Understanding the Massless Photon

[ZapperZ]

I think it means what it is defined to mean as defined in Wikipedia.

And Wikipedia is always right and has a better definition than Ashcroft and Mermin's Solid State text? I am the last person you want to shove a Wikipedia reference to.

I don't understand your confusion. Are you telling me that you don't know what momentum or speed is?

No, I asked YOU to use the definition that you have adopted as being universal and make sense of it when applied to the crystal momentum.

By the way, when I wrote "So according to Frenchl anything that has momentum has speed." It as a gross error on my part. That should have read "So according to French anything that has momentum and speed has inertial mass." Perhaps this is the source of your confusion??

This is not a unique place to see the term "inertial mass" defined in this way. Schutz also uses the term in the same way as French.

Then give me what I want with the crystal momentum!

Re - The statement Clearly, it is another name for "energy" (in other units). may be wrong. Please see

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_momentum_density.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/rd_paradox.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_energy_vs_mass.htm

Best wishes

Pete

You cannot argue something is wrong by citing your unpublished work. You are giving the misleading impression that someone ELSE also agrees with this and that this is part of a larger, accepted work. This is also in violation of our rules that you have to cite valid sources. And we define valid sources as being either peer-reviewed published works, or work that are part of standard accepted physics. Please do not do this anymore or those references will be edited out.

Zz.

 

[pmb_phy]

And Wikipedia is always right and has a better definition than Ashcroft and Mermin's Solid State text? I am the last person you want to shove a Wikipedia reference to.

I was merely telling you what definition I was going by. This is a relativity forum so what makes you think that I know what crystal momentum is? Do you actually think I claim to know every single term and concept that exists in physics today? If so then you need a reality check. Actually I've never even heard of this crystal momentum and I don't have a text on solid state physics and I never learned of it in either as an undergraduate or as a graduate student.

No, I asked YOU to use the definition that you have adopted as being universal and make sense of it when applied to the crystal momentum.

Tell you what. Why don't you provide the definition of momentum as it is used in relativity and apply it to your little example.

I'll ask Reilly about this. He's very good at this kind of thing.

You cannot argue something is wrong by citing your unpublished work.

But I can argue something with logic and a mathematical derivation using the principles of relativity. Everybody does it here so there's no reason why I can't. I am not citing something by posting a link to a derivation which can't fit into one of these posts. It turned out to be much better for me since people are often asking the same questions so instead of re-writing the same answers over and over and over again I create a web page for it. Many people here have very much appreciated those pages and have bookmarked them. So you're saying you want to deprive work because you have a personal problem with me? No other mentor has had a problem with this for the time I arrived here except you today.

But the worst part of your attitude is that you're speaking from a point of ignorance. You should have looked at the pages before you complained about them. I never said that those particular pages were my work. In fact I post the relevant published work on which it is based at the bottom of the page. Otherwise I state that it is my derivation. There is nothing wrongwith posting derivations.

You are giving the misleading impression that someone ELSE also agrees with this and that this is part of a larger, accepted work. This is also in violation of our rules that you have to cite valid sources. And we define valid sources as being either peer-reviewed published works, or work that are part of standard accepted physics. Please do not do this anymore or those references will be edited out.

First off you really need to look at the pages you're whining about before posting this kind of irritating post.

In the second place there is is nothing wrong with posting a derivation/proof of something in a post. We all do it. However some derivations are too long and difficult to post in Latex in a post. It was for that reason I created those web pages - ease of explanation.

And if you delete these links in the future then that is my invitation from you to leave and I will happily do so. I come here only to help others in a field I love so much. I did not come here to listen to comments such as the ones you're providing today. I am not in a place in my life where I want to tolerate such comments such as these.

Since its rather easy to predict what the response to this post is then I say thee fairwell and I will end my posting career here at this point.

Bye bye.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was merely telling you what definition I was going by. This is a relativity forum so what makes you think that I know what crystal momentum is? Do you actually think I claim to know every single term and concept that exists in physics today? If so then you need a reality check. Actually I've never even heard of this crystal momentum and I don't have a text on solid state physics and I never learned of it in either as an undergraduate or as a graduate student.

But you seem to have ignored my original complaint, that you have somehow adopted A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION of momentum and speed. I know what forum this is. However, to say that your definition only works for so-and-so and not when QM kicks in makes it a highly dubious claim. THAT was my argument.

Please note that in many papers regarding the definition of "mass" and "momentum", the QM issue was never neglected! How can they when it is also such a central issue of what we actually measure! How do you think a measurement of a photon's momentum is made? Would you care to speculate on the assumption made to enable the extraction of the photon interaction that produces such momentum? Or what about the "momentum" and "speed" of charge particles, especially elementary particles? What do you think is the most accurate means to determine such a thing?

ALL of those experimental observations on which anyone tries to based his/her ideas on ARE quantum measurements! So I find it highly incredulous that you think it is justifiable that somehow THAT part of physics can be safely ignored!

Tell you what. Why don't you provide the definition of momentum as it is used in relativity and apply it to your little example.

I'm NOT the one who goes around saying that I have a clear-cut definition of anything - YOU DO! I'm also not hung-up on any form of definition when the mathematical formulation is so clear that physicists don't go around using the WRONG formalism. Have you seen such issues popping up in physics? For example, when papers kept being published on the measurement of the upper limit of the photon "mass", do you see them using the WRONG formulation, regardless of what being measured is called? No? Thus, *I* personally have no use in those word games, so I am not the one here who is making a claim of anything regarding how people define "mass", "momentum", and "speed". Again, in case you forgot, you did! That was why I asked you to apply it in a particular situation.

But I can argue something with logic and a mathematical derivation using the principles of relativity. Everybody does it here so there's no reason why I can't. I am not citing something by posting a link to a derivation which can't fit into one of these posts. It turned out to be much better for me since people are often asking the same questions so instead of re-writing the same answers over and over and over again I create a web page for it. Many people here have very much appreciated those pages and have bookmarked them. So you're saying you want to deprive work because you have a personal problem with me? No other mentor has had a problem with this for the time I arrived here except you today.

But the worst part of your attitude is that you're speaking from a point of ignorance. You should have looked at the pages before you complained about them. I never said that those particular pages were my work. In fact I post the relevant published work on which it is based at the bottom of the page. Otherwise I state that it is my derivation. There is nothing wrongwith posting derivations.


First off you really need to look at the pages you're whining about before posting this kind of irritating post.

In the second place there is is nothing wrong with posting a derivation/proof of something in a post. We all do it. However some derivations are too long and difficult to post in Latex in a post. It was for that reason I created those web pages - ease of explanation.

And if you delete these links in the future then that is my invitation from you to leave and I will happily do so. I come here only to help others in a field I love so much. I did not come here to listen to comments such as the ones you're providing today. I am not in a place in my life where I want to tolerate such comments such as these.

Since its rather easy to predict what the response to this post is then I say thee fairwell and I will end my posting career here at this point.

Bye bye.

If you have noticed, pervect even had to point out your earlier reference to your unpublished papers. I would strongly suggest that you do not cite this UNTIL it is published.

I HAVE read your links, and quite a few times since you used it quite often. There is a difference between stating standard facts and stating OPINIONS! If you think YOUR definition of what a "mass" is is simply "logic", then it is you who are showing your arrogance, because there are point of views that disagree with you. Just look at the discussion on PF on this each time you brought it up! This is ample proof that it isn't just a matter of mathematical derivation that is contained in your links - you assert YOUR point of view of the physical meaning of such-and-such which may or may NOT be in line of what you'd find in a standard text.

If all you care about is truly trying to bring out the logical derivation of something that is constantly asked, then there are plenty of other legitimate sites that stick to addressing such issues. This includes the often-asked questions about photon mass! In fact, when such a question is being asked, it is often done by someone who is NOT familiar with basic SR. I put it to you that by pointing out what you have on your webpage will cause even MORE confusion than necessary. Why you can't just use the answer given in practically all standard SR textbooks (and already repeated many times on here) is beyond me.

Zz.

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

Jammer's virus

I would say that photons have a zero invariant mass. If pressed, I would admit that they have a non-zero "relativistic mass", though I would be quick to point out that I personally did not like relativistic mass.

But you asked about "inertial mass". I'm not quite sure what you mean by "inertial mass". At a guess, you are trying to divide the momentum of a photon by its speed (which is always 'c') and come up with a number. This number will depend on the frame of reference - it will not be a property of the photon alone.

