2
$\begingroup$

In classical mechanics, massless particles don't exist because for $m=0$, $p=0$.

The relativistic relation between energy, mass and spatial momentum is: $E^2= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2$ . So it is said that setting $m=0$ in the first equation you get $E=pc$.

How could setting $m=0$ in that equation give you $E=pc$ whilst $p$ appears in the equation and we know $p=γmu$? If you set $m=0$ you will have indeterminacy due to "$γm$". It seems to me like we are doing a "trick" in order to get the $E=pc$. Perhaps there is another proof for this relation?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Why not start with Maxwell's equations and a plane wave? $\endgroup$
    – user12029
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 21:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $p=\gamma m u$ holds for massive particles only $\endgroup$
    – fqq
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2229/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 21:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In particular, in the question cited by @Qmechanic see this answer. $\endgroup$
    – garyp
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 22:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic it's closely related, of course, but this seems to be asking about a specific conceptual issue with the definitions of the relevant concepts. I don't think it's a duplicate of #2229. It may be a duplicate of #119490 but even then, I see it as sufficiently different. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 22:02

5 Answers 5

2
$\begingroup$

Keep in mind that the equation $$ E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 $$ is derived from the relations $$ \begin{align} E = \gamma mc^2,\qquad p = \gamma m v. \tag{1} \end{align} $$ Therefore $$ p = E\frac{v}{c^2}.\tag{2} $$ Although (1) is only defined for massive particles, it turns out that (2) remains valid when $v=c$, i.e. for massless particles. Indeed, we get $$ E= pc, $$ which is consistent with electromagnetism and quantum physics.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ So you don't derive E=pc from the first relation, but from (2), which indeed deribes from (1). The question is how is it possible to derive it from the first equation. $\endgroup$
    – NickyR
    Commented Nov 7, 2015 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ @NickyR Equation 1 is wrong in the sense that it is a special case. Equation 2 is correct and so is Equation 0. Asking how to derive a correct equation from a wrong one is not a good question. From 1 you can get 0 which is more general, and 0 is actually correct, unlike 1 which only holds sometimes. And 0 has a geometrical meaning that the energy momentum vector has a length of m. To get velocity you can note the energy momentum vector points in the direction tangent to the worldline. Or define $p=\sqrt{E^2/c^2-m^2c^2}$ as the more general definition for p instead of the wrong one (1). $\endgroup$
    – Timaeus
    Commented Nov 8, 2015 at 4:08
1
$\begingroup$

The definition of momentum isn't $\gamma m \dot x$. The proper definition of momentum is that it is the generator of translations. Then you find that for massive representations of the Lorentz group (~timelike curves), $p = m \gamma \dot x$, while for massless representations (~lightlike curves), $p$ is arbitrary, as long as $E = pc$.

Another way of looking at it is that for particles moving on timelike curves, the derivative with respect to proper time is a covariant quantity, because proper time is invariant. But for lightlike curves, there is no proper time. There are affine parameters that are analogous but there are infinitely many of them and none is privileged, so this doesn't give a unique definition of momentum.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused: definition of momentum as generator of translations appears, to my knowledge, in quantum mechanics. Is there a way to describe the same thing using only special relativity? without waves? $\endgroup$
    – fffred
    Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 0:20
  • $\begingroup$ The concept of generator of translations applies also to classical mechanics in the Hamiltonian formulation. The difference is that classically the generator is a vector field, whereas the quantum generator is an operator. But they are analogous because vector fields and operators are both Lie algebras. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ Could you explain a bit more? or point to places where to read about it? I have some trouble finding it. $\endgroup$
    – fffred
    Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ @fffred I think the analogy is somewhat a "deep" insight that you get after much reading from several sources, but I would recommend Armold's Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, because he talks a lot about the Lie algebra structure in Hamiltonian mechanics. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ Consider Hamiltonian mechanics in canonical coordinates $(x,p)$. Then translations map $(x,p) \mapsto (x+a,p)$. Clearly the vector field that generates this is $\partial/\partial q$. But in canonical coordinates the symplectic form is $dq\wedge dp$, so $\partial/\partial q \mapsto dp$. Thus while it's strictly speaking $\partial/\partial q$ that is the generator of translations, we can associate it with the coordinate p in this way. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 0:36
1
$\begingroup$

The relation (setting $c = 1$) $$ E^2 = m^2 + p^2 $$ is more fundamental than $E = \gamma m c^2$ and $p = \gamma m v$.

The former arises naturally as a primary constraint from varying the action $$ S = -m \int \sqrt{\dot{x}^\mu \eta_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^\nu} \, d\lambda $$ The latter expressions only arise when you choose the parametrization $\lambda = t$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

If one considers that the deBroglie relationship holds for photons we have $$p=\frac{h}{\lambda} = \frac{hf}{c} = \frac{E}{c}$$ which immediately gives us $$E=pc.$$

This is consistent with the Lorentz invariant energy four-vector magnitude which yields the mass of a particle: $$ mc^2=\sqrt{E^2-(pc)^2}=0.$$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For all particles, $p^{\mu}=(E,\vec{p})$ and $p^{\mu}p_{\mu}\equiv m^2$ (using the mostly-minus metric). Thus $E=\pm \sqrt{m^2+|\vec p|^2}$. If you set $m^2=0$, you get $E=\pm |\vec p|$. The non-trivial aspect of these definitions is that $E$ is to be literally identified as the energy, and $\vec p$ as the spatial momentum (so in the classical limit $E=p^2/2m + \textrm{const.}$ ).

For massive particles with positive-energy ($m^2>0$, $E>0$), the 4-momentum and 4-velocity are related by the equation

$$p^{\mu}=m\,u^{\mu}$$

whereas for massless particles with positive-energy ($m^2=0$, $E>0$), the relationship between the 4-momentum and 4-velocity is given by:

$$p^{\mu}=E\,u^{\mu}$$

where $u^{\mu}$ is a light-cone vector.

$\endgroup$

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