IIT JEE , AIEEE Forum - Physics , Mechanics

neeraj39

Can a massless body ever accelerate?????????/

ace

a massless body cannot exist matter always has mass

cvramana

The Question

Does light have mass? Most people would think not but here's why I argue against it. Even though light does not effect anything it its path like a solid object, it is affected by gravity. Anything that has mass is affected by gravity. Why do I say that light has mass? Well, If a black holes gravity field is so strong that light cannot escape itself, light must have mass? Am I right? Everyone argues against it.

The Answer

These are interesting issues that you bring up. Whether or not light (or more accurately photons, the indivisible units in which light can be emitted or absorbed) has mass, and how it is affected by gravity, puzzled scientists for many, many years. Figuring it all out is what made Albert Einstein famous. Bear with me and I'll try to explain both the theory and the observation.

Back in the 1700s, scientists were still struggling to understand which theory of light was correct: was it composed of particles or was it made of waves? Under the theory that light is waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light was composed of particles, it would be expected that they would be affected by gravity in the same way apples and planets are. This expectation grew when it was discovered that light did not travel infinitely fast, but with a finite measurable velocity.

Armed with these facts, a paper was published in 1783 by John Michell, in which he pointed out that a sufficiently massive compact star would possess a strong enough gravitational field that light could not escape --- any light emitted from the star's surface would be dragged back by the star's gravity before it could get very far. The French scientist Laplace came to a similar conclusion at roughly the same time.

Not much was done over the next hundred years or so with the ideas of Michell and Laplace. This was mostly true because during that time, the wave theory of light became the more accepted one. And no one understood how light, as a wave, could be affected by gravity.

Enter Albert Einstein. In 1915 he proposed the theory of general relativity. General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity affects light. We now knew that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum (so your statement about light not affecting matter is incorrect). We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension.

Let us relate this to light traveling near a star. The strong gravitational field of the star changes the paths of light rays in space-time from what they would have been had the star not been present. Specifically, the path of the light is bent slightly inward toward the surface of the star. We see this effect all the time when we observe distant stars in our Universe. As a star contracts, the gravitational field at its surface gets stronger, thus bending the light more. This makes it more and more difficult for light from the star to escape, thus it appears to us that the star is dimmer. Eventually, if the star shrinks to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface becomes so strong that the path of the light is bent so severely inward so that it returns to the star itself. The light can no longer escape. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Thus, if light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. We call the region of space for which this condition is true a "black hole" (a term first coined by American scientist John Wheeler in 1969).

Now, being scientists, we do not just accept theories like general relativity or conclusions like photons have no mass. We constantly test them, trying to definitively prove or disprove. So far, general relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to "weigh the photon". The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10^-48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 x 10^-28 grams.

edison

First of all in physics there is no concept of massless body at rest.

Moreover the moving body always possess a mass along with it weather it is a photon or whatever

Photon has rest mass = ZERO(0)

But photon is never at rest

Moreover, photon in motion (quanta of light particle moving with

velocity c in vacuum) always has mass asscociated with it and

mass of the photon is given by m = hf/c^2

ace

but sir is the momentum of photons so large that it can knock electrons from an atom (photo electeic effect) even though its mass is greater than 10^20 times the photon

aprem_iit2008

The reason is that a photon has energy in proportion to its frequency and the constant of proportionality is the Planck constant. Below a certain frequency -- and thus below a certain energy -- the incident photons do not have enough energy to knock the photoelectrons out of the metal. Above that threshold energy, called the work function, photons will knock the photoelectrons out of the metal

i think I answred your question

rohitju

how can a photon have mass? doesnt anything travelling with the speed of light have infinite mass?

funnyguy_2005college

photons is a type of energy pakets ; it have mass but the value of mass is very niglible.............

aprem_iit2008

yes,a photon is a discrete energy packet which has aneglible mass

cvramana

The speed of a body decides its mass when compared to its rest mass. Where as there is no reference frame in which the photon is at rest. Because according to Einstien's theory of relativity, the speed of light in every reference frame is same and equal to 300,000,000 m/s. There fore the mass of photon becoming infinite is ruled out. There fore it is no point in talking about its rest mass. It is more appropriate to think about its momentum but not mass.

edison

Agreed with sir cvrmana. Ofcourse speed of light in all the frames whether moving or at rest is c = 300, 000, 000 m/s

I would like to elaborate on the point that photons does not have infinit mass its mass is

m = hf/c^2, where f is frequency of the light of which photon is a quanta.

Momentum is also possessed by photons and momentum of photon is given by P = hf/c

Anything that has momentum ofcourse possess mass and due to momentum only photons exert radiation pressure on the surface on which it falls.

Now coming to ROHITJU's query

anything moving with velocity of light has infinite mass PROVIDED the rest mass of the body is not zero. Thus the concept is not applicable for photons as its rest mass (though photons can never be at rest, remember this and please don't be confused) is zero.

m = m0 / [(1 - v^2/c^2)^2]

where mo is rest mass
and m = mass when body is moving with velocity 'v'

and if mo is NON ZERO then

for v = c or v is comparable to c (limiting case)

m = INFINITE

But the concept fails to explain when applied for photons as

for photons v=c, mo = 0

so m = 0/0 is not defined

Thus we use the concept E = mc^2 = hf

or m = hf/c^2, thus is the mass of photon.

I hope the things are now crystal clear.

cvramana

Thank you Mr. edison,

Your further explanation is real enough for a student preparing for IIT(JEE) and the explanation is clear.

Ask & Discuss Questions with Community & Experts

The Question

The Answer