Can matter be completely converted to energy as suggested by E=mc2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thefifthlord
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photon
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of whether photons can be considered to have mass, as suggested by the equation E=mc². Participants argue that while photons possess energy and momentum, they are defined as massless particles in the framework of modern physics, particularly through the relativistic energy-momentum relation. The idea that photons might have mass is challenged, with explanations emphasizing that energy, not mass, is what interacts with gravity. Some participants express confusion over the implications of massless photons and their behavior under gravity, noting that energy itself contributes to gravitational effects. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the understanding that photons are massless, despite ongoing debates and the complexity of the topic.
  • #121
DanRay said:
I know I'm not making sense to you but its not because I don't understand the basics and what you are talking about. So let me try to make my question clear another way. What kind of energy is it that the photon carries that is referred to as momentum. When it is involved in a photoelectric effect its energy becomes electric energy, but when I hear the work momentum I think of kenetic energy. So I guess the question becomes if it is just ordinary kenetic energy as with the billiard ball how does that convert to electric energy. I am also saying that I perceiv e a difference between the statement "A photon has energy" and the statament "A photon is a form of energy." Which is what would result if the answer to my question were yes. I know the energy equations are well understood and much verified and all of my questions may for most purposes boil down to a not to useful semantics argument but I still can't get over the fact that whenever light (and other photons) are propagated the seem to instantaneously take off at c (or whatever speed they can attain in their current enviornment that is near c) without the need to accelerate.

No let me be clear for everyone else here: GO do your homework on the basics FIRST. That's how it works. You need a knowledge-base before you start finding paradoxes that don't exist because you don't grasp the basics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Are you sure that a photon IS not the energy "carried"?
 
  • #123
Frame Dragger said:
gray

Yeah, you are pretty confused! :smile: I personally spell "esophagus" for dull scientific stuff, but "colour", "flavour" and "amoeba" for more exciting stuff.
 
  • #124
All I'm saying is give h/lambda a chance in high school. I've already learned about h and lambda the normal way... So it's a simple extension to connect the two.
 
  • #125
DanRay said:
What kind of energy is it that the photon carries that is referred to as momentum. When it is involved in a photoelectric effect its energy becomes electric energy, but when I hear the word momentum I think of kenetic energy.

That's where you are going wrong. Momentum and energy are different things. We don't refer to the energy of a photon as momentum.

A photon is just a quantum of light, or a "packet" of light. Light carries energy and it carries momentum. You can call it "light energy" if you like.

I still can't get over the fact that whenever light (and other photons) are propagated the seem to instantaneously take off at c (or whatever speed they can attain in their current enviornment that is near c) without the need to accelerate.

I'm not sure why you can't "get over it". This usually means there's some assumption which you need to drop. In this case, it seems that when you think "momentum" you are thinking only in terms of moving balls. But momentum is not limited to moving balls.

Think rather of a wave in the ocean. A wave carries momentum, and it doesn't accelerate either. A photon is very much like a little wave packet, and just like is normal for waves, there's no acceleration as a wave is formed.

Cheers -- sylas
 
  • #126
Char. Limit said:
Are you sure that a photon IS not the energy "carried"?

Energy is a property of a photon, just as momentum, wavelength and frequency are properties. It is just as incorrect to say that a photon is energy, as it is to say that a photon is momentum, or a photon is wavelength, etc.

I think laymen and beginning students get led to this idea by the frequent of "pure energy" in science fiction. There is no such thing as "pure energy." Energy is always a property of something.
 
  • #127
But... but I want it to be.
 
  • #128
Char. Limit said:
But... but I want it to be.

Now THAT was one of the most honest statements I've heard in my life. Keep that sense of humour and open mind and you'll be alright.
 
  • #129
jtbell said:
Energy is a property of a photon, just as momentum, wavelength and frequency are properties. It is just as incorrect to say that a photon is energy, as it is to say that a photon is momentum, or a photon is wavelength, etc.

I think laymen and beginning students get led to this idea by the frequent of "pure energy" in science fiction. There is no such thing as "pure energy." Energy is always a property of something.

You have to admit, "...Fired a crackling lance of pure energy; blasting Gorzingo to its componant parts." Sounds better in a fictional novel than, "...He knew he only had a megawatt... maybe 2 from his Airplane-sized chemical laser. So, with careful aim from the help of an entire flight crew, a beam of electromagetic energy rapidly heated Gorzingo until his sunburn was UNBEARABLE!"

I think Gambit is the only fictional figure I've ever heard of who specifies the kind of potential energy they work with... from nowhere... presumably sourced FTL... lol.
 
