Does light have mass?

Q:Does light have mass? Do shadows have mass?

-Natasha (age 11)
mcGraw , Fort Collins,CO
A:Natasha -

One question at a time. Let’s start with the easy one.

Do shadows have mass?

No.
Shadows are what you get when you don’t have any light shining on something. Think of it this way: If you’re standing outside on a sunny day, the sunlight is hitting both you and the ground. But in some spots, you’re getting in the way of the light. So there are some spots where the light doesn’t hit the ground as much. These spots are shadows. Since shadows are basically just spots where there /isn’t/ any light, shadows don’t have any mass.

Next... Does light have mass?

That depends on which of two definitions of ’mass’ a particular physicist likes to use, and what type of light you’re talking about.

One definition of mass says that anything which has some gravitational pull on other objects has mass. By that definition, light has mass. This definition of mass is the same as the definition you get if you ask what ’m’ you have to multiply the velocity ’v’ by to get the ’momentum’ of an object. Momentum is a measure of how much stuff is moving which way. When things bump into each other, the total momentum doesn’t change even though it might be traded between the objects. Think of when two balls bounce off each other. Light has momentum, which means we can actually measure the push it gives to objects it runs into. This is the definition used by Einstein, for example in the famous equation E=mc^2.

On the other hand, physicists often find it convenient to think of mass as something that doesn’t depend on how an object is moving, also sometimes called the ’rest mass’. They call the mass of some object the mass that it would have according to somebody who says the object isn’t moving. Light always is moving, so by this definition (or more careful versions of it) a light ray has no mass.

Switching between those definitions can lead to a lot of confusion.

If you have a box of light, with the rays going every direction, the light does contribute to the total mass of the box, by any definition.

-Tamara (and mike)

(republished on 07/29/06)

Follow-Up #1

Q:I might be a little to old to ask... But here we go if light has any mass at all. Can you condense that mass or increase the mass? If you can increase the mass wouldn't you be able to use that condensed light to push an object? Say that you have huge light bulbs and have them shine in a space where light has only a small exit? since light is always moving? I guess the only problem you would have is intense heat... Lol alright I was just courious about my therory...

-Joshua Spudeno (age 27)
Shillington, Pa, USA
A: Many very accurate experiments have been performed trying to detect the so-called 'rest mass' of light but there is no evidence that there is any.   Light, however, does carry momentum and thus can push objects around.     There is even an idea of using the light from the sun to propel an interplanetary space craft.  I don't think it will be implemented soon. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
LeeH

(published on 06/13/08)

Follow-Up #2

Q:Regarding that last answer about solar sails: NASA is sending one up this summer :] http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/26jun_nanosaild.htm

-Drew (age 23)
blacksburg va
A:thanks, Mike W.

(published on 07/08/08)

Follow-Up #3

Q:Since light can supposedly move objects, does it affect us and does it affect large objects such as planets? For example, light from the sun and numerous other stars is constantly hitting quite a large area of Jupiter, would this affect Jupiter's orbit?

-Ryan (age 13)
California
A: Yes, light does carry momentum and when it is absorbed or reflected from an object a force is exerted on that object.  This force is quite small and in the case of moving Jupiter around, it is negligible compared to the force of gravity from the sun.  For a very light object, however, the force can become significant.  Some people have considered using 'Solar Sails' to navigate the solar system.  
See:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

LeeH

(published on 03/20/09)

Follow-Up #4

Q:Q1. I know in beginning all experiments sounds to be weird but... anyways my question is if we put a source of light which is emitting enormous amount of light in a enclosed box and then if we weight the box without light and then with light emission would we will be able to prove light have mass/weight? Q2. Does heat have mass/weight?

-mohammad Imran (age 22)
NOIDA, U.P., India
A: Q1.  Weird or not, that's a good question.

The answer is yes, that when the light escapes from the box the weight of the box goes down a little.


