How does relativity show that energy is proportional to frequency?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lightarrow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between energy and frequency as described in the context of relativity, particularly in relation to photons and electromagnetic waves. Participants explore whether energy can be shown to be proportional to frequency using principles of special relativity without invoking quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a claim from Robert Resnick's book that energy is proportional to frequency based on relativistic transformations, seeking clarification on this assertion.
  • Others argue that while energy and frequency transform similarly under relativity, they are not inherently proportional without the introduction of quantum mechanics.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the claim, suggesting that the proportionality constant (Planck's constant) is a quantum concept and questioning the validity of deriving such a relationship purely from relativity.
  • Another participant discusses the concept of a "light complex" and its energy being related to frequency, noting that additional hypotheses beyond special relativity are necessary to establish this relationship.
  • Some participants propose exploring the energy of an electromagnetic wave in different reference frames and question whether this can be done outside the context of the Doppler effect.
  • A participant mentions the transformation of the electromagnetic field and how amplitude and energy relate to frequency transformations, suggesting a potential avenue for understanding the relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether energy can be shown to be proportional to frequency using only special relativity. There is no consensus, with some supporting the idea while others challenge it, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for additional hypotheses outside of special relativity to fully understand the relationship between energy and frequency, particularly the role of quantum mechanics and the concept of quanta.

lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
In the book: "Introduction to Special Relativity" by Robert Resnick, Appendix C3: Gravitational red shift (I have the italian version), talking about photons, he says:

"...Actually, it's not necessary to use the Quantistic Theory. We can show from relativity itself that E is proportional to nu, since from relativistic transforms of energy and momentum, it comes that the energy of an electromagnetic pulse varies with the same factor of which varies its frequency when it's observed in a different frame of reference (see question 3)".

Is someone able to show me this? I am very interested in.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
E and nu are each the zeroth component of 4-vectors.
But they are different, unrelated 4-vectors, unless QM is introduced.
E and nu transform in the same way, but there is no reason in SR to assume they are proportional. RR is just making an illogical extension.
 
So, what do you think he wanted to mean, that could easily be solved from a first year undergraduate student?
 
lightarrow said:
In the book: "Introduction to Special Relativity" by Robert Resnick, Appendix C3: Gravitational red shift (I have the italian version), talking about photons, he says:

"...Actually, it's not necessary to use the Quantistic Theory. We can show from relativity itself that E is proportional to nu, since from relativistic transforms of energy and momentum, it comes that the energy of an electromagnetic pulse varies with the same factor of which varies its frequency when it's observed in a different frame of reference (see question 3)".

Is someone able to show me this? I am very interested in.
I don't buy it. The constant of proportionality, h = Planck's constant (all of which means that E is proportional to nu) is a quantum concept.
lightarrow said:
So, what do you think he wanted to mean, that could easily be solved from a first year undergraduate student?
Seems to me that he just plain screwed up.

Best wishes

Pete
 
Could there be a slight mistranslation from English to Italian to English?
Hello...Ciao... goodbye.
 
Meir Achuz said:
Could there be a slight mistranslation from English to Italian to English?
Hello...Ciao... goodbye.
I don't know from the original english version to the italian version, but surely not in my (even if not perfect) translation from italian into english. I asked in the thread because I couldn't believe it too: it seemed a Nobel Prize discovery to me!
I wish I could read the original english version of that book.
 
Last edited:
pmb_phy said:
I don't buy it. The constant of proportionality, h = Planck's constant (all of which means that E is proportional to nu) is a quantum concept.
Seems to me that he just plain screwed up.

Best wishes

Pete

The value of the constant of proportionality, and the fact that it comes in minimal chunks, belongs to quantum mechanics. It is not obvious to me that the proportionality itself needs to. And so, without the peculiarities of h, the discovery seems interesting but not Earth'shaking.
 
selfAdjoint said:
The value of the constant of proportionality, and the fact that it comes in minimal chunks, belongs to quantum mechanics. It is not obvious to me that the proportionality itself needs to. And so, without the peculiarities of h, the discovery seems interesting but not Earth'shaking.
Ok, but, being able to establish that proportionality, it would be possible to determine the proportionality constant in a different way than from quantum mechanics, isnt'it?
 
