Since space and time are relative shouldn't matter and energy be also?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between space, time, matter, and energy, particularly questioning whether matter and energy exhibit similar properties due to their relative nature. Participants explore concepts from both classical mechanics and special relativity, focusing on the implications of motion on the behavior of matter and energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if light's speed is constant regardless of the observer's motion, then matter should also exhibit relative properties, questioning how matter can equate to energy given their differing characteristics.
  • Another participant challenges the initial claim about the bullet's speed, asserting that a bullet fired from a moving vehicle would indeed travel faster relative to a stationary observer than if fired from a stationary position.
  • A different participant notes that if the bullet is replaced with a photon, the initial claim would hold true, indicating a distinction between the behavior of light and matter.
  • Further discussion includes inquiries about the mathematics of velocity addition in both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, with one participant explaining that in Newtonian terms, the velocities would simply add together.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the kinetic energy of a bullet is frame-dependent, being zero in the bullet's own frame and larger in the frame of the shooter, while also discussing the concept of rest mass versus relativistic mass.
  • There is a mention of the energy-momentum 4-vector and its invariance, which relates to the discussion of mass and energy in different reference frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the behavior of matter and energy, particularly regarding the implications of motion on their properties. There is no consensus on the relationship between matter and energy, nor on the specifics of velocity addition in different frames of reference.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the definitions of matter and energy, as well as the conditions under which velocities are added. The nuances of relativistic effects versus classical mechanics are also present but not fully resolved.

Gregory.gags
Messages
31
Reaction score
2
Its known that the speed of light is constant...(if you emit a light Eastward while your physically traveling East c will still be the same as if you were still) but also, through an experiment i am imagining, the speed of matter should be relative as well...(if your traveling Eastward and you shoot a bullet to the East it will travel at the same speed as a shooter facing East standing still would). But HOW can matter have the same properties as energy is one has mass and the other not? could matter=energy/frequency?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gregory.gags said:
(if your traveling Eastward and you shoot a bullet to the East it will travel at the same speed as a shooter facing East standing still would).

This is not correct. If a person fires a bullet while moving with respect to some stationary observer, the bullet will travel faster with respect to the stationary observer than it would have if the shooter was standing still.
 
If you replace 'bullet' with 'photon', then you'ld be correct.
 
elfmotat said:
This is not correct. If a person fires a bullet while moving with respect to some stationary observer, the bullet will travel faster with respect to the stationary observer than it would have if the shooter was standing still.

but what would the mathematics behind this be? would the kinetic force of the car be ADDED to the velocity of the bullet?
also
if the bullet is already in motion, as per the moving car, wouldn't the thrust of the gunpowder need to be greater to overcome the *inertia?* of the bullet?

ps I'm probably not making a lot of sense since I only know a little bit about a lot of stuff, but please bear with me :)
 
Gregory.gags said:
but what would the mathematics behind this be? would the kinetic force of the car be ADDED to the velocity of the bullet?

From a Newtonian standpoint, you just add the velocity of car to that of the bullet with respect to the shooter in the car. If a car is moving at velocity vcar and a passenger fires a bullet that travels at velocity u, then the velocity of the bullet with respect to a stationary observer is just:

vbullet = vcar + u

In special relativity, "adding" velocities isn't quite this simple, but it's the same general principle.

Gregory.gags said:
also
if the bullet is already in motion, as per the moving car, wouldn't the thrust of the gunpowder need to be greater to overcome the *inertia?* of the bullet?

Nope, for the same reason you don't fly backwards at over 300 mph when you stand up in an airplane.
 
Responding to the original post: yes, energy is relative. The kinetic energy of a bullet is 0 in the frame of reference of the bullet. It's much larger in the frame of a person who has shot it. As far as matter, that depends on how you define matter. The rest mass doesn't change with reference frame, but the relativistic mass does change.

What doesn't change is the length of the energy-momentum 4-vector. This is the rest mass for an atomic particle, but includes internal energies for a composite system.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K