
#1
Jul2504, 11:23 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 3,273

Was Einstein inconsistent between his theories of Special and General Relativity?
In the theory of Special Relativity we learn that energy and mass are interchangeable E = mc^2. In the theory of General Relativity we learn that because of Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) the mass of a particle is invariant. When a uranium atom undergoes fission, the energy released is only the energy of the system, bound up in the atom, that is being reallocated; the masses of all the constituent particles making up the atom remain invariant. Are these two theories therefore mutually contradictory? 



#2
Jul2504, 11:43 AM

P: 328

No. Mass is invariant in both theories, not just general relativity.




#3
Jul2504, 12:28 PM

P: 2,955

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...ear_energy.htm Pete 



#4
Jul2504, 03:03 PM

P: 328

Einstein's Inconsistency? 



#5
Jul2504, 03:17 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,540

Incidentally, it's not outdated. That concept of mass is still alive and well among those who work in nuclear power. 



#6
Jul2504, 03:24 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 3,273





#7
Jul2504, 04:11 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,540





#8
Jul2504, 04:34 PM

P: 2,955

But the way, what are you basing that assumption on? Pete 



#9
Jul2504, 06:07 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,540





#10
Jul2504, 06:48 PM

P: 2,955

Hi Tom
For my response to be logical it turned out to be too long for a post so I started a new thread. See the new thread Those who use relativistic mass and why Pete 



#11
Jul2504, 11:07 PM

P: 328





#12
Jul2504, 11:08 PM

P: 328





#13
Jul2604, 01:51 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 3,273

What we have here is a conflict of conventions of definition of terms.
The question of whether or not the mass of a particle can vary or not ought to be a matter of observation not definition. If we define mass to be invariant then we are blinding ourselves to the fact that it might be otherwise. In the “classical interpretation” of the Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) mass is invariant. Therefore we have masses on the one hand and energies on the other, and although energy has a mass equivalent, they cannot transform one into the other. Yet at a fundamental level a particle seems to be a string, or whatever, of vibrating energy, and sufficiently energetic photons can transform into a particle and its antiparticle and vice versa. My original question was to question this convention, is it not inconsistent with the precept of SR? Incidentally SR says nothing about the invariance of mass, that has been read in later. In my theory of self creation I choose to define mass to be able to include potential energy and it leads to some very interesting observational consequences; one of which is a heterodox prediction for geodetic precession, which is about to be measured by the Gravity Probe B satellite. 



#14
Jul2604, 05:37 AM

P: 2,955

Let v = 3velocity. Then when m is defined such that mv is conserved then this is an implicit definition of m and is commonly refered to as inertial mass (aka relativistic mass). Let U = 4velocity. Then when m_{0} is defined such that m_{0}U is conserved then this is an implicit definition of m_{0} and is commonly refered to as proper mass (aka rest mass). When people use the term mass, some of them are refering to m while others are refering to m_{0}. And that's the whole story on the concept of mass as it pertains to definition. Thanks Pete 



#15
Jul2604, 09:03 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,540

In p=γmv, is γ multiplied by m? Answer: Yes. Does the law of associativity under multiplication still hold? Answer: Yes. Can I associate (γm) together and call it something else? Answer: Yes. Does the quantity have the dimensions of mass? Answer: Yes. Is there anything wrong with giving that mass a name? Answer: No. 



#16
Jul2604, 09:28 AM

P: 328





#17
Jul2604, 09:45 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,540





#18
Jul2604, 10:05 AM

P: 328




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
inconsistency in textbooks  General Math  6  
Can you prove inconsistency without an expectation?  General Discussion  6  
inconsistency in special relativity???  Introductory Physics Homework  8  
Godel and Inconsistency  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  3 