Two Errors In Relativity

Mass does not change with velocity as explained here

originally posted by: Plotus
We were talking real physics, not comic mouth boogie. I recanted my comments and left the conversation to more astute scientific minds. As I said, carry on.a reply to: Miracula2

Myself, still waiting for the member who created the OP's response to Dragonridr....

Id suggest the op needs to be re written it makes zero sense. But lets look aIm betting you used this equation E=moc2. This only works with matter at rest. In other words it never works but it is a basis we can use now we take our equation and add Kinetic energy. This is K = ½ mv2 = p2/2m now we accounted for your momentum in the form of kinetic energy. So adding this equation the one you need to use to give you the correct answer is E = [ mo2c4 + p2c2 ] ½ see by adding p into the equation we account for momentum. in other words your wrong. Though I see how you made the mistake since most of the time equations don't include momentum and even physics students are taught this after a couple of years. Meaning often just before graduation because you need to understand general relativity before you tackle special relativity.

Any thoughts?

We are the sum of experiences that we encounter as we go through life. Day to day struggles and triumphs are experienced by all of the world's creatures. As human beings, when we encounter a challenge, we have freedom to choose how to react. Every decision that we make leads us down a different road. We will never come to exactly the same crossroads. Every decision that we make has significance. The tiniest choice that we make reverberates throughout the entire universe.

Source: www.familyfriendpoems.com...

#1 Your theory of how light can produce mass give me an error. Photons have no mass. How you get something out of nothing does not compute. My interpretation of a photon is as a wave expression through the electron cloud. If you have any studies or experiments where light alone can produce mass I would love to see it.

#2 I am not aware of any readings, studies or experiments where speed affects charge. If this was the case then the power demands for satellites and rockets would have to account for it as their momentum changes. If you can show me how light can produce mass then I will think about it some more.

originally posted by: glend
Mass does not change with velocity as explained here

That paper has a great explanation of why there is no such thing as relativistic mass, which is not only the finding in that paper but was also the interpretation of Einstein himself.

Unfortunately so many physicists have taught this wrong concept, including the famous Richard Feynman, that as explained in the paper, we must forgive students who have obtained the misunderstanding that there is such a thing as relativistic mass because that may be what some students have been taught, however there is little doubt the concept is wrong, and that paper does an excellent job explaining the reasons why.

First and foremost is the abuse of Einstein's equation, which is NOT E=mc², but everybody seems to think it is except for a handful of the better educated physicists. As explained in the paper:

The relation discovered by Einstein is not E = mc² , but E0 = mc² , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest introduced by Einstein in 1905. The source of the longevity of the “famous formula” is the irresponsible attitude of relativity theory experts to the task of explaining it to the non-experts.

If the mass is not at rest then we are no longer dealing with E0 = mc² , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest, but with an expanded equation that includes a momentum term as explained in my thread about the problem with E = mc² which is not the correct equation for a mass with momentum:

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?Of course it's "wrong" but the fact that people think it's right without the "E0" as in Einstein's original equation is at the heart of all the wrong concepts about relativistic mass.

originally posted by: graysquirrel
Error #1: In the derivation of the equation for mass as a function of velocity, they assumed the conservation of momentum for a special hypothetical relativistic situation.

Einstein said mass does NOT change as a function of velocity and he certainly appears to be right, and all those professors and students claiming otherwise including you are wrong. The paper glend posted does a decent job of exploring some of the issues related to this, though I tackle it a little more simply in my thread linked above with a quote from Einstein.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your wrong well on part anyway. Your correct on saying mass never changes it doesn't. However relativistic mass is entirely different this is the effect energy has on mass. The more energy the more the effect on mass.

a reply to: kwakakev

Photons have momentum. There for they must have mass.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"The measured ratio of charge to mass (Q/m) of a particle at relativistic speeds has been and is readily observed to change at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2)". Are you telling me that Q gets smaller at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2)

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your wrong well on part anyway. Your correct on saying mass never changes it doesn't. However relativistic mass is entirely different this is the effect energy has on mass. The more energy the more the effect on mass.

If you read the paper glend cited, you apparently didn't understand it. There is NO SUCH THING as relativistic mass, according to Einstein. Read the quote from Einstein saying so a few posts down in the thread I linked.

originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"The measured ratio of charge to mass (Q/m) of a particle at relativistic speeds has been and is readily observed to change at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2)". Are you telling me that Q gets smaller at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2)

You're confusing mass with something else. Mass is the amount of matter present and it doesn't change at relativistic speeds, though this falsehood is commonly and incorrectly taught based on misinterpretation of E=mc², which is not the correct formula. The correct formula is this:



There are two terms on the right side of the equation. The first term is a mass term and it never changes even at relativistic velocities. What does change at relativistic velocities is the term on the right which is an expression of momentum, not mass, and this momentum change also affects the measurement you're referring to which is no longer measuring charge to mass ratio at relativistic velocities, that is an incorrect interpretation of the experimental results though in the past such incorrect interpretations have been made. What affects that ratio you refer to at relativistic velocities is the momentum term on the right, not the mass term on the left which doesn't change.

