Mass in Relativity: Bucherer's Experiment Result

  • Thread starter Thread starter bernhard.rothenstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Relativity
bernhard.rothenstein
Messages
991
Reaction score
1
could ve consider that m=gamaxm(0) is an experimental result (Bucherer)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bernhard.rothenstein said:
could ve consider that m=gamaxm(0) is an experimental result (Bucherer)?


Jeez! Can't we get a common sticky or something on this issue? It DOESN't MATTER whether you use invariant mass or \gamma m as long as you are consistent, and quoting some physicist or textbook who does one or the other does not establish any TRUTH.
 
selfAdjoint said:
Jeez! Can't we get a common sticky or something on this issue? It DOESN't MATTER whether you use invariant mass or \gamma m as long as you are consistent, and quoting some physicist or textbook who does one or the other does not establish any TRUTH.

Why not place - http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mass_paper.pdf
as a sticky. I covered all aspects of mass and made my best attempt at being neutral but I do have my preferences! Take a look at it and see if you want to make it a sticky. I'd enjoy reading your response to it, even if you just place it in my PM box.

Pete
 
bucherer

selfAdjoint said:
Jeez! Can't we get a common sticky or something on this issue? It DOESN't MATTER whether you use invariant mass or \gamma m as long as you are consistent, and quoting some physicist or textbook who does one or the other does not establish any TRUTH.
my problem is not with semantics (mass, relativistic mass...) but with the problem if Bucherer's result could be a starting point in relativistic dynamics? Please be more explicit with with your first sentence.
 
If you're asking about historical priority, Kaufmann's experiments on fast-moving electrons (1906) came before Bucherer's (1908).

For specific references, see the relevant section of the Usenet Physics FAQ.
 
jtbell said:
If you're asking about historical priority, Kaufmann's experiments on fast-moving electrons (1906) came before Bucherer's (1908).

For specific references, see the relevant section of the Usenet Physics FAQ.
thanks for your help. my problem is not with the priority but with the fact if Bucherer's (Kaufman's) result could be considered as independent from Einstein's special relativity and if we could start with it in order to derive relativistic dynamics.
 

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
View full post »

Thread 'A sufficient condition for integrability of equation ##\nabla g=0##'

In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
View full post »

Similar threads

I The answer for the total mass of the Universe?
Replies
36
Views
2K
Physical law from experimental data
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Experimental evidence for effective mass increasing with speed
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Compatibility of Classical Electromagnetism & Relativity
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Is it only experience that's relative?
Replies
11
Views
1K
B Understanding the Stress-Energy Tensor & Solar Mass in General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
B Does Time Move Slower for Travelers in Special Relativity Experiments?
Replies
29
Views
3K
I Higgs Field & GR: Are They Related or Not?
Replies
16
Views
3K
I If energy is relative, is the rest mass also relative?
Replies
36
Views
3K
A Is the constancy of c a postulate or a derivable theorem?
Replies
13
Views
242

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top