Why Doesn't Mass of Electrons Increase?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nil1996
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concept
nil1996
Messages
301
Reaction score
7
(Warning, a dumb question incoming :smile:)

Just got curious while reading an article on photoelectric effect.
Why doesn't the mass of electrons increase(because electrons already revolve at the speed of light) when it absorbs photons instead of increasing radius of orbit?


(Sorry for my English.It isn't my first language.:smile:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nil1996 said:
Why doesn't the mass of electrons increase (because electrons already revolve at the speed of light) when it absorbs photons instead of increasing radius of orbit?

Electrons don't revolve at the speed of light.
 
Nugatory said:
Electrons don't revolve at the speed of light.

But they may be moving at near speed of light.And when objects near speed of light absorb energy they increase their mass,isn't it?
 
nil1996 said:
But they may be moving at near speed of light.And when objects near speed of light absorb energy they increase their mass,isn't it?

Only from the point of view of a remote observer. An object's mass in its own frame of reference is called the invariant mass, and as the name implies, it doesn't change.
 
nil1996 said:
But they may be moving at near speed of light.And when objects near speed of light absorb energy they increase their mass,isn't it?

I thought that might be what you're getting at, and the answer is "no, not really". Mathematically the relationship you're looking for is ##E^2 = (m_0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2## where ##m_0## is the mass of the object at rest and ##p## is the momentum. If the energy increases, the momentum must increase... and if the momentum increases enough, the electron will be able to escape.

The idea that mass increases with speed isn't outright wrong, but it has limited usefulness, and orbiting electrons are one of the situations where it doesn't apply. You'll hear a lot about it in the popular press and in some introductions to special relativity, but it's mostly a holdover from earlier days. The equation above (which, interestingly, reduces to ##E=mc^2## when ##p=0##) is more flexible and generally applicable.
 
ok thanks a lot guys:smile:
 
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Back
Top