What is the relationship between mass and energy for massless particles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kap160
  • Start date Start date
Kap160
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've recently bean reading a book about string theory (thats not important though) and I came across something that someone here may be able to help me with, I'd really appreciate it, its been bugging me for days.

I may have misinterpreted, so if I have please correct me. In a general introduction the book described the relationship between mass and energy as described by E=Mc2. It also talked about sub-atomic particles, among which there was a small passage on the Graviton (and the lack thereof). It said that it theretically has no mass. If this is so does it also mean that it has no energy? I'm probably totally wrong and will be summarily chastised for my ridiculous question, but I would be eternally greatful if someone could explain this to me. Also if you could do it as if you were talking to a rather stupid child I would appreciate it.

Thanks for any clarification that can be given.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Massless particles--a photon is another example--have no rest energy. They certainly have energy. (These massless particles are also never at rest--they all travel at the speed of light.)
 
Kap160 said:
I've recently bean reading a book about string theory (thats not important though) and I came across something that someone here may be able to help me with, I'd really appreciate it, its been bugging me for days.

I may have misinterpreted, so if I have please correct me. In a general introduction the book described the relationship between mass and energy as described by E=Mc2. It also talked about sub-atomic particles, among which there was a small passage on the Graviton (and the lack thereof). It said that it theretically has no mass. If this is so does it also mean that it has no energy? I'm probably totally wrong and will be summarily chastised for my ridiculous question, but I would be eternally greatful if someone could explain this to me. Also if you could do it as if you were talking to a rather stupid child I would appreciate it.

Thanks for any clarification that can be given.


This is a frequent question. The problem is that E = mc^2 is a special case applicable only to massive particle (and when those particles are at rest). The real equation is E = \sqrt{c^2 \vec{p}^2 + m^2 c^4}. For a massless particle, this reduces to E = c p (where p here is the magnitude of the three-momentum).
 
Doc Al said:
Massless particles--a photon is another example--have no rest energy. They certainly have energy. (These massless particles are also never at rest--they all travel at the speed of light.)
Thank you, you have saved an idiot from himself. They are bit like me, when they are moving they have enormous energy but when stationary they simply can't be bothered to get up and put the kettle on.

nrqed said:
This is a frequent question. The problem is that E = mc^2 is a special case applicable only to massive particle (and when those particles are at rest). The real equation is E = \sqrt{c^2 \vec{p}^2 + m^2 c^4}. For a massless particle, this reduces to E = c p (where p here is the magnitude of the three-momentum).
Ah... that was slighty above my level of enforced stupidity, although I appreciate the effort...

My thanks to both, I am eternally grateful.
 
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