I think, from a rough calculation, that about one part in 108 of the Sun's gravitational mass comes from the light in it. That calculation could easily be off a factor of ten either way, since I used very approximate numbers.

Q2. Also yes, if you heat something up, leaving everything else the same, it has more energy, i.e. more mass and more weight. At ordinary temperatures the effect is minuscule. In think the thermal contribution to the weight of ordinary matter at room temperature is less than one part in 1013 or so.

Mike W,

(published on 04/27/09)

Follow-Up #5

Q:when a source of light emit light is there any decrease in the mass of source

-lovepreet (age 23)
bhagta ,punjab ,india
A: Yes, in principle.   But it's a teeny tiny amount, too small to measure.   The reason is that the 'effective mass' of a photon is its energy divided by the velocity of light squared.  The energy of a photon of yellowish light is about 2 eV  (electron Volts).  One ev corresponds to 1.6 10-19ergs.  That number divided by c2 is 1.8 10-36 kilograms.   Even though there are lots and lots of photons in a laser beam it still adds up to an unmeasurable amount.  Give up.

LeeH

Even if you radiate a kilowatt for a day, you lose about 108 Joules of energy. That's equivalent to 10-9 kg of mass. Not a lot. Mike W.

(published on 06/17/09)

Follow-Up #6

Q:If light had no mass a "Black Hole" would have no effect on it. If it does in fact have mass the hole would have the same effect on it as other mass. It would condence it and add it to the singularity. I guess this would answer my own question about the mass of light.

-Chuck Hess (age 65)
Florence, Arizona
A: Although light photons have zero 'rest mass', and this has been checked by many many experiments, a photon has an 'effective mass' which is its energy divided by c2.   This effective mass is affected by gravity just as well as particles with non-zero rest mass, such as electrons, protons and larger objects like lead bricks and planets.  In 1919, during an eclipse of the sun, light from stars passing close to the sun was observed to deflect in accordance with the theory of general relativity proposed by Einstein in 1905.    As far as light interacting with black holes the same analogy holds. If photons pass by reasonably close to the black hole they will be deflected.  If they pass too close they will get sucked in and contribute to the total mass of the black hole.

LeeH

(published on 06/17/09)

Follow-Up #7

Q:I remember hearing that when light strikes a wall the particles are in a sense "destroyed". now if you where to put a light bulb in a box and then turn it on, wouldnt all the light particles be "destroyed" when colliding with the box? And heres one more question. what if you get a massive light bulb and sourround all the sides of it with mirrors forcing the light to come out in a single concentrated beam at a black 1/2 inch peice of wall of something. would that have any impact on the object at all? ( i say black because the color black absorbs all rays of the spectrum.) although i could be wrong

-Nathan Garcia (age 17)
San Antonio, Texas
A:1) "if you where to put a light bulb in a box and then turn it on, wouldnt all the light particles be "destroyed" when colliding with the box"
Yes, they'd just heat the box up.

2)"would that have any impact on the object at all?" Yes, it would heat up noticably. There would also be a very slight force pushing on it.

Mike W.

(published on 06/18/09)

Follow-Up #8

Q:When reading about relativity and special relativity you always run into the question about spaceships moving at the speed of light. The answer I always see is that as the ships speed approaches the speed of light it's mass goes towards infinity. Perhaps my understanding of Physics and Calculus are too limited but this answer bothers me. According to E=mc^2 the mass of the ship would be m=E/c^2. Since it is held that the speed of light is a constant I do not see how the mass could be said to go to infinity. Of course I also understand the the concept of applying that much energy to any mass is absurd, but we are talking about theory here. So, where does this assertion that mass goes to infinity come from? After all - light has mass and it moves at the speed of light. Granted, a photon has negligible mass compared to a space ship - but the theory must work for both.

-Matthew (age 37)
New York, NY
A: You're right that if m=E/c2, then you can't have m-> infinity unless E does too. So, neither one does.

