Does Relativistic Mass Influence Gravity and Energy in High-Velocity Objects?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the influence of relativistic mass on gravity and energy in high-velocity objects, specifically addressing whether increased velocity results in stronger gravitational attraction. Participants clarify that while relativistic mass is often debated, it is essential to understand that energy and mass are equivalent, and kinetic energy contributes to spacetime distortion. The conversation also highlights the importance of distinguishing between invariant mass and relativistic mass, with references to Einstein's evolving views on the subject and the implications for modern physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concepts of invariant mass and relativistic mass
  • Knowledge of energy-mass equivalence (E=mc²)
  • Basic principles of momentum in classical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of relativistic mass in high-energy physics
  • Study the derivation and applications of the Lorentz factor (gamma)
  • Examine the role of kinetic energy in general relativity and spacetime curvature
  • Explore contemporary debates on the terminology of mass in physics literature
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the nuances of mass, energy, and gravity in high-velocity contexts.

  • #31
Ok, more precise: The meaning of "mass" is clear for all particle physicists.
I think the same is true for nuclear physics and atomic physics and I would expect it in astronomy, too.

Any other fields which deal with relativistic effects frequently?
Solid-state physics can have very low effective electron masses, but I think those are invariant (and different from the electron energy), too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mfb said:
Ok, more precise: The meaning of "mass" is clear for all particle physicists. [..]
That is imprecise. The different meanings of "mass" in the literature are clear for many physicists, but by far not clear to all. Some particle physicists use both meanings, just as is common for "time". It's because of unfamiliarity that erroneous statements are made of the kind that again appeared in this thread.
 
  • #33
Some particle physicists use both meanings
I never met one who called E/c^2 "mass".
I think "time" was always used as proper time (time in the frame of the particle), too. Event timestamps are in the frame of the detector, of course.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K