De Broglie & Light: My Doubt - Einstein's Calc

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ankitpandey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    De broglie Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of de Broglie's wavelength equation to photons and the implications of Einstein's calculations regarding the rest mass of photons. Participants explore the relationship between mass, energy, and momentum in the context of relativistic physics, particularly focusing on how these concepts apply to particles moving at the speed of light.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the implications of Einstein's calculations, specifically that if a photon has zero rest mass, substituting this into de Broglie's wavelength equation leads to an infinite wavelength, which seems nonsensical.
  • Another participant clarifies that the formula p = mv is not applicable to photons and provides alternative equations that relate energy and momentum for photons, including E = pc and E = hν.
  • A different participant reiterates that the classical momentum formula does not apply in relativity and derives the relationship between wavelength and frequency using de Broglie's formula and Planck's equation.
  • Some participants discuss the concept of relativistic mass and its relevance to the equations used, with one arguing that relativistic mass can be used while another insists on using rest mass consistently.
  • One participant mentions the possibility of deriving the energy-momentum relation independently through advanced theoretical frameworks, indicating a more complex understanding of the topic.
  • A later post introduces a new question regarding the energy of de Broglie waves for matter moving much slower than light, prompting further exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the application of mass definitions in relativistic contexts, with participants presenting competing views on the use of relativistic versus rest mass. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions on the equations used for photons and matter.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of applying classical physics formulas to relativistic scenarios, indicating that assumptions about mass and velocity can lead to different interpretations and results. The discussion also touches on advanced theoretical concepts that may not be universally understood among all participants.

ankitpandey
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
i have a doubt... can someone please tell me where i am going wrong?
by Einsteins calculations, rest mass of photon or something moving with v=c has zero rest mass, else its mass at motion tends to infinity, which is not possible. NOW substituting this in de broglies wavelength eqn,
lambda=h/mv
=h/mc (for photon moving with light speed)
=h/0*c (since rest mass of the photon is zero)
=infinity
but for no photon it is possible that wavelength is infinite. please tell my mistake.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ankitpandey said:
please tell my mistake.

The formula [itex]p = mv[/itex] is from non-relativistic physics. It cannot be used for photons. Three formulas are useful for photons. One formula connects momentum p and energy E

[tex]E = pc[/tex]

(this is, actually, a limiting case of the most general formula [tex]E = \sqrt{m^2c^4 + p^2c^2}[/tex] when [itex]m = 0[/itex])

Another formula connects photon's energy with the light frequency

[tex]E = h \nu[/tex]

The wavelength can be obtained by the third equation

[tex]\lambda = \frac{c}{\nu} = \frac{h c}{E} = \frac{h}{p}[/tex]

Eugene.
 
[added... aha, I now see that Eugene was typing at the same time that I was!]

The classical formula for momentum, p = mv, doesn't work in relativity, at least not when m is the "rest mass" as you're using it.

The general relationship between energy, momentum and rest mass in relativity is [itex]E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2[/itex]. For a photon, m = 0 so this becomes E = pc or p = E/c. So, starting with de Broglie's formula:

[tex]\lambda = \frac{h}{p} = \frac{hc}{E}[/tex]

Now use Planck's equation E = hf:

[tex]\lambda = \frac{hc}{hf} = \frac{c}{f}[/tex]

which is just the familiar wave equation [itex]c = f \lambda[/itex].
 
Last edited:
I believe Mr. deBroglie was the first to propose this very fact, btw.
 
meopemuk said:
The formula [itex]p = mv[/itex] is from non-relativistic physics. It cannot be used for photons.

sure it can. you use relativistic mass.

[tex]m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

where [itex]m_0[/itex] is the rest mass.

Three formulas are useful for photons. One formula connects momentum p and energy E

[tex]E = pc[/tex]

(this is, actually, a limiting case of the most general formula [tex]E = \sqrt{m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2}[/tex] when [itex]m_0 = 0[/itex])

and that can derived from:[tex]m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex][tex]E = m c^2[/tex]

and

[tex]p = m v[/tex]

or you can start with

[tex]E^2 = m_0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/tex]

solve for momentum, and define the inertial mass to be whatever the momentum of the body is (from the POV of some other inertial frame of reference) divided by the velocity (from the POV of the same inertial frame of reference), and you will get a quantity of dimension mass. that mass, when multiplied by [itex]c^2[/itex], is the total energy (rest energy plus kinetic energy) of the body from the POV of that same inertial frame of reference. and that mass fits the relativistic mass formula above. don't know why the concept of relativistic mass is so deprecated here.

Another formula connects photon's energy with the light frequency

[tex]E = h \nu[/tex]

The wavelength can be obtained by the third equation

[tex]\lambda = \frac{c}{\nu} = \frac{h c}{E} = \frac{h}{p}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
rbj said:
[tex]m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]


[tex]E = m c^2[/tex]

and

[tex]p = m v[/tex]

There are two equivalent approaches to relativistic kinematics. These approaches differ by the way they define mass. In your approach mass is defined as a velocity-dependent quantity. In my approach, the rest mass (which is independent on the velocity of the body or velocity of the observer) is used everywhere. Formulas can be written both ways, but physical meaning doesn't change.

Eugene.
 
meopemuk said:
There are two equivalent approaches to relativistic kinematics. These approaches differ by the way they define mass. In your approach mass is defined as a velocity-dependent quantity. In my approach, the rest mass (which is independent on the velocity of the body or velocity of the observer) is used everywhere. Formulas can be written both ways, but physical meaning doesn't change.

i don't know if the two approaches are equivalent pedagogically.

i know how to start with:

[tex]m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

[tex]E = m c^2[/tex]

[tex]p = m v[/tex]

and get:

[tex]E^2 = (m_0 c^2)^2 + (p c)^2[/tex] .

but i do not know how to get the bottom equation independently (although i realize that this is likely done in a formal SR class). but, even if you do come up with it independently, then you define inertial mass as whatever scaler you need to multiply the velocity vector with to get the momentum vector (from the POV of the inertial frame of reference that this body with rest mass [itex]m_0[/itex], is flying by). that's what the definition is, allowing for the possibility for it to be a function of velocity, but velocity dependent is not in the definition, but is a consequence of the definition (momentum divided by velocity) and further derivation.
 
rbj said:
i know how to start with:

[tex]m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

[tex]E = m c^2[/tex]

[tex]p = m v[/tex]

and get:

[tex]E^2 = (m_0 c^2)^2 + (p c)^2[/tex] .

but i do not know how to get the bottom equation independently (although i realize that this is likely done in a formal SR class).

Such an independent derivation can be done within Wigner's theory of unitary representations of the Poincare group. (This theory is usually formulated within relativistic quantum mechanics, but it is also possible to do a purely classical derivation). This derivation involves the following major steps:

1. The Hilbert space of any isolated system carries an unitary representation of the Poincare group.

2. Representations corresponding to elementary particles are irreducible.

3. Generators of time and space translations in this representation ([itex]H[/itex] and [itex]\mathbf{P}[/itex], respectively) are identified with Hermitian operators of energy and momentum.

4. It can be shown that operator [tex]M = c^{-2}\sqrt{H^2 - \mathbf{P}^2c^2}[/tex] commutes with all generators of the Poincare group (it is one of the two Casimir invariants), so it corresponds to an invariant property, which is naturally identified with the rest mass of the system.

5. It then follows that [tex]H = \sqrt{M^2c^4 + \mathbf{P}^2c^2}[/tex]

Eugene.
 
new q

k i thank everyone. but i have another doubt. energy of de broglie waves of matter much slower than light will be hc/lambda or hv/lambda? or no rule has been discovered so far
 
  • #10
ankitpandey said:
k i thank everyone. but i have another doubt. energy of de broglie waves of matter much slower than light will be hc/lambda or hv/lambda? or no rule has been discovered so far

Use the second de broglie relation:

[tex]E = hf[/tex]

[tex]\gamma mc^2 = hf[/tex]

[tex]f = \gamma mc^2/h[/tex]

The first de broglie relation:

[tex]\lambda = \frac{h}{\gamma mv}[/tex]

multiplying the two (f by lambda), we get

phase velocity = [tex]\frac{c^2}{v}[/tex]

where v is the velocity of the particle of matter.

this is a "phase velocity"... it doesn't violate special relativity.
 
  • #11
rbj said:
...

[tex]E^2 = (m_0 c^2)^2 + (p c)^2[/tex] .

but i do not know how to get the bottom equation independently (although i realize that this is likely done in a formal SR class). but, even if you do come up with it independently, then you define inertial mass as whatever scaler you need to multiply the velocity vector with to get the momentum vector (from the POV of the inertial frame of reference that this body with rest mass [itex]m_0[/itex], is flying by). that's what the definition is, allowing for the possibility for it to be a function of velocity, but velocity dependent is not in the definition, but is a consequence of the definition (momentum divided by velocity) and further derivation.

You are correct, and your explanation in fact shows a way to derive the bottom equation "independently." Start with ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx^2 and divide through by dt^2 to get velocities, (ds/dt)^2 = c^2 - v^2. Now multiply by a quantity m that has the property mds/dt = invariant. m is the relativistic mass and mds/dt is the rest mass * c. This then gives (E/c)^2 = (mo*c)^2 + (mv)^2, as required. Maybe not rigorous, but the essence is there.
 
  • #12
thanks learninphysics n countryboy... so then i guess it must be correct to
say MC^2=HC^2/LAMBDA*V where V is velocity of particle of matter right?thanks
a lot
 
  • #13
ankitpandey said:
thanks learninphysics n countryboy... so then i guess it must be correct to
say MC^2=HC^2/LAMBDA*V where V is velocity of particle of matter right?thanks
a lot

Yes. This also comes easily from the expression for the de Broglie group velocity v:

v = c^2/(lambda*frequency)

frequency = c^2/(lambda*v)

mc^2 = E = h*frequency = hc^2/(lambda*v)
 
  • #14
from that we can derieve lambda=h/mv -de broglie eqn.
so then i guess this is a safe conclusion-
lambda=h/mv is true with m as rest mass
in case of all non-zero-rest-mass particles
and also true with m as mass at motion in case of
zero-rest-mass particles like photons. i want to
confirm this by receiving a reply from you.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
ankitpandey said:
... i guess this is a safe conclusion-
lambda=h/mv is true with m as rest mass in case of all non-zero-rest-mass particles ...

m is the total relativistic mass. This applies to both zero and non-zero rest mass particles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K