Why can light travel at the speed c?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mibaokula
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Speed Travel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why light, specifically photons, can travel at the speed of light (c) while massive particles cannot. Participants explore the implications of special relativity equations, particularly regarding energy and mass, and whether these equations apply to massless particles like photons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the equation E = mc^2/(1-(v^2/c^2)) and its implications for massive particles, noting that it suggests infinite energy is required to accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light.
  • Others propose that the more general equation E^2 = mc^4 + p^2c^2 should be used for all particles, including massless photons, to avoid confusion.
  • There is a debate about the nature of dividing by zero, with some arguing that a large number divided by zero is infinite, while others assert that dividing zero by zero is indeterminate and can yield various values.
  • Some participants express confusion over the distinction between undefined and indeterminate forms, particularly in the context of energy calculations for massless particles.
  • A later reply suggests that when considering photons, one can take the limit of mass approaching zero independently of the speed approaching c, leading to different interpretations of energy calculations.
  • One participant shares a derivation that avoids division by zero and proposes a different approach to understanding the energy of massless particles.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of defining 1/0 as infinite and how this affects mathematical consistency and definitions of infinity.
  • Another participant clarifies that the original question about undefined energy for photons is based on a misunderstanding, as the equation does not yield undefined energy for light in the same way it does for massive particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretations of energy equations for massless particles versus massive particles. There are multiple competing views regarding the implications of dividing by zero and the applicability of certain equations to photons.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the relationship between mass, energy, and speed of light, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of mathematical forms like undefined and indeterminate. Some assumptions about the applicability of equations to massless particles remain unresolved.

mibaokula
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
hey guys, I'm new to this forum so i don't know if this has been already asked before

i saw this equation on special relativity explaining why objects with mass cannot travel at the speed of light

E = mc^2/(1-(v^2/c^2))^0.5
( hard to write on a computer. view the attachment for the equation or link here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/4/0/24090a520815f2d76b2be996acc6c9e2.png)

this makes sense right; if an object travels at the speed of light, the denominator becomes 0 and if the object has mass (say for example one arbitrary unit) you get a large number divided by zero - in other words an undefined energy to make this happen - impossible
but what confuses me it that if you take a photon which can travel at c, you still get an undefined energy. my question is: how are photons able to travel at c in a vacuum? do they carry undefined amounts of energy? or does the equation not work for light?
thanks
 

Attachments

  • 24090a520815f2d76b2be996acc6c9e2.png
    24090a520815f2d76b2be996acc6c9e2.png
    663 bytes · Views: 501
Physics news on Phys.org
mibaokula said:
or does the equation not work for light?
That's it. You need to use this more general equation, which works for all particles, including massless photons:

E^2 = mc^4 + p^2c^2

(p is the momentum of the particle.)
 
mibaokula said:
this makes sense right; if an object travels at the speed of light, the denominator becomes 0 and if the object has mass (say for example one arbitrary unit) you get a large number divided by zero - in other words an undefined energy to make this happen - impossible
Actually, a large number divided by zero is not undefined, it's infinite.
mibaokula said:
but what confuses me it that if you take a photon which can travel at c, you still get an undefined energy. my question is: how are photons able to travel at c in a vacuum? do they carry undefined amounts of energy? or does the equation not work for light?
In this case you are dividing zero by zero which is indeterminate but can be an exact number, you just have to solve the problem some other way.
 
ghwellsjr said:
Actually, a large number divided by zero is not undefined, it's infinite.

In this case you are dividing zero by zero which is indeterminate but can be an exact number, you just have to solve the problem some other way.

I thought ALL numbers divided by zero are undefined.
 
Drakkith said:
I thought ALL numbers divided by zero are undefined.

If 0/0=x, then x should be a solution of 0=0x. All values of x are solutions, so any real number is a possible value of 0/0. That's why it's called an indeterminate form.

It's misleading to say that 1/0 and 0/0 are both undefined and just leave it at that, because 1/0 is infinite, but 0/0 is an indeterminate form.
 
Consider A/B=C.

Then A=B*C, correct?

Now if A=0 and B=0, we have:

0=0*C, correct?

This equation is true for every value of C, correct?

Therefore, 0/0 can be any number you want.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is why it is called "indeterminant". But "infinite" is included in "undefined".
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, that is why it is called "indeterminant". But "infinite" is included in "undefined".

I'm not saying it's wrong to call it undefined, just that it's misleading. It hides an important distinction.
 
The past few posts have given me a little confusion because when you're talking about a photon, you're separately taking the limit of m \to 0 and v \to c but one is not dependent on the other. If I could decide I simply want to take m to 0, you should find the first term drops out and end of story, it's 0, not infinite.
 
  • #10
bcrowell said:
I'm not saying it's wrong to call it undefined, just that it's misleading. It hides an important distinction.