  • #130
The photon momentum

In 1916 A. Einstein published a paper in 'Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gessellschaft Zurich', called 'On the Quantum Theory of Radiation'. In this he shows that the absorption/emission of a photon ( light quantum) by an atom involves an exchange of momentum. Unless momentum is conserved, Planck's black-body spectrum is altered.

A translation of this this paper is in van der Waerden's 'Sources of Quantum Mechanics' (1967). As v d Waerden says 'All subsequent research on absorption, emission and dispersion of radiation was based on [this] paper'.

So, when a photon is absorbed by an atom. it's energy goes into the atom, which also experiences a 'kick'. In fact, this kick is the reason why doppler laser-cooling of atoms works.
 
Last edited:
  • #131


Mentz114 said:
In 1916 A. Einstein published a paper in 'Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gessellschaft Zurich', called 'On the Quantum Theory of Radiation'. In this he shows that the absorption/emission of a photon ( light quantum) by an atom involves an exchange of momentum. Unless momentum is conserved, Planck's black-body spectrum is altered.

A translation of this this paper is in van der Waerden's 'Sources of Quantum Mechanics' (1967). As v d Waerden says 'All subsequent research on absorption, emission and dispersion of radiation was based on [this] paper'.

So, when a photon is absorbed by an atom. it's energy goes into the atom, which also experiences a 'kick'. In fact, this kick is the reason why doppler laser-cooling of atoms works.

Fair enough... but what that "going in" entails, and the exact nature of that "kick" still has the problem of facing Classical and then Quantum (probabilistic) models and is a little weird. The "sucking out" as a result of DLC is also fascinating, understandable, but doesn't really make the photon or any gauge boson less... odd.
 
  • #132


Frame Dragger said:
Fair enough... but what that "going in" entails, and the exact nature of that "kick" still has the problem of facing Classical and then Quantum (probabilistic) models and is a little weird. The "sucking out" as a result of DLC is also fascinating, understandable, but doesn't really make the photon or any gauge boson less... odd.
I should point out that the photons we are discussing are not gauge bosons. These arise when a charge interacts with a magnetic or electric field. Because it's a quantum phenomenon, it is argued that the force must be carried by virtual quanta, the so-called gauge bosons. I don't think they can be detected as themselves.
 
  • #133


Mentz114 said:
I should point out that the photons we are discussing are not gauge bosons. These arise when a charge interacts with a magnetic or electric field. Because it's a quantum phenomenon, it is argued that the force must be carried by virtual quanta, the so-called gauge bosons. I don't think they can be detected as themselves.

Good point. I stand corrected.
 
  • #134


Frame Dragger said:
Good point. I stand corrected.

You were right the first time.
 
  • #135


atyy said:
You were right the first time.

Damn it! I thought I was, but everyone is open to the fallacy of an appeal to authority... I thought I must have been missing something.
 
  • #136
Happens to everyone, FD... Even me, and I usually AM wrong.
 
  • #137
Char. Limit said:
Happens to everyone, FD... Even me, and I usually AM wrong.

Very gracious Char. Limit, thank you.
 
  • #138
If photons always travel at c, why does light get slower through a medium (and don't tell me it doesn't, I've seen rainbows)?

Even if the photon is bouncing off things, its velocity shouldn't change, because it's massless...
 
  • #139
Char. Limit said:
If photons always travel at c, why does light get slower through a medium (and don't tell me it doesn't, I've seen rainbows)?

Even if the photon is bouncing off things, its velocity shouldn't change, because it's massless...

I'm not sure I know what you mean by the photon "bouncing off things", or why being massless would change how it propogates through a prism vs. vacuum out of line with observational evidence.
 
  • #140
Well, if light is traveling through a medium, it seems to me that a photon would keep either "bouncing off" or getting absorbed by atoms. So, if photons always travel at c, why do mediums slow
light down?
 
  • #141
Char. Limit said:
Well, if light is traveling through a medium, it seems to me that a photon would keep either "bouncing off" or getting absorbed by atoms. So, if photons always travel at c, why do mediums slow
light down?

OK, gotcha. You're talking about the absorbtion and radiation of photons as they propogate through a medium. Here, this might be some interesting reading of a special case that highlights the general rule. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html


EDIt: Remember, the photon is the quanta, not of light, but of the EM spectrum INCLUDING light.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
Nice... they stopped light.

So... does light take longer to be absorbed and radiated at extremely low temperatures? But that doesn't explain why the light at a right angle will stop light...
 
  • #143
When is a photon a gauge boson ?
Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon.

Extract from http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/pUS/dIS/virtual_photon.htm ( my bold ).

Also see 100's of other references.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #144
Mentz114 said:
When is a photon a gauge boson ?


Extract from http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/pUS/dIS/virtual_photon.htm ( my bold ).

Also see 100's of other references.

Just to clarify, are you saying a photon is a gauge boson only when it's a virtual photon?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Char. Limit said:
So, if photons always travel at c, why do mediums slow
light down?

There's an entry about this in the FAQ at the top of the General Physics forum, down the hall...
 
  • #146
Char. Limit said:
If photons always travel at c, why does light get slower through a medium (and don't tell me it doesn't, I've seen rainbows)?

Even if the photon is bouncing off things, its velocity shouldn't change, because it's massless...
The speed of a photon is c, the speed of light propagation isn't c except in the special case where the photon detected is the same exact photon emitted, as in a perfect vacuum.

In the case of a rainbow, the photon reaching your eye isn't the same photon that left the sun. It was absorbed and re-emitted many times, with a delay in between each time. This is true of all transparent mediums to varying extents, hence the different speed of propagation for light in different mediums, and for different wavelengths.
 
  • #147
I see...

I'm trying to think of another photon question...
 
  • #148
jtbell said:
Energy is a property of a photon, just as momentum, wavelength and frequency are properties. It is just as incorrect to say that a photon is energy, as it is to say that a photon is momentum, or a photon is wavelength, etc.

I think laymen and beginning students get led to this idea by the frequent of "pure energy" in science fiction. There is no such thing as "pure energy." Energy is always a property of something.


I am a layman for sure (67 year old retiree) and maybe that means I'm just too uninformed to even be in this discussion, or maybe it also could mean that I tend to think outside the box. It is not that I get my ideas from Science Fiction. My idea of "pure energy" comes from my understanding or misunderstanding of what E=mc2 means. I have read in many places accurate (or maybe speculative) statements about how much energy could be expected from a given mass if it were all converted to energy. But I am also aware that even an atomic bomb releases only a tiny portion of that amount a good deal of which is spewed out as photons along with superheated radioactive garbage of not just what was the bomb itself but everything that was in the immediate vicinity of the blast. So are you saying there is no possibility of complete conversion of matter to energy as the most famous equation ever seems to indicate to me.

By the way I used to be an avid Science Fiction reader from the mid fifties until around the early seventies. I do not like "Science Fiction" that includes constant wars with aliens and very little about science or thought provoking content. What I read today and have always read is things like Scientific American (Subscriber since my high school days) Science, Astronomy and Science news. My favorite SF author is still Clifford Simak whose sense of humor always made me lol as we say today.
 
  • #149
DanRay said:
[/B]

I am a layman for sure (67 year old retiree) and maybe that means I'm just too uninformed to even be in this discussion, or maybe it also could mean that I tend to think outside the box. It is not that I get my ideas from Science Fiction. My idea of "pure energy" comes from my understanding or misunderstanding of what E=mc2 means. I have read in many places accurate (or maybe speculative) statements about how much energy could be expected from a given mass if it were all converted to energy. But I am also aware that even an atomic bomb releases only a tiny portion of that amount a good deal of which is spewed out as photons along with superheated radioactive garbage of not just what was the bomb itself but everything that was in the immediate vicinity of the blast. So are you saying there is no possibility of complete conversion of matter to energy as the most famous equation ever seems to indicate to me.

By the way I used to be an avid Science Fiction reader from the mid fifties until around the early seventies. I do not like "Science Fiction" that includes constant wars with aliens and very little about science or thought provoking content. What I read today and have always read is things like Scientific American (Subscriber since my high school days) Science, Astronomy and Science news. My favorite SF author is still Clifford Simak whose sense of humor always made me lol as we say today.

No known mechanism exists to convert matter into undifferentiated energy. If a particle annihilates with its antiparticle, you'll have a complete conversion of matter to energy, but it's not "pure energy" in some general potential state. You have photons, neutrinos, etc... that may carry away the energy with a definite potential.

EDIT: For clarity: If I took an a fictional kilogram of anti-hydrogen, and hydrogen and let them annihilate, what would happen? I'm not talking about the particles involved, but in a general sense; there would be an explosion. There would be a conversion of matter to energy, but not some nebulous cloud. Kinetic Energy would be blowing me to bits (along with everything around me), Thermal Energy would be roasting... who knows how large an area. You get the idea.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K