- #1
misogynisticfeminist
- 370
- 0
Yea, noob question here, if e=mc^2, and mass and energy is the same thing, why is a photon massless when it has energy?
selfAdjoint said:Furthermore, photons carry EM radiation, and if they had mass EM radiation would have a longitudinal component. But no such component can be detected to ever increasing levels of accuracy. So the photon's mass has to be less than a number starting with a decimal and followed by dozens of zeros before a significant digit, and that's the UPPER LIMIT. So the theoretical requirement that it have zero mass is confirmed in experments up to the limit of experimental accuracy achievable.
misogynisticfeminist said:so are you saying that photons do possesses mass but it is just extremely miniscule?
aekanshchumber said:E=mC^2 gives us the relation between the mass and energy.
jcsd said:Cos the full formula is [itex]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/itex], whic gives you the energy of a particle in an inertial frame. Photons don't have mass but they do have momentum (p), so they have energy.
selfAdjoint said:NO! That's why I put the stuff about an upper bound in caps. Theory says the photon has no mass, and experiments have found no mass, but being experiments they have a margin of error, and that margin is an extremely tiny number. Also whenever they figure out how to do a better measurment, the margin always goes down. All the experiments are consistent with the statement that the mass is zero.
selfAdjoint said:Furthermore, photons carry EM radiation, and if they had mass EM radiation would have a longitudinal component. But no such component can be detected to ever increasing levels of accuracy. So the photon's mass has to be less than a number starting with a decimal and followed by dozens of zeros before a significant digit, and that's the UPPER LIMIT. So the theoretical requirement that it have zero mass is confirmed in experments up to the limit of experimental accuracy achievable.
For details on this subject/FAQ see the thread named "Mass of Light" in "General Physics". The same conversation is going on there.arivero said:This is a FAQ in relativity. The m in E=mc^2 was time ago the "relativistic mass". The m in the "complete" formula is the "rest mass". Modernly people prefers to use only the latter, to avoid this kind of misunderstandings.
kurious said:Photons are massless according to Higgs theory because they do not interact with the Higgs field.Protons and electrons do.The Higgs field has not been proven to exist bu t even if it does not it would seem reasonable that a photon is massless because it does not interact with whatever field does allow protons and electrons to have mass.
Massless things that carry energy and bends in gravityfields, pretty scary, no?
That is incorrect. Photons aren't mass, they have mass.Sariaht said:By the way: p=mv, so sure, photons are mass
You and Sariaht are using "m" to mean different things. Sariaht is using "m" to refer to relativistic mass and you're using it to mean proper mass. Also E refers to energy, not proper energy E0. As you're using it E does not equal mc2. This is rest energy and therefore E0 = mc2.da_willem said:Again. The equation E=mc^2 is only correct in the rest frame of a particle where p=0 ...
Its mass which is the source of gravity where mass and energy are proportional. It is for that reason that energy appears in Einstein's equations. As Einstein phrased itda_willem said:And the general theory of relativity states that not only mass but also energy and momentum generate gravitational fields.
The special theory has led to the conclusion that inert mass is nothing more or less than energy, which finds its complete mathematical expression in a symmetrical tensor of second rank, the energy tensor.
Gravity is not a distortion of spacetime. It can distort it in certain cases. But you can have a gravitational field in flat spacetime ... at least according to Einstein.And that all particles are influenced by this 'gravitational field' (wich is nothing more than a distortion of the 'normal' flat geometry) ..
pmb_phy said:But you can have a gravitational field in flat spacetime ... at least according to Einstein.
Note that I said at least according to Einstein. By this I mean that what I said is consistent with the way Einstein interpreted his general theory of relativity, i.e. how he defined quantities in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. According to Einstein the presence of a gravitational field is dictated by the non-vanishing of the affine connection, not the non-vanishing of the Riemann tensor. In fact he stated this explicitly in a letter he wrote to Max Von Laue.da_willem said:How can there be a graviational field in flat spacetime?
Sure. See Einstein's gravitational field at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044Can you explain or give me a link to a internet document that explains it?
I agree 100%.As I understand it the metric (as determinded by the energy content of space) is the 'replacement' of gravitational potential in general relatvity.
The relation [itex]g_{ab} = \eta_{ab}[/itex] means only that the frame of reference is inertial. If that holds at all points in spacetime in the given coordinate system then the spacetime is flat. In a non-inertial frame and there is a gravitational field, i.e. according to Einstein that is. And then the metric is not [itex]\eta_{ab}[/itex].In GR particles follow geodesics which are just straight lines with a flat metric (this is [itex]g_{ab} = \eta_{ab}[/itex]), and this would be interpreted in the classical theory as the absence of a gravitational field...
da_willem said:The energy and momentum of a photon are respectively [tex]hf[/tex] and [tex]\frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{hf}{c}[/tex]. Putting this into the equation [tex]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/tex] you will find m=0.
Depends on the question. You were not precise about what you meant by "mass." Assuming you meant "proper mass" then there are different ways to answer it. Some may respond by referring to this Higgs thingy and some may respond by mentioning the relationship between the Coulomb force and the photon's proper mass. You were referring to mass and energy so that Higgs point is moot since you didn't ask why a photon has zero proper mass. You asked how it can have no mass when it has energy and E = mc2. Your answer lies in the definition of these terms and not having to do with Higgs stuff. That is a different question. After you understand the difference between mass and proper mass and you understand that a photon has zero proper masss and you understand the relationship between Coulomb's law and photon proper mass and you still want to know "why" a photon has zero proper mass then the Higgs thingy may be what you're looking for.misogynisticfeminist said:is this the answer to my question?
misogynisticfeminist said:is this the answer to my question?
That is incorrect. If one is using m to mean proper mass then E0 = mc2, not E = mc2.da_willem said:As said before E=mc^2 anly aplies to an object having zero momentum ..
In a flat spacetime there is no gravitational field. Usually one defines the graviton field as a perturbation from the flat metric (even though it might not be the best convention : see Rovelli which defines the graviton field as the vierbein instead).pmb_phy said:Gravity is not a distortion of spacetime. It can distort it in certain cases. But you can have a gravitational field in flat spacetime ... at least according to Einstein.
pmb_phy said:The relation [tex]g_{ab}=\eta_{ab}[/tex] means only that the frame of reference is inertial. If that holds at all points in spacetime in the given coordinate system then the spacetime is flat. In a non-inertial frame and there is a gravitational field, i.e. according to Einstein that is. And then the metric is not [tex]\eta_{ab}[/tex].