Mass of a Photon: Rest & Moving Mass

[Deepak K Kapur]

Photon's rest mass is zero.

What's its 'moving' mass?

Thanks.

 

[phinds]

Photon's rest mass is zero.

What's its 'moving' mass?

Thanks.

It does not have mass, it has momentum. I'll have to leave it to others to explain that in more detail, or you can try this site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html

 

[Nugatory]

P
What's its 'moving' mass?

It has energy, so you can calculate a "moving mass" for it from $E=mc^2$.

However, it's nearly always more helpful to think in terms of energy and momentum instead. The link that phinds posted is a good start.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

I have understood something from the link..

But, here are a few questions.

1. Photon's rest mass is zero. It's energy is also zero.
It means it is non existent. So, why to define such a term in science " rest mass of a photon "?

2. When photon is emitted by an electron in an atom, does it mean that the photon did not exist prior to its emission in any possible way? It seems to be creating something out of nothing (in a way).

Or, was the photon present in the electron in some rudimentary form?

 

[Frost_Xue]

The real question is what is mass. You can think mass is invariant energy under transformation. Photon mass is zero it only has "moving" energy instead of "rest energy" plus "moving energy" like mass particles

 

[Frost_Xue]

I have understood something from the link..

But, here are a few questions.

1. Photon's rest mass is zero. It's energy is also zero.
It means it is non existent. So, why to define such a term in science " rest mass of a photon "?

2. When photon is emitted by an electron in an atom, does it mean that the photon did not exist prior to its emission in any possible way? It seems to be creating something out of nothing (in a way).

Or, was the photon present in the electron in some rudimentary form?

As I was replying mass is energy so you can get rid of the concept of mass and think just Chuck of energy "flying off".

 

[Drakkith]

1. Photon's rest mass is zero. It's energy is also zero.

Photons have non-zero energy.

2. When photon is emitted by an electron in an atom, does it mean that the photon did not exist prior to its emission in any possible way? It seems to be creating something out of nothing (in a way).

It did indeed not exist prior to emission. It was created from the interaction between the atom and the EM field, and its energy comes from the atom. The atom loses energy equal to the amount gained by the photon.

As I was replying mass is energy so you can get rid of the concept of mass and think just Chuck of energy "flying off".

Not quite. There's a good reason the term mass is still around. Mass and energy are related, but they are not the same thing.

 

[ZapperZ]

@Deepak K Kapur : Do you ever spend time reading the FAQs at all?

Zz.

 

[Dale]

It's energy is also zero.

No, it's energy is not zero. I am not sure what would lead you to believe that, but it is incorrect.

The relationship between energy, momentum, and mass is:
$m^2 c^2=E^2/c^2-p^2$

does it mean that the photon did not exist prior to its emission

Yes, that is correct. The photon is created by the atom relaxing.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

No, it's energy is not zero. I am not sure what would lead you to believe that, but it is incorrect.

How can something that has no mass at all, have energy!

I wonder how 'rest energy' of a photon is not zero. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable.
So, if photon at rest has energy, can't it be said to have mass also?

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

@Deepak K Kapur : Do you ever spend time reading the FAQs at all?

Zz.

I do.

BTW, what are you for, writing FAQs??

 

[ZapperZ]

I do.

BTW, what are you for, writing FAQs??

I have more than 31,000 posts. Do you think that all I write are FAQs?

I asked because a lot of your questions appear to have already been addressed by many FAQs and Insight articles in the forum.

Zz.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

It did indeed not exist prior to emission. It was created from the interaction between the atom and the EM field, and its energy comes from the atom. The atom loses energy equal to the amount gained by the photon.

I can understand when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form water (electron transfer etc.)

What is the mechanism of interaction of the atom and the EM field that leads to the release of this photon.
(other than the mathematical mechanism)Something like...
The electrical and the magnetic elements of the incoming photon separate inside the electron and then combine again depending upon the energy of the level that the electron returns to...

 

[ZapperZ]

I can understand when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form water (electron transfer etc.)

What is the mechanism of interaction of the atom and the EM field that leads to the release of this photon.
(other than the mathematical mechanism)Something like...
The electrical and the magnetic elements of the incoming photon separate inside the electron and then combine again depending upon the energy of the level that the electron returns to...

