E = mc^2: Identity or equality

  • Thread starter Thread starter pmb_phy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
pmb_phy
Messages
2,950
Reaction score
1
Some people refer to the relationship between inertial mass m (aka "relativistic mass") and inertial energy E as an identity and some refer to it as an equality. Inertial mass has never been defined as m = E/c2.

Inertial mass is always defined as the m in p = mv (e.g. Tolman, Feynman, French etc. etc. etc.). The E in that equation is always defined as the total energy of a particle minus the potential energy of position, V(r) (although some people use different letters for, such as T, for E. E.g. Goldstein - 3rd Ed.). The relationship E = mc2 must then be derived which thereby makes it an equality rather than an identity.

My question is to those who hold it to be an identiy is - Why?

Thanks

Pete
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Inertial mass is not relativistic mass as I have mathematically proven here in the past. Relativistic mass has no place in modern relativity as it is just a redundant name for relativistic energy which is defined as the time element of the momentum four-vector of the first kind. From the definition of the momentum four-vector of the second kind one has
P^{0} = p^{0} + (q/c)\phi ^{0}
This yields
E_{R} = E_{tot} - E_{pot}
E_{R} is the relativistic energy and what is innapropriately called relativistic mass. You also missname energy parameter by total energy as well which is unfortunate, but even if by that mistake you have identified relativistic mass with the energy parameter instead of the total energy, you have still "identified" it with an energy. That should end your questioning whether it is an identity because even though you have identified it with the wrong energy, you have still "identified" it yourself.
To see more about what I am referring to conserning the different kinds of momentum four-vectors see
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm
 
Last edited:
Okay, pmb, how many threads do you intend to start that have no purpose other than discussing the semantics of the invariant mass view vs. the relativistic mass view? This same discussion has already been had countless times on this forum. I've given you the opportunity to write an essay supporting your views, which we will happy to host for you. You have ignored that opportunity, and continue to start threads about the same topics. I regard this thread as spamming.

- Warren
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top