Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lorentz ether frame, Relativistic Mass, and Inertia

  1. Jun 17, 2011 #1
    It is obvious from particle accelerators that accelerating a mass increases its inertia. That should be a valid observation in all frames.

    But if the angle between the acceleration vector and the velocity vector is relative to the observer, then whether the mass is accelerating or 'de'celerating should be relative as well. If so, this means disagreement between different inertial frames as to whether the inertia is increasing or decreasing.

    One could counter that in the frame co-moving with the accelerated object that the force has been reduced, rather than the mass and its inertia increasing. Then it would no longer apply that the inertia of an object is the same in every reference frame. The object's inertia would be observed to be increased in accelerator's frame, while constant in the object's frame. However, this leads to the conclusion that the inertia of the universe is relative. However, given the link between inertial mass and gravitational mass, it seems untenable that such a property of the universe, such as inertia, could depend on the observer. For example, you would have inertial frames of reference where the energy density of the universe can be 10^120 times than what is observed in our frame. How would that preserve constants such as [itex]G[/itex] without introducing additional normalization factors or other similar corrections? It can't.

    A Lorentz ether (in the context of the absolutist neo-Lorentzian view) would solve this problem:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status

    Any acceleration relative to this Lorentz ether frame would result in the increase of inertia agreed upon by all frames. Any deceleration relative to this Lorentz ether frame would result in the decrease of inertia agreed upon by all frames. Whether more energy goes from an object A, to object B, than from object B, to object A, can be agreed upon by all observers if a Lorentz ether frame existed.

    Based on this, it is apparently not true that a Lorentz ether frame cannot be detected. It most certainly can. If, by applying a force on a charge, the inertia of a charge falls towards a minima, and then subsequently rises again, then such a charge has approached the Lorentz ether frame and then receded from it. That does not mean it has actually reached it. It only means that, for a brief period of time, it was closer to it. Multiple such measurements can ultimately lead to a more precise determination of the the Lorentz ether frame. Claims that it cannot be distinguished from SR are simply wrong. It may have a connection with the cosmic background anisotropy as well as Mach's principle. Notice that if the cosmic background is the signature of a thermal equilibrium of an early state of this universe, then any significant observed anisotropy would result from an observer's relative motion with respect to a universal inertial frame, which would be indeed coherent with the idea that there exists a Lorentz ether frame. Also true is that, for line-of-sight motion:

    [tex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{z+1}+\frac{1}{2} \left(z+1\right)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{f_{-o}}{f_{-s}} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{f_{+o}}{f_{+s}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{ \frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}} + \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}[/tex]

    Where:
    [itex]z[/itex] is the redshift.
    [itex]f_{+s}[/itex] is the peak-to-peak frequency of photons coming from a source in the forward direction, as measured at the source.
    [itex]f_{-s}[/itex] is the peak-to-peak frequency of photons coming from a source in the backward direction, as measured at the source.
    [itex]f_{+o}[/itex] is the peak-to-peak frequency of photons coming from a source in the forward direction, as measured at the observer.
    [itex]f_{+o}[/itex] is the peak-to-peak frequency of photons coming from a source in the backward direction, as measured at the observer.

    A perfect black-body emission pervading the universe would satisfy the condition [itex]f_{+s}=f_{-s}[/itex]. Therefore, much of the anisotropy seen by an observer [itex]o[/itex] for a near-perfect black-body emission pervading the universe would correspond to [itex]o[/itex]'s motions relative to such a medium. The Lorentz ether frame then may be regarded as a frame wherein the emission pattern of an all-pervasive near-perfect black body is seen with minimal anisotropies. Any object in that frame would be subject to conditions very near to [itex]\gamma=1[/itex] and [itex]\beta=0[/itex]. In general, a particle's inertia is proportional to its [itex]\gamma[/itex].

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass#Modern_view

    In a Lorentz ether frame, the relativistic mass would have a definite and real existence by being defined in terms of a relative speed [itex]v[/itex] with respect to this Lorentz ether frame. The mass [itex]m_{0}[/itex] would correspond to the minimum inertia which a particle may have, and thus, its minimum (and identical) inertial and gravitational masses. Despite what some claim, this can be detected experimentally. Failure to stand up to an adequate test would falsify the existence of a Lorentz ether frame. Given the possibility of such a test, the concept of a Lorentz ether frame is not strictly limited to metaphysics.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2011 #2
    That's fine, but gimme the papers.
     
  4. Jun 18, 2011 #3

    Bill_K

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In four dimensions the velocity 4-vector has a constant norm, and the acceleration 4-vector is orthogonal to it. You're absolutely correct, if you work in 3-dimensional terms then the angle between them is frame dependent. Your mistake lies in the interpretation of this.
    You're confusing rest mass with relativistic mass, and using the word 'inertia' to refer to both. The rest mass is the same in every frame, the relativistic mass is not.
    Gravitational mass is linked to rest mass.
    This is true. An observer in such a frame would meet an unfortunate demise.
    It has nothing to do with G or any other physical constant.
     
  5. Jun 18, 2011 #4

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    What link between inertial mass and gravitational mass?

    In general, the Lorentz aether will not cause nor resolve any problems you find with SR since they are experimentally identical.
     
  6. Jun 18, 2011 #5

    Bill_K

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is rumored that they are equal.
     
  7. Jun 18, 2011 #6

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Mass isn't the source of gravity. The stress energy tensor is.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Lorentz ether frame, Relativistic Mass, and Inertia
  1. Lorentz' ether (Replies: 12)

  2. Relativistic mass (Replies: 32)

  3. Relativistic mass (Replies: 28)

Loading...