- #1

- 12

- 0

Any research papers dealing with this topic??

Thanking in advance..

- Thread starter Frank Lampard
- Start date

- #1

- 12

- 0

Any research papers dealing with this topic??

Thanking in advance..

- #2

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,631

- 3,677

Perhaps it would help us if you can say where you saw this phrase, and what the context was. I don't claim to be an expert on current developments in relativity or thermodynamics, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen this phrase before.

- #3

- 12

- 0

– or what is real in Physics?" by Manfred Requardt.

Here's the link--arXiv:0801.2639v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2008

- #4

- 3,962

- 20

In equation (2) the paper clearly states [tex] \gamma = (1-u^2/c^2)^{-1/2}[/tex]

In equation (7) the paper states [tex] m = m_o \cdot \gamma = m_o \cdot (1-u^2/c^2)^{-1/2}[/tex]

So far, this all very classic relativity but perhaps a bit old fashioned in using the relativistic mass increase concept. Nevetheless we note that by the expression m_o dot gamma they mean an increase of mass with increase of relative velocity.

Now just before equation (26) the paper states:

"Using the above expression for G, the fact that p is a Lorentz invariant, i.e. p = p0, and the change of volume by Lorentz contraction, [tex] V = V_o \cdot \gamma [/tex] , one can integrate the above expression and get.."

Now of course I am very happy that they assume that pressure is invariant as everyone here knows that is my belief, but by V_o dot gamma they must be implying an increase of volume with increase of relative velocity. Is that not the opposite of length contraction and therefore a mistake? Maybe it is me that missing something basic?

- #5

- 321

- 0

In equation (2) the paper clearly states [tex] \gamma = (1-u^2/c^2)^{-1/2}[/tex]

In equation (7) the paper states [tex] m = m_o \cdot \gamma = m_o \cdot (1-u^2/c^2)^{-1/2}[/tex]

So far, this all very classic relativity but perhaps a bit old fashioned in using the relativistic mass increase concept. Nevetheless we note that by the expression m_o dot gamma they mean an increase of mass with increase of relative velocity.

Now just before equation (26) the paper states:

"Using the above expression for G, the fact that p is a Lorentz invariant, i.e. p = p0, and the change of volume by Lorentz contraction, [tex] V = V_o \cdot \gamma [/tex] , one can integrate the above expression and get.."

Now of course I am very happy that they assume that pressure is invariant as everyone here knows that is my belief, but by V_o dot gamma they must be implying an increase of volume with increase of relative velocity. Is that not the opposite of length contraction and therefore a mistake? Maybe it is me that missing something basic?

It's a typo. The authors use [tex]V=V_0 \gamma ^{-1}[/tex] a few lines below in eq (28).

- #6

- 3,962

- 20

Thanks! The typo really threw me :PIt's a typo. The authors use [tex]V=V_0 \gamma ^{-1}[/tex] a few lines below in eq (28).