Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] Invariant mass and relativist mass...




This is probably a “beaten to death” subject, but... as a student I was
first exposed to special relativity with the formula E=m c^2 with m as
the “relativist mass”. m increases with speed. m0 is the “rest mass”...

I later worked on particle physics experiments with highly relativist
particles that collide and decay. No one ever uses the “relativist mass”
concept: All you need to know is that 4-momentum is conserved, apply
Lorentz transforms to go between lab frames and different particle
frames and know that the norm of the 4-momentum of a particle is its
rest mass. Working with these on a daily basis I was soon convinced that
special relativity really works (we are not talking of abstract small
corrections). One more fun thing: broadening of rest mass measurements
is directly related to the life times in the particle rest frame...
Heisenberg was right.

So during my particle physics years, I decided that the teaching of the
“relativist mass” concept was (at best) confusing and unhelpful.

But now, many years later, I am not sure about this. Let's say I wanted
to compute the gravitational pull of a car (coasting by my lab) on a
very sensitive pendulum (the pendulum does not swing: I apply a small
force on it to keep it steady). The rest mass of the car is know.

I am tempted to use the car “relativistic mass” in my computation (This
is very natural: I believe that most non GR versed people would do the
same).

Is this a good idea? Is this a bad idea? Is it referential dependent?


I suspect that:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/mass.htm

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0504/0504110v2.pdf
<http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0504/0504110v2.pdf>

... have the answer ...