Unraveling the Mystery of the Massless Photon

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Quarlep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Photon
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of massless photons and the equations relating energy, momentum, and mass. Participants explore the implications of the equations E=pc and P=mc in the context of photons, addressing both relativistic and non-relativistic perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the equations E=pc and P=mc apply to photons, questioning how a massless particle can satisfy these equations.
  • Others clarify that the equation P=mc is derived from non-relativistic physics and that photons are described by the relativistic equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where m refers to invariant mass.
  • A participant points out that the equation for relativistic momentum, p = mv/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), leads to undefined results for photons, prompting further discussion on the validity of mathematical manipulations involving massless particles.
  • Some participants challenge the use of certain equations for photons, emphasizing that they are only valid when mass is non-zero, while others argue about the interpretation of limits and mathematical continuity in their calculations.
  • There is a discussion about the ambiguity of the term "mass," with some noting that modern terminology favors invariant mass over relativistic mass.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of certain equations to photons, with no consensus reached on the validity of specific mathematical manipulations or interpretations of mass. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the nature of massless particles.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass and the unresolved nature of mathematical steps related to the behavior of photons in relativistic equations.

Quarlep
Messages
257
Reaction score
4
We know the equation E=pc or P=mc both of them are avaliable for photon.But photon is a massless particle.How can that be possible ?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What exactly is the problem here?

And have you read the FAQ in the Relativity forum?

Zz.
 
Quarlep said:
P=mc

I guess you got this from p = mv which is non-relativistic. Photons are relativistic objects and therefore follow the relativistic equation ##E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2## where m is the invariant mass a.k.a. "rest mass" (yes, it's a silly name for the mass of a photon which is never at rest), which gives you your E = pc.

The usual equation for relativistic momentum in terms of velocity is
$$p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$
but this doesn't work for photons because it gives p = 0/0 which is undefined mathematically.
 
There happened math error can you wrote it again please ?
 
Please read: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511175
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quarlep said:
We know the equation E=pc

Yes.
or P=mc both of them are avaliable for photon.

False, in the case of photon $$p=\frac{h}{ \lambda}$$
But photon is a massless particle.How can that be possible ?
Thanks

It isn't , you are making a mistake, see above.
 
Is it possible OP means:

P = E/c = (E/c2)c = mc ?

Thus a gross abuse of relativistic mass, and another reason it has fallen out of favor.
 
Quarlep said:
There happened math error can you wrote it again please ?

Are you referring to my equations? I see them OK. Are you using the PF app on a smartphone or other mobile device? I think LaTeX equations are properly visible only in a web browser. I can see them in Safari on my wife's iPad, as well as in Firefox on my main computer.

However, using the PF app on the iPad, I see only the LaTeX source code.
 
jtbell said:
The usual equation for relativistic momentum in terms of velocity is
$$p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$
but this doesn't work for photons because it gives p = 0/0 which is undefined mathematically.

It is not undefined. After substitution with
[tex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/tex]
the result for the removable discontinuity is
[tex]\left| p \right| = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{\left| v \right| \to c} \frac{{E \cdot \left| v \right|}}{{c^2 }} \cdot \frac{{\sqrt {c^2 - v^2 } }}{{\sqrt {c^2 - v^2 } }} = \frac{E}{c}[/tex]
 
  • #10
DrStupid said:
It is not undefined. After substitution with
[tex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/tex]
the result for the removable discontinuity is
[tex]\left| p \right| = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{\left| v \right| \to c} \frac{{E \cdot \left| v \right|}}{{c^2 }} \cdot \frac{{\sqrt {c^2 - v^2 } }}{{\sqrt {c^2 - v^2 } }} = \frac{E}{c}[/tex]

You cannot do this types of manipulations since both [tex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/tex] and [tex]p=\frac{mv}{\sqrt {1 - (v/c)^2}}[/tex] are valid ONLY for [tex]m \ne 0[/tex].

As such, the formulas cannot be applied to the photon, as you are trying to do in your calculations.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
xox said:
You cannot do this types of manipulations since both [tex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/tex] and [tex]p=\frac{mv}{\sqrt {1 - (v/c)^2}}[/tex] are valid ONLY for [tex]m \ne 0[/tex]

Did you noticed the limes?
 
  • #12
DrStupid said:
Did you noticed the limes?

Yes, I noticed, your STARTING point is wrong, i.e. your error occurs BEFORE you take the limits.
 
  • #13
Quarlep said:
We know the equation E=pc or P=mc both of them are avaliable for photon.But photon is a massless particle.How can that be possible ?
Thanks

Hopefully you've read the FAQ by now.

When we say that a photon has no mass, we mean that it has no invariant mass or rest mass. When you write P=mc, you are using relativistic mass, which is equal to E/c^2.

Thus the term "mass" is ambiguous. Modern textbooks and papers tend to use invariant mass, while older textbooks and popularizations still often use relativistic mass.

Given that we know that the "mass" in your second equation is the old-fashioned "relativistic mass", the second equation is just a restatement of the first

P = m_relativistic * c is the same as P = (E/c^2)*c = E/c which is the same as E = pc

As a side note, the general relativistic relationship between energy, momentum, and invariant mass is given by:

E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
 
  • #14
xox said:
Yes, I noticed, your STARTING point is wrong, i.e. your error occurs BEFORE you take the limits.

What exactly is wrong with my starting point?
 
  • #15
DrStupid said:
What exactly is wrong with my starting point?

I thought this is quite clear.
 
  • #16
xox said:
I thought this is quite clear.

No, it's not. As I do not set m=0 it does not refer to my calculation. And as you noticed the limes you should be aware of that. So what's your point?
 
  • #17
DrStupid said:
It is not undefined. After substitution with
[tex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/tex]
the result for the removable discontinuity is
[tex]\left| p \right| = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{\left| v \right| \to c} \frac{{E \cdot \left| v \right|}}{{c^2 }} \cdot \frac{{\sqrt {c^2 - v^2 } }}{{\sqrt {c^2 - v^2 } }} = \frac{E}{c}[/tex]

You CANNOT start with [itex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/itex] since it DOES NOT apply to photons. One day you'll get it.
 
  • #18
xox said:
You CANNOT start with [itex]E = \frac{{m \cdot c^2 }}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{v^2 }}{{c^2 }}} }}[/itex] since it DOES NOT apply to photons. One day you'll get it.

I demonstrated how to do it. It's quite simple math. One day you'll get it.
 
  • #19
Closed pending moderation
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
605
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K