-1
$\begingroup$

From Paul Dirac's extended mass-energy equivalence equation, we know that,

E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

We also know that E = mc2

So, if we write mc instead of E in the equation and then subtract mc2 from the both side, we get 0 in one side and (pc)2 on the other.

Like so:

E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

=> (mc2)2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2

=> (mc2)2 - (mc2)2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2 - (mc2)2

=> 0 = (pc)2

Since, p is the momentum, can't we state that light has 0 momentum? Am I missing something? Did I make any mistake in the equation?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ No, you have only concluded that when $E=m_{0}c^2$, p must be zero. $E≠ m_{0}c^2$ in general. $\endgroup$ Commented May 9, 2022 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're just mixing two definitions of mass, relativistic mass versus rest mass. Which one you call "mass" depends on what kind of physics you do. $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ This equation holds for mass and massless particles where as E=mc^2 does not. This equation IS E=mc^2, when P = $\gamma m_0 v$. in E=mc^2 the m is not rest mass but instead $\gamma m_{0}$ $\endgroup$ Commented May 9, 2022 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ Note that nowhere did you use any of the properties of light, so from your (incorrect) work, you would actually conclude that everything has 0 momentum. $\endgroup$
    – Sandejo
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 15:57

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

If you start with the energy momentum relation $$ E^2 = \left(m_{0} c^2\right)^2 + \left(pc\right)^2 $$ where $m_{0}$ is the rest/invariant mass, and apply it in the rest frame (where $p = 0$), you get $$ E = m_{0}c^2 $$ You've turned the argument around, and asked "what are the conditions where $E = m_{0}c^2$?" You found that $p = 0$.

For a photon, $m_{0} = 0$, so the first equation becomes $$ E = pc \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ p = \frac{E}{c} $$ With $E = hf = hc/\lambda$, this means the momentum of a photon is $$ p = \frac{hf}{c} = \frac{h}{\lambda} $$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You're using the revisionist definition of mass as "rest mass", but E=mc^2 refers to the older convention where mass is "relativistic mass". $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 14:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDoty I added some clarifications that $m$ is the rest/invariant mass. $\endgroup$
    – Eric Angle
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ You should also note that the classic, famous formula works fine when m is relativistic mass. $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 14:49
0
$\begingroup$

Your original equation is only correct when you mean m to be rest mass, which is actually denoted $m_{0}$. m is actually $\gamma m_{0}$ and is called relativistic mass.

You are finding conditions on the equation that make $E=m_{0}c^2$. Which ultimately give $P = 0$. Have you noticed that your reasoning has nothing to do with light? You're just proving that $P=0$ when your condition is met.

Your mistake lies in the fact that you believe $E=m_{0}c^2$ holds in general. It does not. Only when momentum is zero does this hold.

The standard equation:

$$E=mc^2 = \gamma m_{0}c^2$$

Which I believe you were trying to assert is true always, is also not true in general. (instead of the equation with $m_{0}$)

Substituting this correctly, as you were trying to do, yields that when $E=\gamma m_{0} c^2$

$$P = \gamma m_{0} v$$

Which is the equation for momentum of a massive body.

This does not apply for light, since atleast in the context of classical electrodynamics, the field momentum is denoted by $$P = \mu_{0} \epsilon_{0} \vec{S}$$

As pointed above, when $m_{0} = 0$, $E=pc$, which is the equation for the energy of light. ( which can also be independantly derived from maxwells equations)

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ For light, 𝛾 is infinite and 𝑚0 is zero, so the equation for a massive body does not apply. Still, you should note that Einstein's "radiation in a box" argument shows that it is sensible to attribute mass to light. $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ Comparing the momentum equation to field momentum is an equally valid way of showing this regardless. But I would argue your way is actually better since $\gamma$ is actually undefined not infinity. $\endgroup$ Commented May 9, 2022 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ And for the box thought experiment, I believe it more sensible to associate an inertia to the system, rather than associate a mass to the light itself. $\endgroup$ Commented May 9, 2022 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ The math depends on how you choose to compactify the complex plane. Mathematica tells me that 𝛾 is ComplexInfinity for β→1. But that's just math. Physically it seems more straightforward to attribute the mass transfer to the light itself, even though you may attribute it differently in the abstract math. In the end, it makes no difference, except that E=mc^2 is one of the most illuminating physics ideas of all time. Hiding this behind abstraction is not progress. $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented May 9, 2022 at 15:56
  • $\begingroup$ Remember we aren't dealing with limits, B is 1, not the limit as B goes to 1. $\endgroup$ Commented May 12, 2022 at 14:16
0
$\begingroup$

For me it is simple to think in terms of classical light as the ensemble of photons, quantum mechanical particles obeying the Lorentz transformations.

This means that a photon, which has zero mass, will have a four vector

four vect

Zero mass particles do have a momentum, setting $m_0$ to zero and thus getting the momentum of the photon $pc=E$ .

The classical light is built up by a large number of photons whose momenta will add up to the momentum of a beam of light.

This answer of mine gives an intuition of the complex way single photons build up classical light. .

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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