Unexpected Findings in “Little” Big Bang Experiment Leaves Physicists Baffled

In the context of matrix mathematics (also known as linear algebra), a dimension refers to a new variable. This can be contrasted with the concept of dimension in Flatland, which refers to the number of spatial dimensions (i.e. 2D or 3D).

In the case of the proton, accounting for rotation becomes more complex, as it requires taking into consideration the Hall effect. This may involve the use of infinite matrices, as is often the case in quantum mechanics.

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There's two different points of view here, you're either the particle itself that is being accelerated or you are the person sitting in the control room accelerating the particle.

We know that mass increases because of the enormous amount of energy released from splitting atoms.

This energy/mass increase comes from somewhere... E=m

The energy comes from energy. There's no reason to introduce the relativistic mass concept and Einstein cearly advised against it. Some people did that anyway, notably Richard Feynman for example, but it's the only bone I have to pick with him, otherwise he was one of the greatest instructors of physics.

Mass in Special Relativity

Again I don't think you understand these links you're posting in the proper context.

You said the mass of something accelerated increases, you didn't even say "relativistic mass". This is from your link:

"The term mass in special relativity usually refers to the rest mass of the object", so when you talk about mass unqualified as you did, it infers rest mass, and that does not increase.

Even if you had used the term "relativistic mass", then it would have been more clear you were deviating from the normal use of the term "mass" by physicists which means "rest mass", but even in that case,your link link reinforces exactly what I've been trying to tell you, that the "relativistic mass" concept which was once taught is increasingly falling out of favor as more physicists realize Einstein's point of view makes more sense, which is to not use the concept of relativistic mass at all, and instead talk about increases in momentum and energy, if the particle is not at rest.

From your link, please read it:

"The concept of relativistic mass is widely used in popular science writing and in high school and undergraduate textbooks. Authors such as Okun and A. B. Arons have argued against this as archaic and confusing, and not in accord with modern relativistic theory.[5][28] Arons wrote:[28]

For many years it was conventional to enter the discussion of dynamics through derivation of the relativistic mass, that is the mass–velocity relation, and this is probably still the dominant mode in textbooks. More recently, however, it has been increasingly recognized that relativistic mass is a troublesome and dubious concept. [See, for example, Okun (1989).[5]]... The sound and rigorous approach to relativistic dynamics is through direct development of that expression for momentum that ensures conservation of momentum in all frames:
...

C. Alder takes a similarly dismissive stance on mass in relativity. Writing on said subject matter, he says that "its introduction into the theory of special relativity was much in the way of a historical accident", noting towards the widespread knowledge of E = mc^2 and how the public's interpretation of the equation has largely informed how it is taught in higher education.[29] He instead supposes that the difference between rest and relativistic mass should be explicitly taught, so that students know why mass should be thought of as invariant "in most discussions of inertia".

Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass – belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector – to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself.[12]"

And again, Albert Einstein said essentially don't use the concept of relativistic mass, and it's his theory, so I don't know why you're listening to Brian Greene instead of the author of the theory. Some textbooks still use the concept, but the trend is shifting away from that. Don Lincoln admits there has been some debate on this topic at 7:20 in the video I posted by him on page 5, but then he insists that "the majority of physicists who deal with relativistic situations on a daily basis really dislike the concept of "relativistic mass". We say the object has only one mass, which is the mass you measure when the object isn't moving with respect to you. Some people call that the rest mass, but it's really the only mass".


Albert Einstein (Repeating from my post on page 5:
"It is not good to introduce the concept of [relativistic mass] of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the "rest mass", m. Instead of introducing [relativistic mass], it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

If Brian Greene says otherwise (that video you posted is >11 hours, and I don't think Greene is the greatest source anyway, so I'm not going to spend >11 hours listening to him just to find out he's wrong), I have to say I think Einstein is more correct in this case, along with Don Lincoln and many other physicists who work with relativity on a daily basis.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Uh, mass is a “quality” of matter. That is why atomic weights exist; you add the protons and neutrons together to achieve mass.

Acceleration does not add more protons and or neutrons to a particle! But from an observational perspective, it appears that there is more mass because you need more energy to accelerate it.

This is relativity in the mind experiment where two trains are traveling near light speed and one engineer shines a flashlight at the other. No, it doesn’t matter if the trains are traveling towards each other or away, they will see the flashlight either way. That is because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. The only time you would not see anything is if the object is so far away that it would take more time for it to rebound back to you than your lifetime (why we can’t see the “edge” of the universe).

Mass stays the same. The energy required to move it increases to infinity which is the argument why we can’t travel faster than light.

My contention is, the relativity equations are not complete. And when they are, we could devise a method to sidestep the infinite energy to accelerate a resting mass faster than light.

How? If I knew that I would be on some blach budget project probably flying those black triangles around because for all intents and purposes (first hand experience) they move like “anti-gravity” craft (er, UFOs, in the vernacular).

Relativity is strange and can be confusing when what you see from your senses have to be stretched to a concept from a book into the manifested world.

Hope this helps! And yes, the exchange of mass and energy are part of the E=mc^2, which even photons can exchange energy/mass with! Those collisions appear to show that there might be something unaccounted for in our known Einsteinian physics.

I am being open to that view.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


My contention is, the relativity equations are not complete.

It's very entertaining watching proponents of QM try to reconcile it... but it is QM that is incomplete.

This toppling Einstein quest isn't working out too well, the dude just keeps being proven correct.