What people mean when they say 'm->' is that as v->c m keeps growing without any limit. So v can't reach c, because that would require an infinite amount of energy.

The specific form is that

 E/c2=m=m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)2),
where m0 is the mass as seen by someone moving along with the object, called the rest mass.

Now for your more interesting question. If light has E and hence m, how can it then travel at c? If light had m>0 when it was  traveling at any v<c, we'd have a big problem. However, light can't travel at less than c. (But see comment below- here we're only talking about in a vacuum.). It only has E or m when traveling at c.     For light, m0 = 0.    

A general form which covers the cases both of m0>0 and m0=0 is:

E2
(1-(v/c)2)=(m0c2)2

When v=c, this requires m0=0. Likewise when
m0=0 it requires that E=0 or v=c. When m0 >0, it gives the formula above.

Mike W.
 

(published on 06/26/09)

Follow-Up #9

Q:In the answer to the last question you said "...light can't travel at less than c." But doesn't light travel slower in water. I thought light only travels at c in a vacuum.

-Joe
Edison, NJ, USA
A: You are correct.  In a vacuum, light travels at velocity c = 299,792,458 meters per second.  In media with an index of refraction n, such as glass or water, light travels at a velocity of c/n, i.e. slower than that of in a vacuum.

LeeH

(published on 08/25/09)

Follow-Up #10

Q:If light has mass, as you've stated in the questions above, then I have magical lightbulbs... When I turn on a light switch, I accelerate the light to 'c'. The energy required to do this is apparently infinite. Ergo, my light bulbs are magical. If that is explained away by stating that light has a zero resting mass, then how is mass created by getting it to it's constant vacuum velocity? We've just broken the cardinal rule that matter (and therefore mass) cannot be created or destroyed. The third part (using Einstien's theory) is the fact that if I stand outside I'm getting bombarded with mass moving at the speed of light. I should be ripped to shreds. The inertia required to stop that much momentum would be phenomonal. I'm good, but not THAT good...

-Luke (age 32)
Brisbane, Australia
A: We've been through these points before, but they are unfamiliar enough to bear repetition.

You aren't accelerating anything when you turn on a light. The light is born traveling at c and stays that way.

There is no rule that "matter" is conserved because "matter" is not a defined quantity.
The pre-relativistic rules about conservation of mass and energy are replaced in Special Relativity by a unified conservation of energy. The energy that makes light comes from other sources, e.g. the electrical power supplied to your house.

When you are hit by light you do indeed pick up some momentum (p) as well as the obvious energy (which you can feel). The momentum is very small, however, since p=E/c for anything traveling at c.  For example, 1 Watt of light energy hitting a surface exerts a force of 3.3 nano-Newtons on it. (6.6 nN if it's reflected rather than absorbed.) That can be measured with instruments, but not directly felt.

Mike W.



(published on 09/02/09)

Follow-Up #11

Q:Keeping in mind that light has mas and is acted upon by gravitational pull, shouldn't the path of light be a projectile instead of a straight line?

-Aryaki (age 17)
India
A:Yes, you're right. In the presence of gravity, light doesn't follow straight lines. Different paths, for example, can intersect twice.
It's a little more complicated than just thinking of something following a projectile path, however, because it turns out that the curvature is twice as much as you would guess in that picture. Spacetime itself isn't flat when there's gravity, and the geometry of it is described by General Relativity.

Mike W.

(published on 09/16/09)

Follow-Up #12

Q:If light has mass, and light is spread everywhere in the universe, what gravitational effect does all that light have on the universe if any?

-Milo (age 32)
Seattle
A: Not much at the present epoch.  The effective mass density of light is one ten-thousandth that of ordinary luminous matter, even less if you consider dark matter and other exotica like dark energy.   According to the current lore, light had a brief  ~3 seconds worth of glory after the big bang but then faded into dimness as the universe expanded.   We still see its remnants in the 3 degree cosmic microwave background.

Very localized light, for example from a supernova, can affect nearby regions but the overall effect is small.  Consider the total effect of lightning bugs on a summer's eve; it's pretty but it doesn't give you enough light to read by.

LeeH 

(published on 09/16/09)

Follow-Up #13

Q:So... if light does have mass AND matter, then when it is reflected on water, why doesn't it leave ripples? I've spent a lot of time wondering!

-Savannah (age 13)
Jacksonville, FL
A: Great question. Light has only a very small amount of equivalent mass and momentum, so when it bounces off the surface of water it makes only a very small push. The effect you're thinking about is real, but just really tiny.

Mike W.

(published on 10/01/09)

Follow-Up #14

Q:I'm a 5 yrs behind these postes, but hope to get your answer: Q1:If we think of light made up of differnt particles-is it possible that some travel faster than the speed of light,C? in other words, is teleportation of light particles possible and how does it work? Q2: Is it difficult to predict EXACT time of a mooving object (in the Earth's atmosphere) if the light travel is affected by the gravity and the motion? Thanks!!!

-Danijel (age 27)
Houston, TX
A: Q1. Nope.  As usual there are two equally valid interpretations of light:  the classical fields variety ala Maxwell and Young,  and the quantum variety ala Einstein (actually Newton thought that light was made of corpuscles).  Both predict no faster than light travel, i.e. no teleportation (at least faster than light).  It's not clear whether or not the teleportation in Star Trek ("Beam me up, Scotty") implied faster than light or not.  The presence of gravitational fields does not affect this conclusion.

Q2.  Yes it's difficult to predict the exact time but it can be done.  The problem is that general relativity screws things up when you want to have a precise time in the presence of gravitational field and relative velocities.   In fact the famous Global Positioning System (GPS) has to use the theory of general relativity  in order to make corrections for the earth's gravitational potential as well as relative velocities of the various satellite components.  These involve microsecond time discrepancies, which imply 1,000 foot discrepancies in global positions.
See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
and then click on the Special and General Relativity topic.

LeeH


(published on 10/09/09)

Follow-Up #15

Q:Does light have mass or energy relative to the claim that it is cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole? Question of missing mass of the Universe in addition to dark matter? Could it simply be invisible light mass/energy generated and moving since the creation of the Universe. The light went somewhere is their a quantity of light existing at all times from all light sources. There must be or you could not see the furthest galaxy or star. Just a thought for the missing stuff. The amount of light moving through the Universe is huge! Thanks Wade

-Wade Hampton (age 62)
Phoenix AZ USA
A:See the chain of answers above. These are popular questions!

Mike W.

(published on 10/16/09)

Follow-Up #16

Q:We have established that light has mass. I was wondering in what form the mass is in, and if it would be possible to slow down the particles. I'm assuming light isn't atoms, because we would have figured that out by now and I never would have needed to look up the answer to the question, "Does light have mass?" However, this mass must be somewhere, and must be some form of matter. What form of matter is light?

-Eli B (age 15)
CT USA
A: Let me answer first in the context of simple familiar physics. Electromagnetic fields (including light) are not made up of other things. Likewise many other things (e.g. neutrinos) are not in any sense made up of electromagnetic fields, although they are also fields. These are all just independent basic constituents of the universe.  They all have some mass-energy and can have momentum.

These days, we're partway in to the process of describing fields like electromagnetism in terms of some deeper more basic fields. However, these deeper ingredients will have no more resemblance to intuitive ideas of 'matter' than do our familiar electromagnetic fields. So far as we can tell, there are no little building blocks.

At some point the word 'matter' becomes essentially a meaningless label. There's some sort of underlying mathematical description (like the equations governing electromagnetism) and that's it.

Mike W.

(published on 10/21/09)

 

How reliable are websites like ours?

To follow-up on this answer, click here.

 

About || Our Shows || Calendar || Q & A || Links || Contact Us