# Mass in relativity

1. Apr 30, 2006

### bernhard.rothenstein

could ve consider that m=gamaxm(0) is an experimental result (Bucherer)?

2. Apr 30, 2006

### selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus

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.

3. Apr 30, 2006

### pmb_phy

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

4. Apr 30, 2006

### bernhard.rothenstein

bucherer

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.

5. Apr 30, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

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.

6. Apr 30, 2006

### bernhard.rothenstein

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.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook