Unbelievable velocity mass variation!

It is being said in physics forums that the concept of mass variation is an "archaic" concept and that currently is considered that the "real" mass does not vary with velocity. Particularly in Relativity theory the "relativistic factor" gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) (please allow me this relaxed notation) is being said to be present in the momentum p=gamma.m.v but not belonging to mass.
I don't know if this treatment comes from some problem in high energy particle physics or what but seems some very well known old experiments have been forgotten:
1)The "Kaufmann-Bucherer-Newmann experiments":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments
The problem I see here is that in spite of simply mass they came to talk about "transverse electromagnetic mass". What a hell is this?
The mentioned experiments clearly show that if the electric and magnetic fields are the classical ones the simple mass of electrons must vary with velocity.
2) "Relativistic cyclotron experiment":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
The experment also clearly shows again that if the electric and magnetic fields are the classical ones the mass of the electrons do increase with velocity.

Now my point is that the confusion actually comes because the real electric and magnetic fields are not exactly the classical ones and that the "Lorentz factor" gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) actually belongs to them and not to the mass nor the momentum of particles. I explain this in: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section2-2_New_Electric_and_Magnetic_Fields_and_Forces.htm

There's a very feasible experiment (just a modification of the known "Davisson-Germer experiment") that can elucidate this daemon problem in Physics and which I have been asking to be done since 2005 and I can't believe nobody seemed interested. I present shortly the experiment in:
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-3_The_experiment_at_high_velocities.htm
and
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm

No one interested?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am sure that no one is interested, since you want answers to questions that are confusing you.

Consider this. Assume a space ship went by the earth at .9c. From the earth's frame the ship is moving at .9c, time is passing more slowly on the ship, the ship is length contracted, and the relativistic mass has increased.
From the ships frame the earth is moving at .9c, time is passing more slowly on the earth, the earth is length contracted, and the relativistic mass has increased.

Since the gravity of the earth does not increase when an object speeds pass it, clearly the 'real' mass does not change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think many ones could be interested.
As I said I saw many times in the forum people stating that the concept of "relativistic mass" is "archaic" and that mass actually does not vary with velocity and that in Relativity the momentum is defined as p=gamma.m.v where the factor gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) does not belong to mass (I remember AlphaNumeric as one).
So there are many people with some reason (which I don't know) to consider mass invariant. They should be interested.

The old experiments I mention consider the interaction with electric and magnetics fields only hwere the classical electromagnetics equations apply and so only formulas with the common concept of mass is involved. I think this is what you mean by 'real' mass. But you know the experiments determine it does vary with velocity while you finally say it doesn't so, how is this?

I think the experiment must be performed...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Origin tends to think the spaceship passing by the Earth should have affected the Earth mass, but what I am thinking is "who said it is the presence of the spaceship NEAR the Earth that would cause an apparent change in mass, length, time?" The effect, if true when "close", should also be true when far away.
Same would be true in the train going past the station. Why do we think in terms of going through the station? For the effect of the train in motion should affect every particle in the entire Universe.
Then think there are particles in motion in all different directions so the total relativistic effect of particles in motion on other particles in other frames is zero.

 

Hope this thread don't deviate from the original subject proposed in the opening post...

 

I have found this interesting refutation in other forum:

I must review some things...

Anyway I think the proposed experiment is very interesting...

 

This does not contradict David Waite who says mass is invariant and that the concept of relativistic mass is old fashioned.
I find the idea I have expressed quite profound (I'm sure it is), in that the mass of an independent particle is not affected by the relative motion of other particles wherever they are.

 

Very few people in the research community use the notion of relativistic mass, much better and mathematically simple to use rest mass an general momentum via \(p_{\mu}p^{\mu} = -m^{2} = -E^{2} + \mathbf{p}\cdot \mathbf{p}\). You can still consider relativistic mass but it's generally a sign you're describing the system in an inelegant way.

