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] |

*From*: Derek McKenzie <derek_s_mckenzie@hotmail.com>*Date*: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:42:13 +0000

I've been thinking about this subject quite a bit lately and I have issues with *both* the terms 'rest mass' and 'invariant mass'.

The term 'rest mass' seems to be quite misleading to me because although we may choose to view a lump of matter as 'at rest' in a particular frame, it is made up of many moving constituents in that same frame, and what one person calls 'rest mass' could equally well be called a sum of relativistic masses of its constituents. The term 'rest mass' then becomes one of perspective. I don't mean just a perspective of reference frame, but a perspective of model - that is, a choice as to whether you want to look at a solar system from a distance and consider it to be a single blob, or a bunch of moving stuff.

On the other hand, the term 'invariant mass' seems to me to conflict with a genuine geometric model of spacetime. In particular we must ask 'invariant with respect to what?'. Presumably, the invariance is with respect to a particular class of coordinate systems, but mass transcends these coordinate systems. If I take mass to be a property attached to a particle's worldline, there is no concept of invariance because there is no mention of transformations. To even mention invariance conjures up the reference-frame picture of relativity rather than the 4-d manifold picture.

I would be interested to know if my thinking is confused on either of these points, but at the moment I'm wondering if plain old vanilla 'mass' would be a better term.

Derek

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:12:04 -0400

From: jsd@av8n.com

To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?

On 10/20/2010 12:25 PM, Espinosa, James wrote:

For years, and even recently, the term "rest mass" has been used.

Well, I hope that everyone knows that the magnitude of a 3-vector is

invariant under Galilean transformations between coordinate systems

(or inertial frames). Under Poincare transformations between

inertial frames (coordinate systems) the magnitude of a 4-vectpr is

invariant. This means that the value does not change from one system

to the another. The magnitude of the 4-momentum is the mass. What

part of "invariant" do some physicists not get?

I'm not sure that's the right question.

Most physicists get this, and have gotten it for many decades.

Textbooks for upper-division students and graduate students

mostly get this right. Recommended reference:

Gary Oas

``On the abuse and use of relativistic mass''

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

The real question is, why do the folks who write introductory

textbooks and "popularizations" of physics continue to get

this wrong, generation after generation?

Part of the problem is that some of these authors started

out as cartoonists and took up textbook-writing as a second

career. Their knowledge of modern physics is, shall we say,

sketchy.

Constructive suggestion / reminder: The place where the rubber

meets the road is the famous formula E=mc^2. It must be emphasized

that mc^2 is the _rest energy_ not the total energy.

The notion of rest energy is useful.

Mass is invariant. Calling it the "rest" mass is mostly harmless.

The idea of non-invariant "relativistic mass" aka "velocity-dependent

mass" is bad news for a number of reasons. Ditto for "velocity-

dependent rulers" and "velocity-dependent clocks". See e.g.

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

and references therein.

_______________________________________________

Forum for Physics Educators

Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?***From:*Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>

**References**:**[Phys-l] Rest mass again?***From:*"Espinosa, James" <JEspinosa@mail.twu.edu>

**Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] Do you use PhET?** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] Rest mass again?** - Index(es):