Place to discuss the Theory of Relativity

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
98 replies · 15K views
EnumaElish said:
Don't your teachers deserve any credit for the fact that you can smart out almost anybody in this forum?
Being able to out smart anyone on these forums is quite a leap considering I've participated in only a handful of discussions.

As for physics in HS, I did have a very good teacher though I don't recall relativity being covered, perhaps it was briefly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EnumaElish said:
And relativistic mass was never included in your curricula? Or was it?
Luckily I still have many of my physics notes. Most of my knowledge of special relativity is self learned though. I never took a class in college devoted solely to special relativity, but my physics classes at least covered the topic. (I have an engineering degree, not a physics degree). One of the best professors I had in college was one of my physics professors and here are his equations:

[tex]p = \gamma m v[/tex]

[tex]E = m c^{2} + K = \gamma m c^{2}[/tex]

[tex]E^{2} = (p c)^{2} + (m c^{2})^{2}[/tex]

As you can see, there is no mention of "relativistic mass" as that equation would be:
[tex]E = m_r c^{2}[/tex]
where m_r is relativistic mass. Also I checked the index of my physics book which contains no reference to relativistic mass.

Edit: Can someone (I am talking to you management, put a link to latex reference on the main page? OR if it is there, please make it more noticable)
 
Last edited:
Aer said:
One of the best professors I had in college was one of my physics professors and here are his equations:

[tex]p = \gamma m v[/tex]

[tex]E = m c^{2} + K = \gamma m c^{2}[/tex]

[tex]E^{2} = (p c)^{2} + (m c^{2})^{2}[/tex]

As you can see, there is no mention of "relativistic mass" as that equation would be:
[tex]E = m_r c^{2}[/tex]
where m_r is relativistic mass.
What is K? And what is [itex]\gamma[/itex]? What I am wondering is whether mr is not part of these equations implicitly, or whether it can be derived from them, e.g. mr = m/b, for a suitably defined b.
 
EnumaElish said:
What is K? And what is [itex]\gamma[/itex]? What I am wondering is whether mr is not part of these equations implicitly, or whether it can be derived from them, e.g. mr = m/b, for a suitably defined b.
K is kinetic energy and [itex]\gamma[/itex] is the relativity gamma factor (i.e. [itex]{1}/{\sqrt{1-({v}/{c})^{2}}}[/itex])
 
Last edited:
If [itex]m_r[/itex] is defined as [itex]= \gamma m[/itex], then [itex]E = \gamma m c^2= m_r c^2[/itex], so relativistic mass is implicitly in your notes.
 
EnumaElish said:
If [itex]m_r[/itex] is defined as [itex]= \gamma m[/itex], then [itex]E = \gamma m c^2= m_r c^2[/itex], so relativistic mass is implicitly in your notes.
I made [itex]m_r[/itex] up, it is not in my notes. As I said, that is just a definition and a meaningless definition at that. I could also define a "relativistic velocity" as [itex]v_r = \gamma v[/itex], does this velocity have any physical meaning? No it doesn't, athough the two terms [itex]\gamma v[/itex] come up in some equations, it doesn't make any sense to think of it as a "relativisitic velocity" to explain anything.
 
From now on, whenever I use the expression "relativistic mass" (or the notation mr) I will remember that it was not mentioned in your notes. Or that it is difficult to interpret as a physical entity (because it mixes the two frames, so to speak).
 
Last edited:
George Jones said:
Try the excellent General Relativity from A to B by Robert Geroch, which details different views spacetime from Aristotle to Galileo to Einstein.

Regards,
George

This book has finally arrived. Let's see how I get on :rolleyes: