Deriving E=mc^2 from relativistic doppler effect

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the derivation of the equation E=mc² from the relativistic Doppler effect. Participants explore various approaches to connect these concepts, including energy-momentum conservation and the definition of invariant mass, while addressing complexities and potential inaccuracies in existing resources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the accuracy of the Wikipedia page on mass-energy equivalence, suggesting it contains errors.
  • Another participant defends the Wikipedia content, stating it appears correct but acknowledges its complexity.
  • A participant proposes that using energy-momentum conservation and the relativistic definition of invariant mass provides a clearer derivation than the Wikipedia approach.
  • Concerns are raised about the treatment of momentum in the Wikipedia example, particularly regarding the assumption that the momentum should remain unchanged in certain scenarios.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of using covariant quantities and expresses discomfort with non-relativistic approximations, arguing they can be misleading.
  • A detailed explanation is provided regarding the four-momentum of a body before and after the emission of photons, illustrating how energy-momentum conservation applies in a relativistic context.
  • The discussion includes a specific example involving the decay of a particle and the emission of photons, highlighting the invariant mass before and after the decay.
  • Participants discuss the implications of Lorentz boosts on the observed energy of emitted photons, noting that energy-momentum balance remains intact across reference frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the accuracy of the Wikipedia derivation and the treatment of momentum in the context of the relativistic Doppler effect. There is no consensus on the best approach to derive E=mc² from these principles, indicating multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the Wikipedia derivation, particularly regarding non-relativistic approximations and assumptions about momentum. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with covariant quantities and the implications of different reference frames.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying special relativity, energy-momentum conservation, or the derivation of mass-energy equivalence, particularly in the context of relativistic effects and photon interactions.

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/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K