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.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top