Quantum Fizz is so counterintuitive

  • Thread starter catalyst55
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Quantum
In summary, the conversation discussed the concept of photons having "moving mass" and the implications of this, as well as the idea of light exerting a force on a mirror and the potential use of this force for spacecraft propulsion. The conversation also touched on the laws of conservation of momentum and energy in relation to the reflection of light by a mirror.
  • #1
catalyst55
24
0
I know photons have what is termed as 'moving mass', but what exactly does this mean? And what implications does it have?

I recently did a question where i had to work out the force green light exerted on a mirror. I did this by finding the momentum of the photons, calculating their change in momentum as they hit the mirror, and the using Newton's second law (F=dp/dt) to find the force on the mirror -- and the answer was to the order of magnitude 10^-3 N! Hey! That's quite a lot, don't you think?

I find it incomprehensible that light exerts a force on a mirror of order of magnitude 10^-3. If it was of order of magnitude 10^-30 or 10^-20 (ie miniscule), then i'd be able to reconcile it with my intuition, but this i just can't.

Perhaps this is just something that cannot be considered intuitively?

Anyways, here's my hypothetical question:
If I was stationary in space (perfect vacuum, g=0 N/kg -- not that it matters) relative to, say, the Earth, and i shone a REALLY powerful (ie intense -- lots of photons emitted) torch, would i accelerate as a result of shining the torch?

Trying to get my head around it, hehe...

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Note that light (and all other electromagnetic radiation) carries momentum according to classical physics. Most all electromagnetism textbooks discuss this, and derive it from Maxwell's Equations and the electromagnetic force laws. It's not just a quantum physics thing.

Also, people are actually planning seriously to use this as a means of spacecraft propulsion. Do a Google search on "solar sail".
 
  • #3
catalyst55 said:
I know photons have what is termed as 'moving mass', but what exactly does this mean? And what implications does it have?

I recently did a question where i had to work out the force green light exerted on a mirror. I did this by finding the momentum of the photons, calculating their change in momentum as they hit the mirror, and the using Newton's second law (F=dp/dt) to find the force on the mirror -- and the answer was to the order of magnitude 10^-3 N! Hey! That's quite a lot, don't you think?

I find it incomprehensible that light exerts a force on a mirror of order of magnitude 10^-3. If it was of order of magnitude 10^-30 or 10^-20 (ie miniscule), then i'd be able to reconcile it with my intuition, but this i just can't.

Perhaps this is just something that cannot be considered intuitively?

Anyways, here's my hypothetical question:
If I was stationary in space (perfect vacuum, g=0 N/kg -- not that it matters) relative to, say, the Earth, and i shone a REALLY powerful (ie intense -- lots of photons emitted) torch, would i accelerate as a result of shining the torch?

Trying to get my head around it, hehe...

Cheers

I believe there is also an assumption in your argument that the mirror is perfectly reflective and there is no energy lost in the reflection. That will make the amount of force slightly less.

Just a thought.
 
  • #4
catalyst55 said:
I know photons have what is termed as 'moving mass', but what exactly does this mean? And what implications does it have?

I recently did a question where i had to work out the force green light exerted on a mirror. I did this by finding the momentum of the photons, calculating their change in momentum as they hit the mirror, and the using Newton's second law (F=dp/dt) to find the force on the mirror -- and the answer was to the order of magnitude 10^-3 N! Hey! That's quite a lot, don't you think?

I find it incomprehensible that light exerts a force on a mirror of order of magnitude 10^-3. If it was of order of magnitude 10^-30 or 10^-20 (ie miniscule), then i'd be able to reconcile it with my intuition, but this i just can't.

Perhaps this is just something that cannot be considered intuitively?

Anyways, here's my hypothetical question:
If I was stationary in space (perfect vacuum, g=0 N/kg -- not that it matters) relative to, say, the Earth, and i shone a REALLY powerful (ie intense -- lots of photons emitted) torch, would i accelerate as a result of shining the torch?

Trying to get my head around it, hehe...

Cheers


Yes, light has energy and therefore a mass equivalent by [tex]E=mc^2[/tex].

And yes, you would feel reaction forces and be accelerated by shining a
flashlight.

But a milliNewton is way too big unless the intensity was immense.
Something is probably wrong with the arithmetic.
 
  • #5
Antiphon said:
Yes, light has energy and therefore a mass equivalent by [tex]E=mc^2[/tex].

I think this is not correct. Photons have zero rest mass:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2

From

[itex] E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2[/itex]

it follows with [itex]m_0 = 0[/itex] for a photon:

[itex] E = pc [/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #6
A mass equivalent is not a rest mass.

But the photon would gravitate as if it had a mass of [tex] m_0 [/tex].
 
  • #7
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Thanks, Edgardo. It's quite intriguing.

What I'm wondering about is:

Let's say that there's a perfectly reflecting mirror in space and it is hit by incident sunlight. The sunlight experiences a change in momentum and consequently accelerates the mirror. The energy of the light is the same before and after the reflection (i.e. light does not change frequency when it reflects - e=hf). So, isn't the mirror, in effect, getting KE from nowhere?

This kind of scenario seems to satisfy the law of conservation of momentum but apparently not the law of conservation of energy...

What am i missing? Thanks.
 
  • #9
catalyst55 said:
The energy of the light is the same before and after the reflection (i.e. light does not change frequency when it reflects - e=hf).

No, the frequency (and wavelength) of light does change when reflected from a moving object. That's how police radar and laser guns work. :smile:
 
  • #10
You mean the Doppler effect?

But.. if the mirror was stationary (say, on earth), the light incident on it would exert a force on the mirror pushing it towards the wall. How would the doppler effect explain this? The mirror is not moving...

i always perceived the dopper effect sensually, in the sense that i can hear the sound of a car change as it passes me..

Here's a better example:

If the police officer shone his laser on a stationary car, the photons from the laser would exert an infinitesimal force on the car, right? The police officer's laser gun, realising that no change in frequency has occured, would register a velocity of zero, would it not?

If the laser gun is registering the velocity of a stationary car as 0 (via detecting no change in frequency), how can the photons be exerting a force on the car?


Cheers
 
  • #11
catalyst55 said:
Thanks, Edgardo. It's quite intriguing.

What I'm wondering about is:

Let's say that there's a perfectly reflecting mirror in space and it is hit by incident sunlight. The sunlight experiences a change in momentum and consequently accelerates the mirror. The energy of the light is the same before and after the reflection (i.e. light does not change frequency when it reflects - e=hf). So, isn't the mirror, in effect, getting KE from nowhere?

This kind of scenario seems to satisfy the law of conservation of momentum but apparently not the law of conservation of energy...

What am i missing? Thanks.

I think the the energy of the light is NOT the same after the reflection, it must be slightly smaller. But since you have a heavy object, the change in the wavelength is very small.

It's like in Compton scattering, where the wavelength changes:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/comptint.html

In my view, you could plug in the mass of the mirror into the formula instead of the electron mass. From this you should see that [tex] \Delta \lambda [/tex] is very small.
 
  • #12
Correct, the Compton-scattering formula applies here, with a scattering angle of 180 degrees. I checked it by working out energy and momentum conservation from scratch, and got

[tex]\frac{1}{E'} - \frac{1}{E} = \frac{2}{mc^2}[/tex]

where E and E' are the initial and final energies of the photon, and m is the mass of the mirror. In terms of wavelength this becomes

[tex]\lambda' - \lambda = \frac{2h}{mc}[/tex]

For m = 10 grams = 0.01 kg, the change in wavelength is on the order of [itex]10^{-40}[/itex] meters. Now, that's small!
 
  • #13
I think that if a photon struck a stationary mirror in space, then the photon's wavelength would change!

Here's a quick, elementary explanation:

(1) Photon strikes stationary mirror.
(2) Mirror absorbs photon, and begins moving.
(3) Moving mirror emits photon.

Thus, we can see that the doppler effect does occur here!
 
Last edited:
  • #14
If the laser gun is registering the velocity of a stationary car as 0 (via detecting no change in frequency), how can the photons be exerting a force on the car?

Very easily.

By the way, are there any other relevant forces you're neglecting?
 

1. What is "Quantum Fizz" and why is it counterintuitive?

Quantum Fizz is a term used to describe the strange and seemingly irrational behavior of particles on the quantum level. It is counterintuitive because it goes against our everyday understanding of how the world works, based on classical physics.

2. How does quantum mechanics explain the counterintuitive nature of "Quantum Fizz"?

Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that studies the behavior of particles on the microscopic level. It explains the counterintuitive nature of "Quantum Fizz" by using mathematical equations and theories, such as wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle, to describe the behavior of particles.

3. Can you provide an example of a counterintuitive phenomenon in quantum mechanics?

One example of a counterintuitive phenomenon in quantum mechanics is the double-slit experiment, where a single particle can behave as both a wave and a particle at the same time. This goes against our classical understanding that an object can only have one state at a time.

4. How does the concept of superposition contribute to the counterintuitive nature of "Quantum Fizz"?

Superposition is the idea that a particle can exist in multiple states at the same time. This concept contributes to the counterintuitive nature of "Quantum Fizz" because it challenges our everyday understanding of objects having a definite position or state.

5. What are the practical applications of studying "Quantum Fizz" and its counterintuitive nature?

The study of "Quantum Fizz" and its counterintuitive nature has led to advancements in technology, such as quantum computing and cryptography. It also helps us understand the fundamental building blocks of the universe and could potentially lead to new discoveries in the future.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
924
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
45
Views
10K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top