Can you explain more? I have never understood this point. It was always explained to me that the relativistic mass is a good heuristic for showing that only massless particles can travel at the speed of light. I have never found the explanation that the true equation is E=rest mass+momentum2 to be any more rigourous, since momentum is not defined in the same way as for massive particles anyway. The only way I know to make it "correct" is to invoke quantum theory and say that mass is ultimately a dispersion relation of a wave. It'd be cool if a beloved 0/0 heuristic has more to it than I learnt.
 
  • #11
atyy said:
Can you explain more? I have never understood this point. It was always explained to me that the relativistic mass is a good heuristic for showing that only massless particles can travel at the speed of light. I have never found the explanation that the true equation is E=rest mass+momentum2 to be any more rigourous, since momentum is not defined in the same way as for massive particles anyway. The only way I know to make it "correct" is to invoke quantum theory and say that mass is ultimately a dispersion relation of a wave. It'd be cool if a beloved 0/0 heuristic has more to it than I learnt.


I'll reiterate my favorite solution, which I haven't seen any book. I makes no use of division by zero, no funny definition of momentum.

For any particle with mass, it is straightforward to derive that:

sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1 - KE / (KE + E0)

If you want to have a particle with E0=0 and KE > 0, and have it follow as many of the same rules as normal particles as possible, then v=c is immediately implied. No limit, no zerodivide, no alternate momentum definition. THEN, having established this, you use :

E2=mc^4+p^2c^2

to arrive at p=E/c, where we know that for massless particles all E is kinetic, and m=0.
 
  • #12
bcrowell said:
because 1/0 is infinite
If 1/0 = infinite then 1/infinite - 1/0 = 0 but 1/infinite is undefined so it could not be true.
 
  • #13
bcrowell said:
If 0/0=x, then x should be a solution of 0=0x. All values of x are solutions, so any real number is a possible value of 0/0. That's why it's called an indeterminate form.

It's misleading to say that 1/0 and 0/0 are both undefined and just leave it at that, because 1/0 is infinite, but 0/0 is an indeterminate form.

The limit as x approaches 0 for 1/x doesn't even exist since the limit approaches plus and minus infinity depending on which way you go, so how can you define 1/0 as infinity? Defining it as negative infinity would also be equally valid.

Defining 1/0 to be infinity causes all sorts of problems. It would define, then, infinity*0=1. But infinity*0 is an indeterminate form.

Also, defining 1/0 to be infinity would first require the definition of infinity to be one of the integers. This definition would ruin the fundamental theorem of arithmetic since infinity could not be uniquely factored into primes.
 
  • #14
The OP was asking about an equation for the energy of a moving particle. He stated that a massive particle has an undefined energy when moving at the speed of light and said that was impossible. I've never heard of anyone stating that the energy of a massive particle becomes undefined when traveling at the speed of light. I've always heard that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light.

Then he stated that a massless particle (a photon) also has an undefined energy and he wondered if photons therefore have undefined amounts of energy or if the equation doesn't work for light. But the equation doesn't yield an undefined energy for light in the same way that it does for a massive particle, rather 0/0 is indeterminate, it can have any value, you just have to determine that value some other way. It's not that the equation doesn't work for light in the sense that it is no longer true, but rather it just doesn't tell you which of the many possible answers is the correct one.
 
  • #15
Passionflower said:
If 1/0 = infinite then 1/infinite - 1/0 = 0 but 1/infinite is undefined so it could not be true.
I'm not following this at all. If 1/0 is infinite then 1/infinite = 0. Where did you get - 1/0? And why do you say that 1/infinite is undefined?
 
  • #16
Doc Al said:
That's it. You need to use this more general equation, which works for all particles, including massless photons:

E^2 = mc^4 + p^2c^2

(p is the momentum of the particle.)

how would this equation work in terms of particles like the tachyon which moves at superluminal speeds (assuming it exists - which it probably doesn't)
 
  • #17
mibaokula said:
how would this equation work in terms of particles like the tachyon which moves at superluminal speeds (assuming it exists - which it probably doesn't)
It still works for tachyons, but E, p, and m are all imaginary numbers. :bugeye:
 
  • #18
Doc Al said:
It still works for tachyons, but E, p, and m are all imaginary numbers. :bugeye:

awesome, thanks again for the quick reply. i am somewhat enlightened.
although I'm sure that energy cannot be imaginary.
 
  • #19
mibaokula said:
although I'm sure that energy cannot be imaginary.
But you're OK with imaginary momentum and mass? :wink:
 
  • #20
Doc Al said:
But you're OK with imaginary momentum and mass? :wink:

i guess you're right. its all crazy!
i suppose negative or imaginary mass would sum up to gravity having a repulsive effect or something. i guess that's feasible. if mass is imaginary then using any momentum equation:
p=mv or Planck's constant/lambda; i suppose the momentum also is imaginary.
but the energy works out to be imaginary too (according to your equation) and that surely can't be right?
if you slot the numbers into the original equation i had before, you get a complex number divided by a complex number - a real number. how does that work??
surely tachyons cause the equations to lose their meaning - my main reason for thinking they don't exist
 
  • #21
ghwellsjr said:
Actually, a large number divided by zero is not undefined, it's infinite.

