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

I Massless photon

  1. Jan 20, 2017 #1
    I have wondered how a photon could be massless, given E=mc2. I have seen explanations involving treatment of the situation through consideration of momentum. It seems to me my own explanation is valid, and I ask for comments.



    Actually E= m’c2 =gmc2, where g=1/sq rt{(1/[1-(v2/c2)]}. Photons travel at v = c, so the denominator is zero, making the equation invalid at the speed of light, thus eliminating the apparent conflict.



    John
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 20, 2017 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Please read this:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/do-photons-have-mass/

    ... and watch this:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/media/e-mc-is-incomplete.127/

    Zz.
     
  4. Jan 21, 2017 #3
    This did not answer my question. Do you think my assertion is correct?
     
  5. Jan 21, 2017 #4
    The video should have answered your question, because the equation used in your assertion (E=mc2) is not complete.
     
  6. Jan 21, 2017 #5

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Mass is the square root of the length of the energy-momentum four-vector. That is, $$\begin{eqnarray}m_0^2c^4&=&E^2-p^2c^2\end{eqnarray}$$In an object's rest frame, ##p=0##, so ##E_0=m_0c^2##. You can do a Lorentz transform into any other frame, and get ##E=\gamma E_0## and ##p=\gamma vE_0/c^2=Ev/c^2##. You can substitute that expression for ##p## into (1) and rearrange to get your ##E=\gamma m_0c^2##.

    The problem is that light has no rest frame, so you can't reason your way to the ##p=Ev/c^2## expression that you need to get to your ##E=\gamma m_0c^2##. So you are correct that the equation is inapplicable, but that's because the derivation relies on the assumption that there exists a rest frame for the object. This is not valid for light. The cancelling zeroes is nonsense following from an initial invalid assumption, not a solution to it.

    Edit: or you could just note that ##E=\gamma E_0=\gamma m_0c^2## - but the problem is still that you can't start in a rest frame with light.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017
  7. Jan 21, 2017 #6

    Mister T

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    ##E## is also zero.

    But note that you are using ##E## as the rest energy, not the total energy. It's the total energy that's equal to ##hf##, but it's the rest energy that's equal to ##mc^2##.

    So your confusion arises from having seen others get sloppy with their notation.
     
  8. Jan 24, 2017 #7
    This is meant as a reply to lbix, whose comments I found the clearest. I think you are saying that the formula relating rest mass to relativistic mass is, itself, invalid because it assumes a rest mass and that it cannot even be used in getting to E=gamma mc^2 .
     
  9. Jan 24, 2017 #8

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The expression ##m^2c^4=E^2-p^2c^2## applies to anything. The expression ##E=\gamma mc^2## is a specialisation that you cannot derive without assuming that whatever it is has a rest frame. The rest frame of light is a contradiction in terms, so the second expression does not apply to light.
     
  10. Jan 24, 2017 #9
    Thanks. I would like to see a derivation of that equation which commenters are so familiar with. I have been working from a different derivation that seems not to bring up that equation. I first followed a published thought experiment involving a moving bouncing mass in a cylinder. The math leads to the m'=gamma mc^2 equation. Then I looked at derivation of the mass/energy relation. This goes from the mass/velocity relation to m'=(dm'/dv)[(c^2-v^2)/v. Expressing force as dp/dt or d(m'v)/dt and considering energy as force times distance leads to E=gamma mc^2. Nowhere in the chain of the derivation did the relation m2c4-E2-p2c2 appear, although consideration of momentum (its conservation) was entailed in the mass/velocity derivation. I seem to have gotten to a specialized version without recognizing the fuller expression by following the thought experiment I mentioned, which does not represent the situation of a photon.
     
  11. Jan 24, 2017 #10

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    We'd have to see the exact derivation that you're talking about to know for sure... But I would bet fairly long odds that it works by considering the situation from two different frames in which the object has two different speeds, or by considering one frame in which the object changes speed. Either way, that's a special case that does not include photons because they travel at one speed, ##c##, in all frames.
     
  12. Jan 24, 2017 #11

    Mister T

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, every derivation has to start with some definitions. In this case I think (although others may show me I'm wrong) that the expression ##\sqrt{E^2-(pc)^2}## defines the mass. So there are two cases. Massive particles for which ##E## is larger than ##pc## and massless particles for which ##E## is equal to ##pc##.

    That's a moving bouncing particle. And the particle is massive, as opposed to massless.

    I'm not sure what the mass/velocity relation is. If it's ##\gamma m=\frac{m}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}##, that's a relation that applies to massive, as opposed to massless, particles.

    But ##p## is not in general equal to ##\gamma mv##. The equality holds only for massive, as opposed to massless, particles.
     
  13. Jan 24, 2017 #12
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Jan 24, 2017 #13
    Sorry, I'm getting used to format of this site. John Nugatory replied with a comment that one would need to see the derivation I was following. Attached hopefully is an excerpt from a document I once assembled. Forgive the inclusion of all the trivial math steps
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Jan 24, 2017 #14
    Is this what you want to derive?

    ##E^2 = (mc^2) ^2 + (pc) ^2##

    If so, start with the relativistic equations for energy and momentum:

    ##E = \dfrac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right) ^2}}##

    and

    ##p = \dfrac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right) ^2}}##.

    This is actually a good algebra exercise, so I'll leave it to you. Let us know if you need help.
     
  16. Jan 24, 2017 #15
    Note: deriving the energy-momentum relation that way doesn't tell you that it will be valid for the massless case. But it was already known from Maxwell that ##E = pc## for light. So it's kind of a happy accident that ##E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2## works for massless particles!

    See David Griffiths's comments here: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wb9DYrjcoKAC&pg=PA90
     
  17. Jan 24, 2017 #16
    (Also note that that Griffiths edition is a bit outdated, as neutrinos are no longer thought to be massless.)
     
  18. Jan 24, 2017 #17
    Okay, here's a hint for the algebra problem I gave you:

    ##p = \dfrac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right) ^2}}##

    ##pc = \dfrac{mc^2 \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right) ^2}}##
     
  19. Jan 24, 2017 #18

    Mister T

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Just as I stated, that's a derivation for a massive (as opposed to massless) particle.

    Note that the very first sentence is erroneous:

    It is in fact a re-definition of mass that causes that outcome. For Einstein, it was a matter of only a few years before he realized it was not a necessary consequence. It took the literature decades to follow. By the mid-1990's we started to see it disappear from college-level introductory physics textbooks. It is now virtually gone.

    But back to your original question. If one re-defines mass to make that claim true, there are several ways to do that by the way but using the most popular way, the photon can be said to have a mass of ##hf/c^2##. That is not, however, what is meant when it's stated that the photon is massless.

    So, in summary, according to the way mass is defined in that statement, the photon has mass.

    According to the way mass is usually defined, the photon is massless.
     
  20. Jan 26, 2017 #19
    Replying to SiennatheGr8. Thanks for the algebra problem you layed before me. I was not able to eliminate v. Oh well, I am able to work it the other way around and go from the general equation and p=gamma mv to E=mc^2. Is it not more rigorous to go from the general to the specific cadse, anyway?

    That still leaves me looking for a derivation of p = gamma v and a derivation of the equation for E^2. I did not find your referenced Griffiths comments very helpful.

    Also can anyone tell me how to write in math notation in this forum.
     
  21. Jan 26, 2017 #20

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If you're using a desktop or notebook, starting at the top right of the page:

    INFO --> Help/How-To --> LaTeX Primer
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Massless photon
  1. The Massless Photon (Replies: 47)

  2. Are photons massless? (Replies: 4)

Loading...