Does light contain kinetic energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether light contains kinetic energy as it moves, exploring the relationship between light, mass, and energy. Participants examine theoretical frameworks, mathematical representations, and the implications of light's properties in various contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that light has kinetic energy equal to its total energy because it is massless.
  • Others propose that the individual plane wave components of electromagnetic waves can be likened to harmonic oscillators, raising questions about the physical significance of this analogy.
  • One participant suggests that the term "energy" is sufficient to describe the kinetic energy of light, without needing an additional name.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of light potentially having mass, citing examples like sunlight and Bessel beams, and invites further elaboration on this idea.
  • A later reply discusses the geon as an example of light containing mass due to its self-gravitational properties, while also attempting to explain the mass of normal light through mathematical relationships between superimposed light waves.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether light can be said to have mass and how this relates to its kinetic energy. There is no consensus on the definitions or implications of mass in the context of light, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific mathematical frameworks and definitions that may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes complex concepts that may not be fully resolved, particularly regarding the mass of light and its implications.

Ingrid Eldevj
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Does light contain kinetic energy as it moves, or does it require mass.
 
Science news on Phys.org
It has kinetic energy, equal to its total energy because it has no mass.
 
Yes, light has kinetic energy and the photon is a massless particle so the light has no mass.
 
mfb said:
It has kinetic energy, equal to its total energy because it has no mass.

This is interesting.. If I make a Fourier series or integral to represent an electromagnetic wave traveling in vacuum, the individual plane wave components act similarly to harmonic oscillators, don't they? Then the individual modes should have Hamiltonian functions that consist of terms that are equivalent to the kinetic and potential energies in ##H = \frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}kx^2##... Does the total amount of "kinetic energy", as defined by this equivalence, have some actual name and physical significance?
 
hilbert2 said:
the individual plane wave components act similarly to harmonic oscillators, don't they
The concepts are not completely unrelated, but I'm not sure if we can call that "similarly".

The amount of kinetic energy of a beam of light is just its energy. It doesn't need an additional special name because "energy" is a good name already.
 
mfb said:
It has kinetic energy, equal to its total energy because it has no mass.

It has kinetic energy, equal to its total energy if it has no mass. Light can have mass and that's not limited to exotic objects like a geon. Almost all light you see in everyday life (e.g. sunlight) has mass. Even single photons can have mass (e.g. a single photon bessel beam).
 
DrStupid said:
It has kinetic energy, equal to its total energy if it has no mass. Light can have mass and that's not limited to exotic objects like a geon. Almost all light you see in everyday life (e.g. sunlight) has mass. Even single photons can have mass (e.g. a single photon bessel beam).

Mind elaborating on this?
 
Drakkith said:
Mind elaborating on this?

I'm afraid my English is not good enough for this phrase.
 
  • #10
DrStupid said:
I'm afraid my English is not good enough for this phrase.

Would you mind elaborating about your previous post? Would you explain it in more detail?
 
  • #11
In case of the geon it is quite easy to understand (even though it is was the most complicate example). It consists of light only but has enough mass to contain itself by its own gravity. The mass of normal light is not as easy to explain. Let's try it with the very simple case of two plane light waves in vacuum, superimposing each other with the angle ##\alpha##. That means for the momentums

[itex]\frac{{p_1 \cdot p_2 }}{{\left| {p_1 } \right| \cdot \left| {p_2 } \right|}} = \cos \left( \alpha \right)[/itex]

If every wave has the energy E/2 then we also have

[itex]\left| {p_1 } \right| = \left| {p_2 } \right| = \frac{E}{{2 \cdot c}}[/itex]

That results in the total momentum

[itex]p^2 = \left( {p_1 + p_2 } \right)^2 = \left[ {1 + \cos \left( \alpha \right)} \right] \cdot \frac{{E^2 }}{{2 \cdot c^2 }}[/itex]

and therefore in the mass

[itex]m = \sqrt {\frac{{E^2 }}{{c^4 }} - \frac{{p^2 }}{{c^2 }}} = \frac{E}{{c^2 }} \cdot \sin \left( {\frac{\alpha }{2}} \right)[/itex]

of the resulting light wave which travels with the speed

[itex]\left| v \right| = \frac{{\left| p \right| \cdot c^2 }}{E} = c \cdot \cos \left( {\frac{\alpha }{2}} \right)[/itex]

along the bisecting line between the original waves. Of course normal light and Bessel beams are much more complex but the principle is the same. Plane parallel light waves (e.g. lasers) are exceptional cases in everyday life.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K