What explains the increase in mass at high speeds?

In summary, relativistic mass is defined as a function of speed by the Lorentz contraction equations. It increases as speed increases, but is only significant when the speed is a significant fraction of the speed of light. Rest mass and relativistic mass are essentially the same phenomenon, with rest mass being the same as relativistic mass at low speeds. The concept of inertial mass in special relativity is not easily defined, but is identical to relativistic mass. The increase in mass close to the speed of light is a result of the Lorentz factor. The concept of inertial mass is rooted in F = ma, but the correct relationship is F = dp/dt. The difference between relativistic and rest mass is equivalent to kinetic energy
  • #1
Symbreak
41
0
relativistic mass is defined by the lorentz contraction equations (i.e time & legnth).

but why should mass increase only for speeds very close to c? is there any theory that explains this?

we know that rest mass is basically the resistance to acceleration and the higgs theory postulates that mass arises when a group of charges interacts with the higgs field.
Is it possible that rest mass and relativistic mass are actually the same phenomenon? perhaps the question is not what sets mass at a certain value, but what stops mass being infinite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The relatvistic mass M is a function of speed given by:

[tex]M = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

So it increases whenever v (speed) increases, but it it is only signifcant when v is a signifcant fraction of c. Note that the value of a relatvistic mass depends on the relative velcoity of the observer, also when v = 0 [itex]M = m_0[/itex].

Rest mass is defined as the inertial mass (i.e. the m in F = ma) of an object in it's rest frame, howver it is not generally it's inertial mass (infact in special rleativty the general concept of inertial mass of an object is not easy to define as an accleration is not always parallel to the force producing it).
 
  • #3
Symbreak said:
relativistic mass is defined by the lorentz contraction equations (i.e time & legnth).
Why do you say that? Its not defined by the Lorentz factor. It just happens that the Lorentz factor appears in the derivation.
but why should mass increase only for speeds very close to c? is there any theory that explains this?
Mass is always a function of speed. Its just that at low speeds the Lorentz factor is close to one.
we know that rest mass is basically the resistance to acceleration and the higgs theory postulates that mass arises when a group of charges interacts with the higgs field.
Relativistic mass is defined such that mv is conserved quantity. rest mass is identical to relativistic mass at low speeds and represents the bodies ability to change momentum.
Is it possible that rest mass and relativistic mass are actually the same phenomenon? perhaps the question is not what sets mass at a certain value, but what stops mass being infinite.
They're both identically the same thing. Its just that rest mass = rel-mass(0)
jcsd said:
(infact in special rleativty the general concept of inertial mass of an object is not easy to define as an accleration is not always parallel to the force producing it).
That is incorrect. Inertial mass, as the term is used in relativity, is idenical with relativistic mass. It is not the quantity that you're thinking of, which is transverse and longitudinal force. Rel-mass represents a bodies ability to change momentum. Hence the reason you'll see in all derivations of [itex]m = \gamma m_0[/itex], i.e. that rel-mass is defined as that quantity m such that mv is conserved (i.e. m = p/v).

Pete
 
  • #4
pmb_phy said:
That is incorrect. Inertial mass, as the term is used in relativity, is idenical with relativistic mass. It is not the quantity that you're thinking of, which is transverse and longitudinal force. Rel-mass represents a bodies ability to change momentum. Hence the reason you'll see in all derivations of [itex]m = \gamma m_0[/itex], i.e. that rel-mass is defined as that quantity m such that mv is conserved (i.e. m = p/v).

Pete

But for me at least the whole concept of inertial mass is directly rooted to F = ma, so I'm not sure it's particularly good idea to call any quanitty in relativity the inertial mass (except the rest mass of an object in it's rest frmae which is unambigiously the inertial mass in that frame). Anyway I think the issue has been discussed enough
 
  • #5
jcsd said:
But for me at least the whole concept of inertial mass is directly rooted to F = ma, so I'm not sure it's particularly good idea to call any quanitty in relativity the inertial mass (except the rest mass of an object in it's rest frmae which is unambigiously the inertial mass in that frame). Anyway I think the issue has been discussed enough
I don't know that Symbreak has discussed it enough. He/she may wish to know more.

