A photon with highest limiting velocity shall be with infinite relativistic mass that have to consider be converted in to energy. Ok. Then the energy with photon should be toward infinity, as it become massless, and if it is massless, how the momentum should be considered?
Some confusion or error should be in my way of thinking and imagination? I am waiting for the answers which will clear my confusion.
The photon and the neutrino don't follow the mass law (E=mc²). Their mass is independent of their relative speed. You can simply suppose that it has a mass (m = h lambda/c²).
JES
We are used to think about momentum as mass times velocity. With radiation which travels at the speed of light we have to think differently.
We know that light has momentum because we can measure its effect on a light/dark vane which spins in a vacuum.
So think of light as a series of wave quanta travelling at speed c with energy given by E=hf and zero rest mass but momentum given by h / wavelength.
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics
Richard
A photon travels in vacuum at the speed of light. It doesn't have infinite mass, but zero mass. Its energy is related to its momentum by the relation that holds for any particle,
E^2-|p|^2c^2=m^2c^4, when m=0. Setting m=0, we find that E=|p|c, thus |p|=E/c, for a massless particle, in particular a photon.
I don't understand the confusion, however, since electromagnetic waves are superpositions of photons and electromagnetic waves carry energy and momentum.
To explain the answers already given in more detail: If you try the relativistic mass formula m=mo*gamma, you get a division by 0 since v=c and root of (1-(v/c)^2)=0. WHich means that a) the REST mass mo=0 (i.e. all particles moving with the speed of light have zero REST mass-in other words you cannot find them stationary) since otherwise it would have infinite mass and hence
infinite energy and momentum and b) then, since mo=0, you get a 0/0 indeterminacy, which means you should not try the problem this way. Instead you find the mass by equating the photon energy from plank's formula E=hf with the Einstein formula E=mc^2, so that m=hf/c^2. In other words, the photon energy depends ONLY on its color (frequency), with blue photons more heavy than red photons.
In reality, photons don't follow the law m=m_o gamma. They have a constant energy-mass (independent from their velocity). The photons are created at zero velocity and are then accelerated in the interaction with the surrounding media until the limiting velocity (c) is reached.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson :"In reality, photons don't follow the law"
Why not? They are relativistic particles and if they do not, this would mean relativity is not valid.
" They have a constant energy-mass (independent from their velocity)."
Sure(in free space), but only because their velocity is constant (c)
" The photons are created at zero velocity and are then accelerated in the interaction with the surrounding media until the limiting velocity (c) is reached."
NO, because apart from 0 energy then (mo=0) a) they would need time to reach c, b) they propagate even without a medium (i.e. free space) and c) why would they be accelerated? They are electrically neutral.
Dear S. Alexiou,
In fact, relativity is wrong; time dilation, mass increase and, length contraction are correct. The problem with special relativity is that the concept of the reference frame is wrong. There is a frame of reference surrounding the Earth; that is why all measurements on Earth show the theory correct.
Their energy mass is constant at any velocity; the problem is that they accelerate very rapidly so that it's difficult to measure their acceleration.
A photon is not neutral; it has an electric (and magnetic) field perpendicular to its velocity.
JES
The key evidence for light waves is the Young’s double-slit interference experiment. After the discovery of the double-slit interference experiment of particles (electrons, etc.), the conclusion of light waves can no longer be established. "Wave-particle duality" denies light as particles because of the wave phenomenon, but recognizes the wave nature of particles. It is better understood that light particles have wave phenomena. Of course, light particle behavior and wave mechanism need new understanding.
https://book4you.org/book/18269199/bf2351
A lot of superluminal research challenges the theory of relativity, and the assumption of the constant speed of light violates the universal experience of relative speed. ~_~
“…Photon is massless particle , but it has momentum…”
- that is indeed correct; however that
“…..There are 2 types of Mass 1. Rest mass 2. Relativistic mass
Rest mass is constant for particle who can be at rest , where relativistic mass exists when a particle is at high speed like photon when this relativistic mass is generated by the interaction in Higgs fields , relativistic momentum also created by this mass
That's why photons have momentum ( relativistic momentum ).…”
- is incorrect in at least two points. First one is that really there exist two fundamentally different “masses” – “inertial mass” and “gravitational mass”, whereas the types 1 and 2 above are the same – inertial masses. The difference of the types 1 and 2 is only in that in physicists’ inertial reference frames the “rest mass” is invariant, whereas the “relativistic mass” isn’t invariant.
However Matter – and all/every material object, exist and interact changing their states, including velocities – and so inertial masses in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); and in this spacetime parameters of all material objects have real values, independently on there exist some humans, reference frames, and the frames’ invariances. Though for physical theories, which describe what happens in Matter for humans, the using of the types above is convenient, and essentially important, way at the description.
At that practically all/every material objects – particles, including photons, bodies, etc., fundamentally obligatorily, as that rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 have both – inertial and gravitational masses;
- and that is by no means a result of some transcendent interactions in/with the really transcendent in physics, and practically for sure non-existent, “Higgs fields”
More see the link above. To read the SS comment to Dirac Lecture “The Relation between Mathematics and Physics” in https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/61fd3890f5675b211b231348
- and the SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_energy_have_mass2 and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Compatibility_between_local_Lorentz_invariance_and_the_existence_of_an_aether_in_flat_spacetime2
- it is useful as well.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic