Mass Equation in SR: Determining Rest Mass of Moving Objects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arsenic&Lace
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stupid
Arsenic&Lace
Messages
533
Reaction score
37
Here's my stupid question: In the mass equation from SR, we have the m0 term for rest mass; but how would you determine the rest mass of an object? Isn't an object on the earth, which is in motion, also in motion? So wouldn't the mass of an object on Earth not actually be its mass at rest?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Arsenic&Lace said:
Here's my stupid question: In the mass equation from SR, we have the m0 term for rest mass; but how would you determine the rest mass of an object? Isn't an object on the earth, which is in motion, also in motion? So wouldn't the mass of an object on Earth not actually be its mass at rest?

Thanks in advance!

All you need to measure rest mass directly is to not be in motion relative to the object you are measuring. It doesn't matter at all that you and the object are moving relative to something else (e.g. the sun).

Further, if you are measuring an object moving relative to you, there is a simple formula for deriving its rest mass from its total energy and momentum (E^2 - (pc)^2)/c^2 . Alternatively, if you measure its speed and momentum, you can calculate its rest mass.
 
PAllen said:
All you need to measure rest mass directly is to not be in motion relative to the object you are measuring. It doesn't matter at all that you and the object are moving relative to something else (e.g. the sun).

Thanks! If you don't mind, another question: why is this the case?
 
Arsenic&Lace said:
Thanks! If you don't mind, another question: why is this the case?

Well, the whole point of relativity is there is no way to know 'who is at rest', so a definition of rest mass that could never be computed would be pretty useless.

So it's just a definition: rest mass = mass measured by an observer for whom the body is at rest. Shorthand: mass measured in the body's own frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
Aah okay, thanks a bunch!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top