My general remark would be this: photons carry momentum and energy. This should be clearly understood. The idea of "mass" is actually somewhat of an "umbrella concept" - the name "mass" is an "umbrella" which covers a large number of closely related, but different, concepts. You'll really need to learn about mass in Newtonian mechanics, mass in special relativity (invariant mass and perhaps relativistic mass) and mass in general relativity (ADM mass, Bondi mass, Komar mass) separately. To quote Max Jammer, "Mass is a mess".

For some online reading, samples of Max Jammer's two books on mass are available on Google. They appear to be some of the better non-technical references out there.

http://books.google.com/books?q=max+jammer+mass&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

You can find the remark about "mass is a mess" at http://books.google.com/books?vid=I...x+jammer+mass&sig=rvmUlL1YxTTmzI_MxSEwoJB7fzo

The umbrella analogy is AFAIK mine, however.

I fully aggree with your first four lines.
Proposing Jammer somebody will tell you the following
High Energy Physics - Phenomenology, abstract
hep-ph/0602037
From: Lev Okun [view email]
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:58:53 GMT (19kb)
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year
Authors: L.B. Okun
Comments: 19 pages, Presented at the 12th Lomonosov conference on Elementary Particle Physics, Moscow State University, August 25-31

Various facets of the concept of mass are discussed. The masses of elementary particles and the search for higgs. The masses of hadrons. The pedagogical virus of relativistic mass.
Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
As I see, discussions on physics help take sometimes a very unpolite character. That is why I finish with
sine ira et studio

 

[MeJennifer]

And if you delete these links in the future then that is my invitation from you to leave and I will happily do so. I come here only to help others in a field I love so much. I did not come here to listen to comments such as the ones you're providing today. I am not in a place in my life where I want to tolerate such comments such as these.

Since its rather easy to predict what the response to this post is then I say thee fairwell and I will end my posting career here at this point.

Bye bye.

To me that is very unfortunate, I very much appreciated your explanations on GR issues. Let me know which forum you will post in the future by private email.

ZapperZ:
Zapper, I fail to understand your frequent harshness to people here. You are supposed to be a mentor but instead you come over as a very arrogant person.

 

[ZapperZ]

To me that is very unfortunate, I very much appreciated your explanations on GR issues. Let me know which forum you will post in the future by private email.

ZapperZ:
Zapper, I fail to understand your frequent harshness to people here. You are supposed to be a mentor but instead you come over as a very arrogant person.

It may appear that way, but I have to impose the rules uniformly. I had asked for the opinions of other Mentors on the issue of citing one's own website as if it is a "reference". It is unfair to require others to cite valid references while we look the other way for some people.

And as for being "arrogance", we ALL get accused of being such a creature at one time or another. Try looking in another thread in this very subforum and you'll see that pmb has been accused of being one himself. So like SR itself, such a term is highly "relative".

Zz.

 

[pmb_phy]

It may appear that way, but I have to impose the rules uniformly. I had asked for the opinions of other Mentors on the issue of citing one's own website as if it is a "reference". It is unfair to require others to cite valid references while we look the other way for some people.

And as for being "arrogance", we ALL get accused of being such a creature at one time or another. Try looking in another thread in this very subforum and you'll see that pmb has been accused of being one himself. So like SR itself, such a term is highly "relative".

Zz.

Then the rules are inadequate for my purposes and I find that I no longer wish to post under these restraints.

 

[pmb_phy]

To me that is very unfortunate, I very much appreciated your explanations on GR issues. Let me know which forum you will post in the future by private email.

ZapperZ:
Zapper, I fail to understand your frequent harshness to people here. You are supposed to be a mentor but instead you come over as a very arrogant person.

Hi Jen - I'll very much miss you and others and this forum. But ZapperZ goes to far or the rules are pretty dumb. In either case I'm not going to place myself in such an environment. I'll PM my e-mail address to you and where I will head to after here. Please pass it on to those who wish to know. You're a sharp person so I'd hate to loose track of you and the others.

Jen (May I call you that?) - Please find this rule that ZapperZ claims to exist. I can't believe it was written to be interpreted the way ZapperZ interprets it. In anycase its people deleting and editing what I post that I find highly offensive. If ZapperZ thinks its possible to give a complete explanation of a subject which requires a ton of explaining to fully comprehend in a single thread that he's totally out there. E.g. To explain the concept of mass in relativity sufficiently it took me 17 pages of well thought out writing to do that. And IT would be silly to keep posting it again and again when people ask the same question. Its better to write the derivation/explanation up and post it on my web site.

