- #1
pmb_phy
- 2,952
- 1
I'm starting this thread since my response to Tom was too long for one post.
Let me clarify by example: Suppose it were true that 60% of all relativistist use relativistic mass and 40% who didn’t. Then I'd say that a claim that the "majority of physicists don't use it" is incorrect. If the stats where 1% who use it and 99% who don't then I'd say that your statement was very accurate. If the stats were 40% who use it and 60% who don't then a statement that the majority do use it is misleading. It gives the wrong impression as far as how much its accepted. "The majority ..." makes one think that all but 10 or 20, who teach in community colleges, use it.
However I don't have the stats and I doubt that anyone does so its impossible to tell. One would actually have to poll all physicists who use relativity and ask them if they ever use it either in papers or in their thinking/motivation etc. That too is impossible.
Here is a list of the texts/books I'm speaking of --
Gravity from the ground up, Bernard F. Schutz, Cambridge Press, (2003)
Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological, Wolfgang Rindler, Oxford Univ., Press, (2001)
Cosmological Principles, John A. Peacock, Cambridge University Press, (1999)
Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein's Theories, Leo Sartori, University of California Press, (1996)
Basic Relativity, Richard A. Mould, Springer Verlag, (1994)
Introducing Einstein's Relativity, Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992)
Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW)
Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, Mass Jammer, Princeton University Press, (2000)
Classical Electromagnetic Theory, Vanderlinde, John Wiley & Sons, (1993)
A First Course in General Relativity, Schutz, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1990)
A Short Course in General Relativity, Foster & Nightingale, Springer Verlag, (1994)
Quantum Mechanics, Cohen-Tannoudji et al
The Cosmic Perspective, Bennet, Donahue, Schneider, Voit, Addison Wesley, (2001)
(dw uses a few of those, e.g. MTW and Rindler)
There are tricky little instances too. One such tricky thing can be found in Classical Electrodynamics - 2nd Ed., J.D. Jackson, page 617, [And, as I recall, there is something similar in Classical Mechanics 3rd Ed., Goldstein, Safko and Poole (2001)] problem 12.16. The student is supposed to find a a general relationship for the center of mass of an electromagnetic field. Now, as that term is used, in that problem, it can only be meaningful if the "mass" is relativistic mass. I worked out the solution here
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/momentum_conservation.htm
arxiv --
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0308039
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0103008
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0103051
You didn't ask about physics journal articles on this subject. For a list please see -- http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mass_articles.htm as well as the other link and articles from AJP
There should be one more in the future when mine is proof read and all the typos and grammatical errors are out.
I have Alan Guth's lecture notes from his Early Universe course. He says in one place in his notes that he doesn't use it, yet in another place he actually uses it. I asked him about that and he said he didn't realize he was doing it.
Note: I don't hold that all relativists that use relativistic mass use it in all places at all times. That'd be silly for anyone to do. They use it where it is appropriate or useful to to use it.
There are online class notes from universitys that use the concept as well as from particle accelerator labs such as CERN.
Thanks for the very direct response. It is greatly appreciated. Especially since you explained in a very professional tone. Thanks!
Question: Why do you refer to the magnitude of the 4-momentum as mass and not rest energy?
As in particle physics these folks work with matter on a microscopic scale and they study the structure of matter. They don't really study the dynamics of matter. Consider this - Does the lifetime of a particle depend on the speed of the particle? Relativity says it does. Call the lifetime as measured in the particle's rest frame the proper lifetime. The proper lifetime is an inherent property of the particle and is one of the things particle physicists study. Do you think that when a particle physicist says "the lifetime of a free neutron is 15 minutes" that he didn't know that the lifetime depends on the speed of the particle? Do you think that particle physicist doesn't know that the particle's lifetime is different than the particle's lifetime? Sometimes people use the letter tau to represent proper lifetime and some use T. Quantites which appear in 4tensor equations are proper quantities, e.g. proper mass, proper time, proper distance, etc. Time does not appear in such equationsm, proper time does. Relativists know the difference right? The relativistic Lagrangian contains the proper mass of a particle, not the mass.
A particle physicist, nor a solid state physicist, will never ask himself what the mass of a charged capacitor is or how to compute it. Its not as simple as it is for a particle. See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/rd_paradox.htm
Nor will they compute the inertial mass of a gas. But it can be done and it has nothing to do with a magnitude of a 4-vector.
This stuff can be so confusing at times that even the best relativists can make serious mistakes when they don't fully think about what "mass" means. Even Schutz made a serious error in his new text and got a calculation wrong. But that's a topic for another thread.
As Scotty said How many times do I have to tell ye? The proper tool for the proper job!
Pete
That's why I said is was misleading and not incorrect. You're giving the impression that there is an overwhelming number of physicists who use the concept you suggest.Tom Mattson said:Misleading? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the community of particle physicists is the majority of physicists who use relativity.
