Time in QFT and in special relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of time in special relativity and its implications in quantum field theory (QFT), particularly in the context of photons and electrons. Participants explore the differences between massive and massless particles, the treatment of photons as particles or energy, and the mathematical representations in QFT.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that special relativity indicates time does not run for a photon, while every moving elementary particle has a rest frame in some inertial system, which photons do not possess.
  • Others clarify that electrons have non-zero invariant mass, whereas photons have zero invariant mass, highlighting a fundamental difference in QED.
  • There is a discussion about the mathematical representation of particles in QFT, particularly the differences in propagators for massive and massless particles.
  • Some participants question the classification of photons as particles, suggesting they might be better described as forms of energy, and raise concerns about the implications of assigning a theoretical mass to photons.
  • One participant mentions that the treatment of massive and massless fields in modern textbooks is evolving, with a shift from the terminology of "particles" to "fields."
  • There is a mention of the concept of "relativistic mass" versus "invariant mass," noting that the former changes under velocity transformations while the latter remains invariant.
  • One participant introduces the idea of light-cone inertial systems, suggesting that photons can be considered at rest in such a system, which contrasts with Lorentz inertial systems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of photons, their classification, and the implications of their mass (or lack thereof). There is no consensus on how these concepts should be interpreted within the framework of QFT and special relativity.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of mass and energy in the context of QFT, and the discussion includes unresolved mathematical distinctions and assumptions about the nature of particles and fields.

exponent137
Messages
563
Reaction score
35
Special relativity gives that time for a (traveler on) photon do not run. It also gives that every moving elementary particle rest in some inertial system, but photon does not rest in any inertial system.

But how this can be visible in Quantum field theory or in QED? An electron and a photon are too similar in QED.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
exponent137 said:
An electron and a photon are too similar in QED.
Not really. Electrons have non-zero invariant mass, whereas a photon's is 0.
 
strangerep said:
Not really. Electrons have non-zero invariant mass, whereas a photon's is 0.
This is true, it is seen in propagator like [itex]1/(m^2+p^2)[/itex].

But it is not enough explained, how physics with m and without m in propagator is different?
It is also not enough explained how calculations are essentially different?
 
exponent137 said:
Special relativity gives that time for a (traveler on) photon do not run. It also gives that every moving elementary particle rest in some inertial system, but photon does not rest in any inertial system.

But how this can be visible in Quantum field theory or in QED? An electron and a photon are too similar in QED.

If photons have no mass then why do we treat them as particles?
A photon probably is a form of energy, not a particle.
The best we can do is give it a theoretical mass as

Energy equivalent of photon mass = m(photon) = hf/(c2).
Will it then run into trouble with Relativity?
 
exponent137 said:
But it is not enough explained, how physics with m and without m in propagator is different? It is also not enough explained how calculations are essentially different?
That depends on which textbook you're reading. (You didn't which textbooks you've studied).

Advanced treatments like Weinberg give a lot of detail about the differences between massive and massless field representations of the Poincare group.
 
Neandethal00 said:
If photons have no mass then why do we treat them as particles?
Photons have zero invariant mass. In modern textbooks, both massive and massless fields are constructed as representations of the Poincare group. The older terminology of "particle" is gradually being replaced by "field".
A photon probably is a form of energy, not a particle.
It's misleading to say that a photon "is" a form of energy. A more accurate picture is that a photon field has both energy and momentum.
The best we can do is give it a theoretical mass as
Energy equivalent of photon mass = m(photon) = hf/(c2).
Will it then run into trouble with Relativity?
What you describe is called the "relativistic mass", which is a distinct concept from "invariant mass". (Both can be useful in different circumstances.)

Relativistic mass changes under velocity boost transformations. But invariant mass is (surprise!) invariant under those transformations.

Wikipedia has more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

Rindler's textbook on special relativity is also quite good.
 
exponent137 said:
but photon does not rest in any inertial system.
It does, but not in a Lorentz inertial system. It is at rest in a light-cone inertial system. The coordinate transformation from Lorentz coordinates x, t to light-cone coordinates x', t' is
x'=x-ct
t'=x+ct
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K