If the concept of relativistic mass is rejected....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of relativistic mass and its implications in the context of special relativity, particularly focusing on the challenges of accelerating particles as they approach the speed of light. Participants explore the relationship between mass, energy, and acceleration without reaching a consensus on the validity or utility of the concept of relativistic mass.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why it becomes harder to accelerate particles near the speed of light if relativistic mass is not a valid concept.
  • Others reference the Lorentz equation, suggesting that it indicates mass is involved in the acceleration process.
  • One participant asserts that infinite energy is required to accelerate an object approaching the speed of light, raising the question of what the object gains if not relativistic mass.
  • Another participant emphasizes that kinetic energy still applies, presenting the relativistic equation for kinetic energy and contrasting it with the classical equation.
  • Several participants recommend reading external resources that discuss why the term "relativistic mass" is considered misleading, including insights from Einstein and other physicists.
  • One participant elaborates on the non-additive nature of velocities in special relativity, arguing that explanations relying on mass or energy may introduce unnecessary complexity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance and accuracy of the concept of relativistic mass, with no consensus reached regarding its utility or implications in understanding acceleration at relativistic speeds.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the definitions of mass and energy, as well as the applicability of classical mechanics principles in relativistic contexts. The conversation reflects ongoing debates in the physics community regarding these concepts.

hidex
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Then why did they find out it's harder to accelerate particles when they are near the speed of light?

Even the lorentz equation indicates that the dimension is mass (rest mass / lorentz factor).
Infinite energy is required to accelerate an object approaching to the speed of light, but what did the object gain if it's not relativistic mass ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hidex said:
Infinite energy is required to accelerate an object approaching to the speed of light, but what did the object gain if it's not relativistic mass ?

Kinetic energy. The work-energy theorem still applies:$$W = K_{final} - K_{initial}\\K_{final} = K_{initial} + W$$ However, the relativistic equation for kinetic energy is different from the non-relativistic one: $$K = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} - mc^2$$ rather than $$K = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$$
 
Last edited:
ZapperZ said:
In addition to the responses above, read this on why even Einstein stopped using the term "relativistic mass" once he realized how misleading and inaccurate that term was:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/relativistic-mass.642188/#post-4106101

Zz.
Yes, and read the paper by Okun mentioned there. You find it online here:

http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/einstein_okun.pdf

Also see

http://svr1dx.ud.infn.it/URDF/laure...erDoes_mass_really_depend_on_velocity_dad.pdf
 
By the way, K = \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}-1\right)mc^2
 
Yep, I inadvertently omitted the ##-mc^2## term from my version of the equation, then went back and added it. :blushing:
 
hidex said:
Then why did they find out it's harder to accelerate particles when they are near the speed of light?

Even the lorentz equation indicates that the dimension is mass (rest mass / lorentz factor).
Infinite energy is required to accelerate an object approaching to the speed of light, but what did the object gain if it's not relativistic mass ?

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, but in special relativity velocities don't add normally. By "add normally", I mean that in Newtonian physics, if we have three objects, ##O_1##, ##O_2##, and ##O_3##, if the velocity between ##O_1## and ##O_2## is ##v_{12}## and likewise the velocity between ##O_2## and ##O_3## is ##v_{23}## and the velocity between ##O_1## and ##O_3## is ##v_{13}##, then we expect that ##v_{13} = v_{12} + v_{23}##

This is not true in special relativity, ##v_{13}## is not equal to ##v_{12}+v_{23}##.

So let us apply this relation to a hypothetical rocketship, that after 6 months of proper (shipboard) time, reaches half the speed of light relative to it's starting point. We ask the following question: "What happens in another six months shipboard time?"

Well, the rocketship's velocity relative to its starting point is equivalent ##v_{12}## in the above example, and by the problem statement this velocity is 0.5c. The velocity of the rocket at 12 months relative to it's velocity after six months is like ##v_{23}##, and because the rocektship accelerates at a constant rate, we can say that ##v_{23}## is also equal to 0.5c.

But ##v_{13}##, the velocity of the rocket relative to its starting point, is not equal to ##v_{12} + v_{13}## which is 0.5c + 0.5c = c. It's lower than that.

We don't need to introduce the concept of "mass" or "energy" at all to make this statement, so any explanation that relies on the concepts of "mass" or "energy" in an attempt to "explain" the behavior is introducing superfluous concepts that aren't really required.
 
ZapperZ said:
In addition to the responses above, read this on why even Einstein stopped using the term "relativistic mass" once he realized how misleading and inaccurate that term was:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/relativistic-mass.642188/#post-4106101

Zz.
Thus a concept that was easy and simple for Feynman and his students, was a "confusing concept" for Okun. "Everyone his own" I suppose... :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K