If you have any reading comprehension at all this should help to explain how you may have learned the incorrect concept that you did about relativistic mass which is now being eliminated from most modern textbooks as it was wrong:

Tests of relativistic energy and momentum

These experiments were aimed at measuring the deflection of beta rays within a magnetic field so as to determine the mass-to-charge ratio of electrons. Since the charge was known to be velocity independent, any variation had to be attributed to alterations in the electron's momentum or mass ... Since relativistic mass is not often used anymore in modern textbooks, those tests can be described of measurements of relativistic momentum or energy...

originally posted by: graysquirrel
I decided to revisit the derivation of the equations of special relativity. In doing so I discovered the following two errors.

Error #1: In the derivation of the equation for mass as a function of velocity, they assumed the conservation of momentum for a special hypothetical relativistic situation.

Mass is not a function of velocity.

It is well know that in relativistic situations such as the conversion of light into matter, momentum is not conserved.

That is experimentally false.

The particles created generally have way more momentum than that of the light that created them. So, why would anyone assume that momentum would be conserved in any relativistic situation????

Because quintillions of detections of particles at accelerators over decades of investigation show that relativistic 4-momentum is conserved. None of the calculations would work otherwise.

originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: kwakakev

Photons have momentum. There for they must have mass.

That assumption is false.

Photons have momentum, even as classical waves in Maxwellian electrodynamics, and do not have mass.

Photons can "punch you" (i.e. they have momentum), but can reverse course instantaneously (i.e. they don't have inertia or mass). These are experimental facts. Experimental facts should override (in this case your incorrect) theoretical prejudices.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Relativity does have two problems.

1) Relativity is a point-like theory in four space, leading to problems with infinities in its description of nature.

2) Relativity has a problem with quantum mechanical results (famously, Bell's Theorem, although I also include the humble two slit experiment) that show actions at a distance occurring in a way incompatible with a speed-of-light limitation.

Unfortunately, there is almost a cottage industry of people who try to disprove relativity via other arguments, such as claiming that the twin paradox invalidates it, or that Einstein made simple mathematical or conceptual errors. The OP is in the class of faulty attempts with its claims that charge varies with speed and momentum is sometimes not conserved. Accelerator designs are based on the Lorentz Force Equation, which assumes an invariant charge as particles are accelerated. Momentum is conserved in every known instance of interactions between bodies. (Provided we assume neutrinos take momentum away in those interactions where that is proposed. Neutrinos are notoriously hard to measure.)

I would quibble though with any claim that Einstein was always correct in his interpretation of mass. As I recall, in his seminal 1905 paper, like Lorentz in his seminal 1904 paper, reference was made both to transverse mass, which is gamma*m and longitudinal mass, which is (gamma-cubed)*m. (This Wiki article is consistent with my recollection.)

It is my plan to post more about fundamental space time theory once I finish my presentation on preons.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Photons have momentum. There for they must have mass.

Photons move at a constant speed (depending on the medium), the same as sound does. The sound wave has no mass of it's own, the same as light. The momentum in a sound wave is transfered through all the atoms and molecules it passes through. With the light wave, it is the mass of an electron that transfers the momentum.

Getting hit by a powerful laser will not hit you with any momentum, but it will knock out the electrons in the matter that makes you up.

a reply to: kwakakev

Your wrong yes light can hit you with momentum. In fact this is the process of solar sails. Light particles aka photons hit the sail and impart part of its velocity. in fact for probes sent to other planets we have to use this to account for changes in the crafts orbit. We also have to figure out its relativistic mass or are space craft could end up hundreds of thousands of miles off course.

a reply to: Caroline13456

I don't pretend to understand all the math

Then you have no right to an opinion on this subject.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: kwakakev

Your wrong yes light can hit you with momentum. In fact this is the process of solar sails.

With this concept you are riding the solar wind as the sun ejects its newly made matter, not light.

a reply to: Astyanax

Maths is just a fancy way to express relationships. If anyone understood all the relationships going on then I would not expect to find them on this site trying to deny their ignorance.

a reply to: Astyanax

“Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.” 

~Nikolas Tesla

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Astyanax

“Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.” 

~Nikolas Tesla

"Do you wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?
Do you wanna be in my gang, oh yeah!"

~Gary Glitter

Am I doing this right?

a reply to: GetHyped

No you are not. Gary Glitter has got nothing to do with the subject. Angry because I mentioned Tesla?