Can there be any acceleration without mass?

  • B
  • Thread starter Sundown444
  • Start date
  • #1
151
6
So, we know that force equals mass times acceleration. A force is needed to cause an acceleration. I am wondering though, is mass required for accelerations to happen? Why or why not?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
30,025
6,419
is mass required for accelerations to happen? Why or why not?
I would say yes. Anything without mass must move at c at all times. It cannot accelerate.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and sophiecentaur
  • #3
1,904
334
Anything without mass must move at c at all times. It cannot accelerate.
I don't think that this is a valid argumentation. Constant speed doesn't mean that there is no acceleration.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #4
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
I don't think that this is a valid argumentation. Constant speed doesn't mean that there is no acceleration.
It does. If the 'entity' only exists at velocity c then when would it be accelerating? It would emerge from whatever reaction/ interaction generated it at c. Slower than c and it would not be in existence.
 
  • #6
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
Just a little hint: speed is constant for v·a=0.
But for 'rectilinear propagation'?
Though I must say I had ignored motion in a circle. o:)
 
  • #7
1,904
334
But for 'rectilinear propagation'?
Of course linear acceleration is not possible with constant speed. However, there is Shapiro delay.
 
  • #8
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
Of course linear acceleration is not possible with constant speed. However, there is Shapiro delay.
But the speed, measured at any point would still be c (??). Isn't that the basis of GR?
 
  • #9
2,195
584
We can discuss the motion of a point under various conditions and constraints without reference to any mass at all. It makes perfect sense without reference to either force or mass.
 
  • Like
Likes DrStupid and sophiecentaur
  • #10
1,904
334
But the speed, measured at any point would still be c (??).
Yes, the locally measured speed of massless objects is always c.
 
  • #11
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
Yes, the locally measured speed of massless objects is always c.
So where does this take the thread? :smile:
 
  • #12
2,195
584
Yes, the locally measured speed of massless objects is always c.
This seems like a nonsense statement. Suppose the point is at rest?
 
  • #13
1,904
334
This seems like a nonsense statement. Suppose the point is at rest?
Which point are you talking about?
 
  • #14
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
This seems like a nonsense statement. Suppose the point is at rest?
Under what circumstances could the object be at rest? What would be a 'stationary' photon be like?
 
  • #15
2,195
584
Which point are you talking about?
If there is no mass, then all that exists there is a geometrical point. That is point of which I am speaking.
 
  • #16
1,904
334
If there is no mass, then all that exists there is a geometrical point.
The adjective "massless" doesn't make much sense with a geometrical point. I am talking about objects that are subject to E²/c² = m²c² + p². Such objects can only be at rest with m>0 and they always move with c (locally measured) with m=0.
 
  • #17
2,195
584
The adjective "massless" doesn't make much sense with a geometrical point.
The adjective "massless" applied to a geometrical point makes perfect sense. What mass do you think Euclid ascribed to a point? No, the thing that is a stretch is the idea of a mass point. The latter is a useful fiction, but it really does not make rigorous sense.
 
  • #18
1,904
334
The adjective "massless" applied to a geometrical point makes perfect sense.
No, it doesn't because geometrical points never have mass. In theory you can have a point size object with mass located at a geometrical point but not a geometrical point with mass. Therefore "massless geometrical point" is a tautology.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #19
2,195
584
Therefore "massless geometrical point" is a tautology.
By all means, have it your way. This thread seems pretty pointless anyway.
 
  • #20
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
The adjective "massless" doesn't make much sense with a geometrical point.
Also, a photon is not a point particle. It has no defined extent so it is pretty meaningless to assume you could use a stopwatch and push the button when it goes past. Using a very mechanical model is just not appropriate.
 
  • #21
rcgldr
Homework Helper
8,708
534
What about something without a direct connection to mass, such as a shadow sweeping / accelerating across an observer's view?
 
  • #22
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
25,013
4,745
What about something without a direct connection to mass, such as a shadow sweeping / accelerating across an observer's view?
No speed limit there! You are talking Virtual. You can let your eye travel at many times c if you scan from one galaxy to the next on a dark night.
 
  • #23
819
186
What mass do you think Euclid ascribed to a point?
Euclid was a mathematician. His discussions dealt solely with imaginary objects.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #24
2,195
584
David, in what way do you think that points, lines, planes, etc. are imaginary objects? As I see it, they are very much real, just non-physical.
 
  • #25
93
16
Let's try to advance in stages.

1. Material mass ##m_o## is not necessary to observe acceleration. Example. In a region of space ##\varepsilon## and ##\mu## vary from one point to another, so that there is a path where the speed of light varies. In kinematic terms you can express the acceleration of light when it crosses the region. It's acceleration without ##m_o##.

2. Light does not have ##m_o##, we know that. But do it have another type of mass? In case of having it, in the previous example there is acceleration and mass.

3. If you are interested in the fundamentals of physics and not in practical situations, in Newtonian physics and in Einstein's postulates validity is given to the conclusion obtained by Galileo, that is, in a vacuum the gravitational acceleration is independent of mass. So, an infinitesimal mass experiences the same acceleration as the finite masses. An infinitesimal mass is the limit of a mass that tends to zero. If that may correspond to your idea of "without mass", then Newton and Einstein, from the foundations of physics, are answering affirmatively to your question. The acceleration without mass is conceivable and is consistent with both theories, Newtonian and Einsteinian.

4. Is it also consistent with quantum theory? Maybe someone in the specialty can help us understand a little.
 

Related Threads on Can there be any acceleration without mass?

Replies
2
Views
509
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
15K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
707
Top