How can we calculate a rest mass?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Denton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Rest Rest mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of rest mass in the context of relativistic physics. Participants explore the implications of not having an absolute frame of total rest and how rest mass can still be defined within an inertial frame of reference. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, mathematical formulations, and differing perspectives on the concept of mass.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that while there is no absolute frame of total rest, an inertial frame can be found where a body is at rest, allowing for the calculation of rest mass using Einstein's formula E = mc².
  • Others elaborate on the relationship between total energy and rest mass, introducing the concept of "rest energy" E₀ = m₀c², which is the energy a body possesses in its own frame of reference.
  • There is mention of "relativistic mass," which some participants argue is a deprecated term, while others maintain its relevance, defining it as m = m₀ / √(1 - v²/c²).
  • Participants discuss the distinction between rest mass (m₀) and relativistic mass (m), with some emphasizing that rest mass remains invariant regardless of the observer's frame of reference.
  • Mathematical relationships are presented, including E² = (pc)² + (m₀c²)², and discussions on how total energy relates to kinetic energy and rest energy.
  • Some participants express differing views on the utility and implications of using relativistic mass versus invariant mass in calculations and theoretical discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity or utility of the concept of relativistic mass, with some advocating for its use while others reject it in favor of invariant mass. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to defining and calculating rest mass.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex mathematical expressions and definitions that may depend on specific interpretations of mass and energy in relativistic contexts. Some assumptions about the applicability of certain formulas and the definitions of mass types are not fully explored.

Denton
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
If we can't find a frame of total rest, how can we calculate a rest mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Denton said:
If we can't find a frame of total rest, how can we calculate a rest mass?

Of course, there is no absolute frame of total rest. However, one can always find an inertial frame of reference, such that a given body is at rest there (i.e., its velocity is equal to zero). In this reference frame the total energy E of the body and its "rest mass" m are related by Einstein's formula E = mc^2

Eugene.
 
meopemuk said:
Of course, there is no absolute frame of total rest. However, one can always find an inertial frame of reference, such that a given body is at rest there (i.e., its velocity is equal to zero). In this reference frame the total energy E of the body and its "rest mass" m are related by Einstein's formula E = mc^2

and that total energy is the "rest energy" of that body since it is at rest in that inertial frame of reference. the "rest energy", E0 = m0 c2, is the energy a body of mass m0 has in it's own frame of reference.

Einstein's E = m c2 also works in general for the total energy, E, of some body not at rest with respect to the given inertial frame of reference and moving relative to that frame of reference with velocity v. then the total energy, E, of that moving body, as perceived by an observer in that given inertial frame of reference is

E = m c^2

where m is the "relativistic mass" (sometimes called "inertial mass" or perhaps "effective mass") and is a term deprecated by many physicists including some here (but not by me). knowing the velocity v, relative to any inertial frame of reference, and rest mass m0 of the body (the mass as measured in the body's own frame of reference), the relativistic mass is

m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} .

those who deny or deprecate the concept of "relativistic mass" or contrasting this other notion of mass with rest mass (the only mass worthy of note to those deprecating "relativistic mass" and so is labeled "invariant mass", since ,if nothing intrinsically changes about a body, the rest mass or the perceived mass of the body in the body's own frame of reference is always the same, even if the relativistic mass might be different for different observers traveling different velocities relative to that body) agree with the following relating total energy E to rest mass (what they just call "mass) m0 and inertial momentum p.

E^2 = (p c)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2

they view that formula as fundamental whereas those (like me) who do not deprecate "relativistic mass" see it as simply following the relativistic mass expression above and the previously existing definition for momentum:

p = m v

so we actually define the effective mass, m as the magnitude of momentum of the body p (that no one disagrees about) as perceived by an observer in an inertial frame of reference, divided by the magnitude of the velocity of the body (that no one disagrees about), again as perceived by an observer in an inertial frame of reference.

m \equiv \frac{p}{v} = \frac{\frac{\sqrt{E^2 - (m_0 c^2)^2}}{c} }{v} = \frac{\sqrt{(m c^2)^2 - (m_0 c^2)^2} }{c v} = \frac{\sqrt{ \left(\frac{m_0 c^2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)^2 - (m_0 c^2)^2 }}{c v}

\quad = \frac{m_0 c^2 \sqrt{ \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)^2 - 1 }}{c v} = \frac{m_0 c^2 \sqrt{ \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} - 1 }}{c v} = \frac{m_0 c \sqrt{ \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} - \frac{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} }}{v} = \frac{m_0 c \sqrt{ \frac{\frac{v^2}{c^2}}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} }}{v} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

the difference between the body's total energy E = m c2 and the rest energy E0 = m0 c2 is the kinetic energy of the body:

T = E - E_0 = m c^2 - m_0 c^2

or

T = m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)

or, more fundamentally, the total energy is the rest energy (whatever a body has just for being there) added to the kinetic energy (what the body gets additionally for being in motion):

E \equiv E_0 + T

as |v| << |c|, the above exact expression for kinetic energy degenerates to the familiar expression for kinetic energy seen in classical mechanics:

T \approx \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 = \lim_{v \rightarrow c} m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)

that's how i look at this whole thing regarding rest mass vs. mass, etc.
 
