigning an inherent potential". You could just have said that.