Derivation of [itex] p = \frac{E}{c} [/itex] using Maxwell's light

In summary: Oh I see! Sorry - early in the morning. I'll have to let vanhees71 answer that.I haven't called it handwaving in the first place. I think, however, that most E&M textbooks just state the expressions for energy-momentum density and then derive the conservation laws by just using Maxwell's equations in a lengthy calculation using standard 3D vector analysis. That's fine but doesn't lead to a deeper understanding where the conservation laws come from, which is the great work by Emmy Noether of 1918. It's just relating the 10 general conservation laws to the symmetries of Galilei-Newton or Einstein-Minkowski spacetime.
  • #1
Adesh
735
191
Imagine that we have an electromagnetic wave or light propagating in [itex]x[/itex] direction, and [itex]\mathbf{E}[/itex] is oscillating in [itex]z[/itex] direction and [itex] \mathbf{B}[/itex] in [itex]y[/itex] direction. The picture looks something like this
Screen Shot 2019-12-14 at 6.49.06 PM.png


Now, if there exists a charged particle [itex] q [/itex] on the xx axis at rest, then our B field can't do anything, but the electric field E will pull it upwards and as soon as it starts moving the magnetic field B comes into action and it goes like this $$ \mathbf{F_{mag}} = q (\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}) $$ Since, E is going to cause a velocity in [itex] z [/itex] direction i.e. perpendicular to magnetic field B , therefore $$ F_{mag} = q~v~B$$
$$ F_{mag} = q~v~\frac{E}{c}$$
$$F_{mag} = v~\frac{(qE)}{c}$$
$$ F_{mag} = \frac{F_{electric}~v}{c}$$
$$ F_{mag} = \frac{dW_{electric}/dt}{c}$$ and after doing this he writes
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy

After considering this line, I thought the last equation could be written as $$ \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{1}{c} ~ \frac{dW}{dt}$$
$$ dp = \frac{dW}{c} $$
$$ p= \frac{E}{c}$$
But I find this thing sloppy because when I wrote [itex]F_{mag} = \frac{dp}{dt}[/itex] it was for the particle, that is force applied on the particle was equated with the rate of change of particle's momentum and not the light's momentum and similarly [itex]dW[/itex] is the energy imparted to the particle and not the energy of light itself.

So, these are my problems. I earnestly request you to please help me over here.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-12-14 at 6.49.06 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-12-14 at 6.49.06 PM.png
    4.1 KB · Views: 196
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Use conservation of momentum. The momentum the particle gets must come from the radiation. Same for the energy.
It is not completely free of hand-waving, because you can also ask if the motion of the particle will emit new radiation on its own, but that is a smaller effect.
 
  • #3
mfb said:
Use conservation of momentum. The momentum the particle gets must come from the radiation. Same for the energy.
It is not completely free of hand-waving, because you can also ask if the motion of the particle will emit new radiation on its own, but that is a smaller effect.
But that should involve complete absorption of light then only we can call the charged particle’s momentum and energy to be equal to that of light, isn’t ?
 
  • #4
The non-handwaving derivation of the conservation laws leads to Noether's theorem. However you need some more advanced mathematics than you find in the Feynman Lectures, i.e., Hamilton's principle for fields. Then the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor follows from invariance under space-time translations (+ a gauge-symmetry argument to derive a manifestly gauge invariant symmetric energy-momentum tensor).
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh
  • #5
Adesh said:
But that should involve complete absorption of light then only we can call the charged particle’s momentum and energy to be equal to that of light, isn’t ?
It doesn't matter how much energy transferred, as long as energy and momentum are transferred at a rate of pc=E. The remaining light will have the same energy-momentum relation as before, that is only possible if pc=E applies to the overall light as well.
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
The non-handwaving derivation of the conservation laws leads to Noether's theorem. However you need some more advanced mathematics than you find in the Feynman Lectures, i.e., Hamilton's principle for fields. Then the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor follows from invariance under space-time translations (+ a gauge-symmetry argument to derive a manifestly gauge invariant symmetric energy-momentum tensor).
What is handwaving?
 
  • #7
Adesh said:
What is handwaving?
Handwaving is being non-rigorous. I think it comes from the habit many people have of waving their hand in the air when dismissing a question about details of an argument. So non-handwaving is rigorous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Adesh
  • #8
Ibix said:
Handwaving is being non-rigorous. I think it comes from the habit many people have of waving their hand in the air when dismissing a question about details of an argument. So non-handwaving is rigorous.
Thank you. But why that derivation of Feynman was called hand-waving?
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #9
Adesh said:
Thank you. But why that derivation of Feynman was called hand-waving?
Oh I see! Sorry - early in the morning. I'll have to let vanhees71 answer that.
 
  • #10
I haven't called it handwaving in the first place. I think, however, that most E&M textbooks just state the expressions for energy-momentum density and then derive the conservation laws by just using Maxwell's equations in a lengthy calculation using standard 3D vector analysis. That's fine but doesn't lead to a deeper understanding where the conservation laws come from, which is the great work by Emmy Noether of 1918. It's just relating the 10 general conservation laws to the symmetries of Galilei-Newton or Einstein-Minkowski spacetime.
 

1. What is the significance of the equation [itex] p = \frac{E}{c} [/itex]?

This equation, also known as the momentum-energy relation, is significant because it relates two fundamental quantities in physics: momentum and energy. It shows that the momentum of a photon (p) is directly proportional to its energy (E) and inversely proportional to the speed of light (c).

2. How does Maxwell's theory of light help derive this equation?

James Clerk Maxwell's theory of light states that light is an electromagnetic wave, and it travels at the speed of light (c). By combining this theory with the principles of special relativity, we can derive the momentum-energy relation [itex] p = \frac{E}{c} [/itex].

3. Can this equation be applied to particles other than photons?

Yes, this equation can be applied to any particle with massless energy, such as photons, as well as particles with rest mass, such as electrons. For particles with rest mass, the equation is modified to [itex] p = \gamma m_0 v [/itex], where [itex] \gamma [/itex] is the Lorentz factor and [itex] m_0 [/itex] is the rest mass.

4. How does this equation relate to the concept of wave-particle duality?

The equation [itex] p = \frac{E}{c} [/itex] is a manifestation of the wave-particle duality of light. It shows that light can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior, as its momentum is dependent on its energy and inversely proportional to its speed, similar to a classical particle.

5. Is this equation applicable in all situations involving light?

No, this equation is derived under the assumptions of special relativity and Maxwell's theory of light, which may not hold in all situations. For example, in the presence of strong gravitational fields, the equation may need to be modified to account for the effects of general relativity.

Similar threads

  • Electromagnetism
2
Replies
66
Views
25K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
693
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
807
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
720
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
4
Views
979
  • Electromagnetism
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
Back
Top