That would be faulty, because I don't need only electrons to generate light. I can take a bunch of protons, shake it up and down, and voila! I've generated EM radiation! So your idea that somehow there's something inside an electron (which in itself is dubious since electron has no internal structure that we know of) cannot explain why I can generate light without using electrons.

Please remember that atomic decay is only ONE way to generate light. Light coming from your old incandescent light bulbs, and light coming from the many synchrotron light sources around the world, are NOT from such atomic transition.

Zz.

 

[weirdoguy]

How can something that has no mass at all, have energy!

It can, and as we can see, it has.

Aren't mass and energy interchangeable.

No they are not interchangeable.

So, if photon at rest has energy

Photons are never at rest. You have misconceptions about very basic issues of the topic you are trying to talk about.

 

[Nugatory]

So, if photon at rest has energy, can't it be said to have mass also?

There is no such thing as a photon at rest (because they always move at the speed of light) and therefore it is meaningless to speak of the energy of a photon at rest.

It really isn't going to get any simpler than the relationship that Dale has already posted, valid for all particles: $E^2=(m_0c^2)^2+(pc)^2$. A photon has non-zero $E$ and $p$, zero $m_0$.

 

[Frost_Xue]

Photons have non-zero energy.
It did indeed not exist prior to emission. It was created from the interaction between the atom and the EM field, and its energy comes from the atom. The atom loses energy equal to the amount gained by the photon.
Not quite. There's a good reason the term mass is still around. Mass and energy are related, but they are not the same thing.

What is the good reason then?

 

[Dale]

How can something that has no mass at all, have energy

As I said above. The relationship between energy, momentum, and mass is: $m^2 c^2=E^2/c^2-p^2$

So you can have energy and no mass as long as $E=pc$

So, if photon at rest has energy, can't it be said to have mass also?

IF a photon could be at rest and have energy then it would have mass, BUT in reality a photon is never at rest and does not have mass.

PLEASE, examine carefully the equation that I have posted twice now before you respond again.

 

[Drakkith]

What is the good reason then?

Hmm... I thought I had a link that explained it, but I can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking.

 

[Frost_Xue]

Hmm... I thought I had a link that explained it, but I can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking.

Yea, please let me know that would be very helpful thanks a lot!

 

[Drakkith]

What is the mechanism of interaction of the atom and the EM field that leads to the release of this photon.
(other than the mathematical mechanism)

At the risk of simplifying this to the point of being nearly wrong, you can think of it as a disturbance in the EM field generated by the sudden change in the atom. Since both protons and electrons are charged particles, any sudden change in the configuration of the atom causes a disturbance in the EM field. This disturbance propagates away from the atom as an EM wave, which is composed of photons.

Of course it is not just changes in atoms that creates photons. Acceleration of any charged particle will generate EM waves and photons.

 

[Ethan Santillan]

Is this has something to do with Higgs-Boson Field?

 

[Nugatory]

Is this has something to do with Higgs-Boson Field?

Nothing whatsoever, not in the slightest.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

PLEASE, examine carefully the equation that I have posted twice now before you respond again.

I examined this equation even before posing this question.

I think (may be wrongly) that math comes later than concepts. I am after the concept here...

Suppose (just for the sake of argument) that I want to stop a photon. ( I become small and I can see an individual photon etc.). I think I surely would have to apply force just as now I apply force to stop a ball.

1. Isn't this mass?

2. When I stop a ball it doesn't stop existing ( i.e. lose its mass). Why would a photon become massless if I bring it to rest?

I am fully cognizant of the equations, its just that I want to grasp the concept without equations.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

From the replies it seems that photons are already moving at the speed of light when they are produced...

Why? What is this going on... a magic show!

 

[Dale]

I think (may be wrongly) that math comes later than concepts. I am after the concept here...

I think you are wrong on this. The math IS the concept, in the best language that we have developed for understanding and communicating such concepts. Any natural language description is merely a rough translation.

I think I surely would have to apply force just as now I apply force to stop a ball.

1. Isn't this mass?

A force is a change in momentum. What does the equation tell you about momentum and mass? Are they the same thing?

2. When I stop a ball it doesn't stop existing ( i.e. lose its mass). Why would a photon become massless if I bring it to rest?

It can't be brought to rest, as has been explained multiple times already.

 

[Dale]

From the replies it seems that photons are already moving at the speed of light when they are produced...

Why? What is this going on... a magic show!

Yes photons are already moving at c when they are produced. This is not magic, it is conservation of momentum and energy. The same considerations determine the initial speed of any newly created particle.

