Relativistic mass

  • Thread starter Goodver
  • Start date
  • #26
29,789
6,130
In general you are right but in a discussion about relativistic mass the unqualified word "mass" is not an optimal choice.
That depends on what your optimality criteria are. Mine is to maximize education about modern physics, in which case it is probably close to optimal to explain that the modern scientific community uses the unqualified word "mass" to refer to "invariant mass" and then using it consistently.

Could we? The majority of physicists would need to agree with the new name. That's very unlikely.
This is an odd response given your previous comments in this thread. You seem to recognize that the important part of the name is the agreement of practicing physicists, but at the same time resist what practicing physicists have agreed on.
 
  • #27
1,859
321
That depends on what your optimality criteria are.
Minimization of miscommunication. If someone wants to speak about relativistic mass he is obviously not full compliant with the current conventions. Simply using "mass" would most likely result in confusions with the topic of the discussion. It's not worth to take that risk just to avoid the little redundancy in "invariant mass" or "rest mass" .

This is an odd response given your previous comments in this thread. You seem to recognize that the important part of the name is the agreement of practicing physicists, but at the same time resist what practicing physicists have agreed on.
You got me wrong. I have no problems with the conventions for the terms of mass and energy. I just believe that they are not a result of any fundamental reason. It's a random choice from different possibilities.
 
  • #28
Bill_K
Science Advisor
Insights Author
4,155
195
This thread should have been closed 20 posts ago.
 
  • #29
29,789
6,130
Minimization of miscommunication. If someone wants to speak about relativistic mass he is obviously not full compliant with the current conventions.
Which is why the current conventions were carefully explained in post 3. At that point communication is clear.

This thread should have been closed 20 posts ago.
Agreed.
 

Related Threads on Relativistic mass

  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
879
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Top