Insufficient example, Einstein's gedanken: lamp in the box

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cen2y
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Box Example Lamp
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Einstein's thought experiment involving a lamp in a box, specifically addressing the implications for mass-energy equivalence and the behavior of the center of mass (CoM) during the emission of a photon. Participants explore the nuances of momentum conservation and the dynamics of the system, raising questions about the assumptions made in the example.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant critiques the example, suggesting that it fails to adequately demonstrate mass-energy equivalence due to assumptions about the CoM movement during photon travel.
  • Another participant questions the notation used for time in the equations, arguing that it may lead to misunderstandings about the relationship between the box's movement and the photon's travel time.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the CoM of the box should not change until the photon impacts the wall, raising a hypothetical scenario involving a person floating in the box and throwing a ball.
  • Some participants note that the discussion assumes a perfectly rigid box, which may not hold in all scenarios.
  • Further mathematical elaboration is provided by a participant who attempts to clarify the equations governing the system, including the relationships between momentum, energy, and mass transfer during the photon emission.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the thought experiment, particularly regarding the movement of the CoM and the validity of the example in demonstrating mass-energy equivalence. No consensus is reached on these points, and multiple competing interpretations remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the assumptions made about the system, particularly regarding the rigidity of the box and the treatment of the CoM during photon emission. The mathematical steps presented by participants also indicate unresolved complexities in the analysis.

cen2y
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I do not here state that srt or it's applications would be wrong but simply I wish to bring out a faulty example.
In the text box I carried about a year ago, the following "thought-experiment" and example were brought to support the mass-energy equivalence:

--- Einstein's gedanken, the lamp in the box example, as written by me. May be skipped if you know it. ---
Consider having a box B of the length L, carrying a lamp L. If the lamp at a given point would fire a photon along the box, the photon would carry the linear momentum p=E/c. In order to proserve the tot. linear momentum, the box must experience a velocity of v=p/M=E/(Mc). The photon taking the time t=L/(c(1+v/c)) to reach the far end, delivering E while moving the box the distance d = tv = Et/(Mc) = EL/(Mc²(1+v/c)), in order for the box's com to be static, the mass of the box must've rearranged. Given that the box is symmetrical and the only change would be the movement of the photon, a mass m must've traveled from the position -L/2 to L/2, causing the com to move the distance d = EL/(Mc²(1+v/c)), thus EL/(Mc²(1+v/c)) = mL/(M(1+v/c)) => m = E/c² (mL/(M(1+v/c)) being the movement of the com given the mass m is transferred from one end to the other).
------

However, one must account that the center of gravity did not but move until the striking of the photon, but continuosly during it's travel. One may therefor deduct that
dcom(t) = tv = Et/(Mc)
as it is but the photon moving, one will find that Et/(Mc) = mct/M => m = E/c², where m is the systematic mass of the photon. This of course doesn't mean that a photon would have all types of mass, but nevertheless it either has a systematic mass and/or the formula for com ought to include energy as well as this example ought not to be enough to "deduct" the mass-enegy equivalence.


Edit: Forgot to take into account the box's movement as the photon travels and wrote cog instead of com.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
cen2y said:
In order to proserve the tot. linear momentum, the box must experience a velocity of v=p/M=E/(Mc). The photon taking the time t=L/c to reach the far end, delivering E while moving the box the distance d = tv = Et/(Mc) = EL/(Mc²),

You say it moves the box a distance of d = t*v but what is t here? I assume it would be the duration of time for which the box moves. Why would this be in anyway equivalent to the time it takes for the photon to travel from the source to the box(L/c)? That seems like an error due to notation.
 
The reason it'd be the same amount of time as it takes for the photon to reach the far end of the box would be as the linear momentum of the photon would then be absorbed, forcing the box to a halt. Though L/c would be an incorrect time of travel, a miss by me, I'll update the post. Nevertheless if that formula was misinterpreted or not, it would not explain as though why the com would move while the photon travels.
 
I think I am missing the general issue of the problem...
Can we not resort to imagining ourselves floating in the box, and throwing a ball toward the wall? Assuming we're not attached to the box, why does the CoM of the box have to change at all until the impact?
 
Note that this assumes a perfectly rigid box.
 
I think I am missing the general issue of the problem...
Can we not resort to imagining ourselves floating in the box, and throwing a ball toward the wall? Assuming we're not attached to the box, why does the CoM of the box have to change at all until the impact?
The com, seen from an external viewpoint, will be dislocated from it's original position as the box must travel due to it's increament of velocity, caused by the increment in linear momentum, caused by the projection of light. As no internal process may alter the com of an object, mass must be rearranging relative the com during the movement of the box.

Note that this assumes a perfectly rigid box.
If you mean per shape, except for the mass of transfer, it assumes a rigid box, yes.
Though if one would mean rigid as in a box fixed to a certain position, rather the opposite would cause a problem, as though only one is incapable to speak of the box's movements. Where the position is measured in relation to a body not fixed relative the system of reference however, one may simply account the box's mass as the complete body, given no angular momentum would be required. Though neither of this is of any interest to the initial inquire.
On a sidenote, you do carry quite some quotes there.
 
I forgot to replace v in the equation above, here's the complete equation:

If we call
[itex]v[/itex] the speed of the box,
[itex]M[/itex] it's mass,
[itex]L[/itex] it's length, from one end to the other,
[itex]p_{\textit{box}}[/itex] it's linear momentum,
[itex]d[/itex] the distance the box is dislocated,
[itex]\Delta cm_{\textit{x,box}}[/itex] the dislocation of it's center of mass due to the box's movement,
[itex]\Delta cm_{\textit{x,light}}[/itex] the dislocation of it's center of mass due to the light's movement,
[itex]t[/itex] the time it, as well as the light, moves,
[itex]E[/itex] the energy of the lightbeem/photon,
[itex]m[/itex] the photon's transfer of mass and
[itex]p_{\textit{box}}[/itex], we receive the following equations:
[tex] \begin{array}{l}<br /> \left\{ \begin{array}{l}<br /> \Delta p_{\textit{light}}+\Delta p_{\textit{box}}=0<br /> \\<br /> \Delta p_{\textit{light}} = E/c<br /> \\<br /> \Delta p_{\textit{box}} = Mv<br /> \end{array} \right \Rightarrow v = -\frac{E}{cM}<br /> \\<br /> \left\{ \begin{array}{l}<br /> d = L + vt = L - \frac{Et}{cM}<br /> \\<br /> t = d / c<br /> \end{array}\right<br /> \Rightarrow t = \frac{L-\frac{Et}{cM}}{c} = \frac{L}{c}-\frac{Et}{c^{2}M}<br /> \Leftrightarrow t(1+\frac{E}{c^{2}M})=\frac{L}{c}<br /> \Leftrightarrow t = \frac{L}{c(1+\frac{E}{c^{2}M})} = \frac{cL}{c^{2}+\frac{E}{M}}<br /> \\<br /> \left\{ \begin{array}{l}<br /> \Delta cm_{\textit{x,box}}+\Delta cm_{\textit{x,light}}=0<br /> \\<br /> \Delta cm_{\textit{x,box}}=vt=-\frac{E}{cM}\frac{cL}{c^{2}+\frac{E}{M}}=-\frac{EL}{c^{2}M+E}=-\frac{L}{1+\frac{c^{2}M}{E}}<br /> \\<br /> \Delta cm_{\textit{x,light}}=\frac{dm}{M}=\frac{m(L-\frac{Et}{cM})}{M}=\frac{m(L-\frac{cEL}{cM(c^{2}+E/M)})}{M}=\frac{m(L-\frac{L}{1+c^{2}M/E})}{M}=\frac{mL}{M}(1-\frac{1}{1+c^{2}M/E})<br /> \end{array} \Rightarrow<br /> \\<br /> \Rightarrow -\frac{L}{1+c^{2}M/E} = \frac{mL}{M}(1-\frac{1}{1+c^{2}M/E})<br /> \Leftrightarrow M=m(1+c^{2}M/E)(1-\frac{1}{1+c^{2}M/E})=<br /> \\=m(1+c^{2}M/E-1)=c^{2}mM/E<br /> \Leftrightarrow m=\frac{EM}{c^{2}M}=\frac{E}{c^{2}}<br /> \end{array}[/tex]

Due to continuous movement however:
[tex]m_{\textit{light}}(t)=E/c^{2}[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K