Modern Special Relativity and Mass

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions and conventions of mass in modern special relativity, particularly the distinction between "relativistic mass" and "invariant mass." Participants explore how these concepts are formulated and the implications for understanding dynamics in relativistic physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that modern texts have not kept pace with current conventions in relativity, particularly regarding the concept of mass and the use of four-vectors.
  • DW presents a detailed mathematical formulation of momentum and energy in special relativity, emphasizing that mass does not change with speed and attributing the inability to reach the speed of light to the Lorentzian structure of spacetime.
  • Others, including cragwolf, suggest that the debate over the terms "relativistic mass" and "invariant mass" is largely a matter of semantics, asserting that both formulations can be used consistently in physics.
  • References are provided by participants to support various viewpoints on the definitions and implications of mass in relativity, indicating that the topic has been debated in academic literature.
  • Some participants express confusion over the mathematical aspects of the discussion, indicating a range of familiarity with the concepts presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions of mass in relativity. While some argue for the superiority of invariant mass, others maintain that both invariant and relativistic mass can be valid depending on the context. The discussion remains unresolved with competing views on the significance of these terms.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of mass and the implications of using different conventions. The mathematical formulations presented may depend on specific interpretations that are not universally agreed upon.

  • #31
Originally posted by Arcon
Mass is the source of a gravitational field in the same way the charge is the source of of an EM field.

Actually the analogy is closer to the four vector current being the source to the vector potential which is like the stress energy tensor being the source for the differential spacetime geometry. The comparison being compared are
A^\mu ;^\nu _\nu = \mu _{0}J^\mu
and
G^\mu ^\nu = kT^\mu ^\nu .

Originally posted by Stingray
You guys shouldn't be mixing special and general relativity. The stress-energy tensor is the source for gravity in GR ... The current 4-vector can be made one number in a certain frame (charge), so its reasonable to say that charge sources the EM field. The energy-momentum tensor cannot in general be reduced to a single number (mass density).

This point is in fact why I kept saying that the stress energy tensor, NOT either mass, was the source term for gravitation in relativity. So you shouldn't say "you guys" here.

Originally posted by Arcon
That is not always true.

So what you should be arguing is that like the stress energy tensor not mass is the source in gravitation, the four vector current not charge is the source in electromagnetism.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
649
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
850
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K