Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Known that $E=hf$, $p=hf/c=h/\lambda$, then if $p=mc$, where $m$ is the (relativistic) mass, then $E=mc^2$ follows directly as an algebraic fact. Is this the case?

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 7 down vote accepted

As you may know, photons do not have mass.

Relating relativistic momentum and relativistic energy, we get:

$E^2 = p^2c^2+(mc^2)^2$.

where $E$ is energy, $p$ is momentum, $m$ is mass and $c$ is the speed of light.

As mass is zero, $E=pc$.

Now, we know that $E=hf$. Then we get the momentum for photon.

Note that there is a term called effective inertial mass. Photon does have it.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the answer. The equation E^2=(mc^2)^2 is one I recognize but it is not in my physics book (fund. of modern physics by Resnick et al.) I'll have to see how it is deduced, if at all deduced. –  909 Niklas Jun 26 '12 at 7:15
1  
@Nick Rosencrantz For a motivating analogy to the relativistic energy equation it is useful to look at it as m^2 = E^2-p^2 (i have suppressed the constants) in this case the invariant quantity is placed on the left. Notice the similarity between this and invariant length in say 2-dim euclidean geometry s^2 = x^2 + y^2. The difference being that the "time-like" component in the SR equation is assumed to be imaginary- as squaring produces a negative quantity (which i moved w/ algebra) So the point is it can be intuitive to look at this like length of a 4-dim vector with an imaginary component. –  jaskey13 Jun 26 '12 at 18:32

According to Special Relativity the relativistic energy for a particle is: $E^2= m^2c^4+p^2c^2$

The invariant quantity under relativistic transformations is the rest mass $m$ of the particle.

For a photon $m=0$

Using some simple algebra it is found $E=pc$ for a photon.

You will see this preserves the frequency and energy relationship.

The error in the question is that momentum $p$ is always related to mass&velocity ($p=mv$ where $c$ is placed in as $v$ for the photon)- which for a massless particle this does not apply.

share|improve this answer
    
I see i was late in my post as my answer is the same as @Zee Malasia. Oh well... –  jaskey13 Jun 26 '12 at 2:31
    
I attempted to delete as my answer is redundant but it seems i can't? –  jaskey13 Jun 26 '12 at 2:33
1  
No need, there's nothing wrong with having the same thing explained in different ways. –  David Z Jun 26 '12 at 3:14
    
It's a good answer and good to have two elaborations. I didn't know the E^2 equation was needed to explain this. –  909 Niklas Jun 26 '12 at 7:16

As a further elaboration, let's look at this from the angle of relativistic momentum.

Recall that momentum, in relativistic mechanics, is not a linear function of velocity as it is in Newtonian mechanics where $p = mv$. In relativistic mechanics:

$p = \gamma m v$

$m$ is the invariant mass

$\gamma = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \dfrac{v^2}{c^2}}}$

Clearly, for a non-zero $m$, $p \rightarrow \infty$ as $v \rightarrow c$

Now, please keep in mind that $p$ in the relativistic energy relationship is not just $mv$ but is the relativistic momentum $\gamma m v$:

$E^2 = (\gamma m v c)^2 + (mc^2)^2$

From this, it's clear that the relativistic energy is:

$E = \gamma m c^2$

So, if we fix $E$ and let $m \rightarrow 0$, we find that $v \rightarrow c$ in the limit.

share|improve this answer
    
That's interesting and somewhat more familiar way of presenting the relativistic energy to an amateur. Thanks. –  909 Niklas Jun 26 '12 at 17:55

Here's another way to think about it (personally, I think this addresses the question most directly):

$E = hf$ and $p = \frac{hf}{c}$ both apply to photons. What those get you is simply that $E = pc$, so you can conclude that $E = pc$ should be valid for photons. And it is.

Now, your question is worded to ask whether you can start with $p = mc$ and plug in $E = pc$ to get $E = mc^2$. But I think what you really want to know is, can you start with $E = mc^2$ and use it with $E = pc$ to derive $p = mc$?

The answer is, of course, no. $E = mc^2$ doesn't apply to photons. In fact, there is no case in which $E = mc^2$ and $E = pc$ both apply to the same object. So you can never validly combine them. The former is for objects at rest, for which $p = 0$, and the latter is for massless objects, for which $m = 0$, and which always move at the speed of light. As others have shown, they're both special cases of $E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4$.

Incidentally, I can't think of a single physical system for which $p = mc$ is satisfied.

share|improve this answer
    
Addessing your last point about $p=mc$ there is the trivial case where $\gamma v = c$, which happens to hold for $v=c/\sqrt{2}$. So for any massive object there is one particular speed (not $c$!) such that $p=mc$. Of course this is hardly interesting. –  Michael Brown Jan 17 '13 at 13:43
    
Part of the problem is notation. Einstein never wrote $E=mc^2$. He was very careful to use a different symbol, $E_o$ for rest energy. The $E$ in $E=pc$ and the $E$ in the ubiquitous, and incorrect, $E=mc^2$ are not, and cannot be, the same $E$. One refers specifically to rest energy and the other one does not. Different concepts need different symbols as Einstein fully knew. Too bad most textbook/popular authors didn't listen. –  user11266 Jan 17 '13 at 15:28
    
@JoeH I'd say they are the same energy, just for different systems. $E = mc^2$ is fine if you specify that it only applies to an object at rest; I don't believe it's practical or necessary to use a different symbol to designate the energy of an object at rest. Analogously, I don't believe it's necessary to use different symbols for the $x$ in $x = vt$ and the one in $x = \frac{1}{2}at^2$, even though one could make your argument that they are not the same $x$. –  David Z Jan 17 '13 at 19:47
    
My argument doesn't apply to your kinematic example since in both cases, $x$ (which really should be $\Delta x$ since there is no explicit assumption that $x_o$ is zero) refers to the same concept, spatial displacement. Rest energy and total particle energy are significantly different concepts, at least Einstein thought so. –  user11266 Jan 18 '13 at 4:11
    
@JoeH Of course you're technically right about $\Delta x$. Anyway, I would apply the same reasoning to your statement: the argument doesn't apply to the energy formulas because in both cases, $E$ refers to the same concept, total energy. Einstein may have considered energy at rest to be something fundamentally different from energy while in motion, but I do not. (At some level this is a matter of opinion, of course) –  David Z Jan 18 '13 at 4:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.