One has to wonder about photon interaction, and when to think of them

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Science>All
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interaction Photon
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of photons and their classification as either particles or waves. Participants explore the implications of mass, energy equations, and the theoretical mass of photons in relation to their wavelength. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and mathematical formulations related to photon behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions when to consider photons as particles versus waves, suggesting that the absence of mass does not preclude the consideration of mass in theoretical contexts.
  • The same participant proposes a calculation for a theoretical mass of photons that is inversely proportional to their wavelength, introducing a constant they refer to as the "Demitri constant."
  • Another participant asserts that photons have zero mass and references a common misconception regarding the application of the equation E=mc² to massless particles.
  • A different participant provides the full energy-momentum relation, E²=(mc²)² + (pc)², and explains how it simplifies for massless particles like photons.
  • Further elaboration is given on the derivation of E=mc², emphasizing that it applies under specific conditions that do not hold for massless particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the mass of photons, with some asserting that photons are massless while others explore the idea of a theoretical mass. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various equations and derivations, indicating a reliance on specific assumptions about mass and momentum that may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and differing interpretations of energy equations.

Science>All
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
One has to wonder about photon interaction, and when to think of them as a particle and when as simply a wave. A friend of mine told me to think of them as a wave, because they are without mass. But why should I view it that way, when even theoretical mass is mass, such as weak force. So how might one think of them? And what about this:

E=mc^2

Energy of one photon:
E=hv
E=h(c/λ)
E=(4.13566733×10^-15)((299,792,458)/λ)
E=(4.13566733×10^-15)(299,792,458)(1/λ)
E=(4.13566733×10^-15)(299,792,458)(λ^-1)=mc^2
m=((4.13566733×10^-15)(299,792,458)(λ^-1))/(c^2)
m=(4.13566733×10^-15)(299,792,458)(λ^-1)(1/c^2)
m=(4.13566733×10^-15)(299,792,458)(λ^-1)(c^-2)
m=(4.13566733×10^-15)(299,792,458)(λ^-1)(299,792,458^-2)
m=(.00000000000000413566733)(299,792,458)(.0000000000000000111265006)(λ^-1)
m=(1.37951014×10^-23)(λ^-1)
m=(.0000000000000000000000137951014)(λ^-1)

By this logic, and by no means do I claim it to be infallible, photons do have a theoretical mass inversely proportional to its wavelength and multiplied by the constant (1.37951014×10^-23) which I dub, were it to have any scientific ground to it, Demitri constant.
 
Science news on Phys.org


You make a mistake that is so common, we have a FAQ entry on it. Please review the FAQ thread first in the General Physics forum.

Zz.
 


the full equation is E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 the mass of a photon is zero so it then
becomes E^2=(pc)^2 then E=pc hc/(lambda)=pc
then (lambda)=h/p which is the debroglie hypothesis .
 


Photons have a mass identically equal to zero. The equation E mc^2 cannot be applied to massless particles such as photons. The short explanation is that photons have momentum, but no mass.

The longer explanation has to come with the derivation of E = mc^2. As Cragar said, the actual equation for a massive particle is,

[tex]E =\sqrt{p^2c^2 + m^2c^4}[/tex]

This can be rewritten as,

[tex]E = mc^2\sqrt{1+\dfrac{p^2}{m^2c^2}}[/tex]

We can Taylor expand this in terms of p^2/m^2c^2,

[tex]E = mc^2(1+ \dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{p^2}{m^2c^2}-\dfrac{1}{8}(\dfrac{p^2}{m^2c^2})^2+...)[/tex]

When we assume a small momentum (in nonrelativistic cases the momentum is always much smaller than the mass times c), we can just take the first two terms,

[tex]E = mc^2+ \dfrac{p^2}{2m}[/tex]

One can recognize the second term as the formula for kinetic energy. However, in the nonrelativistic limit we recover the peculiar mc^2 term, which seems to be momentum-independent. This is why we say tha E = mc^2. Note also that in the derivation, we must assume that p << m, and this certainly isn't true for a massless particle. E = mc^2 only works when you understand that a particle can have momentum but no mass.

Hope this helps!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
945
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K