Deriving E=mc^2 from relativistic doppler effect

Physics news on Phys.org
It looks fine to me.
 
Yes, it's correct, but a bit complicated. Using energy-momentum conservation and the relativistic definition of (invariant) mass, it's much more clear. Before the emission of the two photons the four-momentum of the body is ##p=(M c^2,0,0,0)##. Afterwards, it's ##p'=(M c^2-E,0,0,0)## and the mass after the emission
##M'^2 c^4=p'^2=(Mc^2-E)^2##, which implies that ##M'=M-E/c^2##. You don't need two reference frames and not this somewhat problematic non-relatistic approximation for the momentum of the body in the other reference frame.
 
In the wikipedia page there is this formula
0565c61eab80933d04c2ea469aef0f82.png

Here it says that P' should be 0 but shouldn't it stay Mv since there is no change from the previous scenario?

Also in vanhees71's reply, why is the momentum p Mc2?

I got this question from a problem that says use the relativistic doppler effect( which said f=f0(√(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) for an object that moves at velocity v and sees light with frequency f from a stationary object). The problem said that a stationary object emits photon of E/2 to x and -x direction. In rest frame there is no change in momentum but in the frame of the moving object there is a difference in energy for the two photons and therefore a difference in momentum. However the stationary object does not move, this means that the loss in momentum is not a loss in v but in m.
 
I'm only using covariant quantities, i.e., when I write the four-momentum of a classical particle (or an on-shell quantum of a asymptotic free field) I have
$$p=(E/c,\vec{p})$$
or, as in my previous post, this quantity multiplied by ##c##. I'm not so familiar with how to distribute the factors of ##c## since in my daily work, ##c=1## ;-)). I also use always and without exception the invariant mass defined as the scalar quantity
$$M^2 c^2=p \cdot p=\frac{E^2}{c^2}-\vec{p}^2 \; \Leftrightarrow \; E=c \sqrt{m^2 c^2+\vec{p}^2}.$$
The Wikipedia "derivation" uses a quite questionable non-relativistic approximation. I think that's dangerous.

The modern way to introduce special relativity is to start with an analysis of the possible realizations of the symmetries of space-time. Roughly the assumptions are: For an inertial observer space and time are homogeneous and space isotropic, and the physical laws are the same in any inertial reference frame. Analyzing these assumptions leads to the conclusion that there are two kinds of spacetime manifolds that realize these symmetries, and that's the Galilei-Newton spacetime (a fiber bundle) and the Einstein-Minkowski spacetime (a pseudo-Euclidean affine manifold). Observable facts indicate that the latter is a far better approximation of the spacetime describing nature.

The Wikipedia example for the change of the (invariant!) mass of a composite body due to realease of energy in form of two ##\gamma## quanta is a very nice example, which of course can (and in my opinion must!) be analyzed in a fully relativistic exact way. That's simply energy-momentum conservation and the use of a proper orthochronous Lorentz boost. The assumption is that in the rest frame of the body two photons with exactly the same momentum are emitted from the body due to, e.g., some decay of a particle (at rest) in it (my favorite is ##\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma## ;-)).

In this rest frame we have the four-momentum of the body ##p_B=(M c,0,0,0)## before the decay and ##p_B'=(M' c,0,0,0)## after the decay. The two photons have momenta ##q_1=(|\vec{q}_1|,\vec{q}_1)## and ##q_2=(|\vec{q}_1|,-\vec{q}_1).## Note that the photons have four-momenta as if they were particles of (invariant) mass 0.

Then the energy-momentum conservation tells you that
$$p_B=p_B' + q_1+q_2 \; \Rightarrow \; (M c,0,0,0)=(M'c,0,0,0)+(2|\vec{q}_1|,0,0,0).$$
You get the (invariant) mass of the body after the decay by
$$M'^2 c^2=p_B' \cdot p_B'=(p_B-q_1-q_2)^2=(M c - 2 |\vec{q}|_1)^2$$
or
$$M'=M-2|\vec{q}_1|/c=M-E_{\gamma}/c^2,$$
where ##E_{\gamma}=2|\vec{q}_1|c## is the total energy of carried off by the two photons.

Now going to another frame via a Lorentz boost doesn't change anything with this calculation, but the observer will see one photon blue and the other photon red shifted, but the energy-momentum balance will hold exactly true, and that's why the invariant mass before and after the decay will come out exactly the same. You don't even need to do the somewhat involved calculation, because what I did above is to use only covariant four-vector manipulations and also defined the invariant mass as an invariant Minkowski product of the four-momentum vectors of the body and the two photons before and/or after the decay.

Have a look at my SR FAQ, which I've started to write for this forum. You can download it from here:

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top