Let me clarify by example: Suppose it were true that 60% of all relativistist use relativistic mass and 40% who didn’t. Then I'd say that a claim that the "majority of physicists don't use it" is incorrect. If the stats where 1% who use it and 99% who don't then I'd say that your statement was very accurate. If the stats were 40% who use it and 60% who don't then a statement that the majority do use it is misleading. It gives the wrong impression as far as how much its accepted. "The majority ..." makes one think that all but 10 or 20, who teach in community colleges, use it.
However I don't have the stats and I doubt that anyone does so its impossible to tell. One would actually have to poll all physicists who use relativity and ask them if they ever use it either in papers or in their thinking/motivation etc. That too is impossible.
If its not too much trouble, can you please list the relevant texts of which you speak?Really? Every textbook I have teaches the concept of mass as the invariant norm of the 4-momentum, and they are written by relativists (Taylor and Wheeler, Ohanian and Ruffini, et al). What books do use it? And are there publications in the arxiv that use it?
Here is a list of the texts/books I'm speaking of --
Gravity from the ground up, Bernard F. Schutz, Cambridge Press, (2003)
Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological, Wolfgang Rindler, Oxford Univ., Press, (2001)
Cosmological Principles, John A. Peacock, Cambridge University Press, (1999)
Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein's Theories, Leo Sartori, University of California Press, (1996)
Basic Relativity, Richard A. Mould, Springer Verlag, (1994)
Introducing Einstein's Relativity, Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992)
Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW)
Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, Mass Jammer, Princeton University Press, (2000)
Classical Electromagnetic Theory, Vanderlinde, John Wiley & Sons, (1993)
A First Course in General Relativity, Schutz, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1990)
A Short Course in General Relativity, Foster & Nightingale, Springer Verlag, (1994)
Quantum Mechanics, Cohen-Tannoudji et al
The Cosmic Perspective, Bennet, Donahue, Schneider, Voit, Addison Wesley, (2001)
(dw uses a few of those, e.g. MTW and Rindler)
There are tricky little instances too. One such tricky thing can be found in Classical Electrodynamics - 2nd Ed., J.D. Jackson, page 617, [And, as I recall, there is something similar in Classical Mechanics 3rd Ed., Goldstein, Safko and Poole (2001)] problem 12.16. The student is supposed to find a a general relationship for the center of mass of an electromagnetic field. Now, as that term is used, in that problem, it can only be meaningful if the "mass" is relativistic mass. I worked out the solution here
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/momentum_conservation.htm
arxiv --
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0308039
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0103008
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0103051
You didn't ask about physics journal articles on this subject. For a list please see -- http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mass_articles.htm as well as the other link and articles from AJP
There should be one more in the future when mine is proof read and all the typos and grammatical errors are out.
I have Alan Guth's lecture notes from his Early Universe course. He says in one place in his notes that he doesn't use it, yet in another place he actually uses it. I asked him about that and he said he didn't realize he was doing it.
Note: I don't hold that all relativists that use relativistic mass use it in all places at all times. That'd be silly for anyone to do. They use it where it is appropriate or useful to to use it.
See -- http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_mass.htmAll my undergraduate and graduate coursework.
There are online class notes from universitys that use the concept as well as from particle accelerator labs such as CERN.
Thanks for the very direct response. It is greatly appreciated. Especially since you explained in a very professional tone. Thanks!
Question: Why do you refer to the magnitude of the 4-momentum as mass and not rest energy?
I used Cohen-Tannoudji in grad school and they used the velocity dependence of mass.Factor in those solid state physicists who use relativisitc quantum mechanics or QED, and it's no contest.
As in particle physics these folks work with matter on a microscopic scale and they study the structure of matter. They don't really study the dynamics of matter. Consider this - Does the lifetime of a particle depend on the speed of the particle? Relativity says it does. Call the lifetime as measured in the particle's rest frame the proper lifetime. The proper lifetime is an inherent property of the particle and is one of the things particle physicists study. Do you think that when a particle physicist says "the lifetime of a free neutron is 15 minutes" that he didn't know that the lifetime depends on the speed of the particle? Do you think that particle physicist doesn't know that the particle's lifetime is different than the particle's lifetime? Sometimes people use the letter tau to represent proper lifetime and some use T. Quantites which appear in 4tensor equations are proper quantities, e.g. proper mass, proper time, proper distance, etc. Time does not appear in such equationsm, proper time does. Relativists know the difference right? The relativistic Lagrangian contains the proper mass of a particle, not the mass.
A particle physicist, nor a solid state physicist, will never ask himself what the mass of a charged capacitor is or how to compute it. Its not as simple as it is for a particle. See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/rd_paradox.htm
Nor will they compute the inertial mass of a gas. But it can be done and it has nothing to do with a magnitude of a 4-vector.
This stuff can be so confusing at times that even the best relativists can make serious mistakes when they don't fully think about what "mass" means. Even Schutz made a serious error in his new text and got a calculation wrong. But that's a topic for another thread.
As Scotty said How many times do I have to tell ye? The proper tool for the proper job!
Pete
Last edited: