Understanding de Broglie formula for massless particles

outoftown
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have taken down in my notes that for massless particles the formula by DeBrogle becomes
E = pc, where p is momentum and c is the speed of light.

But what I don't understand is how you can calculate momentum without mass? I thought momentum was mass times velocity? The specific example I am thinking of is photons. Thanks for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Dear OutOfTown,

The first thing you should do is open your notebook. Where it says "DeBrogle", cross that out and write the man's actual name, "de Broglie". What you need to know is that he was French and has a wavelength named after him. Next, in the margin alongside "E = pc" write, "This formula has nothing to do with Louis de Broglie or quantum mechanics. It comes from special relativity and applies to any massless object."

Momentum is an important concept in mechanics. For a slowly moving particle, p = mv, but that is not its definition. Primarily, momentum is the quantity that enters into Newton's second law of motion, and is conserved, meaning that its total value is the same before and after a collision. For a rapidly moving particle, p = γmv, where m is the rest mass and γ = 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2). People who want to insist that p = mv call γm the relativistic mass, but that is more confusing than it is useful. When you're dealing with particles that are relativistic, rather than talk about v = 0.999 c or v = 0.9999 c, it's much easier to give the particle's momentum.

In general, the relationship between energy and momentum is E = sqrt(p2c2 + m2c4). For a particle at rest this reduces to E = mc2, while for a massless particle it reduces to E = pc.
 


It reduces to e = pc.

from Planck's quantum hypothesis, E = hf

so pc = hf and p = hf/c for a massless particle
 


Someone needs to fix the spelling of "de Broglie" in the title of this thread.

Otherwise it will be missed in searches.
..
 


Gordon Watson said:
Someone needs to fix the spelling of "de Broglie" in the title of this thread.

Otherwise it will be missed in searches.
..

Done. Thanks Gordon.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top