Special relativity and the Photon

discord73
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
If as an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its mass appears to increase, then shouldn't a photon appear to have an infinite mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the crux of where this argument fails is that you're basing it on "approaching the speed of light". Obviously, photons never approach the speed of light, so the logic doesn't really apply to them. Basically, you have to treat photons different from all sub-light speed particles in that sense.

This is a crumby answer, I think, and someone else can probably come by and do much better, but that's my input for now.
 
My understanding is that the mass does not increase, because photons have no rest mass to begin with. Photons do not approach the speed of light c because they do not accelerate -- they always travel at c when measured in a vacuum, from the moment of emission. They do have what is considered a relativistic mass defined as m=E/c^2 according to Einstein's formula, but that is a different kind of mass. It does however allow photons to interact with other mass gravitationally. Since their energy can vary according to wavelength but is not infinite, their relativistic mass is finite and calculable.
 
discord73 said:
If as an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its mass appears to increase, then shouldn't a photon appear to have an infinite mass?
The "relativistic" mass of an object with non-zero rest (invariant) mass increases with speed, but this doesn't apply to photons, which have zero rest mass.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top