Deriving the Special Relativity Formula: A Scientific Approach

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the special relativity formula for mass, specifically the equation mr = m0 / √(1 - v²/c²). Participants explore the implications of this formula on the concept of mass and its behavior at relativistic speeds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on deriving the special relativity mass formula.
  • Some participants assert that the mass in the equation does not change with velocity, while others introduce the concept of relativistic mass (γm), which they argue increases with velocity.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of mass, with some participants suggesting that defining mass as γm leads to inconsistencies across different frames of reference.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the relationship between velocity and mass, indicating uncertainty about whether mass decreases or increases with velocity.
  • Another participant acknowledges confusion about concepts in special relativity but expresses understanding after reviewing the formula.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions and implications of mass in the context of special relativity. There are competing views on whether mass changes with velocity and how it should be defined.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions of mass, the implications of relativistic mass, and the relationship between mass and force in different frames of reference.

dekoi
Deriving SR Formula

edit 3:
How does one go about deriving the formula:[tex]mr =\frac{m0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mass in your equation does not change with velocity.

Some people call [itex]\gamma m[/itex] the relatvistic mass and this cleraly does increase with velocity, but this definition is not widely used and it's not a very good definition anyway.
 
jcsd said:
Mass in your equation does not change with velocity.

Some people call [itex]\gamma m[/itex] the relatvistic mass and this cleraly does increase with velocity, but this defintion is not widely used and it's not a very good defintion anyway.
But [itex]\gamma m[/itex] isn't mass itself; it is the multiple of mass by a factor of [itex]\gamma[/itex]. Or is this the "wrong" way of looking at the situation?
 
dekoi said:
[itex][ec^2][\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}]=m[/itex]

Therefore, as [itex]\sqrt{1-\beta^2[/itex] increases due to the increase in velocity, [tex]m[/tex] increases as well.

I am not sure whether this is right or not.
jcsd said:
Mass in your equation does not change with velocity.
You're right... According to my equation, mass will decrease. If velocity is say, 0.7c, [tex]\sqrt{1-\beta^2[/tex] will equal 0.714 (as compared to the a value of 1 which it would be if velocity was much smaller than c). Therefore, mass would decrease.

I don't understand how this is so.
 
Almost universally m is regarded as the mass aka the rest mass, but a few people regard [itex]\gamma m[/itex] as the mass aka the relatvistic or transverse mass.

Defining m as the mass is useful as it doesn't change from frame to frame. Defining [itex]\gamma m[/itex] as the mass means that it does change from frame to frame and you find for conssitency you have to define a second kind of mass [itex]\gamma^3 m[/itex] called the longitudinal of mass.

The reason for the two definitions is due to how the concepts of mass and force are related, if you think that Netwon's second law is [itex]\vec{F} = m\vec{a}[/itex] then you might argue that the concept of relatvistic mass is just sticking with this concpet, but most physicsts like to think of Netwon's second law as [itex]\vec{F} =\frac{d\vec{p}}{dt}[/itex] anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ah. I have confused several concepts in SR. I now understand the fact that:

[tex]mr =\frac{m0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

Thanks.
 
edit 3: Topic changed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
924
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K