5

We all know the example where we say that a massless box containing photons has inertia, because the photons exert pressure of the inner walls of the box.

But my question is about a single photon traveling freely. Can it have inertia?

An aspect of this property is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces act upon them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

There is another definition of inertia, that is, we need to exert force on an object when we try to remove it from the geodesic it is following.

a photon of energy E confined in massless, perfectly reflecting box has a rest mass because has inertia i.e. it takes force to accelerate the box against the light pressure of the wave reflecting from inside the box: the impulse needed to reach speed v≪c is Ev/c2 so the system could be said to have rest mass and certainly inertial mass E/c2. Photons of energy E always add effective gravitational mass E/c2 to the T00 term in the stress energy tensor "source". So they have gravitational mass E/c2 and indeed there are electrovac solutions of the EFEs where intense light acts on itself through gravity. So inertial mass = gravitational mass

Photon: speed and mass

This answer specifically states that a photon, having stress-energy, contributes to the stress-energy tensor, thus has gravitational mass, and this fact together with the fact that photons do have their own gravitational effects means that inertial mass=gravitational mass for the photon.

Though, many on this site identify inertia with solely massive objects.

Now just like when removing a massive object from its way on a geodesic, we need to use force on it "push it" away from the geodesic, we can do the same with a photon using a mirror.

Now if we have a photon, traveling on a geodesic, and use a mirror to remove it from the geodesic, we use force (constituted by the mirror) to remove the photon from the original geodesic, and the photon will exert pressure on the mirror (opposite force).

Now the photon's pressure (momentum transfer) on the mirror might be miniscule, but it does depend on its frequency, because for photons, energy and frequency and momentum are proportional. This could be interpreted as photons having inertia, proportional to their energy, just like for massive objects, inertia is proportional to their mass (which comes down again to stress-energy).

So ultimately, stress-energy content determines inertia, and that goes for both massive and massless particles.

Question:

  1. Do photons have inertia?
Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • You seem to have already answered your own question: If you define inertia as contributing to the stress-energy tensor, then they do have inertia. What are you asking that is not already contained in your question? – ACuriousMind Oct 15 '20 at 16:51
  • @ACuriousMind there are a lot on this site, who state that inertia is for massive objects, and a lot of questions and answers using inertia as for only massive particles. My question pertains to establish that ultimately , massless particles can have inertia (photons in the example). – Árpád Szendrei Oct 15 '20 at 17:59
  • @ACuriousMind Like from wiki :"In common usage, the term "inertia" may refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" or for simpler terms, "resistance to a change in motion" (which is quantified by its mass), or sometimes to its momentum, depending on the context." This is an example that uses mass as the definer for inertia itself. – Árpád Szendrei Oct 15 '20 at 17:59
  • @ACuriousMind this is not as simple as saying, that photons have momentum. I believe having inertia is more then just having momentum (like photons do have momentum). – Árpád Szendrei Oct 15 '20 at 18:01

4 Answers4

3

yes they do, and for the reasons you sketched out. In principle, it would be possible to construct a mirror "sail" which, when deployed near a star, could be used to propel a spacecraft via the photon reaction force. However, the reaction force is tiny and to generate useful accelerations, a sail many miles across would be required.

Isaac Asimov may have written a science-fiction short story about "sun sailing" in the 1950's, I'll have to check my library to see if this is true.

niels nielsen
  • 92,630
2

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object's speed, or direction of motion.

The photon is an elementary particle with zero mass, but it is described by a four vector. Its speed is always the velocity of light c, but its direction can change depending on the interaction with fields or particles.

Gravitational lensing is an observed phenomenon.

where we say that a massless box containing photons has inertia, because the photons exert pressure of the inner walls of the box.

