Could you 'touch' an object with no mass?

Question

Stupid question but it seems to me an object with no mass would just pass right through you correct? Or am i forgetting something here like the charges of particles?

Answer 1

Here's my train of thought (it's not linear, but should clarify a bit):

To some extent, electromagnetic waves have no mass (although that's theoretically, in reality they have some negligible mass, even compared to the mass of atoms), but these electromagnetic waves are about as close as I can think of to something with no mass. However, while ultraviolet waves may theoretically have no mass, they still do not typically pass through someone's entire body, meaning they interact with the cells within the body. They do penetrate through the skin, but only go a short distance (the energy form this radiation is what gives you sunburns, and why severe sunburns can penetrate past your first layer of skin).

Depending on the frequency of the waves, the depth the wave penetrates can change. Here it actually would seem to go reverse to what would seem logical: as the frequency of an electromagnetic wave increases (thus giving it more supposed "mass" per inch of wave), the further it travels: that's why gamma rays are more dangerous than x-rays or ultraviolet rays.

Another way to think of it is to think of the object without mass as a ray of light passing through leaves: some of the light reaches the ground (passing through the leaves) while much of the light changes path due to the leaves. So long as the "ray" of the object hits something that does have mass, its direction should be redirected.

This is sort of what Rutherford did when he shot electrons at a foil of gold, and found that some of the electrons bounced back: despite the electrons being much smaller than the atoms in the foil, and the atoms having a lot of space between their component parts, some of the electrons still interacted with the gold atoms.

Answer 2

most certainly.

Answer 3

light (photons) are objects with out rest mass that we interact with continuously - so the answer is most def yes!

Answer 4

Looking at it from the point of view of semantics, what is the definition of "an object"?

All of the definitions that I have ever heard require an object to be matter.

All matter has mass.

Therefore an object with no mass is a scientific impossibility.