Does an object in absolute reference state have zero mass?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cale C.
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of mass in relation to reference frames, particularly the idea of an "absolute reference state" and its implications for mass as an object approaches the speed of light. Participants explore theoretical aspects of mass, rest frames, and the implications of the big bang on these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether an object in an absolute reference state would have zero mass, linking this to the concept of relativistic mass increasing as speed approaches light speed.
  • Another participant clarifies that "absolute reference state" may refer to a rest frame, asserting that in the rest frame, mass is invariant and not zero.
  • There is a discussion about the existence of a true rest frame, with some participants arguing that no such frame exists due to the relative nature of motion, referencing the Michelson-Morley experiment.
  • One participant raises the idea of a true rest frame existing before the big bang, questioning the nature of space and time prior to that event.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the existence of space before the big bang, suggesting that it complicates the discussion of reference frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the existence of an absolute rest frame and the implications of mass in such a context. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of reference frames before the big bang.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about definitions and the implications of relativistic mass versus invariant mass. The discussion touches on complex concepts that are not fully resolved, particularly regarding the nature of space and time before the big bang.

Cale C.
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Please forgive me for mistakes I am learning.

If as an object approaches the speed of light it gains infinite mass then would an object in a absolute reference state have zero mass? (I understand the problems with an absolute reference state existing, but I am talking theory here)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know what you mean by "absolute reference state". Perhaps you mean a reference frame in which the object is at rest? In any case, it's only the so-called "relativistic" mass that increases without bound in a frame in which the object's speed approaches light speed. In the rest frame the mass would be the normal, everyday invariant mass. (Not zero mass!)

m' = \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}

where m' is the relativistic mass, and m is the ordinary mass. When v = 0, m' = m.
 
Doc Al said:
I don't know what you mean by "absolute reference state". Perhaps you mean a reference frame in which the object is at rest? In any case, it's only the so-called "relativistic" mass that increases without bound in a frame in which the object's speed approaches light speed. In the rest frame the mass would be the normal, everyday invariant mass. (Not zero mass!)

m' = \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}

where m' is the relativistic mass, and m is the ordinary mass. When v = 0, m' = m.



I actually meant a reference frame of absolute zero velocity.

Can there be a true "rest frame" Since everything has velocity in reference to something?
 
Cale C. said:
I actually meant a reference frame of absolute zero velocity.

Can there be a true "rest frame" Since everything has velocity in reference to something?
There is not such a thing as a true rest frame. This was shown in 1887 when the Michelson-Morley experiment was done. They tried to prove the existence of aether, but they failed and showed there was no such thing as aether (and thus absolute rest).

It is quite a long story to post it all, but you should google on Michelson-Morley to find out how it works :) .
 
ImAnEngineer said:
There is not such a thing as a true rest frame. This was shown in 1887 when the Michelson-Morley experiment was done. They tried to prove the existence of aether, but they failed and showed there was no such thing as aether (and thus absolute rest).

It is quite a long story to post it all, but you should google on Michelson-Morley to find out how it works :) .

I will and thank you for all your time and assistance.

I promise I am learning.

just a question.. there may not be a True Rest Frame now.. but what about before.



Before the big bang when everything was in a finite space - would that not have been a True Rest Frame?
 
Cale C. said:
I actually meant a reference frame of absolute zero velocity.

Can there be a true "rest frame" Since everything has velocity in reference to something?
Right, there's no such thing as an "absolute" or "true" rest frame, as all velocities are relative. But an object can certainly be at rest with respect to some particular inertial frame.
 
The phrase 'before the big bang' is difficult because there was no time until the BB, so nothing can be earlier. This sounds contradictory but I've been told ( and I've read ) that this is not a paradox. To me it is but I don't lose sleep over it.
 
Cale C. said:
I will and thank you for all your time and assistance.

I promise I am learning.

just a question.. there may not be a True Rest Frame now.. but what about before.

Before the big bang when everything was in a finite space - would that not have been a True Rest Frame?
This becomes a totally different question. I'm not sure if there was space before the big bang (I guess it is believed by physicists that there was no space-time before then), so then it doesn't make sense to talk about frames of reference, because there wasn't anything to refer to.

I'm not sure though, maybe others have a different opinion.

You're welcome, by the way!
 
ImAnEngineer said:
This becomes a totally different question. I'm not sure if there was space before the big bang (I guess it is believed by physicists that there was no space-time before then), so then it doesn't make sense to talk about frames of reference, because there wasn't anything to refer to.

I'm not sure though, maybe others have a different opinion.

You're welcome, by the way!


Thank you again.

I must turn off my dads computer or he will be angry.
I will move the rest of my questions to another forum as they have now evolved to another topic.
 
  • #10
Cale C. said:
Thank you again.

I must turn off my dads computer or he will be angry.
I will move the rest of my questions to another forum as they have now evolved to another topic.
Tell your dad you're doing physics and he'll go nice on you :smile:
 

Similar threads

High School What if we use a non physical reference point to measure an object's mass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
High School Traveling through space at zero km/s
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
High School Formation of a black hole using acceleration
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad Do objects gain mass while approaching light speed?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Undergrad A question about the speed of light and electromagnetism
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
High School Ride Gravitational Waves to Increase Speed?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Does time dilation prove the existence of an absolute zero velocity?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
High School Does a hot coffee have bigger mass than a cold coffee?
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
High School Thought Experiment: Behavior of shadow of object moving at speed c
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad The Equivalence Principle as a Starting point of GR
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K