A box containing photons cannot be massless. It will include the collective mass of the photons, which is the length of the four vector sum of the four vectors of box and photons. Only if all the four vectors of zero mass are collinear in space will the total mass of photons be zero. So since there is a mass there is inertia according to the definition above.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • Thank you so much, do I understand correctly, that a single photon cannot have inertia? – Árpád Szendrei Oct 15 '20 at 21:17
  • This answer seems to be about rotational inertia (moment of inertia), whereas the OP's question is about translational inertia ("my question is about a single photon traveling freely"). – electronpusher Apr 10 '22 at 16:01
  • 1
    @electronpusher I have drastically changed the answer, thanks for commenting – anna v Apr 10 '22 at 17:01
  • @ÁrpádSzendrei I have changed the answer so maybe you should rethink – anna v Apr 10 '22 at 17:01
  • Would it not be more correct to say that a photon has no inertia, but the interaction with a box and a photon actas as though the BOX, has inertia. Since light does not have actually have mass, but it has energy. and any apparent inertia is due to the interaction with the photons and the box, instead of the photons actually having inertia. – jensen paull Apr 10 '22 at 17:31
  • What would a photon do if it encountered a mirror with an impedance of 377 Ohm's, would it be totally absorbed? What if the impedance was -j1000 ? would the surface be attracted towards the photon? Maxwell says yes to these questions in the case for planewaves! – barry Apr 10 '22 at 18:12
  • @barry a photon is a quantum mechanical entity, and its interactions governed by quantum mechanics. It does not "see" impedance , but a field with which it can interact quantum mechanically and its behavior can be fitted with a probability function. Thus the force in F=ma becomes the four momentum dp/dt in the vertex diagram for the photon interaction. If you google there are papers calculating the analogous inertia for the photon. – anna v Apr 11 '22 at 03:46
  • @jensenpaull I do not think so. The F=ma of classical dimensions becomes the dp/dt of the Feynman interactions of the photons with the box surface field. If you google there are papers calculating the analogous inertia for the photon. example :https://arxiv.org/html/physics/9810025 – anna v Apr 11 '22 at 03:56
  • anna v-I have been busy polishing 34 inch camera lens for some months but I'm back. In the real world light and RF behave according to Maxwell, QM leads to paradox's, faster than light tunnelling, Inability to explain two slit interference at low intensity etc. So Engineers in my trade do not use the concept of the photon. "The devil is in the detail" I asked for a prediction of what will be observed when a photon interacts with complex impedances, QM is incapable handling such sophistication....... – barry Apr 11 '22 at 06:01
  • ..........QM is incapable handling such sophistication, that is why the military do not use QM;s in the stealth industry to design anti reflection coating's for RF or optical Radar. Maxwellian technology is now capable of detecting stealth aircraft that are essentially perfect "black body radiators". QM's don't seem to be useful in this research, perhaps you can help here with some new QM advances. You could start by attempting to predict the outcomes of my original comment? – barry Apr 11 '22 at 06:04
  • @barry maxwells equations are fine for engineering and large dimension studies. Photons are not needed for Maxwell equations so there is no way to answer your question, it is apples to oranges.btw quantum mechanics completely explains the double slit experiment with single photons too,https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90646/what-is-the-relation-between-electromagnetic-wave-and-photon/90649#90649 – anna v Apr 11 '22 at 06:20
  • A brief search about inertia of a photon explains that inertial mass = gravitational mass, and thus its apparent inertial mass is non zero. Also a search says that the only way to actually "measure" it, is by containing them in something ( like a box). which I still find unconvincing. It's obvious that a photon has momentum, however a decrease in field momentum, doesn't have any impact on the speed of the actual photon. I assume this question boils down to a definition game as I've only really used the word inertia, in the context of resistance to acceleration – jensen paull Apr 11 '22 at 11:09
  • anna v Maxwells equations have no upper limit they are fine up too the highest energy gamma rays. btw your link in no way demonstrates single photons interfering with only one in the experiment at a time, it is magical thinking. The so called "photons" that build up over time are simply thermal noise plus EM waves that when added give the illusion of photons being detected. I have a link to a paper that perfectly simulates the effect using Maxwellian waves plus noise. https://jumpshare.com/v/TX5vZ8WKGtSgHSJrfSt3 – barry Apr 11 '22 at 14:37
  • @barry this is your own theory of the world and this site is for mainstream physics so we cannot discuss further – anna v Apr 11 '22 at 16:03
1

Somehow questions about inertia are related to these about a photon mass. The discussion about a photon mass can be conducted endlessly. In general:

  • it is clear that a photon has no rest mass. Because it cannot be at rest. It can only exist after its emission until it is not absorbed. In between it moves at the speed of light.
  • the emission of photons (energy) reduces the mass of the emitter Since Einstein, mass and energy have been directly related. The designation of photon energy as mass only makes sense if the calculations are different AND are accompanied by a measurable effect. This does not seem to be the case and apparently will not be the case in the future.

Inertia is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces act upon them. In general:

  • for our usual surrounding two photons not interact, no force is exerted on each other. Therefore inertia is not manifested.
  • high-energy photons are capable of annihilating themselves into two or more subatomic particles. I would not call these processes inert, because these photons disappear.

But there is another process in which a photon is deflected. If a photon flies near an edge, it is deflected. That is not surprising; both, photons and the surface electrons of the edge, have magnetic and electric fields, and these interactions are a good reason for the deflection of photons. From the fact of deflection it can be concluded that photons have inertia.

HolgerFiedler
  • 10,334
0

Electromagnetic waves exert a repulsive force on a conducting surface by first inducing a current into that surface, the resultant current produces a magnetic field in such a direction that it opposes the field that produced it, this is lenz's law or Faraday's law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law

If this can be construed to be inertia then so be it.

barry
  • 304