Physics Theories: Do Photons Have Mass in Motion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether photons have mass when in motion, exploring various interpretations of mass in the context of physics theories. Participants reference historical theories, definitions of mass, and the implications of energy-mass equivalence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that photons have no rest mass and are always in motion, which aligns with the understanding that they cannot be at rest.
  • One participant discusses the concept of "inertial mass" and distinguishes between tardyons (particles with mass that move slower than light) and luxons (like photons, which travel at the speed of light and have zero rest mass).
  • Another participant raises the idea that energy and mass are interchangeable, referencing E=mc², and questions how this relates to photons and their energy.
  • Some participants express confusion about the relationship between mass and energy, particularly in the context of photons and their movement.
  • There are references to a forum rule regarding the discussion of theories based on their age, which adds a layer of complexity to the conversation.
  • Participants engage in a side discussion about a webpage on inertial mass, including corrections and personal circumstances affecting one contributor's ability to engage fully.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that photons do not have rest mass and are always in motion. However, there is disagreement and confusion regarding the concepts of relativistic mass and energy-mass equivalence, with multiple interpretations presented without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding of particle physics, and some statements reflect uncertainty about definitions and concepts related to mass and energy. The discussion includes references to historical theories and personal experiences that may influence the clarity of the arguments presented.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the nature of light, mass, and energy in physics, as well as those looking for clarification on the distinctions between different types of mass and their implications in theoretical physics.

silici
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
hello its me again

i have an other question. What does the latest physics theoreies say about this:

Do photons have a mass if they are in movement ?

i know that they have no mass if they not in movement.

whats about deBroglie?

Could you please give me an explanation which i do understand?

thank you
silici
 
Physics news on Phys.org
silici said:
What does the latest physics theoreies say about this:
Do photons have a mass if they are in movement ?
i know that they have no mass if they not in movement.
There is a rule on this forum that says we're not allowed to discuss any theory that is less than 90, or more than 100 years old. I know a 100 year old theory that says photons in a vacuum are always in movement. Your statement about what happens if they are not in movement doesn't fit in with that theory and thus is forbidden by the rule. I hope that the rule will not be enforced in your case, but I have no influence in the matter.

As for your question, photons have no rest mass. How could they, they are never at rest. However, they do have energy and according to theory this energy is equivalent to mass. That does not mean that it IS mass, only that it acts like mass in some effects.
 
silici said:
hello its me again
i have an other question. What does the latest physics theoreies say about this:
Do photons have a mass if they are in movement ?
i know that they have no mass if they not in movement.
whats about deBroglie?
Could you please give me an explanation which i do understand?
thank you
silici
Let me clarify the term "mass" as I will use it below.

The term "mass" refers to "inertial mass" where "inertial mass" is defined as the quantity m such that, for a system of particles which interact oinly by contact forces, the quantity mv is a conserved quantity when observed from an inertial frame of reference. For details on this please see - http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm

If the particle is a tardyon then it moves at speeds v < c. The mass of a tardyon is a function of speed, i.e. m = m(v).

The proper mass of a particle is an interinsic property of a particle and, for a tardyon, has the value m0 = m(0). A photon is kind of particle known as a Luxon. Luxons can only travel at the speed of light. For a photon m0 = 0.

Pete
 
Apologies. I'm pretty clumsy with LaTex. The LaTex line should have been:
...S' with speed [ltex]2v_x[/tex] instead of [ltex]v_x[/tex]
 
silici said:
hello its me again
i have an other question. What does the latest physics theoreies say about this:
Do photons have a mass if they are in movement ?
i know that they have no mass if they not in movement.

There are no photons that are "not in movement". So that should allow you to answer your own question.

Zz.
 
i have read elsewhere that photons have mass, but they must have energy cos they can move as light, but i thought energy and mass were interchangeable? and what about E=mc^2? if c^2 is a constant, surely energy and mass must have some relationship?

i'm probably showing my general ignorance of particle physics here, but it's been puzzling me for a while.

if anyone does reply, please make it understandable to a 17 year old who's not really that good at physics!
 
Paulanddiw said:
Pmb Phy:
Did you write this piece on Inertial Mass?
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm
On page 7, shouldn't S move relative to S' with speed [ltex]/2v_x[/tex] instead of [ltex]/vx[/tex]?
Yes. I did write that web page. I'mn in the process of reworking my entire website. The review process will entail taking comments like this and making sure that they are reviewed. I will print the page out, along with your remarks, and place them in a folder I have created for questionabl web pages. Thank you for pointing out your concerns. I'm in a lot of pain which is a remnant of back surgery I had last month (I hear that i can take many months to really recover from this surgery). Drugs (heavy narcotics) are helping me to some extent but my attention span has be drastically reduced due to it (pain/drugs). Even today the inssurance company people are being jerks so until Monday I have to live on about 1/4th the medication that I should be on. This means that I can sit in my apartment and not cry from the pain. :)

Please note that I have printed out the webpage and have attached your comments. It is now in my "Check/Fix" folder. Thank you for mentioning this. It may be some time until I get around to it.

Pete
 
Last edited:
Get well soon, pmb_phy
 
  • #10
QueenFisher said:
i have read elsewhere that photons have mass, ..
"Relativistic mass," yes. "Proper mass," no.

and what about E=mc^2? if c^2 is a constant, surely energy and mass must have some relationship?[/qupte]If E is the total inertial energy of a particle then the m is relativistic mass and as you indicate is non-zero.

Pete
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
483
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
579
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K