The Mysterious, Impossible Box: Questions & Answers

[atyy]

The key principle is the Doppler effect. If you are pushing on a box of light to accelerate it then a photon leaving the front of the box will be blueshifted by the time it reaches the back of the box, and a photon leaving the back of the box will be redshifted by the time it reaches the front. Since the momentum of the photon is proportional to the frequency there is more pressure on the back than on the front. Therefore the light increases the inertia of the box.

Very nice! And much easier than reading Carlip's article!

Adding a 'mass vector' obtains the experimentally measured mass and the particle mass. For two waves of equal amplitude and oppositely directed.

\mu_{(L)} = E, p
\mu_{(R)} = E, -p
------------
\mu_{(\Sigma)} = 2E

Very nice too! So rest mass or invariant mass m_o=p^ip_i=0 (4-vectors), and gravitational mass \mu = E = T^{00} as in Carlip's article.

 

[M Grandin]

Several times I have thought about this and aguainted questions. For instance if you have a thermal element in an insulated bottle - what maximum temperature is achieved? I guess
the limit is the temperature of the radiating element. And if light source, the light intensity
never exceeds that of the hypothetical radiating light bulb. I have never found answers to such questions in textbooks, but believe the limit of intensity in the "bottle" is the intensity of the radiating source. So at that saturated stage, the "light bulb" would not deliver further light energy into the insulated volume.

Corresponding should yeld emitted rays from antennas: If for instance a radio wave transmitter emits a certain EM-field of certain magnitude - nothing is emitted if there already is an identical EM-field around the antenna, for instance due to reflected waves. I think
this is the fundamental behind resonant circuits - coupled capacitors/coils - no emitted energy if there already is the EM-field present for other reasons.

But this is just my own (possibly wrong) conclusion - I have never seen this issue discussed by scientist, although they surely have.

 

[Phrak]

Very nice too!

Thank you.

So rest mass or invariant mass m_o=p^ip_i=0 (4-vectors), and gravitational mass \mu = E = T^{00} as in Carlip's article.

(Of course, I know you meant, \ (m_o)^2=p^{\iota}p_{\iota}=0 .)

Carlip's \ \mu is a Lorentz variant scalar; not the same at all.

So I can safely claim that mass is conserved. Neither energy nor momentum are conserved. The non zero mass of a photon is given by the contraction of \ \mu with itself.

Also that the esoteric \ m_o appearing in

m_0^2=E^2 + p^2

is to be associated with the inertial mass.

 

[Dale]

Always comoving, for the box on the scale.

Well, that reference frame is non-inertial. I don't know what form Maxwell's equations take in that frame, in particular how the Poynting vector would be expressed. But in terms of measurable quantities, like the pressure measured on the box wall, or the proper force and proper acceleration, it must agree with the results obtained in the momentarily co-moving inertial frame.

 

[Lok]

1) The box maintains it's mass and clearly it's weight.
The light source loses energy and thus mass. ( a very tiny amount ). The photons have mass, all photons have mass. Their restmass is 0, which means that if you would slow one down (hypoteticaly) it would simply dissapear, because all of it's energy would be absorbed by the slowdown mechanism. It's like imagining a hot object with lots of photons bouncing inside if it( just as heat is transfered), after it cools it looses mass because the system looses energy. The box does not so it keeps it's original mass.

2) If enough photons accumulate, the box is very likely to burst through radiation pressure. If the box is of equal strength distribution then it's likely to burst in one corner.

3) Given the small size (box presumably no bigger than 1 m) in accordance with the speed of light, it's clear that all the photons will exit the box in a very short ( shorter ) amount of time resulting in a big flash. Only if the box breaks evenly will there be a flash in all directions.

 

[Phrak]

Well, that reference frame is non-inertial. I don't know what form Maxwell's equations take in that frame, in particular how the Poynting vector would be expressed. But in terms of measurable quantities, like the pressure measured on the box wall, or the proper force and proper acceleration, it must agree with the results obtained in the momentarily co-moving inertial frame.

Never the less, it's the accelerating lab frame in question, and there is nothing wrong in analyzing the physics in the accelerating frame.

Is this just to give me a hard time over the exact solution of the wave in the box, or do you have some deductive means to support a solution that is other than a standing wave?

This might help. Emperically, the radiation is blue shifted toward the bottom of the box (in the lab frame). An incident wave impinging against the bottom of the box imparts more downward momentum than one incident on the top of the box. (There's more radiation pressure on the bottom of the box than the top; but we already knew this.)

Qualitatively the blue shift is proportional to the height of the box times its acceleration. Without any other variables entering, whatever variation obtained is small compared to v squared for a human scaled box and gravity.

The absolute change in the momenum of the radiation on the bottom of the box is greater than the top. This must be accounted for by emf carrying momentum upward. The

 

[atyy]

The key principle is the Doppler effect. If you are pushing on a box of light to accelerate it then a photon leaving the front of the box will be blueshifted by the time it reaches the back of the box, and a photon leaving the back of the box will be redshifted by the time it reaches the front. Since the momentum of the photon is proportional to the frequency there is more pressure on the back than on the front. Therefore the light increases the inertia of the box.

One thing that was bothering me was I thought that Nordstrom's theory would predict no weight for light in a box because instead of using the whole energy-momentum tensor as the gravitational source, it only uses the trace - and the electromagnetic field is traceless. Nordstrom's theory is consistent with the equivalence principle and predicts redshift, so if that were the case, then the redshift argument must be insufficient to establish weight for light in a box. On the other hand, the redshift argument can be independently argued from energy conservation and de Broglie theory. Contrary to my expectation, Nordstrom's theory apparently predicts weight for light in a box "because electromagnetic waves trapped in a material box with mirrored walls will induce additional stresses in the box’s walls due to radiation pressure. This will increase the weight of the box corresponding to an additional mass m = E_rad/c², where E_rad is the energy of the radiation field. In this sense bound electromagnetic fields do carry weight." That also explains a bit why Carlip's article isn't about why light in a box has weight, but more about why it doesn't weight twice as much!

Giulini, What is (not) wrong with scalar gravity?, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0611100

 

[Dale]

Never the less, it's the accelerating lab frame in question, and there is nothing wrong in analyzing the physics in the accelerating frame.

Is this just to give me a hard time over the exact solution of the wave in the box, or do you have some deductive means to support a solution that is other than a standing wave?

Oh, no. I am not trying to give you a hard time. I agree 100% that it is a standing wave in the non-inertial frame and that the analysis can be done there. My comments were only intended to say that I don't know how to work the problem in that frame, so I don't know how to show that the radiation pressure is greater on the bottom without using an inertial frame. So I just did it in an inertial frame with the knowledge that it would agree in terms of any measurable results.

 

[Yor_on]

"If you are pushing on a box of light to accelerate it then a photon leaving the front of the box will be blueshifted by the time it reaches the back of the box, and a photon leaving the back of the box will be redshifted by the time it reaches the front."

Shouldn't it be the opposite?
That the photon leaving the front of the box traveling against its box 'direction' towards the back wall, as seen from an observer, should be redshifted as its following a declining energy gradient, and that the photon emitted from the back towards the front wall then should be blueshifted as its walking an upgrade slope as seen from the observer.

Or am I getting this totally wrong?
Are you placing the observer inside this frame so that the thought observers would be traveling with it and in the photons reference frame?

One observing from the back wall, sort of, and one observing from the front wall.
But then there shouldn't be any 'slope' (in any direction -+) should it?
They are at rest inside their frame of reference, or?
Where would that 'excess energy' of that 'blue shifted' photon hitting the back wall f. ex come from if they share the same reference frame?

 

[Phrak]

Oh, no. I am not trying to give you a hard time. I agree 100% that it is a standing wave in the non-inertial frame and that the analysis can be done there. My comments were only intended to say that I don't know how to work the problem in that frame, so I don't know how to show that the radiation pressure is greater on the bottom without using an inertial frame. So I just did it in an inertial frame with the knowledge that it would agree in terms of any measurable results.

My mistake. Pax.

I've been trying out the argument in the accelerating frame, as I half-gave above, but I have a qualitative, not a quantitative solution as yet. And I'm assumming I can derive the blue shift, delta lambdda over lamba, for an accelerating frame, from first principles, rather than looking it up somewhere.

Did I mention that I agree; in the accelerating frame a standing wave is only a good approximation where the acceleration times box-height product is small?

 

[Dale]

My mistake. Pax.

I've been trying out the argument in the accelerating frame, as I half-gave above, but I have a qualitative, not a quantitative solution as yet. And I'm assumming I can derive the blue shift, delta lambdda over lamba, for an accelerating frame, from first principles, rather than looking it up somewhere.

Did I mention that I agree; in the accelerating frame a standing wave is only a good approximation where the acceleration times box-height product is small?

If you ever figure that out I would definitely be interested in seeing the results. I can do basic Newtonian mechanics directly in non-inertial frames, but for other physics I always have to transform to an inertial frame.

 

[Dale]

"If you are pushing on a box of light to accelerate it then a photon leaving the front of the box will be blueshifted by the time it reaches the back of the box, and a photon leaving the back of the box will be redshifted by the time it reaches the front."

Shouldn't it be the opposite?
That the photon leaving the front of the box traveling against its box 'direction' towards the back wall, as seen from an observer, should be redshifted as its following a declining energy gradient, and that the photon emitted from the back towards the front wall then should be blueshifted as its walking an upgrade slope as seen from the observer.

Or am I getting this totally wrong?
Are you placing the observer inside this frame so that the thought observers would be traveling with it and in the photons reference frame?

One observing from the back wall, sort of, and one observing from the front wall.
But then there shouldn't be any 'slope' (in any direction -+) should it?
They are at rest inside their frame of reference, or?
Where would that 'excess energy' of that 'blue shifted' photon hitting the back wall f. ex come from if they share the same reference frame?

I should have been more specific about how the red and blue shifts are measured. They are measured by detectors mounted on the front and back wall of the box.

In an inertial reference frame the Doppler shift is simply related to the relative velocity between the source at the time of emission and the detector at the time of reception. If the relative velocity is towards each other then it is blueshifted and if the relative velocity is away then it is redshifted (it is also redshifted if the relative velocity is transverse).

In this case, consider an inertial frame where the front wall is at rest at the time of emission. By the time the light reaches the detector at the back wall the box will have accelerated such that the back wall is traveling towards the point of emission. Therefore it is blueshifted. The reverse holds in considering the case where the rear wall is at rest at the time of emission.

Btw, this is a minor point, but photons do not have a reference frame.

 

[Yor_on]

I should have been more specific about how the red and blue shifts are measured. They are measured by detectors mounted on the front and back wall of the box.

In an inertial reference frame the Doppler shift is simply related to the relative velocity between the source at the time of emission and the detector at the time of reception. If the relative velocity is towards each other then it is blueshifted and if the relative velocity is away then it is redshifted (it is also redshifted if the relative velocity is transverse).

In this case, consider an inertial frame where the front wall is at rest at the time of emission. By the time the light reaches the detector at the back wall the box will have accelerated such that the back wall is traveling towards the point of emission. Therefore it is blueshifted. The reverse holds in considering the case where the rear wall is at rest at the time of emission.

Btw, this is a minor point, but photons do not have a reference frame.

Yes, that was how I after pondering some thought that you might mean:)
But my point there is that inside that elevator: accelerating at one G constantly all objects would be at rest relative each other?
So how would there be any red/blueshift as seen from 'inside' the reference frame?
I get stuck there:)

The explanation might either be that I'm bicycling in the blue younder (No big surprise there:) or that when describing it you look at it 'from the outside' seeing that black box moving relative the detector, in which case, as I see it, if you were placed so that you could see the detectors you would observe a redshift when observing from behind that moving frame and blueshifted when observing it coming towards you.

But it do seem as your description has its own reality to it, even though I can't see how I should see it for the moment:)

As for photons having no frame I presume you are thinking of its velocity? 'c'.
That always will be the same?

But they will become either blue or redshifted when observed from another reference frame.
And inside that 'moving' box with a light bulb situated in the middle and two detectors rigged up at each side of it, in the direction of the box velocity, you say that it will be redshifted as the box moves 'toward' the lightsource?

So by that reasoning it seems to me that we will have a reference for where no velocity exist?
We only have to observe a lightsource while remaining inside that box.
If the light then shows the same frequency as observed from all (360 degrees all over, slice by slice all directions:) sides, should then this frame be seen as unmoving?

If you see how I think here.

 

[Dale]

Yes, that was how I after pondering some thought that you might mean:)
But my point there is that inside that elevator: accelerating at one G constantly all objects would be at rest relative each other?
So how would there be any red/blueshift as seen from 'inside' the reference frame?
I get stuck there:)

As I said to Phrak, I don't know how to work the problem quantitatively in that frame. But it is not really necessary since all frames must agree on all experimental results. That said, qualitatively it is easy to see that in the non-inertial frame there is a potential energy, so as a photon goes down it gains energy and is therefore blueshifted and as it goes up it loses energy and is therefore redshifted.

As for photons having no frame I presume you are thinking of its velocity? 'c'.
That always will be the same?

Correct. An object's frame is the frame where its velocity is 0, and a photon's velocity is c in all frames, so there is no frame where a photon's velocity is 0.

 

[Phrak]

As I said to Phrak, I don't know how to work the problem quantitatively in that frame. But it is not really necessary since all frames must agree on all experimental results. That said, qualitatively it is easy to see that in the non-inertial frame there is a potential energy, so as a photon goes down it gains energy and is therefore blueshifted and as it goes up it loses energy and is therefore redshifted.

I'm not sure if you were responding to me or not. I'm nearly incapable with my current schedule of doing any physics in most days of the week, other than pondering, but if I quantize the energy and momentum, it seems to yield a solution in the accelerating frame--not the full quantization but a requirment of that E/omega and p/k be constants. It shouldn't depend on quantum mechanics; it's got to be crazy or wrong.

 

[atyy]

I'm not sure if you were responding to me or not. I'm nearly incapable with my current schedule of doing any physics in most days of the week, other than pondering, but if I quantize the energy and momentum, it seems to yield a solution in the accelerating frame--not the full quantization but a requirment of that E/omega and p/k be constants. It shouldn't depend on quantum mechanics; it's got to be crazy or wrong.

Apparently if you quantize in flat spacetime, there's the Unruh effect in which the ground state in the accelerated frame is not the same as the ground state in the inertial frame.

 

[Dale]

What does quantization have to do with any of this? I mean, reflection is not a quantized phenomenon.

 

[Dale]

I'm not sure if you were responding to me or not.

I was responding to Yor On

 

[Phrak]

What does quantization have to do with any of this? I mean, reflection is not a quantized phenomenon.

I'll have to get back at you later.

 

[Yor_on]

Dale, thanks for your patience here:)
If one look at Earth and that experiment(s:) defining the speed of light.
And especially those testing for that elusive 'ether'.

And looked at Earth as a moving object, rotating, orbiting the sun, and traveling with the solar system at a speed of??
Shouldn't that show itself as red and blue shift when making those experiments.
Or is it that we are 'at rest' relative those experiments that explains it?

 

[Phrak]

pervect does light in a box. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116769"

 

[mrpeach32]

Wow, I never thought it would get this many replies, I stopped looking after my last reply. Very interested stuff, everyone, thanks!