In this case you are dividing zero by zero which is indeterminate but can be an exact number, you just have to solve the problem some other way.

try typing 1/0 into a calculator - its undefined. if you think about it this way, even if you had an infinite number of "zeros" you cannot get 1 - hence its not infinity but undefined.

likewise with 0/0, you might think that the answer is infinity as the other guys said there are many answers - infinite answers not just infinity. 1 x 0 is 0. 2 x 0 is 0. 3 x 0 is 0 and so on using this same logic.

so back to my original question, although its been answered, using that particular equation, photons must have an undefined amount of energy
 
  • #22
Pengwuino said:
The past few posts have given me a little confusion because when you're talking about a photon, you're separately taking the limit of m \to 0 and v \to c but one is not dependent on the other. If I could decide I simply want to take m to 0, you should find the first term drops out and end of story, it's 0, not infinite.

i think (if einstein's special relativity is right), they are dependent on each other. for any object to travel at c m/s, it must have no mass. so if you plug the numbers in the equation, you get 0/0 - which sure is confusing!
 
  • #23
mibaokula said:
i think (if einstein's special relativity is right), they are dependent on each other. for any object to travel at c m/s, it must have no mass. so if you plug the numbers in the equation, you get 0/0 - which sure is confusing!

In my understanding, the idea that massless particles can travel at the speed of light isn't a purely classical idea. In classical physics, light is a wave, not a particle. So the 0/0 thing is a "heuristic".

With quantum physics, everything becomes a wave, and the "mass" of a particle is seen to be a property of a wave. In this framework, since some waves have "mass", then light can be massless. However, there is no 0/0 - what this means is that all frequencies of light travel at the same speed. A massive particle is a wave in which different frequencies (energies) travel at different speeds.
 
  • #24
atyy said:
In my understanding, the idea that massless particles can travel at the speed of light isn't a purely classical idea. In classical physics, light is a wave, not a particle. So the 0/0 thing is a "heuristic".

With quantum physics, everything becomes a wave, and the "mass" of a particle is seen to be a property of a wave. In this framework, since some waves have "mass", then light can be massless. However, there is no 0/0 - what this means is that all frequencies of light travel at the same speed. A massive particle is a wave in which different frequencies (energies) travel at different speeds.

dunno about that but in the standard model, the "photon" has a mass of zero. so i kinda put that in the equation. i do not believe any electromagnetic wave has a mass although they can have momentum depending on their wavelength
 
  • #25
mibaokula said:
dunno about that but in the standard model, the "photon" has a mass of zero. so i kinda put that in the equation. i do not believe any electromagnetic wave has a mass although they can have momentum depending on their wavelength

A massless photon simply means that all frequencies of light travel at the same speed. The equation is not strictly valid for massless particles, although it is suggestive that such particles can exist.
 
  • #26
atyy said:
A massless photon simply means that all frequencies of light travel at the same speed. The equation is not strictly valid for massless particles, although it is suggestive that such particles can exist.

yeah, but the second equation explains massless particles, right?
 
  • #27
mibaokula said:
yeah, but the second equation explains massless particles, right?

The equation for massless particles is 1/wavelength=constantXfrequency.
 
  • #28
Doc Al said:
That's it. You need to use this more general equation, which works for all particles, including massless photons:

E^2 = mc^4 + p^2c^2

(p is the momentum of the particle.)

i meant the equation which i have now attached in this post
 

Attachments

  • f64305a1fc9aa1a6fd7108da146fcdc8.png
    f64305a1fc9aa1a6fd7108da146fcdc8.png
    543 bytes · Views: 417
  • #29
mibaokula said:
try typing 1/0 into a calculator - its undefined. if you think about it this way, even if you had an infinite number of "zeros" you cannot get 1 - hence its not infinity but undefined.

likewise with 0/0, you might think that the answer is infinity as the other guys said there are many answers - infinite answers not just infinity. 1 x 0 is 0. 2 x 0 is 0. 3 x 0 is 0 and so on using this same logic.

so back to my original question, although its been answered, using that particular equation, photons must have an undefined amount of energy
What does your calculator say if you type in 0/0? What does it say if you take the square root of -1?

0/0 is not infinite, it is indeterminate because it can be anything.
 
  • #30
i just realized i misunderstood your point. i think we meant the same thing. 0/0 is indeterminate because it has an infinite number of answers - i.e. any real number. what i meant to say is that it is not enough to say the answer is 1, 0, or infinity
 

Similar threads

High School c^2 in Einstein‘s theory of relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Prove the velocity of a moving object is absolute in one IRF?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Undergrad One way speed of light
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
974
Graduate Speed of Light for Bonnor Beam
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad A question about the speed of light and electromagnetism
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
High School Traveling through space at zero km/s
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Undergrad Why do we still say “the speed of light” instead of “c”?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad One-Way Speed of Light: Is it Possible?
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
Graduate 1-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
High School Can an Object Exceed the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K