In the original paper, you find:
A. Einstein said:
It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law.
So a light complex has energy E=hf, with h being a constant that is proportional to "the amount of light in the light complex".
But you need another hypothesis outside SR: that the "amount of light" comes in quanta - photons, with a corresponding constant value of h. Maybe it's not a coincidence that Einstein postulated this hypothesis in the same year.
 
  • #10
Ich said:
...So a light complex has energy E=hf, with h being a constant that is proportional to "the amount of light in the light complex".
But you need another hypothesis outside SR: that the "amount of light" comes in quanta - photons, with a corresponding constant value of h. Maybe it's not a coincidence that Einstein postulated this hypothesis in the same year.
I'm sorry, what is meant here as "light complex"?
 
  • #11
A certain "amount of light". Could be a photon, a light pulse of finite duration, or a defined region of a planar wave.
 
  • #12
Ich said:
A certain "amount of light". Could be a photon, a light pulse of finite duration, or a defined region of a planar wave.
So, from the phrase: "It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law" it seems that it's possible to compute the energy of "a light complex" in another ref. frame in a different way than from doppler effect. Is this possible?
 
  • #13
I am thinking about trying this sometime. I would calculate the energy of an harmonic oscillator in the rest frame, and then switching to another frame relativistically.

(But I am secretly hoping someone else does this first...)
 
  • #14
lightarrow said:
So, from the phrase: "It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law" it seems that it's possible to compute the energy of "a light complex" in another ref. frame in a different way than from doppler effect. Is this possible?
The relativistic Doppler effect (derived in many textbooks) just follows from the Lorentz transformation of the four vector (nu;k) of an EM wave.
 
  • #15
If I am looking at an harmonic oscillator at rest with me, it takes a time T to complete a period. A moving guy will see a longer period than I will. He will see a lower frequency than I will. So a moving harmonic oscillator has a lower energy than a rest one.
 
  • #16
Meir Achuz said:
The relativistic Doppler effect (derived in many textbooks) just follows from the Lorentz transformation of the four vector (nu;k) of an EM wave.
It is exactly for this reason that I wonder how the energy of an EM wave in different ref. frames can be determined in a way different from this.

What I mean is that, from what others have wrote, including R. Resnick, it WOULD SEEM that:

1. We know how an EM wave's frequency trasforms from one ref. frame to another (relativistic doppler effect).
2. We know how an EM wave's energy trasforms from one ref. frame to another (How?!)
3. They transforms in the same way --> Energy is proportional to frequency.

I don't think this is possible at all, this is my concern.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
2. We know how an EM wave's energy trasforms from one ref. frame to another (How?!)
Just read Einstein's paper. When you transform the electromagnetic field of a wave in some finite region, you find that the Amplitude increases with speed. The region itself becomes smaller (but contains the same number of wave fronts), and A²*Size (of the region) - the energy of the light complex - increases in the same way as the frequency does. Remarkable.
 
  • #18
Ich said:
Just read Einstein's paper. When you transform the electromagnetic field of a wave in some finite region, you find that the Amplitude increases with speed. The region itself becomes smaller (but contains the same number of wave fronts), and A²*Size (of the region) - the energy of the light complex - increases in the same way as the frequency does. Remarkable.
That's very interesting, Ich. Do you know where can I find that paper ?
 
  • #19
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"
§§ 7,8.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Thank you Ich.
 
  • #21
lightarrow said:
1. We know how an EM wave's frequency trasforms from one ref. frame to another (relativistic doppler effect).
2. We know how an EM wave's energy trasforms from one ref. frame to another (How?!)
3. They transforms in the same way --> Energy is proportional to frequency.
3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Dirac's "comprehensive action principle" -- independent equations
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
967
Graduate Dirac on localization of energy in the gravitational field
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Graduate Can gravitational energy be localized in the case of plane waves?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate How to show spin ##= \pm 2/\omega## for a circ-polarized gravity wave
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Graduate Kinnersley’s “photon rocket” and gravitational radiation
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Graduate Dirac's "GTR" Eq (27.4): how momentum ##p^\mu## varies
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Graduate Weyl tensor and coordinate acceleration
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate How Does the Four-Way Vector Operation Relate to Potential Energy in Gravity?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate General Relativity: Gravitational time dilation of photons and Fabric of Space
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Why Must Pure Force Depend on 4-Velocity?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K