Photons have momentum even though they are mass-less

I've given up trying to understand physics. I feel they make that shit up as they go along.

>So mass is just condensed energy, right?
>Yes, they are related by E=MC^2.
>And photons have energy?
>Of course. We can work out that energy from their wavelength.
>So we can stick that energy into the equation, and recover their mass?
>NO YOU DUMBSHIT. THAT'S RELATIVISTIC MASS. NO ONE USES IT ANYWAY. IT SHOULDN'T BE CALLED MASS AT ALL.

Fix your fucking field.

Feels lonely to always be the most intelligent person in every thread i grace with my presence. I'm not amused by you attempt at humor, brainlet.

WEW LAD

I had a giggle there.

now get the fuck off my board faggot.

Yes it does. Although the photon has zero rest mass, it does have energy. From the relativistic relationships among Energy, Mass, and Momentum, E2 = (Moc2)2 + (pc)2, if the rest mass is zero then the momentum is give by p = E/c. Consider a photon bouncing directly back from a small mirror. It is observed by direct experimental measurement that if a laser beam is reflected from a mirror, the mirror will recoil with the same amount of momentum that the photon had (minus a tiny amount do the slight wavelength shift in the recoiling photon).

EM Drive

Show us mathematically how 0 x c = 0c>0

... its not 0...
light has energy, and thus behaves like anything with energy would... it just doesnt jave energy in the form of mass like normal matter does.
how about you fucking read my post before you make yourself look like a baboon? What the fuck do you not understand? You are litterally arguing with physics.

>it just doesnt jave energy in the form of mass like normal matter does.

What is the difference between the having mass in the conventional and non-conventional way? Because the obvious answer to your question, as given in many intro physics books, is that there isnt...

>... its not 0...

what is it then nigga.

Momentum isn't just mv in relativity.

So photons have mass and don't have mass at the same time? Thanks, now it all makes sense.

Please finish your undergraduate education before posting inane ideas OP.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Additionally Feynman has a good treaty of an intuitive way this concept can be understood in this in his lecture series

The formula for momentum isn't p = mv

mo·men·tum
mōˈmen(t)əm,məˈmen(t)əm/
noun
1.
PHYSICS
the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity.

lmgtfy.com/?q=momentum

No, dictionaries are not good references once you get beyond Newtonian mechanics.
E^2=(mc^2)+(pc)^2 (mass-energy equivalence)
This is a better way to think of things and encapsulates the idea.
Also:

also should be (mc^2)^2, mybad on the typo

>MOMENTUM: the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity.
this is false

(0c^2)=0 (0c)^2=0 0+0=0

lmgtfy.com/?q=momentum

So far countless people have claimed light has momentum which necessitates it has mass, yet no one has said how much mass light has.

Which is why lasers have no recoil

you know that mass is not even properly defined in GR?
ofc you do not, you are a 20 yo worm.

Stop spouting bullshit and demonstrate to us mathematically how photons can have momentum

I guess they use the energy photons have when they impact something

>It would take an infinite amount of energy to move an atom with mass at c
>light moves at c
>light has no mass
>momentum is the product of mass x velocity
>0xc=0
>light has no momentum

Prove me wrong

>momentum is the product of mass x velocity
bumbolzed again

No seriously, please read what the Feynman Lecuture series has to say on this topic and it will make a lot more sense. You're making assumptions derived from Newtonian mechanics that do not apply to this topic and leading you down the wrong road.
Or you're just a cuck troll. Either way you're wrong.

Also for people actually wanting to learn this is a half-decent explanation that should satisfy people with an undergraduate level of education in physics physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentum

if i trap a single photon of light in a box ,which the photon cannot escape from, how much momentum does the photon have? As George bush once famously said "If you can't explain an idea to others, you're a stupid brainlet faggot"

"by you"

>Not realizing he did that on purpose in order to snag a (You)

You can't just make shit up as you go along, fucking brainlet physicists.

I once read an article where this was claimed with a serious face. I suppose that article was in those 80% causing the replication crysis.

They momentum in the sense that to "stop" their energy must be successfully imparted on what they make contact with.

well, technically they're not massless when they move. their mass is their energy to sqrt of their speed I suppose.

E=mc^2 is at rest, photons are clearly nog at rest.

has pc gone too far?

I thought they did

how do you know they don't

hey guys whats up

>I'm stupid therefore you are too!
Great argument. I'll just say you're half right.

So what i've gotten from this thread is that light has energy, which i already knew. people keep saying this energy is the same as momentum, but no one will say just how much momentum light has.

because they have relativistic mass due to traveling at (or near, as the case may be) speed c. so fuck off retard.

Enough to go faster than everything else.

So they don't have mass but have mass when it's convenient

I don't understand brainlets like this. Did you drool all over the matter waves chapter of your high-school science textbook before you could read it?

momentum = m*v is a simplification that is useful for newtonian physics

there's more to momentum when you consider non-newtonian situations

you're not discovering anything groundbreaking by pointing out that 0*c = 0

Nope

>Tfw too intelligent to have mass

top kek

>the level of stupidity in this thread
Wew

>. Did you drool all over the matter waves chapter of your high-school science textbook

No, I regularly challenged my teacher and embarrassed him by asking him questions i knew he couldn't answer.

I once asked him " How can photons have momentum if they don't have mass"
He couldn't answer my question, like the people in this thread. I made him look like a dumb ass in front of the whole class. From that day onward he realized i was intellectually superior to him. I sat down in victory.

no, not when it's convenient, asshat. anything that travels at any speed gains relativistic mass in addition to its inertial mass. at low speeds this mass is negligible but at speeds around .9c and up this comes into play and is one of the reasons that you cannot infinitely accelerate an object with a constant force--as you go faster it will have more mass thus making it require more force to accelerate at the same rate. this results in a fairly linear graph as we plot time vs speed for a given force acting on a mass as speed remains low, but this relationship begins to decrease in slope and speed will have an asymptote at c, since nothing but light can travel at that speed, and nothing can exceed it.

> nothing can exceed it

That's where you're wrong buddy. the speed of dark is faster than light

If quantum physics doesn't work, how do you explain your cell phone?

Normal physics

the difference between mass and relativistic mass is simple. Rather than being affected in a regular way as say a lump of lead would. The mass less particle would change direction by changing frequency, not by slowing down. I have probably explained this poorly, but I am a chemist.......

Biology, it's a *cell*phone

Haha, oh wow. People still talk about relativistic mass??
Baby, the only mass of a body is its mass as measured in its co-moving frame.
Relativistic mass is just an outdated idea taught to the slower children in a misguided effort to help them learn piss-easy physics.

Fix your education. Your equation is a special case, and you're completely ignorant of its allowed context and meaning.

it depends on the colour

actually, they have. i studied physics for 4 years, then thought fuck this shit xD

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Wave.E2.80.93particle_duality_and_uncertainty_principles

if god can, we can

h divided by wavelength.
h is the Planck-constant

you got schooled in US? it's not physics fault your teacher was a dumbass
btw: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Wave.E2.80.93particle_duality_and_uncertainty_principles

>it's not physics fault your teacher was a dumbass

If you weren't retarded you'd have been able to see the relationship between physics and biology, and have came to the conclusion that physics is literally the reason he was retarded,but you're retarded, so you weren't able to do this. How does this make you feel?

Thank you for actually answering the question. I learned something.

but there cannot be a co-moving frame traveling at c, so what does this have to do with light's mass or OP's question?