Best wishes

Pete

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

harshness on the forum

To me that is very unfortunate, I very much appreciated your explanations on GR issues. Let me know which forum you will post in the future by private email.

ZapperZ:
Zapper, I fail to understand your frequent harshness to people here. You are supposed to be a mentor but instead you come over as a very arrogant person.

I think that there are professions where harshness should be avoided. Teachers should be a good example for learners offering information and constructive criticism.

 

[Lelan Thara]

.
Turns out that certain particles have this constant equal to 0. In that case, the relationship simplifies to E = |p| c
It turns out that these things can only travel at light speed.

Can you clarify one thing for me? When you say that a particle with no rest mass "can only travel at light speed" - do you mean the speed of light in a vacuum, or the speed of light within whatever medium is in question? Photons do travel at less than the speed of light in a vacuum when in a denser medium, right?

Here's another question - I've always heard that a massive object that accelerated to the speed of light would acquire an infinite mass. So a photon leaving, say, glass and entering a vacuum would accelerate to c - and if it possessed mass, become infinitely massive - right? How do you square this with the possibility of photons having a relativistic mass?

Since there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum - is it possible that no photon ever actually reaches c?

As for your "rest mass/relative mass" thread wars - let me just say that I assume you guys have been asked to answer questions similar to mine more times than you care to remember. I really appreciate that you folks have had the patience to answer my questions. (And I do hope I don't bore you all into a thread war. )

 

[pervect]

I fully aggree with your first four lines.
Proposing Jammer somebody will tell you the following
High Energy Physics - Phenomenology, abstract
hep-ph/0602037
From: Lev Okun [view email]
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:58:53 GMT (19kb)
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year
Authors: L.B. Okun
Comments: 19 pages, Presented at the 12th Lomonosov conference on Elementary Particle Physics, Moscow State University, August 25-31

Various facets of the concept of mass are discussed. The masses of elementary particles and the search for higgs. The masses of hadrons. The pedagogical virus of relativistic mass.
Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
As I see, discussions on physics help take sometimes a very unpolite character. That is why I finish with
sine ira et studio

I take it that you don't necessarily agree that "mass is a mess"? Or perhaps you are simply reserving judgment? Interestingly enough, Okun himself makes similar remarks in the paper you cite, which is available online.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602037

"There is no doubt that the problem of mass is one of the key problems
of modern physics. Though there is no common opinion even among the experts what is the essence of this problem. For most of particle theorists, as well as members of LHC community, the solution of the problem is connected with the quest and discovery of the higgs – scalar boson which in the Standard Model is responsible for the masses of leptons and quarks and their electroweak messengers: W and Z. The discovery of higgs and the study of higgs sector might elucidate the problem of the pattern of hierarchy of masses of leptons and quarks: from milli electron Volts for neutrinos to about 180 GeV for t-quark. For many physicists it is a QCD problem: how light quarks and massless gluons form massive nucleons and atomic nuclei. Still for majority of confused students and science journalists there is no difference between mass of a body m and its energy E divided by c2: they believe in the “most famous formula E = mc2”.

Anyway, to express my POV in a sometwhat different manner:

Energy and momentum can be defined independently of mass, via Noether's theorem. This is somewhat technical, but serves as a perfectly adaquate definition. Hopefully, people have some intuitive ideas of what energy and momentum are, and how they can be measured.

Mass can then be regarded as a quantity that is derived from energy and momentum.

This avoids some of the issues that come up when mass is viewed as a "quantity of material", an idea that originated with Newton, but was soon regarded as unsatisfactory. Philosophically, one builds on a stronger base by taking the opposite tack, and defining energy and momentum in a manner that does not rely on the "problematical" concept of mass.

I'm not sure who first pointed out the problems with Newton's original definition - but the unit for the quantity of matter (as in counting the number of particles) is really the mole, not the kg. In the context of GR, for example, if one takes two 1kg masses and place them together, the total mass of the system will be very very slightly different than 2kg, due to the gravitational interaction of the components - at least if one uses one of the usal GR defintions of mass, such as the ADM, Bondi, or Komar defintions.

