I have a tricky problem involving an electron and photon.

  • Thread starter Thread starter gsurfer04
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Photon
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of at what energy an electron and a photon can have the same wavelength. The problem involves concepts from quantum mechanics and relativity, particularly the relationships between energy, momentum, and wavelength for both particles.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the equations for wavelength in relation to energy for both photons and electrons, questioning the validity of equating them directly. There are discussions about kinetic energy, relativistic corrections, and the implications of using rest mass versus relativistic mass.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes attempts to clarify the definitions of mass in relativistic contexts and the implications for energy equations. Some participants suggest reconsidering the setup of the problem and the assumptions made about the energies involved. There is no explicit consensus on the correct approach, but various lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential confusion surrounding the use of terms like "relativistic mass" and "rest mass," indicating a shift in terminology in modern physics literature. There are also mentions of specific equations and their consistency, as well as the implications of using different symbols for mass.

gsurfer04
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The question I have is simple enough: at what energy do an electron and a photon have the same wavelength?

Homework Equations


I know that for a photon, λ=[itex]\frac{hc}{E}[/itex] and for an electron, λ=[itex]\frac{hc}{\sqrt{E^{2}-mc^{2}}}[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I can't just equate the two, as that results in the absurd result mc^2=0. I can't think of a method that works. Are there any relativistic corrections that I've missed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At the same energy, photon and electron cannot have the same momentum, their corresponding wavelength cannot be equal.
 
gsurfer04 said:

Homework Statement


The question I have is simple enough: at what energy do an electron and a photon have the same wavelength?

Homework Equations


I know that for a photon, λ=[itex]\frac{hc}{E}[/itex] and for an electron, λ=[itex]\frac{hc}{\sqrt{E^{2}-mc^{2}}}[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I can't just equate the two, as that results in the absurd result mc^2=0. I can't think of a method that works. Are there any relativistic corrections that I've missed?

The problem is with your energy of the electron, I believe.

What is the kinetic energy K of the electron as a function of its deBroglie wavelength?
(Hint: K = K(p,E0), p = momentum, E0 = rest energy, then substitute deBroglie λ for p and equate this K(λ) to the photon energy hc/λ.)

Remember that when we speak of the energy of a particle with finite rest mass we mean its Kinetic energy, not its total Energy.

EDIT: mfb may be right, probably is, but try to solve for lambda anyway. You'll find out soon enough!

EDIT EDIT: The answer is lambda = infinity.
 
Last edited:
gsurfer04 said:
λ=[itex]\frac{hc}{\sqrt{E^{2}-mc^{2}}}[/itex]

Check the units under the square root. Do you think they are considtent?
 
rude man said:
The problem is with your energy of the electron, I believe.

What is the kinetic energy K of the electron as a function of its deBroglie wavelength?
(Hint: K = K(p,E0), p = momentum, E0 = rest energy, then substitute deBroglie λ for p and equate this K(λ) to the photon energy hc/λ.)

Remember that when we speak of the energy of a particle with finite rest mass we mean its Kinetic energy, not its total Energy.

EDIT: mfb may be right, probably is, but try to solve for lambda anyway. You'll find out soon enough!

EDIT EDIT: The answer is lambda = infinity.
Thanks for the help. Will the momentum need a γ correction?

voko said:
Check the units under the square root. Do you think they are considtent?

It's from E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2

EDIT:
Is the equation [itex]\lambda=\frac{hc}{\sqrt{2E_{k}mc^{2}}}[/itex] valid?
 
Last edited:
gsurfer04 said:
It's from E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2

It does not follow from that. Which is not surprising, because it is inconsistent and cannot follow from anything meaningful.
 
gsurfer04 said:
Thanks for the help. Will the momentum need a γ correction?

No, but it turns out the only solution is infinite lambda and zero energy.

It's from E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2

You should write the rest mass as m0.
 
voko said:
Check the units under the square root. Do you think they are considtent?
Good catch, I missed that, even if it does not change the result.

