Is the concept of relativistic mass correct?

In summary, the concept of variation of mass with particle velocity approaching the speed of light is outdated and has been replaced by the concept of invariant or rest mass. This means that instead of using the equation p=mv, we now use p=\gamma mv and E=m_r c^2 becomes E=\gamma mc^2. This change in perspective was suggested by a friend and is supported by Einstein's statement that the concept of "relativistic mass" is not very useful. It is better to stick to the rest mass and use equations for momentum and energy in motion.
  • #1
apr
6
0
Foe many years We studied that mass vary as the particle velocity approaches the velocity of light. However, recently I read that that concept of variation of mass is not correct. Mass is absolute. What changes is the momentum. Hence writing that well known equation for variation of mass is not proper. We have to change our perspective, said by one of my friend. Please give your comments.
apr
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The use of relativistic mass is "outdated". Nowadays, it is more common to work with the invariant mass, or rest mass. The result is that istead of writing [tex]p=m_r v[/tex], we write [tex]p=\gamma mv[/tex], and [tex]E=m_r c^2[/tex] becomes [tex]E=\gamma mc^2[/tex]. In the equations with the [tex]\gamma[/tex], with [tex]m_r=\gamma m[/tex] and [tex]\gamma=\left(1+\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]. Nothing changes physically, tough.
 
  • #3
The "relativistic mass" m=m(v) allows one to write p=mv. This seems to be nice as is looks like the well-known formula from Newtonian mechanics. But it works only for p, not for E (and other kinematical quantities). There is no way to translate E=mv²/2 via a re-definition of m=m(v). That's the reason why the relativistic mass is not very useful.

Einstein wrote in a letter (1948)
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v²/c²)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
 

1. Does mass increase with velocity?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, as an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. This phenomenon is known as relativistic mass. However, for objects moving at everyday speeds, the increase in mass is negligible and can be ignored.

2. Why does mass increase with velocity?

As an object's velocity increases, so does its kinetic energy. According to the equation E=mc², energy and mass are directly related. Therefore, as an object's kinetic energy increases, so does its mass.

3. Does mass decrease with velocity?

No, mass does not decrease with velocity. The concept of relativistic mass only applies to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light. For objects moving at everyday speeds, their mass remains constant.

4. How does mass affect velocity?

In classical mechanics, an object's mass does not affect its velocity. However, in relativistic mechanics, as an object's mass increases with velocity, its acceleration decreases. This is known as relativistic mass dilation, where an object's mass appears to increase from the perspective of an observer.

5. How does mass vary with velocity in space?

In space, an object's mass remains constant regardless of its velocity. This is because there is no friction or air resistance in space to cause an increase in kinetic energy and therefore an increase in mass. Relativistic effects only become significant for objects moving at extremely high speeds, which are not typically reached in space travel.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
827
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
835
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top