 

[nakurusil]

Can you clarify one thing for me? When you say that a particle with no rest mass "can only travel at light speed" - do you mean the speed of light in a vacuum, or the speed of light within whatever medium is in question? Photons do travel at less than the speed of light in a vacuum when in a denser medium, right?

Here's another question - I've always heard that a massive object that accelerated to the speed of light would acquire an infinite mass. So a photon leaving, say, glass and entering a vacuum would accelerate to c - and if it possessed mass, become infinitely massive - right? How do you square this with the possibility of photons having a relativistic mass?

Since there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum - is it possible that no photon ever actually reaches c?

As for your "rest mass/relative mass" thread wars - let me just say that I assume you guys have been asked to answer questions similar to mine more times than you care to remember. I really appreciate that you folks have had the patience to answer my questions. (And I do hope I don't bore you all into a thread war. )

The photon travels at c, always. Even in materials with the refraction index n>1. In such material the photons get repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted. This process appears to slow down the photons when , in reality, between every emission and absorption the photons travel at c.
This is why, when they exit the material, they are not accelerated to c, they are simply re-emitted at c.
As to the perfect vacuum, the interstellar space approaches it very closely.

 

[Lelan Thara]

The photon travels at c, always. Even in materials with the refraction index n>1. In such material the photons get repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted. This process appears to slow down the photons when , in reality, between every emission and absorption the photons travel at c.
This is why, when they exit the material, they are not accelerated to c, they are simply re-emitted at c.
As to the perfect vacuum, the interstellar space approaches it very closely.

Wow. That is completely news to me. Thanks very much, Nakurusil.

 

[pmb_phy]

It may appear that way, but I have to impose the rules uniformly. I had asked for the opinions of other Mentors on the issue of citing one's own website as if it is a "reference".

Show me where I said "My web poage is a reference" rather than "On this web page I derive..."??

Also, where are these rules you're referring to so I can at least read for myself whether what you're claiming I'm doing is really violating the rules? I'm nearly 99.99% sure that they as are you claim and for that reason I wouldn't post here in the future. Exactly how many mentors are there which you claim to agree that web pages with basic/simple derivations may not be linked to? How many did you ask? How many disagreed with you?

 

[pmb_phy]

This is also in violation of our rules that you have to cite valid sources. And we define valid sources as being either peer-reviewed published works, or work that are part of standard accepted physics. Please do not do this anymore or those references will be edited out.

This is quite incorrect. I just looked at the rules I agreed to abide by when I signed up. The state exactly the following

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Nothing in this has anything to do with your claims. Show me where in that set of rules where posters agree to cite valid sources and where the term "valid source" is defined. Otherwise it appears to me that that you're simply being malicious and abusing your mentor privilages.

If you refuse to cite these rules you claim exist then I've decided conntinue posting at the urge of my fellow posters, God bless'm.

Other forums which are operated like this and use the same forum structure have no such rules. To be precise a moderator there told me this

We get quacks coming over telling us Einstein is wrong and they've managed to unite all the forces without using math...if you fit into this category, which it appears you don't, don't worry about your links. This rule is made for us to be able to remove content such as quack theories...discussing accepted physics and theory is fine...what's not fine is to publish your theories on our site as a form of peer review.

Pete

 

[pegleg bates]

The complete relativistic expression for the energy of a particle is this:
E = \sqrt{p^2c^2 + m^2c^4}

Where p is the momentum. Note that for massive particles at rest (momentum = 0) that equation becomes the more familiar E = mc^2.

For a photon: the mass is zero, but the momentum and energy are non-zero. E = pc = hf.

Doc, that equation doesn't clear up the mystery of why a photon is massless, because p = mv. You are back to the original problem. Both components have mass, therefore both momentum and energy would equal 0.

 

[Doc Al]

Doc, that equation doesn't clear up the mystery of why a photon is massless, because p = mv. You are back to the original problem. Both components have mass, therefore both momentum and energy would equal 0.

In relativity, p ≠ mv. (Where I use m for the rest mass.) In that formula I provided, both E and p are non-zero for a photon, while m = 0. (Note that this thread is years old.)

 

[pegleg bates]

In relativity, p ≠ mv. (Where I use m for the rest mass.) In that formula I provided, both E and p are non-zero for a photon, while m = 0. (Note that this thread is years old.)

Got it. I know that this thread is old, but it conveniently came up when I searched for this question.