If light has no weight, how can it push objects?

DaleSpam

Usually when modern physicists use the unqualified term "mass" they mean the invariant mass or "rest mass". Usually when they wish to refer to the type of mass that increases with velocity (which is rarely) they will use the qualified term "relativistic mass".

Dickfore

So, what's the 'real mass' of a photon?

I like Serena

I'm going with DaleSpam here.
What we have is 'rest mass' which is 0.
And 'relativistic mass' which is E/c².

Dickfore

Exactly, and when we have 0 of something, we say we have none. Hence, photons are massless.

mquirce

Can somebody explain to an ignorant lay man: where is gone mass of electron and positron in their proces of so called " annihilation "? plus what about magnetic property of electron, from where it come? I will be very gratefull.
mquirce

D H

If you are going with DaleSpam, why didn't you take note of that key phrase "which is rarely"?

Relativistic mass is just a synonym for energy. So what value does the concept add?

DaleSpam

It hasn't gone anywhere. The invariant mass of the electron-positron system is equal to the invariant mass of the photon-photon system.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...3&postcount=56

Note that the mass of a system is not equal to the sum of the masses of the consitutent particles.

I like Serena

I get the feeling you feel affronted by me.

mquirce

Sorry for my stupidity, but i don,t understand sentence ' invariant mass of photon photon, and the meaning of summa of masses. If i bother you live with no more.
mquirce.

WannabeNewton

Basically there are certain measurable quantities that have a defined global meaning over a manifold. There are other quantities like energy which depend on the metric being used to describe the geometry of the space - time and one cannot say that the same metric field covers the entire manifold. There can be different metrics being used to describe different parts of the manifold. Quantities that don't depend on the coordinate system being used are invariant.

I like Serena

I don't really believe in what people "usually" mean, or what "all accounts" say, or "which is rarely".
If it matters what you mean, it needs to be specified if it's not clear from the context.
In non-relativistic contexts it doesn't matter what you mean when you mention "mass".
Otherwise it needs to be specified.

I guess I've been neglecting to be clear myself, using the word "mass" for "relativistic mass". My apologies for that - I'll be more careful.

What does the concept of "relativistic mass" add?
Well, for instance, you can predict the effect of a gravitational lens on photons.
Or you can predict how much photons add to dark matter mass.
Or you can say something about conservation of momentum in relativistic situations since you can't really ignore "mass-less" photons in quantum physical reactions.

If I've insulted you somehow, please enlighten me.
Otherwise accept my apologies for it was not my intention to insult anyone.

Dickfore

Photons travel along null geodesics in cuverd spacetime (since they are massless), which we interpret as bending of their trajectory. No need for relativstic mass. In fact, if you try to describe it with relativistic mass, you will encounter trouble because Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is not relativistically covariant.

Dark matter is defined as that part of the matter content responsible for the extra gravitational field of galaxies, but which does not interact via the electromagnetic interaction, hence it's dark. Photons do not satisfy this criterion.

What does momentum have to do with mass? Those are distinct physical quantities. In fact, the OP made a non-sequitur. Photons DO push objects because they carry MOMENTUM (and transfer it), not because of their mass.

D H

What he said.

This discussion of the intrinsic mass of a collection of photons has diverted this thread from the original question. The intrinsic mass of a single photon is identically zero. The momentum of a single photon is not zero. It is instead given by p=hf/c=h/λ where h is Planck's constant, f is the photon's frequency, and λ is its wavelength.

I like Serena, you have used E=mc² multiple times in this thread. A much better version of this equation is

[tex]E^2 = (m_0c)^2 + (pc)^2[/tex]

where m₀ is the rest mass and p is momentum. For photons, which have a rest mass of zero, this reduces to E=pc. No mention of mass whatsoever.

I like Serena

Interesting.
Can you say how much Newton is "off"?

True enough.
So how about the contribution of photons to the known mass in the universe?

Doesn't the equation p = m_relativistic v = γ m₀ v still hold?

I like Serena

I agree that this is a better version.
My point is mainly that it is a matter of perspective.
Afaik both forms are true, or in other words, it's "relative", which is what relativity theory is all about.

pawprint

In plain english a photon has momentum because of the energy it carries. If it loses ALL of that energy then there is no photon, therefore it is massless. Some may argue that a virtual photon remains, but it is still massless.

dlr

"Light, photons, is an electromagnetic field which exerts force on charges --> Push objects."

OK, I understand this. The light is an electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic field interacts with the electrons, and the protons of the material, pushing them back and forth. But why would that push the solar sail away from the light source? The electrons (and protons) are going to vibrate perpendicularly to the direction of the ray of light that shines on the sail, right?, because the magnetic and electric fields of the light ray are perpendicular to the direction the light ray is traveling. The 'pressure' on the electron would be back and forth perpendicularly to the direction the light ray is traveling. I see that causing heat, warming up the sail. But, how does that cause the sail to move away from the light source?