Explaining Mass Increase Outside of Relativity: The Role of Internal Resistance

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter trglo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    increase Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of mass increase outside the framework of relativity, exploring whether it can be explained through the notion of internal resistance. Participants examine the relationship between kinetic energy, electromagnetic theory, and the behavior of particles as they approach the speed of light.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if mass increase can be explained by a progressive increase of "internal" resistance, drawing an analogy to external resistance experienced by a body in free fall.
  • Another participant suggests that the increase of inertia with speed was known prior to relativity and relates it to electromagnetic theory, particularly for electrons, where kinetic energy is stored in the magnetic field.
  • There is a discussion about whether the relationship between self-induction and mass increase is fundamentally different from friction, with some participants clarifying their terminology.
  • One participant notes that while relativity defines the behavior of mass increase, it does not provide a deeper explanation beyond predictive models.
  • Questions are raised about the mathematical relationships between mass increase, time dilation, and length contraction, including the nature of their curves and any potential causal links.
  • Historical references are made to early theorists like Abraham and Lorentz, with mentions of experimental confirmations by Kaufman and later studies by Bertozzi.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the explanations of mass increase, with some agreeing that relativity does not explain the phenomenon but only describes it, while others explore various theoretical frameworks. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the mathematical notations used in discussing mass increase and its relation to time dilation. There is also an acknowledgment of the historical context of the theories presented, but no consensus on the explanations or relationships discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of classical physics and relativity, as well as individuals interested in the historical development of concepts related to mass and inertia.

trglo
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
is there a physical explanation of mass increase ouside relativity?
I understand it is KE, can it be explained with a progressive increase of "internal" resistance?
I mean: if a body free-falls in the atmosphere external resistance increases with velocity, until it reaches terminal velocity vt, is it possible to consider C as a vt for particles? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is nothing like friction, but more like self induction. In fact, the increase of inertia with speed was known before the inception of relativity theory, and it was explained from electromagnetic theory.
However, that only seems to work (somewhat) for the electron - the kinetic energy is stored in the magnetic field, and an infinite amount of energy is required to reach c. As far as I know, no theory has been established that accounts for the increase of inertia of neutral particles and atoms in a satisfying way.
 
harrylin said:
It is nothing like friction, but more like self induction. In fact, the increase of inertia with speed was known before the inception of relativity theory, and it was explained from electromagnetic theory.
However, that only seems to work (somewhat) for the electron - the kinetic energy is stored in the magnetic field, and an infinite amount of energy is required to reach c. As far as I know, no theory has been established that accounts for the increase of inertia of neutral particles and atoms in a satisfying way.
Thanks, harrylin, I did not mean friction, I said internal resistance, I was thinking of "production of magnetic energy" is it any different from what you say self induction?
I see that the formula is the same as time dilation γv, is it causal or is there a deeper relation?
 
trglo said:
Thanks, harrylin, I did not mean friction, I said internal resistance, I was thinking of "production of magnetic energy" is it any different from what you say self induction?
I see that the formula is the same as time dilation γv, is it causal or is there a deeper relation?
You wrote "external resistance", and resistance implies friction. :wink: Anyway, indeed self induction has to do with magnetic field energy and for the electron there is an undeniable relationship. As a matter of fact, I once thought that they were unrelated and so I double-counted the effect - which is wrong. There is not an effect from "relativity" plus on top of that another one from self induction. But time dilation is not γv, where did you see that?
 
"external" referred to air resistance, of course.
if I got it right relativity did not explain it, only defined the curve of its values?
if in γ we call β = x (cos θ) is the value of MI = sec θ?
I was told in a forum that length-contraction LC and time-dilation TD curves are hyperbolic, is it true? how is TD related to MI? why formula is the same?

do you know when was MI first theorized and when really detected?
Thanks for your help
 
trglo said:
[..] if I got it right relativity did not explain it, only defined the curve of its values?
That's correct: the explanations of relativity don't go deeper than describing ("predicting") what will be measured.
if in γ we call β = x (cos θ) is the value of MI = sec θ?
I was told in a forum that length-contraction LC and time-dilation TD curves are hyperbolic, is it true? how is TD related to MI? why formula is the same?

do you know when was MI first theorized and when really detected?
Thanks for your help
I suppose that you mean with "MI" mass increase. But sorry, I don't understand your notations "x (cos θ)" and "sec θ".

In the late 19th century, mass increase was described by Abraham (maybe the first?) and many others such as Lorentz. It was first "detected" (with some theoretical assumptions) by such people as Kaufman, you can "google" those names for more info.
And there is a direct link between MI and TD, as in such experiments the trajectory depends on the dynamic mass: "heavier" electrons with higher energy are also "slower" to deflect.

It may interest you that later experiments such as by Bertozzi,
http://tap.iop.org/atoms/accelerators/518/file_47173.pdf
more clearly demonstrated that while the speed hardly increases, the kinetic energy still continues to increase.

Harald
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K