F = ma is incorrect even in non-relativistic mechanics. F = ma is a relationship for when m is not a constant of motion. The correct relationship is F = dp/dt (as Feynman pointed out in his text). F = dp/dt was due to Newton and F = ma was due to Euler.

Pete
 
  • #6
Thanks for the replies.

One problem I have with the relativistic mass is why the increase of mass is near c and not any other velocity? There seems to be a conflict with GR. Every inertial velocity is equivalent (we cannot distinquish a constant velocity v from absolute rest, only from the perspective of the observer). Then why does mass increase for a v near c? Why should we discriminate a 'high velocity' from a 'low velocity' if they are both the same?
Another thing. If c always travels the same to all observers, no matter what their velocity, what about observers which travel near c? According to the 'time dilation' equation of Lorentz, time would slow down for these observers. If time does - then by definition, light (a wave which moves at a rate c in time) must move slower!
 
  • #7
pmb_phy said:
I don't know that Symbreak has discussed it enough. He/she may wish to know more.

F = ma is incorrect even in non-relativistic mechanics. F = ma is a relationship for when m is not a constant of motion. The correct relationship is F = dp/dt (as Feynman pointed out in his text). F = dp/dt was due to Newton and F = ma was due to Euler.

Pete

Yes F = dp/dt is prefereable to F = ma, but usually it is the equation F = ma that is used to define the inertial mass of an object.
 
  • #8
Something that is rarely pointed out directly is that the difference (Mrela - Mrest) is the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy. Mrela is the instantaneous inertial mass. I let you ponder the implications.

For a moving observer the universe appears contracted, thus preserving the observed value of c.
 
  • #9
jcsd said:
Yes F = dp/dt is prefereable to F = ma, but usually it is the equation F = ma that is used to define the inertial mass of an object.
You can always follow your heart with definitions and use what works for you.

Pete
 
  • #10
kevinalm said:
Something that is rarely pointed out directly is that the difference (Mrela - Mrest) is the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy. Mrela is the instantaneous inertial mass. I let you ponder the implications.

For a moving observer the universe appears contracted, thus preserving the observed value of c.
That's pretty well known so I don't understand your comment.

Pete
 
  • #11
Which one? The first?

Most entry level texts don't drive home the relationship Ekinetic = (Mrela-Mrest)c squared. At least in my experience. The poster was unclear as to an underlying reason for the Mrela tending to infinity as v goes to c, at least that was my read. As you accelerate a mass, you add kinetic energy. Which manifests as additional inertial mass. Which requires an ever increasing amount of energy to accelerate the mass. The limit of this is M goes to infinity as v goes to c. If you're reasonably skilled with differential equations you can derive the equation for Mrela from the postulate that Ekinetic=(Mrela-Mrest)c squared, and nothing else.

As to the second, I believe I misunderstood the poster. Upon rereading, I think he's jumping reference frames and confusing himself.
 

1. What is the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass?

Relativistic mass is the mass of an object when it is in motion, while rest mass is the mass of an object when it is at rest. Relativistic mass takes into account the effects of special relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, while rest mass is the intrinsic property of an object.

2. How does relativistic mass change with velocity?

As an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases. This is due to the effects of special relativity, which cause time and space to behave differently at high speeds. At low velocities, the difference between relativistic and rest mass is negligible.

3. Is relativistic mass a fundamental property of matter?

No, relativistic mass is not considered a fundamental property of matter. It is a concept used in special relativity to describe the behavior of objects at high velocities. In modern physics, rest mass is considered the fundamental property of matter.

4. How is relativistic mass related to energy?

According to Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, energy and mass are interchangeable. Relativistic mass can be thought of as a measure of an object's energy content, with an increase in velocity resulting in an increase in both relativistic mass and energy.

5. Can an object have a negative relativistic mass?

No, an object cannot have a negative relativistic mass. This is because as an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases infinitely, making it impossible for relativistic mass to be negative. However, in certain theories and equations, negative relativistic mass may be used to simplify calculations, but it does not have a physical meaning.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
773
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
588
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
3K
Back
Top