 

[ZapperZ]

From the replies it seems that photons are already moving at the speed of light when they are produced...

Why? What is this going on... a magic show!

Drop a stone into a pool of water and look at the ripples produced. Do you see it "accelerating" from zero velocity, or does the wave already move at a certain speed when it is produced?

This "magic" is already all around you, even in such ordinary observation as water waves. It is so familiar even if you are not aware of it.

Your question on how something can exert a force, or needs to have a force exerted on them, and yet not have mass, is why I often tell people that you can't learn physics in bits and pieces. You see, way back in the 1800's, before the concept of photons even came into existence, light was known to be a classical wave, described via Maxwell Equations. There was no concept of particles here.

Yet, even back then, they already have a knowledge of "radiation pressure", meaning they already have a description of light pushing against something, i.e. imparting a force. Yet, nowhere in the formulation of light at that time was there ANY involvement of "mass" for this entity.

Texts on classical E&M still have this concept. So already, the insistence that having a force must equate to having a mass is faulty.

Zz.

 

[houlahound]

Slightly OT but for the newbs, one poster mentioned ways to produce photons;

There is a type of candy you can eat in a dark room with yr mouth open and produce light, hopefully someone will post a link.

 

[Nugatory]

From the replies it seems that photons are already moving at the speed of light when they are produced...
Why? What is this going on... a magic show!

Not a magic show, because it's real... And that makes it incomparably more exciting and interesting than any sleight-of-hand magic show.

Yes, photons are always moving at the speed of light - they don't start at zero and accelerate to $c$.

While we're on this subject... If I am in a spaceship flying past you at half the speed of light ($.5c$) and I emit a flash of light in the direction of travel, the light will be moving at $c$ relative to both of us. This effect was first observed in 1850 and is one of the most solidly confirmed experimental results in all of science (although of course the experimenters didn't use spaceships). It is explained by the same math that leads to the energy/momentum/mass formula that we've been posting. However, until you've gotten to where you can do the math for yourself, you're pretty much stuck with trusting what you hear from the people who have learned the math.

I think (maybe wrongly) that math comes later than concepts. I am after the concept here.

The concepts come from the math and not the other way around. Math is the language of physics, so trying to understand the physics before you do the math is like trying to understand a book written in a language you don't know by looking at the pictures.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

Thanks everyone for their intelligent answers.

I hope nobody gets irritated by my questions. I will continue to post in this thread under this assumption only...

Right now I am in 'thinking mode'.

Will take some time to post...

 

[Drakkith]

I will continue to post in this thread under this assumption only...

What assumption?

 

[phinds]

Thanks everyone for their intelligent answers.

I hope nobody gets irritated by my questions. I will continue to post in this thread under this assumption only...
.

To expand slightly on Drakkith's question:

Perhaps it is just a language difference but please be clear: There ARE no "assumptions" in the answers you have been given. You have been presented with the current knowledge of physics, none of which are taken as "assumptions".

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

What assumption?

Assumption is that 'nobody gets irritated by my questions'.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

Drop a stone into a pool of water and look at the ripples produced. Do you see it "accelerating" from zero velocity, or does the wave already move at a certain speed when it is produced?

This "magic" is already all around you, even in such ordinary observation as water waves. It is so familiar even if you are not aware of it.

Your question on how something can exert a force, or needs to have a force exerted on them, and yet not have mass, is why I often tell people that you can't learn physics in bits and pieces. You see, way back in the 1800's, before the concept of photons even came into existence, light was known to be a classical wave, described via Maxwell Equations. There was no concept of particles here.

Yet, even back then, they already have a knowledge of "radiation pressure", meaning they already have a description of light pushing against something, i.e. imparting a force. Yet, nowhere in the formulation of light at that time was there ANY involvement of "mass" for this entity.

Texts on classical E&M still have this concept. So already, the insistence that having a force must equate to having a mass is faulty.

Zz.

Well, my thinking mode is over (as if I am a scientist...lol)

I actually dropped a stone and the ripples were instantaneous (if it's the right word).

These ripples must have to do something with the nature of medium (water).

Similarly, I reason that the instantaneous speed of photons has something to do with the medium (space).

Rest is 'blind faith' in what you say.

Thanks again.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

The concepts come from the math and not the other way around. Math is the language of physics, so trying to understand the physics before you do the math is like trying to understand a book written in a language you don't know by looking at the pictures.

I was listening to Lawrence Krauss...

He said... I paraphrase...

...no matter how elegant the math..no matter how elegant and symmetrical the theory...if it does not match the results of experiments, it is debunked..

So, what you say is partially correct, IMHO.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was listening to Lawrence Krauss...

He said... I paraphrase...

...no matter how elegant the math..no matter how elegant and symmetrical the theory...if it does not match the results of experiments, it is debunked..

So, what you say is partially correct, IMHO.

No, it is 100% correct, because you misunderstood what Krauss said.

How do you think experiments verify theory? Experiments needs the MATH from the theory to be able to verify it. The math in the theory gives precise VALUES that experiments can check! Handwaving description are seldom tested in experiments, because they are flimsy and gives no QUANTITATIVE prediction!

I'm an experimentalist. I depend on the math that theory provides to not only verify experiments, but also makes sense of what I measure!

The more you try to strengthen your case, the deeper the hole you're digging yourself into. I suggest you stop before you bury yourself completely. And you are approaching the "irritating" level.

Zz.

 

[phinds]

Assumption is that 'nobody gets irritated by my questions'.

A very good assumption. We don't get irritated by questions, just by people who refuse to listen to what we say and you are not doing that at all.

 

[phinds]

I was listening to Lawrence Krauss...

He said... I paraphrase...

...no matter how elegant the math..no matter how elegant and symmetrical the theory...if it does not match the results of experiments, it is debunked..

So, what you say is partially correct, IMHO.

Krauss is paraphrasing Feynman, who said it about 50 years ago (or since you are paraphrasing Krauss, he might have been quoting Feynman directly). If you haven't watched any of Feynman's lectures online, I recommend them.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

No, it is 100% correct, because you misunderstood what Krauss said.

How do you think experiments verify theory? Experiments needs the MATH from the theory to be able to verify it. The math in the theory gives precise VALUES that experiments can check! Handwaving description are seldom tested in experiments, because they are flimsy and gives no QUANTITATIVE prediction!

I'm an experimentalist. I depend on the math that theory provides to not only verify experiments, but also makes sense of what I measure!

The more you try to strengthen your case, the deeper the hole you're digging yourself into. I suggest you stop before you bury yourself completely. And you are approaching the "irritating" level.

Zz.

I think I will be buried now...

The following is what 'Russ Waters' said in my thread 'A question about units'

"No, this isn't about how the universe works, it is just how math works. There is no implication that any particular equation reflects how the universe works and the structure of math doesn't necessarily say anything at all about the universe."

 

[ZapperZ]

I think I will be buried now...

The following is what 'Russ Waters' said in my thread 'A question about units'

"No, this isn't about how the universe works, it is just how math works. There is no implication that any particular equation reflects how the universe works and the structure of math doesn't necessarily say anything at all about the universe."

You seem to be learning about physics via a series of quotes, as if they are words from god. This appears to be something you really like. Well then, I'll give you another quote for you to live by:

Science is not just knowing "what goes up must come down", but when and where it comes down.

Do you think, without understanding the mathematics, you can predict "...when and where it comes down..."?

Where would you like to be buried?

Zz.

 

[houlahound]

' I actually dropped a stone and the ripples were instantaneous (if it's the right word)."

In fact they were not, you can measure the speed easily;

Speed = frequency X wavelength.

 

[nasu]

Besides, quoting out of context is not a good idea anyway.
In that thread the context was about the internal structure and "rules" of math, which have indeed a good amount of conventional.
You can make up perfect mathematical "objects" which do not necessarily correspond to objects in reality.
As a natural language was also mentioned in that post, you can think that you can use English to describe things from reality as well as describing fictional things, impossible things or even to make meaningless sentences. Even whole paragraphs.
But when is comes to the internal rules of the language, like why do we put an "s" for nouns in plural form, there is no point to ask if this "objectively" right or wrong.
It may be change, by consensus, without any relevance to the "reality".

 

[Nugatory]

"No, this isn't about how the universe works, it is just how math works. There is no implication that any particular equation reflects how the universe works and the structure of math doesn't necessarily say anything at all about the universe."

That is also true, and in no way conflicts with what we've been trying to tell you. The universe is described by math, but not all math describes the universe.

 

[Deepak K Kapur]

Where would you like to be buried?

Zz.

In your backyard...so that I can haunt at will...

 

[Dale]

Thread closed