Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Mass of Photons

  1. #1 Mass of Photons 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    39
    Imagine a box that is lined with a material that very effectively reflects EM waves of a certain frequency. I then manage to somehow trap a very sizable amount of radiation with that frequency inside that box. Let's say the relativistic mass of all the photons inside the box is equal to 2kg. Would that box then be 2kg heavier than an empty box? What if the box was in deep space, far away from any massive objects, would it require more force to accelerate it to a certain speed than an empty box?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Nope, because the photons don't have mass. Remember the mass of the photons if they could become mass is going to be A LOT less than the energy, as of course as ever dictated by E=mc


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Nope, because the photons don't have mass. Remember the mass of the photons if they could become mass is going to be A LOT less than the energy, as of course as ever dictated by E=mc
    Photons don't have REST mass. Then do have energy, determined by the frequency, and that energy is equivalent to mass precisely according to , NOT "a lot less". It is also possible, when one has photons of sufficient energy, to have photon collisions that produce particles that do have rest mass, and that mass is also consistent with those equations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Mass of Photons 
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceWizard
    Would that box then be 2kg heavier than an empty box? What if the box was in deep space, far away from any massive objects, would it require more force to accelerate it to a certain speed than an empty box?
    Yes, I believe so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Nope, because the photons don't have mass. Remember the mass of the photons if they could become mass is going to be A LOT less than the energy, as of course as ever dictated by E=mc
    Photons don't have REST mass. Then do have energy, determined by the frequency, and that energy is equivalent to mass precisely according to , NOT "a lot less". It is also possible, when one has photons of sufficient energy, to have photon collisions that produce particles that do have rest mass, and that mass is also consistent with those equations.
    OK but the photons do not have mass at all in normal circumstances do they? By photons becoming mass I meant exactly what you said, I just neglected to say as I though I would be deterring from the OP. I also thought something with a lot of energy will make a lot less mass? I learned that from experiments at CERN attempting to combine energy to make mass, although I am not aware of the specifics...

    Finally, am I right in saying that in E=hv

    E= energy
    h = planck's constant
    v = velocity

    PS. How do you work the tex, is there a list of input anywhere you know of?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Photons are little packets of pure energy, not mass a bit like sound, sound has no mass only energy (although unlike photons it requires medium to travel through)

    Funny little buggars, we keep trying to categorise them as things we understand but there is no equivalent in our natural experience, they exist as energy only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    The Stress-energy tensor is the source term in Einstein's field equations. So this means that your box of "light" would bend the local space-time (i.e. produce some gravity) more than an identical box without any "light" in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    39
    Bad Wolf,

    Here is a pretty decent tutorial on using TeX:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_Math

    Only difference is that Wikipedia uses <math> E=mc^2 </math> while these forums use
    Code:
    Oh, and in E=hv the v stands for frequency, not velocity. The "v" is actually lower case Greek letter Nu which looks like a v. If I'm not mistaken Nu is used by physicists while engineers and mathematicians use f. Just like mathematicians and physicists use i for the imaginary unit and engineers use j. It would be nice if we all could just get along :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Thanks for that .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Do Photons have Mass? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Nope, because the photons don't have mass. Remember the mass of the photons if they could become mass is going to be A LOT less than the energy, as of course as ever dictated by E=mc
    What is the experimental proof that photons don't have mass? Since we can detect a photon it must consist of something; but I guess the view would be that that something is pure energy? Is it possible that energy is a form of matter with unmeasurable (infinitesimal) mass?
    Does truth exist in the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Do Photons have Mass? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by jonathancollins225
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Nope, because the photons don't have mass. Remember the mass of the photons if they could become mass is going to be A LOT less than the energy, as of course as ever dictated by E=mc
    What is the experimental proof that photons don't have mass? Since we can detect a photon it must consist of something; but I guess the view would be that that something is pure energy? Is it possible that energy is a form of matter with unmeasurable (infinitesimal) mass?

    Photons are wierd,
    Look up the Double Slit Experiment to see why
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    what about the double slit experiment? Do you mean the absolutely asinine conclusions we've drawn from it regarding a weird sense of choice in a photon based on it's being observed? or do you mean the odd way photons distribute themselves across a wave pattern?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Nope, because the photons don't have mass. Remember the mass of the photons if they could become mass is going to be A LOT less than the energy, as of course as ever dictated by E=mc
    Photons don't have REST mass. Then do have energy, determined by the frequency, and that energy is equivalent to mass precisely according to , NOT "a lot less". It is also possible, when one has photons of sufficient energy, to have photon collisions that produce particles that do have rest mass, and that mass is also consistent with those equations.
    OK but the photons do not have mass at all in normal circumstances do they? By photons becoming mass I meant exactly what you said, I just neglected to say as I though I would be deterring from the OP. I also thought something with a lot of energy will make a lot less mass? I learned that from experiments at CERN attempting to combine energy to make mass, although I am not aware of the specifics...

    Finally, am I right in saying that in E=hv

    E= energy
    h = planck's constant
    v = velocity

    PS. How do you work the tex, is there a list of input anywhere you know of?
    Mass and energy are equivalent, as per relativity. Photons always have energy. They don't have rest mass, but then again they are never at rest. Photons ALWAYS travel at the speed of light.

    Yes

    Under the right circumstances particles with enough energy, say two very energetic photons can interact to produce a particle that does have rest mass.

    You can find a tutorial, started by Jane Bennet who is a whiz, on Tex in the mathematics forum. It is a sticky and it at the top of the list of threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    what about the double slit experiment? Do you mean the absolutely asinine conclusions we've drawn from it regarding a weird sense of choice in a photon based on it's being observed? or do you mean the odd way photons distribute themselves across a wave pattern?
    Spedifically what "assinine conclusions" are you talking about? And who is drawing such conclusions ?

    Herer is a pretty good explanation, with some interesting pictures of the interference patterns being formed by individual particles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    If you like cartoons for a double slit watch:
    Double slit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Mass and energy are equivalent, as per relativity. Photons always have energy. They don't have rest mass, but then again they are never at rest. Photons ALWAYS travel at the speed of light.
    I know that thank you, please don't insult my intelligence or ego

    I'll check out Jane but she's not been on in a while...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Mass of Photons 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,197
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceWizard
    Imagine a box that is lined with a material that very effectively reflects EM waves of a certain frequency. I then manage to somehow trap a very sizable amount of radiation with that frequency inside that box. Let's say the relativistic mass of all the photons inside the box is equal to 2kg. Would that box then be 2kg heavier than an empty box? What if the box was in deep space, far away from any massive objects, would it require more force to accelerate it to a certain speed than an empty box?

    Let's consider what happens in that box. First imagine that is floating in free space with no gravity.

    The light will bounce off all the sides, and light exerts a pressure due to its momentum. Since it bounces off all faces equally, there is no net force acting on the box in any one direction.

    Now rest it on a surface in a gravity field. Consider what happens to the light as it bounces up and down in the box. Light traveling upwards against gravity red shifts to a longer wavelength, while light traveling down blue shifts. Since the momentum of light is inversely proportional to its wavelength, light hitting the upper side of the box has less momentum and exerts less pressure then the light hitting the bottom of the box. So, yes, the box weighs more.

    The same thing happens if you try to accelerate the box in a given direction. Light hitting the wall in the direction of the acceleration is red-shifted and light hitting the opposite side is blue shifted, so the the light pressure acting against the acceleration is greater than that acting with the acceleration and the box resists movement more than if it didn't contain the light.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    what about the double slit experiment? Do you mean the absolutely asinine conclusions we've drawn from it regarding a weird sense of choice in a photon based on it's being observed? or do you mean the odd way photons distribute themselves across a wave pattern?
    Spedifically what "assinine conclusions" are you talking about? And who is drawing such conclusions ?

    Herer is a pretty good explanation, with some interesting pictures of the interference patterns being formed by individual particles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
    He's talking about the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    And I meant the wave intersection patterns, not the principle.

    But it isn't asinine, its not saying it chooses, its saying that by being there and watching we are effecting the outcome, as much as experimental human error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by okkaoboy
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    what about the double slit experiment? Do you mean the absolutely asinine conclusions we've drawn from it regarding a weird sense of choice in a photon based on it's being observed? or do you mean the odd way photons distribute themselves across a wave pattern?
    Spedifically what "assinine conclusions" are you talking about? And who is drawing such conclusions ?

    Herer is a pretty good explanation, with some interesting pictures of the interference patterns being formed by individual particles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
    He's talking about the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    And I meant the wave intersection patterns, not the principle.

    But it isn't asinine, its not saying it chooses, its saying that by being there and watching we are effecting the outcome, as much as experimental human error
    I don't think so. There is nothing whatever assinine about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nor is there anything assinine about the interference patterns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Mass and energy are equivalent, as per relativity. Photons always have energy. They don't have rest mass, but then again they are never at rest. Photons ALWAYS travel at the speed of light.
    I know that thank you, please don't insult my intelligence or ego

    I'll check out Jane but she's not been on in a while...
    If you know that then you answered your own question. Your ego is your problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    On balance I suppose the answer to the original question depends on what you mean by mass. Photons, as far as I am aware, do not interact with the gravitational force, and so this box of yours would not weight any more, despite having inside it the potential for 2kg extra.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,197
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    On balance I suppose the answer to the original question depends on what you mean by mass. Photons, as far as I am aware, do not interact with the gravitational force, and so this box of yours would not weight any more, despite having inside it the potential for 2kg extra.
    But they do interact with it. They red-shift while climbing against it, blue shift when falling with it, and have their path changed when traveling perpendicular to it.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    On balance I suppose the answer to the original question depends on what you mean by mass. Photons, as far as I am aware, do not interact with the gravitational force, and so this box of yours would not weight any more, despite having inside it the potential for 2kg extra.
    Photons DO interact with gravity. That is one of the more striking results of general relativity and the measurement of that interaction experimentally was one of the early triumphs of the theory.

    Moreover the producton of large gravitational field by light itself has been studied. It was studied by John Archibald Wheeler and he called such a structure a "geon".

    That box of light WOULD in fact weigh more with the photons inside it. It also true that if you take a box of air and heat it the heat energy causes the box to weigh more. However, if you look at the equation or equivalently what you find is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy, far greater than is normally available, to make a measureable difference in mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •