Understanding Light as a Particle and Wave

  • Thread starter Thread starter supersmiffy26
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
supersmiffy26
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Ok, so light is both a wave and a particle. That's fine, I accept that.
If a photon is a particle it must therefore have a mass.
But, Einstein's theory of relativity states that material bodies cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
As a particle approaches the speed of light it becomes heavier i.e. its mass increases.
If a particle is traveling at the speed of light, its mass is infinite. It would require an infinite force to move it.

So...how does this account for light being a particle-the photon?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
supersmiffy26 said:
If a photon is a particle it must therefore have a mass.

That depends on which kind of mass you're talking about: rest mass or relativistic mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. The general relationship between energy, momentum and rest mass is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2. For a photon this reduces to E = pc.

Of course, "rest mass" sounds kind of silly when we're talking about photons, which can never be at rest. That's why many physicists use the term "invariant mass" instead.

The usual formula for relativistic mass doesn't work for photons because it reduces to 0/0 which is undefined mathematically. Instead you can say the relativistic mass of a photon is given by E = mc^2, that is, m = E/c^2.
 
supersmiffy26 said:
If a photon is a particle it must therefore have a mass.
Where do you draw this conclusion from?
 
And who says light is a particle anyway? It behaves, at times, like a particle or wave, but light is, in fact, not a particle or a wave. Light is something else altogether.
 
i thought light was a particle whose movement is determined by EM waves?
 
jtbell said:
That depends on which kind of mass you're talking about: rest mass or relativistic mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. The general relationship between energy, momentum and rest mass is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2. For a photon this reduces to E = pc.

Of course, "rest mass" sounds kind of silly when we're talking about photons, which can never be at rest. That's why many physicists use the term "invariant mass" instead.

The usual formula for relativistic mass doesn't work for photons because it reduces to 0/0 which is undefined mathematically. Instead you can say the relativistic mass of a photon is given by E = mc^2, that is, m = E/c^2.
Many say that the photon has no mass! As I see on the Forum that gives place to confusions.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top