Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What attraction/repulsion?

  1. Oct 1, 2007 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2007 #2

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    what do you mean "how" ?
     
  4. Oct 2, 2007 #3

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The "exchange particles" transfer momentum and energy from one particle to another. Simplistically speaking, you can think of one particle as "emitting" an exchange particle, which carries off some of the first particle's energy and momentum. Then the exchange particle is "absorbed" by the second particle, whose energy and momentum changes as a result. The energy and momentum gained by the second particle equals the energy and momentum lost by the first particle.
     
  5. Oct 2, 2007 #4
    But all of these particles are massless, so how can they possibly CARRY energy?
     
  6. Oct 2, 2007 #5

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    They are not massless?

    And there is the Heisenbergs uncertainty priciple:

    [tex] \Delta E \Delta t \geq \hbar /2 [/tex]
     
  7. Oct 2, 2007 #6

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In relativity, the general relationship among mass, energy and momentum of a particle is

    [tex]E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2[/tex]

    When [itex]m_0 = 0[/itex], [itex]E = pc[/itex]. Note that classical electromagnetic waves also have this relationship between the energy and momentum that they carry, so it fits that photons have the same relationship.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2007 #7
    In english?(I am sorry but for once, I want to understand the whole thing, I look at math as a tool, not as a conceptual aid.) After I understand it completely, then I'll be interested in the math.
     
  9. Oct 3, 2007 #8

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Okay, but the language of modern(quantum) physics is math, that's just the way it is. Langragians, hamiltonians, propagators etc..

    But these are quite easy ones:

    [tex] \Delta [/tex] means uncertaninty,
    E is energy, t is time.
    So the Energy conservation can be violated, for as long as this equation is fulfilled.

    And the equation jtbell wrote just shows the equivalence of mass and energy and momentum. Massless particles DO carry energy, if they are in motion.
     
  10. Oct 3, 2007 #9

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

     
  11. Oct 3, 2007 #10
    Although, this time, I understood what you told me..it just made me more confused. How can massless particles carry energy?
     
  12. Oct 3, 2007 #11

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Thay can because there is "different types" of energy.

    Look at the photon:

    [tex] E_{\gamma} = hf = \dfrac{hc}{\lambda} [/tex]

    No mass in the expression for energy

    Have you somewere motivated WHY you think that massless particles cant carry energy?
     
  13. Oct 4, 2007 #12

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    [tex] F . l [/tex]

    If you can push an object with a force F along a distance l, you are carrying energy. Force is the quantity of momentum you can transfer by unit of time. The photon can transfer momentum, thus it can carry energy.

    Of course this leaves the real fundamental question: how is it that a massless particle can transfer momentum? Here you can start to discuss the foundations of special relativity and quantum mechanics. But do not worry about Force and Energy, they are mathematical concepts with big names.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2007
  14. Oct 4, 2007 #13

    mjsd

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    How can massive particles, in your opinion, carry energy then? What makes you think that mass is a necessary criterion to define/carry energy? are you thinking about [tex]E=\frac{1}{2} mv^2[/tex] ?
    look at the sun's radiation, it is full of energy right? but do you actually question whether it is the radiation that carries the energy or something else? Is the radiation massive or massless?
     
  15. Oct 4, 2007 #14
    I guess you are right, I have a mental block here. But then how do we define matter? I used to think anything that has mass or energy is matter. Anything else is vacuum. But now, I have been introduced to new concepts like this.

    How are massless particles created?

    Since anything that has a weight needs infinite energy to travel to the speed of light....and since energy is mass...how can photons carry energy and still travel at the speed of light? Won't energy slow them down?
     
  16. Oct 4, 2007 #15

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you want to think in dual terms (matter/vacuum) probably the best framework is to call "matter" to the fermions of the standard model and "fields" to the gauge bosons.

    Another alternative is to call "matter" to any distribution of mass or energy and "space" to the space-time of general relativity.
     
  17. Oct 6, 2007 #16
    There are some, rare, few, who don't believe that particles play catch... I believe it was Newton who first suggested that forces at a distance, through empty space, was ridiculous-and the first to admit that he had no idea. What makes any of us think that we are smarter than Newton? In other words, Newton vocated a medium. How particles passing through space, therein causing two bodies to come closer together, could have ever been proposed- is clear evidence that our intellect is decaying.
     
  18. Oct 6, 2007 #17

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It is a difference having great knowledge and beeing smart/talented. We have much more knowledge today and we have made very large progresses in both theoretical and experimental physics. Its not beeing smart or not, the only thing that matter is what is true. You can't compare Newton with todays science.
     
  19. Oct 11, 2007 #18
    Question still sparks...how can massless particles carry energy? Since energy is mass in a converted form...won't it slow it down? Since it takes infinite energy to accelerate mass to the speed of light.....I think you are getting the point.

    And why do they transfer energy? What makes them do so? How are these massless particles created? How do they die?
     
  20. Oct 11, 2007 #19

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    you are confusing rest mass and energy. Photon has indeen zero rest mass.
     
  21. Oct 11, 2007 #20
    A photon is never at rest. Once upon a time there was this guy named Aristotle. Aristotle gathered up all of the metaphysical philosophies that preceded and produced his own model for substance, which defined matter. His concept of matter has always remained the underlying foundation of our science.

    Along came a spider... who decided to introduce the concept of energy into that foundation- without qualification. You, Skhan- are the fly, trapped in the inevitable confusion of the illusion that energy is something that can suddenly appear and dissappear, be absorbed and emitted, and existentially transform itself from one thing to another. But that is the science you have chosen to swallow, I mean follow..


    Should I regurgitate a lie, or just tell you the truth?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?