Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Invariant mass of a photon changes - from Wiki

  1. May 31, 2015 #1

    Imager

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm reading the Wiki article below to say the invariant mass of photons in an expanding volume of space will decrease. I thought invariant mass of a photon was always zero and the energy of photon changed due to the expansion of space. So where did I go wrong?

    Quote from Wiki

    General relativity
    In general relativity, the total invariant mass of photons in an expanding volume of space will decrease
    , due to the red shift of such an expansion (see Mass in general relativity). The conservation of both mass and energy therefore depends on various corrections made to energy in the theory, due to the changing gravitational potential energy of such systems.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass#General_relativity
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2015 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Wikipedia never says "Invariant mass of a photon changes". Never. It is talking about the collective mass of an ensemble of photons.
     
  4. May 31, 2015 #3

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You didn't go wrong at all. That wikipedia section is quite confusing, as the "invariant mass" that it's describing is not the sum of the rest masses of the photons; it's a quantity associated with the total energy of the system under consideration. Take a look at the accompanying wikipedia article on "invariant mass", but be sure to read the Talk page for that article as well as the one that you found.... Wikipedia talk pages can tell you a lot about how much you can trust an article.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2015
  5. May 31, 2015 #4

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This formulation in wikipedia is confusing indeed. What is invariant about that quantity ?
     
  6. May 31, 2015 #5

    Imager

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nugatory, Double Thanks you!

    One for clarify, and another for the Talk Page button, very cool! I never noticed it. (I really need to wear those reading glasses).

     
  7. May 31, 2015 #6

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    It is the 4-momentum squared of a collection of photons. The Higgs peak in the 2##\gamma## channel was found by binning in the invariant mass of photon pairs.
     
  8. May 31, 2015 #7

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Could you clarify what this means, I'm not getting it, esp. the "square" of 4 momentum - is that not zero for a photon ?
     
  9. May 31, 2015 #8

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    For one photon, yes. For several photons, no. In any given system it is the square of the energy minus the square of the momentum. Thus, if you have two photons, each of energy E, travelling in opposite directions, the invariant mass square of the system is ##4E^2##, since the total momentum is zero.
     
  10. May 31, 2015 #9

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, wasn't parsing that right.
     
  11. May 31, 2015 #10

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In addition to what others have said, I'll add another critique of that wiki presentation.

    Locally, it is (pretty much) unambiguous to talk about invariant mass of a 'box of photons' because spacetime can be considered locally flat. However, globally, in GR, you are proposing to add distant vectors and take the norm of the result. This is, in a word, nonsense. You cannot add distant vectors in curved spacetime. You can parallel transport them together, then add them, but then the result depends almost entirely on how you bring them together. Thus, a correct statement is that invariant mass cannot be defined at all for a large ensemble of particles in GR.
     
  12. Jun 1, 2015 #11

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was wondering about that too. From a given observer viewpoint, there is (usually) a unique geodesic linking an event of the observer's worldine to one on a photon's worldline, so that defines an unambiguous way to sum all those photon's momentums and square that sum, at least for a chosen simultaneity - but does that define an invariant quantity ? I don't see a reason that it should, but I don't see in what way it varies either.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2015
  13. Jun 1, 2015 #12

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see where observers are involved or help the wiki error. They are summing vectors over a large volume of a spatial slice. This is a nonsense operation in GR.
     
  14. Jun 1, 2015 #13

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Agreed but if the operation I described gave a result independent of the observer (and simultaneity) then that definition (suitably completed) would make sense. Not saying it does, but I still wonder in which way the result changes. Would a different choice of simultaneity wreck things ? Would it make sense to define that quantity relative to a comoving class of observers ?
     
  15. Jun 1, 2015 #14

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I guess I don't understand your suggestion. How are you proposing to use observers sum 4-momenta over large volume of space? If you are thinking of congruence of observers, you can make the result come out literally any value you want with the appropriate congruence. You can even construct a congruence where the sum of measured photon energy increases with cosmologic time, without bound (I have in mind a rather bizarre congruence that achieves this).

    If you imagine a large system placed in isolation in asymptotically flat spacetime, there is an unambiguous way to assign a 4-momentum to the system in GR. But that doesn't help you with a cosmologic solution. It is perfectly adequate as a high precision approximation for treating a galaxy in isolation, but if you are asking about cosmologic volumes and time scales it doesn't help you at all.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Invariant mass of a photon changes - from Wiki
  1. Photon mass (Replies: 9)

  2. Photon Mass (Replies: 14)

  3. Mass of Photon (Replies: 18)

  4. Mass of a photon (Replies: 26)

Loading...