Perplexity

c=+/-(SQRT(h/tm))

You're using t=1/f in there. In this case, t is not just some time period picked out of nowhere, it's the period of the wave. I can't think of any reason for wanting to express the equality in the form you've written it.

To calculate the quantum unit mass of the energy?

Where the Quantum Energy of E is substituted for mc^2 (I don't believe mc^2 is the complete relativity value.)

I believe the quantum energy equation would read E=h/2pi *v where v is the frequency. By defining v as c/l where c is the speed of light and l is the frequency of the radiation it becomes

mc=h/2pi* l

m=h/2picl

Is that possible?

Also; when using h it often resolved to h/2pi; that is the figure often used for h. You see what a picl that could cause?

l = wave length not frequency.

No, it isn't. It should be c^2 or the dimensions are wrong. Also E = h/(2*pi)*v is only correct if v = angular frequency, radian/s = 2*pi*f, so it comes back to E = h*f.

What is "the complete relativity value"?

Thank you for the education.

I had seen the famous e=mc^2 in some other form many years ago.

No problem, actually h/(2*pi) comes into formulas so often that physicists define it as ħ (h-bar). Or at least they did when I graduated nearly 50 years ago!

Since Planck's constant h and the speed of light c are both constants, the interpretation would be that the two variables m and t, when multiplied together, form a constant quantity.

You should now draw your own inferences from that.

It means that a photon, though it has zero rest mass, has relativistic mass h*f/c^2. And momentum h*f/c.

There is an uncertainty in mass. "Virtual" particles can exist for some short time, the amount of time being inversely proportional to mass.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

What about non-virtual (real) particles? ΔxΔp ~ h such that for any particle (say a proton) whose position is entirely fixed to a very finely known position, the momentum of said particle can be completely uncertain (can be anything from a very low number to an exceedingly high one, perhaps high enough (energy) to capture an electron perhaps and produce a zero temperature neutron (that would be a really, really cold neutron). Other captures related to the the electron capture could lead to tritium, or even something I call "quatrium": ⁴H, which although it has a bound ground nuclear state, is pretty unstable with respect to ⁴He + β. Net result? low energy nuclear fusion, and Brillouin Energy is soon to go public when the COP exceeds a factor of three over energy input. They are up into the COP~2 area now, that I am aware of.

The thing about mass x period might imply that the natural frequency of more massive objects has to be higher than less massive ones, but this seems counterintuitive as we already know the Larmor frequency is more dependent on the inverse of size.