And frankly I couldn't give a toss about your claims. You don't have a sufficient grasp of relativity to talk about this stuff with any competency, you're just pissing in the wind. As you have been for the better (or worse) part of a decade.

 

@AN how do you say the equation you have written in words. Could you say it as words please?

 

Robittybob1, I can't really give you a literal translation, of AN's equation, but what it boils down to is that mass is invariant, it stays the same whether an object is moving or standing still. What was or used to be referred to as relativistic mass is the total energy of a moving object.., or essentially its momentum, \(p = mv\) where \(p\) is momentum.., mass times velocity. It gets a bit more complicated when the Newtonian formula is transformed to meet the conditions of special relativity, by the addition of the Lorentz factor, which really acts as a modifier for velocities approaching the speed of light... A speed limit for the formula.

\(p = mv\gamma = mv\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\)

\(\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\) being the Lorentz factor. The Lorentz factor has no significant measureable affect at the velocities we deal with in everyday conditions. It does become important at relativistic velocities and essentially is the part of the math that says you can't go faster than the speed of light.

 

I must agree now that Relativity can perfectly be handled with an invariant mass as is modernly considered. I had problems because of some out of date references I considered. I must agree this thread is over ad that I was wrong in this as in some other times. I'm well aware I make mistakes sometimes.

I know that my knowledge in Relativity is very limited but I'm sure one thing, Relativity is a fantastic but wrong theory. I'm sure another one, you don't give a toss on what I think but you know, it doesn't matter.

 

Since you admit that you don't know Relativity, how are you sure that it's wrong? Divine revelation? Or is it wrong because you can't understand it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That was the formula we worked witrh the other day so I don't have a problem with that one but AN introduced some thing I haven't seen before

.
What does it mean in words?

 

I know well the basics of Relativity, enough to know it is wrong. I could show you some things supporting this but it doesn't worth to lose the time.
What would really prove it is the experiment I propose to be done what I can't because of lack of resources and lack of technology in my country:
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-3_The_experiment_at_high_velocities.htm
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm
I know you will then ask how I know it would work as I say. Just because I know about the right thing. And how is that? It doesn't worth to try to explain to you. Waste of time.
I can only wait for the experiment to be done someday.
It will show several things at the same time for instance that the electric and magnetic fields are which have the Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2).
Someday...

 

Just another one. Nothing new here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Same to you.
There's a "little" difference, I'm proposing something new, you propose nothing, while anybody knowdgeable in Physics knows there are problems to solve...

 

Rob, if you're asking how I would say it if I were reading it out loud to someone then \(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}\) is said as "p mu p mu". \(-m^{2} = E^{2} + \mathbf{p}\cdot \mathbf{p}\) is said as 'minus m squared equals E squared plus p dot p". Sometimes to distinguish between \(p\) and \(\mathbf{p}\) I might even say the latter as 'math b f p' because the LaTeX code for \(\mathbf{p}\) is literally \mathbf{p} so I said the LaTeX code. This is only when talking face to face with other mathematicians or physicists. We all work with LaTeX on a day to day basis so we can literally talk in it and autoconvert without having to think about it. Much like a computer programmer could talk in C to another coder and they both understand one another.

What it means is that if you have a 4 component vector \(p^{\mu}\), which has components \(p^{\mu} = (E,\mathbf{p})\) and you take its 4 component square then you end up with minus m squared, which gives you the mass-energy-momentum relation stated.

 

Every crank proposes something new. They have to, because they know nothing old. So they think, 'if it's new, I must be brilliant, because no one has thought of this before. I don't need knowledge, I have imagination'.

 

Alpha, what this is saying then is really the same thing as \(p = mv\), except it is doing so in 4 component vector math?

Mass is mass, and the now archaic "relativistic mass" is actually the total energy involved for a moving mass, which is the mass-energy-momentum or \(mv\)?

 

The OP was multiposted to multiple forums. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=38579