Was Einstein's Original Formula for Transverse Mass Incorrect?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pmb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concept Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the historical and conceptual analysis of Einstein's original formula for transverse mass as presented in his 1905 paper on special relativity. Participants explore the implications of this formula, its corrections by Planck, and the evolution of the concept of mass in modern physics.

Discussion Character

  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that Einstein made an error in his original formula for transverse mass, which was later corrected by Planck in 1906, suggesting that Einstein's approach failed to properly transform the force.
  • Another participant argues for the use of modern definitions of mass, asserting that "mass" typically refers to rest mass in contemporary physics, and that this avoids confusion with relativistic mass concepts.
  • A different participant expresses confusion regarding the distinction between transverse mass and relativistic mass, questioning the validity of the expressions found in popular physics literature.
  • One participant challenges the notion that there is a universally accepted definition of mass, stating that different fields may use the term differently, and that the discussion of mass definitions should be separated from the current topic.
  • Concerns are raised about misconceptions regarding mass and gravity, particularly in relation to the idea that mass increases with speed, which some participants argue is incorrect.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of mass and its definitions, indicating that there is no consensus on the correct understanding of transverse mass versus relativistic mass, or on the implications of Einstein's original formula.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves historical interpretations and modern applications of mass, highlighting the evolution of terminology and concepts in physics. There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions and implications of mass in different contexts.

  • #31
Never mind. I goofed on that transformation. I must be tired. :-)

Pete
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I've pretty much talked this to death already. Just one more comment or two and I'll quit.

I originally read paragraph 2 of §6 (Transformations of the Maxwell-Hertz equations...) incorrectly.

"If we apply to these equations the transformation developed in §3, by referring the electromagnetic processes developed there introduced, moving with the velocity v, we obtain the equations"

[§6.2]-[§6.7] {I won't write them}

"where β="... {the usual}
"."

I thought it meant Einstein claimed to get it all from the KINEMATICAL PART of his paper. But that couldn't be true for the electric/magnetic components, so he must have presaged what they would need to be from somewhere, hence my cookery with the Lorentz force equation.

I realized after one or two of our exchanges that I had missed the import of the word "obtain". He did what I call a physics-teacher move: knowing already what the component transformations need to be, he worked out [§6.2]-[§6.7] deliberately to make the terms stand out, all for the purpose of identifying them with components in the Maxwell-Hertz equations for the moving system.

A more interesting criticism of my thoughts would be to ask about a charge moving in the rest system K at a velocity u parallel to v, but not equal in magnitude or orientation. The velocity addition/subtraction theorems would be needed, I reckon.

Regards,
quart
 
  • #33
An answer to the question whether Einstein knew the F = q[E + v X B] relation ->

Pais {SITL,OUP(1982)} states on p. 124 that Lorentz in his 1895 paper included a set of corresponding-state equations:

x' = x - vt
t' = t - vx/c2 --- {that's a scalar product, I guess}
E' = E + v X H/c --- {'X' is vector product operator}
H' = H - v X E/c
P' = P --- {'P' for electric polarization vector}
.

On p. 125 Pais states that Lorentz included K = e(E + v X H/c) for a moving ion and called it "electrische Kraft".

On p. 133 Pais states that Einstein knew the 1895 paper of Lorentz before 1905.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by quartodeciman
An answer to the question whether Einstein knew the F = q[E + v X B] relation ->

Pais {SITL,OUP(1982)} states on p. 124 that Lorentz in his 1895 paper included a set of corresponding-state equations:

x' = x - vt
t' = t - vx/c2 --- {that's a scalar product, I guess}
E' = E + v X H/c --- {'X' is vector product operator}
H' = H - v X E/c
P' = P --- {'P' for electric polarization vector}
.

On p. 125 Pais states that Lorentz included K = e(E + v X H/c) for a moving ion and called it "electrische Kraft".

On p. 133 Pais states that Einstein knew the 1895 paper of Lorentz before 1905.

Thanks - Great info. I know an historian of relativity. I'll be meeting with him in the future. I'll get back with his comments.

Pete
 
  • #35
In 1899 Lorentz wrote a paper including the true Lorentz transformations, a name that Poincaré invented.

x' = εγ(x - vt)
y' = εy, z' = εz
t' = εγ(t - vx/c2)

{"ε" is a scale factor}
.

{all this is included in ibid., ch. 6}

In a 1904 paper (included in The Principle Of Relativity anthology) Lorentz applied the Lorentz factor (β this time!) to the electric/magnetic component transformations, but showed a queer form of space-time transformations:

x' = βlx, y' = ly, z' = lz
t' = (l/β)t - βlv/c2

{"l" a scale factor}
.

Of course, these transformations were just a mathematical formalism to Lorentz, with no "real" space/time significance. Einstein evidently didn't know these papers when he wrote his first relativity paper. He must have divined the necessity of a multiplier by himself, or from what he knew of Poincaré's reviews of the subject.

It strikes me as odd that the co-producer of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction idea didn't use the factor in his earlier (e.g.1895) papers.
 
  • #36
Something suddenly sticks out. Einstein DID know the Lorentz 1904 paper after all. The reason is notation.

Up until at least 1900, Lorentz used the letter "γ" to represent the transformation factor, following Voldemar Voigt (1887), the first researcher to consider transformations involving functions of v/c. During the early 1900s, Lorentz was publishing work about electron theory and, specifically,calculating the electron mass. In this research, he was running against the theory of Max Abraham, and the letter "β" was used to represent v/c there. I doubt Lorentz would have reused "β" to also represent the transformation factor in his electrodynamics at that time. It is (apparently) not until the Lorentz 1904 paper that "β" suddenly started getting used (don't know why) for the transformation factor, rather than "γ". Einstein used "β" the same way in his first relativity paper (1905). That is a big coincidence, if Einstein didn't know Lorentz's 1904 paper.

Miller {AESTOR,Addison-Wesley(1981)} states (section 1.15.1) that Einstein "maybe" knew this paper of Lorentz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 195 ·
7
Replies
195
Views
30K