What is the relationship between mass and energy for massless particles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kap160
  • Start date Start date
Kap160
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've recently bean reading a book about string theory (thats not important though) and I came across something that someone here may be able to help me with, I'd really appreciate it, its been bugging me for days.

I may have misinterpreted, so if I have please correct me. In a general introduction the book described the relationship between mass and energy as described by E=Mc2. It also talked about sub-atomic particles, among which there was a small passage on the Graviton (and the lack thereof). It said that it theretically has no mass. If this is so does it also mean that it has no energy? I'm probably totally wrong and will be summarily chastised for my ridiculous question, but I would be eternally greatful if someone could explain this to me. Also if you could do it as if you were talking to a rather stupid child I would appreciate it.

Thanks for any clarification that can be given.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Massless particles--a photon is another example--have no rest energy. They certainly have energy. (These massless particles are also never at rest--they all travel at the speed of light.)
 
Kap160 said:
I've recently bean reading a book about string theory (thats not important though) and I came across something that someone here may be able to help me with, I'd really appreciate it, its been bugging me for days.

I may have misinterpreted, so if I have please correct me. In a general introduction the book described the relationship between mass and energy as described by E=Mc2. It also talked about sub-atomic particles, among which there was a small passage on the Graviton (and the lack thereof). It said that it theretically has no mass. If this is so does it also mean that it has no energy? I'm probably totally wrong and will be summarily chastised for my ridiculous question, but I would be eternally greatful if someone could explain this to me. Also if you could do it as if you were talking to a rather stupid child I would appreciate it.

Thanks for any clarification that can be given.


This is a frequent question. The problem is that E = mc^2 is a special case applicable only to massive particle (and when those particles are at rest). The real equation is E = \sqrt{c^2 \vec{p}^2 + m^2 c^4}. For a massless particle, this reduces to E = c p (where p here is the magnitude of the three-momentum).
 
Doc Al said:
Massless particles--a photon is another example--have no rest energy. They certainly have energy. (These massless particles are also never at rest--they all travel at the speed of light.)
Thank you, you have saved an idiot from himself. They are bit like me, when they are moving they have enormous energy but when stationary they simply can't be bothered to get up and put the kettle on.

nrqed said:
This is a frequent question. The problem is that E = mc^2 is a special case applicable only to massive particle (and when those particles are at rest). The real equation is E = \sqrt{c^2 \vec{p}^2 + m^2 c^4}. For a massless particle, this reduces to E = c p (where p here is the magnitude of the three-momentum).
Ah... that was slighty above my level of enforced stupidity, although I appreciate the effort...

My thanks to both, I am eternally grateful.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top