All matter can be divided. This includes photons.

1. The Standard Model is theory. Pro is correct that it might not all be true, but most of it has been experimentally verified. Pro has a theory that all matter n be divided, including photons. Pro's task in this debate is to prove his theory is true. None of Pro's theory has been experimentally verified. Theories are built based upon evidence. The theory must start consistent with observed data. The theory is then used to predict new events that had not be observed. The theory is then verified if the predictions being observed as true. The Standard Model predicted a family of fundamental particles that should exist but had not been observed, and so far all of the predictions have proved true with the exception of the Higgs Boson. Proof of the existence of the Higgs Boson requires very high energy particle collisions. The energy required to produce the Higgs Boson is expected to be generated by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in the next year or two, so then we'll know whether or not it exists. [2] Currently the LHC is operating at half power while the machine is progressing through tests. Is there any evidence to support the theory that matter is infinitely divisible? So far, nothing has been observed in physics experiments except the fundamental particles in the standard model. No half photons or one-quarter photons have been observed. All particle collisions observed obey the Standard Model, in which only fundamental indivisible particles are absorbed or created. 2. Experimental evidence of the mass of a photon The experiments that put an upper bound the rest mass of the photon have some error in the measurements. Measurements get better and better with improved instrumentation and techniques, but it's unlikely that there will ever be a perfect measurement. There will always be the possibility that there s some very tiny mass that is undetectable. How does Pro propose to verify that mattes infinitely divisible? Once the mass is too small to detect with an instrument having a finite precision, there is no way to tell if it can again be divided. Pro claims that "there has to be mass to gin with for there to be mass added on to it." Photons are never at rest; they always move at the speed of light in a vacuum or near the speed of light in media. The theoretical rest mass is detected by a variation in the electrostatic force. Photons 3) Photons can travel at the speed of light? Pro says "In special relativity, an object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light." Yes, so therefore photons, which are observed traveling at the speed of light, have no mass. They are all energy. It does not have mass when it is traveling, it has momentum carried by the energy. Pro says, "This does not make any sense." Pro is quite right in that it defies common sense. In our everyday existence we do not have direct experience with wave-particle duality or fundamental particles being created and decaying. We cannot see atoms, let alone any of the dozens of fundamental particles. We must therefore deduce the existence of particles and waves from what we can observe. It's no good objecting that what is happening unseen "make no sense." Anything that obeys the mathematics that successful predicts observations makes scientific sense, even if common sense cannot contemplate it. 4) Higgs Boson has not been proved to exist… Pro claims "It has not been proved that a boson even exists." The bosons that have been proved to exist are the photon, Z boson, W boson, and the gluon. The gluon also has zero rest mass. The graviton is not part of the Standard Model, but if it exists it would also be a zero-rest-mass boson. What bosons have in common is that they transmit forces. [ref 3, R1] Pro claims "According to relativistic energy-momentum, the photon produces energy and momentum by itself." No, conservation of energy is a part of relativistic physics. Photons are produced when energy is added to an atom to put it into a higher energy state. The atom subsequently decays to a lower state, emitting a photon. This happens, for example, when a piece of metal is heated and then allowed to cool, radiating heat as photons. The photons carry away existing energy heat energy from the metal. "Photons are emitted in many natural processes. For example, when a charge is accelerated it emits synchrotron radiation. During a molecular, atomic or nuclear transition to a lower energy level, photons of various energy will be emitted, from infrared light to gamma rays. A photon can also be emitted when a particle and its corresponding antiparticle are annihilated (for example, electron-positron annihilation)." [1] The is no aspect of the Standard Model in which something comes from nothing. Alas, the Standard Model does not explain the creation of vacuum energy, which indeed appears to be something coming from nothing. However, the theory of the resolution doesn't explain that either. 5) Photons are electromagnetic radiation. Yes, they exhibit wave-particle duality. The other bosons also have wave-particle duality. Pro erroneously concludes from this that "The photon that starts from zero mass picks up mass as it travels from it's momentum it created by itself." Pro's error is that the photon does not start from rest and pick up momentum. The photon is traveling at the speed of light when it is emitted from an atom. Photons do not exist at rest; they only exist at the speed of light. Photons appear to slow slightly when traveling in a media, but actually the photons are absorbed by atoms and then re-emitted, with the delay introduced by the time for the atom to emit a new photon. The energy in the photon is entirely from the atom that emits it. The "rest mass of a photon" is entirely a theoretical concept, since photons are never at rest. It's like trying to imagine what a lawyer who only tells the truth would be like, even though it's never been observed. N1. Pro has not presented a statement of his theory. The link he provided is dead, and he needs to argue the resolution directly as well as point to supporting documents. He has done neither. N2. Pro has provided no support for his contention that all matter is infinitely divisible. He continues to argue as if that contention were proved, but it is not. N3. Pro continues to be narrowly concerned with the rest mass of the photon, but he hasn't shown why that is important with respect to the resolution. He ignores other particles having zero rest mass, like the gluon. If having finite rest mass is somehow important, he must consider other particles having zero rest mass. In addition, the standard Model describes dozens of other fundamental indivisible particles. Pro must explain how the know experimentally-verified fundamental particles can be divided. N4. Pro points to deficiencies in the Standard Model. Scientists agree that the Standard Model has limitations, such as not describing dark matter. However, having limitation does not invalidated the experimentally verified part of the model. Einstein showed that Newton's Laws had certain limitations, however Newton's Laws are still valid within their domain of ordinary physics. Nothing has happened to unset the Standard Model description of the universe as being composed of fundamental indivisible particles. N5. Pro's references mirror and reference mine in their descriptions of the standard model. They do not support Pro's case. References 1. Photon http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. The LHC's Higgs Boson Treasure Hunt Begins http://news.discovery.com...