@rude man: m is used for mass ("rest mass") everywhere in physics, the usage of m0 (as notation) or a relativistic mass are deprecated.
 
mfb said:
Good catch, I missed that, even if it does not change the result.

@rude man: m is used for mass ("rest mass") everywhere in physics, the usage of m0 (as notation) or a relativistic mass are deprecated.

No.

When dealing in relativity, m is relativistic mass. As in E = mc2.
Rest mass is then distinguished by giving it the symbol m0.. Check any textbook, e.g. Weidner and Sells.

Obviously, in dealing with Newtonian mechanics, m is rest mass.
 
  • #10
rude man said:
No.

When dealing in relativity, m is relativistic mass. As in E = mc2.
Rest mass is then distinguished by giving it the symbol m0.. Check any textbook, e.g. Weidner and Sells.

Obviously, in dealing with Newtonian mechanics, m is rest mass.

mfb is right, the relativistic correction is on the momentum, not the mass.
 
  • #11
gsurfer04 said:
mfb is right, the relativistic correction is on the momentum, not the mass.

That's what I said, and why I insisted (and insist) that the mass here be denoted m0 instead of m, to clarify the fact that it is not the relativistic but the rest mass.

The correct expression thus becomes, as I said, E2 = (pc)2 + (m0c2)2.
 
  • #12
There is no such thing as relativistic mass.
 
  • #13
gsurfer04 said:
There is no such thing as relativistic mass.

Gee, I hope you're kidding ...
 
  • #14
rude man said:
Gee, I hope you're kidding ...

Of course there is a notion of relativistic mass. It just isn't used much anymore. So more modern books just use m as rest mass and don't talk about 'relativistic mass'. It causes more confusion than it is useful.
 
  • #15
Dick said:
Of course there is a notion of relativistic mass. It just isn't used much anymore. So more modern books just use m as rest mass and don't talk about 'relativistic mass'. It causes more confusion than it is useful.

Thanks for the clue-in, Dick. Amazing!

So you can't say m = γm0 any more? So how do they e.g. write kinetic energy? Used to be mc2 - m0c2. What is it now?

Oh my.

So when the OP wrote E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2, that was right because m is now rest mass? And what symbol do you use for (may God forgive me for saying it) relativistic mass?

And E = mc2 is now "energy = rest mass times c2"?

I am impressed. I hope Einstein knows about this ...
 
Last edited:
  • #16
rude man said:
Thanks for the clue-in, Dick. Amazing!

So you can't say m = γm0 any more? So how do they e.g. write kinetic energy? Used to be mc2 - m0c2. What is it now?

Oh my.

So when the OP wrote E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2, that was right because m is now rest mass? And what symbol do you use for (may God forgive me for saying it) relativistic mass?

And E = mc2 is now "energy = rest mass times c2"?

I am impressed. I hope Einstein knows about this ...

Kinetic energy is just ##mc^2 (\gamma-1)##. I, personally, have always taken E=mc^2 to mean equivalence between rest mass and energy. Energy in a boosted frame is ##\gamma mc^2##. I didn't make the choice to avoid the use of 'relativistic mass'. But that seems to be the way the market is choosing. I don't think Einstein would be upset. It's just a change in notation.
 
  • #17
Dick said:
Kinetic energy is just ##mc^2 (\gamma-1)##. I, personally, have always taken E=mc^2 to mean equivalence between rest mass and energy. Energy in a boosted frame is ##\gamma mc^2##. I didn't make the choice to avoid the use of 'relativistic mass'. But that seems to be the way the market is choosing. I don't think Einstein would be upset. It's just a change in notation.

I am rendered speechless. And I do think Einstein would seriously not be pleased. But OK, we bend with the wind ...
 
  • #18
rude man said:
I am rendered speechless. And I do think Einstein would seriously not be pleased. But OK, we bend with the wind ...

I don't see why. You sprinkle a few more gamma's around. Drop some m0's. It's still just classical special relativity. There's no conceptual change, just notation. If Einstein were rendered speechless by this, I'd say he had a pretty thin skin. :)
 
  • #19
If you think about it, an objects mass cannot increase as it's an extensive property based on its internal structure, which doesn't change with velocity.
 
  • #20
@rude man: There is no need to get sarcastic. Check any recent (after 1980-1990) publication, you will not find the concept of a relativistic mass there.
 
  • #21
I'm not being sarcastic, it's just a reason why relativistic mass doesn't make sense.
 
  • #22
No more F = d/dt (mv) (which was correct even relativistically)..
No more centripetal force = mv^2/R.
And, best of all ... no more p = mv!

All those traditional formulas rendered erroneous ... reminds me of the 'improvements' in Windows!

OK, I promise, this is my last comment on the subject. Apparently some folks are not happy with them.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
##F=\frac{dp}{dt}##
Centripetal force ##\frac{\gamma m v^2}{R}##
##p=\gamma m v##
Where is the issue?

@gsurfer04: I did not mean you in my post.
 
  • #24
There are a few papers by Okun on the whole "relativistic mass" issue. Quite an interesting read.
 
  • #25
mfb said:
##F=\frac{dp}{dt}##
Centripetal force ##\frac{\gamma m v^2}{R}##
##p=\gamma m v##
Where is the issue?

@gsurfer04: I did not mean you in my post.

You just stated 'where is the issue'. All the traditional formulas now have to be changed by multiplying by gamma.

And I wasn't sarcastic. Just flabbergasted at the way the physics community has dumbed-down.
 
  • #26
rude man said:
You just stated 'where is the issue'. All the traditional formulas now have to be changed by multiplying by gamma.

And I wasn't sarcastic. Just flabbergasted at the way the physics community has dumbed-down.

I thought you were done. You promised. It's a frigging pedogical point. Many teachers of relativity feel that it causes more confusion than artificially preserving Newtonian expressions buys you. That's all. It makes the distinction between Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics more explicit. It's the same damned theory. If you think this is 'dumbing down' you should probably take your flabbergastion elsewhere. It's just a change in the emphasis of notation.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
To see how misleading it can be to try to keep Newtonian formulas:
rude man said:
No more F = d/dt (mv) (which was correct even relativistically)
m there now m(v), and in general F and dv/dt point in different directions - something really counterintuitive if you look at that equation. m is a scalar, but still the two vectors in that equation are not parallel to each other.
 
  • #28
mfb said:
To see how misleading it can be to try to keep Newtonian formulas:

... in general F and dv/dt point in different directions.

They do? News to me and I would think to Mr. Newton also.

- something really counterintuitive if you look at that equation. m is a scalar, but still the two vectors in that equation are not parallel to each other

It's counterintuitive that v and dv/dt can point in opposite directions? Like a car moving at v and letting up on the gas?

And what about centripetal force? Is it counterintuitive that v and dv/dt are non-parallel?

Guess I'm just not appreciating the New Order here - again.

Oh how things are changing in the world of physics since my day ...

@Dick - sorry, yes, I broke my word, but as long as I get ripostes I feel obliged to answer them. I promise not to initiate posts on this subject ever again.
 
  • #29
rude man said:
They do? News to me and I would think to Mr. Newton also.
Yes, I think special relativity would be new for Isaac Newton.
And what about centripetal force? Is it counterintuitive that v and dv/dt are non-parallel?
No, that formula does not uses vectors anyway (or you have to rewrite it - but v is squared anyway, so its direction does not matter).
 

Similar threads

Kinetic energy and velocity of electron after compton scatte
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Calculating the Planck Length
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Photon colliding with moving electron
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Why does an electron have minimum kinetic energy when its momentum is 2h/λ?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Momentum of a Photon: E/c=p Explained
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Energy of scattering photon and emitted electron
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculating the Wavelength of Monochromatic Radiation in Compton Scattering
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculate the wavelength when electron transits.
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Location of electrons and protons
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Finding the momentum of a photon
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K