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.

Since photon has no (rest)mass and

$$E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2$$

we derive that $E=pc$ for particle with no (rest)mass.

However, if we transform the non-relativistic formula for kinetic energy

$$E_k=\frac{mv^2}{2}$$ $$E_k=\frac{p^2}{2m}$$ $$E_k=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{p^2}{2m}=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{m^2v^2}{2m}=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{mv^2}{2}=\frac{pv}{2}$$

we derive that $E_k=\frac{pc}{2}$.

And this is bizarre because I'm expecting $E_k=E$.

I've just started learning physics recently so I'm pretty sure I've got certain part wrong. And here are my hypotheses:

1.$ $ The net energy of a photon $E_{net}=pc$ is equivalent $E_{net}=E_k+E_0=\frac{pc}{2}+E_0$ and thus $E_0=pc-E_k=\frac{pc}{2}$. (If that's true, what exactly is $E_0$? The rest energy of a photon?)

2.$ $ It is incorrect to derive the kinetic energy formula from integrating the equation

$$ \frac{\mathrm dE}{\mathrm dv}=mv $$

I should integrate another equation instead (perhaps $\frac{\mathrm dE}{\mathrm dv}=p$? If that's true, why do we break $p$ into $mv$ when deriving the formula $E_k=\frac{pc}{2}$?)

3.$ $ I got the limit wrong:

$$E_k=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{p^2}{2m}\ne \frac{pc}{2}$$

$$E_k=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{p^2}{2m}=pc$$

So is any of these hypothesis correct? And why?

share|improve this question
1  
The limit seems wrong. It should be going to infinity. The formula really applies to objects with mass, for massless objects, just use $E=h\nu$. Objects moving with the speed of light tend to have infinite mass. –  mcodesmart Oct 9 '13 at 23:50
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Your kinetic energy formula is incorrect. The correct one for a massive particle is $$ KE = m c^2\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{ 1 - v^2/c^2}} - 1 \right] $$ with $$ p = \frac{ m v}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} $$ Now, to describe a photon, we wish to take two limits $m \to 0$ and $v \to c$. These limits must be taken properly. To be precise, we wish to take this limit in such a way that the momentum remains well-defined and is equal to $p$. This implies $$ \frac{p}{c} = \lim_{v\to c}\lim_{m\to0} \frac{ m}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} $$ Applying this same limit to the kinetic energy, we get $$ KE = \lim_{v\to c}\lim_{m\to0} \left( \frac{ m c^2}{\sqrt{ 1 - v^2/c^2}} - m c^2 \right) = \frac{p}{c} c^2 - 0 = p c $$ which is consistent with the equation you first wrote down!

share|improve this answer
add comment

Using the relation between mass, energy and momentum $$ E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 $$ $$ E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4 $$

$$ \begin{align*} E_{kin} &= E - E_0 \\&= \sqrt{m^2c^4 + p^2c^2} - mc^2 \\&= mc^2\left[\sqrt{1 + \frac{p^2}{m^2c^2}} - 1\right] = m c^2\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{ 1 - v^2/c^2}} - 1 \right] \\ \\&\approx mc^2\left[\left(1 + \frac12 \frac{p^2}{m^2c^2}\right) - 1\right] \\&= \frac{p^2}{2m} \end{align*} $$

where the approximation is just the first-order Taylor expansion of $\sqrt{1+x}$ at $0$ as $p^2 \ll m^2c^2$ in the non-relativistic case.

share|improve this answer
add comment

There are actually a couple of different ways to look at this. The simple way is to say that you took the wrong limit - but not because of any mathematical error. The problem is that the formula $E_k = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$ or $E_k = \frac{p^2}{2m}$ is itself a low-velocity limit of the true formula,

$$E = \sqrt{p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4}$$

That calculation is demonstrated in ProgrammingEnthusiast's answer. Hopefully it makes sense that if you take the low-velocity limit of one formula to get another formula, then you plug in a high-velocity to the second formula, it's not going to get you the first formula back. (By analogy: if you take the low-$x$ limit of $\sin x$, getting $x$, and then plug in $x = 2\pi$, it's not going to be the same as $\sin(2\pi)$!)

Another way to look at it is that your second hypothesis is right: the formula $\frac{\mathrm{d}E_k}{\mathrm{d}v} = mv$ isn't valid for photons, and you need to integrate something else. That something else is actually one of Hamilton's equations, which in this case can be written

$$\frac{\partial E}{\partial p} = v$$

Of course, to integrate this you still need $v$ as a function of $p$, so in a sense this is just delaying the important physics by a step. The "important physics" is this: for a low-velocity (non-relativistic) particle, you can use $v = \frac{p}{m}$, but for a high-velocity (relativistic) particle, that equation doesn't hold. You need to use $p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$, or solving for $v$,

$$v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2 + p^2}}$$

You can see that $v = \frac{p}{m}$ is the low-momentum (or high-mass) limit of this equation. Anyway, when you do the integral, you will get out the proper relativistic formula for energy.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The second hypothesis is correct. For relativistic particles (photons being a good example), $E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$ does not hold up. Instead, you should start from $E=\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}$ as you did for the photon. By the way, the relativistic momentum is also given by $p=\gamma mv$ where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor: $\gamma=(\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})^{-1}$.

Finally, if you want to see how the 'Newtonian kinetic energy' $E_k=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$ arises, look at Ron Maimon's awesome answer to this question.

share|improve this answer
    
Go to Ron Maimon's user page and just begin reading. You'll keep yourself enthralled for hours and you'll certainly learn something! –  WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance Oct 11 '13 at 0:21
add comment

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.