Last edited:
relativistic mass (horibile dictu?)

rbj said:
and that total energy is the "rest energy" of that body since it is at rest in that inertial frame of reference. the "rest energy", E0 = m0 c2, is the energy a body of mass m0 has in it's own frame of reference.

Einstein's E = m c2 also works in general for the total energy, E, of some body not at rest with respect to the given inertial frame of reference and moving relative to that frame of reference with velocity v. then the total energy, E, of that moving body, as perceived by an observer in that given inertial frame of reference is

E = m c^2

where m is the "relativistic mass" (sometimes called "inertial mass" or perhaps "effective mass") and is a term deprecated by many physicists including some here (but not by me). knowing the velocity v, relative to any inertial frame of reference, and rest mass m0 of the body (the mass as measured in the body's own frame of reference), the relativistic mass is

m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} .

those who deny or deprecate the concept of "relativistic mass" or contrasting this other notion of mass with rest mass (the only mass worthy of note to those deprecating "relativistic mass" and so is labeled "invariant mass", since ,if nothing intrinsically changes about a body, the rest mass or the perceived mass of the body in the body's own frame of reference is always the same, even if the relativistic mass might be different for different observers traveling different velocities relative to that body) agree with the following relating total energy E to rest mass (what they just call "mass) m0 and inertial momentum p.

E^2 = (p c)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2

they view that formula as fundamental whereas those (like me) who do not deprecate "relativistic mass" see it as simply following the relativistic mass expression above and the previously existing definition for momentum:

p = m v

so we actually define the effective mass, m as the magnitude of momentum of the body p (that no one disagrees about) as perceived by an observer in an inertial frame of reference, divided by the magnitude of the velocity of the body (that no one disagrees about), again as perceived by an observer in an inertial frame of reference.

m \equiv \frac{p}{v} = \frac{\frac{\sqrt{E^2 - (m_0 c^2)^2}}{c} }{v} = \frac{\sqrt{(m c^2)^2 - (m_0 c^2)^2} }{c v} = \frac{\sqrt{ \left(\frac{m_0 c^2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)^2 - (m_0 c^2)^2 }}{c v}

\quad = \frac{m_0 c^2 \sqrt{ \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)^2 - 1 }}{c v} = \frac{m_0 c^2 \sqrt{ \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} - 1 }}{c v} = \frac{m_0 c \sqrt{ \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} - \frac{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} }}{v} = \frac{m_0 c \sqrt{ \frac{\frac{v^2}{c^2}}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} }}{v} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

the difference between the body's total energy E = m c2 and the rest energy E0 = m0 c2 is the kinetic energy of the body:

T = E - E_0 = m c^2 - m_0 c^2

or

T = m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)

or, more fundamentally, the total energy is the rest energy (whatever a body has just for being there) added to the kinetic energy (what the body gets additionally for being in motion):

E \equiv E_0 + T

as |v| << |c|, the above exact expression for kinetic energy degenerates to the familiar expression for kinetic energy seen in classical mechanics:

T \approx \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 = \lim_{v \rightarrow c} m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)

that's how i look at this whole thing regarding rest mass vs. mass, etc.
I am one who does not deprecate the concept of relativistic mass. Happy to see that you are of the same opinion (simils simile gaudet).
I used to teach the subject as follows. Start with
p=mu (1)
in I and with
p'=m'u' (2)
in I'. As long as
u=u'+V (3)
m and m' represent the absolute Newtonian mass m=m'. The problem is to find out the physics behind m and m' if
u=(u'+V)/(1+Vu'/cc) (4)
From (1), (2) and (4) results
p/m=(p'/m')[(1+V/u')/(1+Vu'/cc)] (5)
which suggests to consider that
p=f(V)p'(1+V/u') (6)
m=f(V)m'(1+Vu'/cc) (7)
The relativistic arsenal (linerity, reciprocity, symmetry...) leads to
f(V)=1/sqrt(1-VV/cc).
If the considered tardyon is at rest in I' (u'=0, p'=0) observers from that frame measure its rest mass m(0) observers from I relative to which it moves with V measure its relativistic mass m(V) related by (7)
m(V)=m(0)/sqrt(1-VV/cc) (8)
For those who ban the concept of relativistic mass multiply both sides of (8) with cc in order to obtain
E(V)=E(0)/sqrt(1-VV/cc) simply taking into account the physical dimensions of m(0)cc and m(V)cc.
We can express (6) and (7) as a function of E and E' avoiding m and m'.
Those interested in an elaborate version of the thoughts presented above could receive an extended version of it.
 
of course, there's always a mistake somewhere. (and this is old enough that i can't edit my original post.)

rbj said:
the difference between the body's total energy E = m c2 and the rest energy E0 = m0 c2 is the kinetic energy of the body:

T = E - E_0 = m c^2 - m_0 c^2

or

T = m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)

or, more fundamentally, the total energy is the rest energy (whatever a body has just for being there) added to the kinetic energy (what the body gets additionally for being in motion):

E \equiv E_0 + T

as |v| << |c|, the above exact expression for kinetic energy degenerates to the familiar expression for kinetic energy seen in classical mechanics:

T \approx \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 = \lim_{v \rightarrow c} m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)

should be

T \approx \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 = \lim_{v/c \rightarrow 0} m_0 c^2 \left(1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K