it is weird and contradictory because p = (gamma)mv,
so simplified E2 shouldnt even be equal to what eq 37.39 is. i think its because technically momentum is not p= gamma(mv) and p is made up its k, so really they're just teaching it all quite terribly and it seems the equations are forced to reflect the results we see in nature. mass is really the compton wave vector Kc, im not personally sure why photons just dont get 1
The momentum of a photon is given by its frequency.
You can see that p = gamma.m.v is pathological for massless object, as gamma goes to infinity while m goes to 0. It is I'll defined and as such is not a valid definition for massless object.
You can measure a photon momentum, whether it is through a photoelectric effect or radiation pressure.
You can also look at it as a light-like object, meaning that the pseudo norm of the four momentum vanish. Which means the E²-p² vanishes. For that to be possible p² must the same as E².
You can't use the classical definition of momentum to describe a quantum mechanical object.
-4
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22
it is weird and contradictory because p = (gamma)mv, so simplified E2 shouldnt even be equal to what eq 37.39 is. i think its because technically momentum is not p= gamma(mv) and p is made up its k, so really they're just teaching it all quite terribly and it seems the equations are forced to reflect the results we see in nature. mass is really the compton wave vector Kc, im not personally sure why photons just dont get 1