The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: For relativity, does the mass of a moving object increase in all directions?  (Read 1628 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
For relativity, does the mass of a moving object increase in all directions?
    Einsteinís formula for the mass of a moving object shows that it increases with velocity. The question is whether this mass increases in all directions simultaneously of does it only increase in the direction of travel. If the increase is only in the direction of travel, then there will be no increase in the perpendicular direction. For example the Earth revolves around the sun and this produces an Einsteinian mass increase in the direction of orbit. However does the mass also increase facing the sun and thereby increase the gravitational attraction between Earth and sun. In the cyclotron, the mass of the proton increases greatly due to photonic energy addition. Does the mass only increase in the direction of travel or also in the two perpendicular directions? How do you guys interpret Einsteinís work in this regard?
 


 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Mass is an invariant, meaning it is not reference dependent. Mass does not change with reference and direction. Relativistic mass, on the other hand, is connected to the kinetic energy of the mass, via E=MC2, after being adjusted for relativistic velocity.

Say we had two references, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. They move relative to each other with a velocity V. We don't know who is moving  and who is the stationary reference since this is in deep space. Since mass is invariant, one reference has twice the mass of the other, which does not change. The relativistic mass will be different from the POV of each reference. If we don't really know who is moving and assume wrong, we cannot do a proper energy balance of the universe, since will add or take energy from the universe.

Relativistic mass can change with reference, however, not all references will give an accurate energy balance.

If you look at E=MC2, the speed of light C is constant and mass M is invariant in all references, yet energy E is reference dependent since energy can red and blue shift. There is a paradox, where the product of two reference invariants equal a reference variant. What this amounts to is, relative reference does not allow us to do a true energy balance, because a true energy balance would need to be invariant; M,C.  That means there is a preferred universal reference out there where E=MC2 are all invariant.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Puppy power said:
Mass is an invariant, meaning it is not reference dependent. Mass does not change with reference and direction. Relativistic mass, on the other hand, is connected to the kinetic energy of the mass, via E=MC2, after being adjusted for relativistic velocity.
  Jerry gg said:
  Is this what you were taught that mass is invariant? I always learned from my old textbooks that when energy was was added to a proton in the cyclotron that the mass increased. In addition the Doppler studies showed both a mass increase and a Doppler effect on the mass increase. Now you are saying something quite different.
   If what you say is true, relativity then refers to the gravitational fields of a moving object. Thus an object in motion coming toward you will appear to have a higher mass and an object in motion away from you will appear to have a lower mass and the geometric mean of these masses will yield Einsteins mass equation. Do you have a reference for your statement? Do others here agree with it?
 

Offline phyti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
When a particle is accelerated with the same increment of energy. the faster it and the source move the longer it takes for absorption. It's a case of diminishing returns on your investment. The particle is perceived to offer more inertial resistance to acceleration, thus the false interpretation.
There are still the same number of components in the particle.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Speed and direction of motion can be changed by an applied force. We can graph the rate of change of these properties. An increase in the angular change of direction has to be treated differently than an increase in speed.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
When a particle is accelerated with the same increment of energy. the faster it and the source move the longer it takes for absorption. It's a case of diminishing returns on your investment. The particle is perceived to offer more inertial resistance to acceleration, thus the false interpretation.
There are still the same number of components in the particle.
  I do not quite understand what you are saying. If we heat up  mass, the number of components remains the same but we added energy and doesn't the mass increase? Likewise if we add linear energy doesn't the mass increase for awhile and then this levels off?
   In any event right now I am looking at my basic concepts to see if ideas have changed over the years.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What does this "does the mass of a moving object increase in all directions?" actually mean?

I have a mass of about 70Kg. It's not in any direction; it just is. Mass is not a vector quantity.
 
The following users thanked this post: AndroidNeox

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Speed and direction of motion can be changed by an applied force. We can graph the rate of change of these properties. An increase in the angular change of direction has to be treated differently than an increase in speed.
  Okay. That makes another complication since we must curve everything for the testing of high speed particles. So what are the conclusions. Does the ordinary mass increase with velocity as per Einstein. Or do we measure an apparent mass? I always accepted that the mass increases as photons turn into some spherical patterns which produces mass and also produces linear momentum. Now I see some here have different viewpoints. What does accepted theory say?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
What does this "does the mass of a moving object increase in all directions?" actually mean?

I have a mass of about 70Kg. It's not in any direction; it just is. Mass is not a vector quantity.
   My old modern physics textbooks show that mass increases with velocity. The chemist measures mass in a lab where the various chemicals are not moving. So 70kg is always 70kg. However if you bring these chemicals up to 99% of light speed, things will be different.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jerrygg38
In the cyclotron, the mass of the proton increases greatly due to photonic energy addition. Does the mass only increase in the direction of travel or also in the two perpendicular directions?
The basic cyclotron design can only accelerate protons up to around 2% of the speed of light before they lose efficiency.
This is because the Relativistic Mass of the proton starts to increase (due to special relativity). This results in the ratio of Charge to Relativistic Mass of the proton changing, and this means that the microwave "push" now occurs at the wrong time, and the proton can not gain any more energy.

The mass which affects the bending radius is perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Cyclotron builders overcame this limitation by changing the strength of the magnetic field and/or the frequency of the microwaves as the protons go faster.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#Particle_energy

Perhaps you are thinking of relativistic length contraction, which occurs only in the direction of travel?

Quote
Is this what you were taught that mass is invariant? I always learned from my old textbooks that when energy was was added to a proton in the cyclotron that the mass increased.
There has been a change in terminology over the past half-century or so.

The old terminology was "rest mass" (when the particle was stationary in your frame of reference) and "mass" referred to the mass measured at whatever speed the particle was traveling (relative to you).

As I understand it, the preferred terminology today is "invariant mass" or just "mass" is the mass when the particle is stationary in your frame of reference. "Relativistic mass" is the increased mass when a particle is traveling near the speed of light.

So the preferred usage of "Mass" has changed, but the Lorentz factor has not.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
To understand exactly why relativistic mass, energy and momentum are accepted physical concepts I refer the reader to the following.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum

Experimental confirmation trumps all.
 
The following users thanked this post: jerrygg38

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Reply to evan-au:
   Thanks for the information. It also included a discussion of the two different perpendicular masses. I see that it is a very complex issue and I will have to read it several times. And now I understand why people here speak differently about relative mass.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
There are two types of mass; rest mass and relativistic mass. The rest mass does not change with velocity or reference, whereas the relativistic mass will change with velocity and reference. The rest mass of the proton will be the same in all references. However, the relativistic mass of a proton can be different for different references.

It would take infinite energy to move one unit of rest mass, the speed of light. The rest mass does not become infinite, at the speed of light, or else you would create a black hole. Rest mass is impacted by gravity. What changes is the relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is a mass equivalent, associated with kinetic energy, where kinetic energy is being modified by changes in time and space. Relativistic mass has a connection to time.

As an example, say we have two references, A and B, side-by-side; hypothetical. Reference B is moving faster than reference A, such that time in reference B, is running slower due to special relativity. What I will do is dribble a basketball in reference A, and then stick why hand into reference B, while still dribbling the ball. Because time is running slower in B, the dribbling ball appears to slow down, relative to A. To get the ball to move as fast in B as it did in A, I will need to apply more force; accelerate the ball.

After applying the force and letting the ball hit the ground and rebound, the ball is now going the correct speed. However, when the ball hits my hand, what I notice is the ball now appears to have more inertia than it did in A, at that same velocity. This extra apparent inertia, is due to the extra force I added, to compensate for the slower time. The rest mass has not changed, but the ball feels heavier, due to the extra inertia. That extra inertia is the relativistic mass. The rest mass does not change, but the extra apparent mass, as inferred by more inertia, is connected to the added force needed to normalize the differences in time. 

In terms of the directional nature of relativistic mass, the apparent inertia changes in the direction of the force.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 12:12:31 by puppypower »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What does this "does the mass of a moving object increase in all directions?" actually mean?

I have a mass of about 70Kg. It's not in any direction; it just is. Mass is not a vector quantity.
   My old modern physics textbooks show that mass increases with velocity. The chemist measures mass in a lab where the various chemicals are not moving. So 70kg is always 70kg. However if you bring these chemicals up to 99% of light speed, things will be different.
That does not address my question.
In what direction is my mass?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
What does this "does the mass of a moving object increase in all directions?" actually mean?

I have a mass of about 70Kg. It's not in any direction; it just is. Mass is not a vector quantity.
   My old modern physics textbooks show that mass increases with velocity. The chemist measures mass in a lab where the various chemicals are not moving. So 70kg is always 70kg. However if you bring these chemicals up to 99% of light speed, things will be different.
That does not address my question.
In what direction is my mass?
  From the above discussion of those who answered my question, the consensus of opinion is that your mass is invariant in your frame of reference and thus has no vector direction. I am just pondering the question right now. It seems that the relativistic mass has both axial and transverse components which are different as per Einstein. And now scientists are merely using E/C^2 to define the mass of a system.
  For myself I believe that an absolute velocity of everything is possible relative to the big bang point. Yet what is it and how would one measure such a thing? So I am studying relativity anew right now as I seek to get a better picture of the photon in my brain.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
To understand exactly why relativistic mass, energy and momentum are accepted physical concepts I refer the reader to the following.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum

Experimental confirmation trumps all.
   Thanks for the excellent writeup. I will have to restudy these equations to see if my engineering approximation equations match pretty well. The results of the test confirm that we have both mass variations and momentum in the equations thereby producing a complexity. This does not deny a Doppler solution but the geometric mean of the Doppler must equal Einsteins answers. In any event it is the geometric mean that is measured. And an alternative is that the Doppler is merely the gravitational field of the moving particle rather than any change to the mass itself. Yet until I get a better picture of the photon verses the electron in motion, I do not know what the true answer is. And this could take me days or years or forever.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

...It seems that the relativistic mass has both axial and transverse components which are different as per Einstein.
Towhom does it seem that way, and why??
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile

...It seems that the relativistic mass has both axial and transverse components which are different as per Einstein.
Towhom does it seem that way, and why??
In reply 9 evan_au provided the link for the discussion of the differences in axial and transverse mass differences.  I have to now agree with your original statement that mass is invariant because present theory considers all motions within a mass to be forms of energy and specifies that m = E/C^2.My understanding has not changed as such but my words need to change since they are 50 years old. The discussion between Einstein and others involved relativistic mass which includes linear momentums which are added to the mass. Thus if a mass is traveling in the X direction with velocity V, the mass will appear to an observer at X equal to zero that the mass is now greater in that direction.  This is easily seen from simple Doppler equations such as
M(front) = MoC/(C-V)
M(rear) = MoC/(C+V)
M(rms) = Mo /[1-(C/V)^2]^0.5
   The geometric mean or the root mean square of the two simple Doppler equations is identical with Einsteinís formula. Thus as far as the X direction is concerned, the relativistic mass is larger. I will now agree with you that the actual mass has not changed. And that seems to be the modern way of looking at Einsteinís work. So I will have to modify my words.
  If we look at the Y and Z axes as the mass passes through the X = 0 point, the gravitational wave of the mass will not have the shrinkage and elongation which one observes in the X direction. Thus the relativistic mass is different for the Y and Z directions.
   If we look at the Earth revolving around the sun, the Mass of the Earth in the forward direction will have a compressed gravitational field and a decompressed gravitational field in the rearward direction. The sun will see a different field. Thus the relativistic mass of the Earth in the forward direction is greater than the perpendicular direction toward the sun.
  In any event, I agree with you that the mass of the Earth is the same in all directions but the effective mass or relativistic mass depends upon the velocity of the Earth relative to the sun or any other star or planet. Anyway thanks for your comments as I am rethinking my theory of gravity and it is good to go back to fundamentals to recheck my ideas.

 
   
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Relativist mass is an illusion that is connected to brain and our sight. Our eyes directly process energy, albeit within the visible spectrum. Our tools can see all the other wavelengths, but ultimately, the output from the collectors will interface humans via computer screens and print outs, both of which use the visible range. The energy used by the eyes is often middleman and not the source.

Say we used our sense of smell, instead of sight, to look at the universe. This sensory system will not see relative reference but will see absolute references, since smell is based on matter and not on energy. As an example, say we had a bakery that is baking muffins and croissants for the breakfast crowd. The smell is not reference dependent. The bakery is an absolute, that is always the center of fragrance, regardless of the motion and reference of the patrons. They all will drift to the same place.

The bakery's lighted sign; open sign, could make the bakery appear reference dependent, since the light of the sign is energy based and would be seen with the eyes. Relative motion; sight based, can make the bakery appear in relative motion. But the smell is always centered on the bakery; absolute.

A fundamental problem of modern physics is its image of the universe is overly sight biased. Relativity helps us deal with the bias of sight, which can lead to results that are not even real, such as the relative motion of a bakery with smells that are not relative.

Let me give another example, the bond length of the hydrogen molecule is 0.74A.  Say the hydrogen is in relativistic motion such that sight/energy  biased physics calculates a distance contraction of 50%. This will make it appear like the bond length of hydrogen is now 0.37A. This is no longer hydrogen gas, but a high pressure solid, yet the emissions appear to come from a gas.

With a smell chemical, motion can cause the concentration to change along the direction of motion. But the chemical do not change into new chemicals. But energy will alter into new photons. This is not the same.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Relativist mass is an illusion that is connected to brain and our sight. Our eyes directly process energy, albeit within the visible spectrum. Our tools can see all the other wavelengths, but ultimately, the output from the collectors will interface humans via computer screens and print outs, both of which use the visible range. The energy used by the eyes is often middleman and not the source.

   When they hit a high speed electron with a target, using ordinary Newtonian physics, they find that the effect is much larger than just Meo V, where Meo is the original mass of the electron. So something real happened. It may be an illusion to call it relative mass because we have a complicated issue of mass and momentum. So
Einstein has a formula which works. I like to say we have a Doppler effect and the rms doppler equals Einstein. So I can look at it my way and Einstein his way but the answer is the same. Yet when we add linear energy to a mass we get a relative mass or an effective mass or whatever you want to call it.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jerrygg38
In reply 9 evan_au provided the link for the discussion of the differences in axial and transverse mass differences.
A slight correction here: There was a specific question about whether relativistic mass was increased in a direction transverse to the direction of motion. I showed with the example of the cyclotron that the increased relativistic mass is also visible in the transverse direction.
 
I made no statement about whether this increased relativistic mass is the same or different from the relativistic mass measured in any other direction.

Quote from: puppypower
Say we used our sense of smell, instead of sight, to look at the universe. This sensory system will not see relative reference but will see absolute references, since smell is based on matter and not on energy.
For the sense of smell to work properly (or for a jet engine to burn fuel efficiently), the interacting chemicals need to interact at a speed less than the speed of sound, ie less than the velocity at which molecules normally move - effectively, the interacting chemicals must exist "in the same frame of reference" to totally abuse a term from relativity when talking about chemistry...

This is done in supersonic jet engines by slowing the outside air to subsonic speed (relative to the plane) before it hits the fuel. For supersonic planes flying over bakeries, the air is slowed to almost stationary (relative to the passengers) before it is released into the passenger cabin.

So I am afraid that smell is not directly useful in sensing the distant universe - we rely on photons emitted by the gas rather than sensing the gas directly.

Recently some astronomers created samples of reconstituted Comet 67P. These chemicals were detected by mass spectrometers on the Rosetta Spacecraft in slow orbit around the comet - and relayed back to Earth via radio waves.

They thoughtfully left out the Hydrogen Cyanide which is present on the real comet, and also heated it up to a nose-friendly temperature - it apparently provoked a wide variety of human reactions, from pleasant to almost vomit.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jerrygg38
In reply 9 evan_au provided the link for the discussion of the differences in axial and transverse mass differences.
A slight correction here: There was a specific question about whether relativistic mass was increased in a direction transverse to the direction of motion. I showed with the example of the cyclotron that the increased relativistic mass is also visible in the transverse direction.
 
I made no statement about whether this increased relativistic mass is the same or different from the relativistic mass measured in any other direction.
  Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. I read the articles that you specified and several others. And I have not been able to find the words that specified differences in the masses. So now I am confused. In addition as I wrote my "What does a photon look like and how does it work" in New Theories, I came to realize some new ideas that are possible.
  Thus today is appears possible to me that the relativistic mass in the cyclotron increases with velocity and that it is possible that this mass  is identical in both the axial and transverse directions. So I now have to rethink this question.
   So what is the general scientific opinion on this matter? And what do you believe?
 

Offline phyti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
When a particle is accelerated with the same increment of energy. the faster it and the source move the longer it takes for absorption. It's a case of diminishing returns on your investment. The particle is perceived to offer more inertial resistance to acceleration, thus the false interpretation.
There are still the same number of components in the particle.
  I do not quite understand what you are saying. If we heat up  mass, the number of components remains the same but we added energy and doesn't the mass increase? Likewise if we add linear energy doesn't the mass increase for awhile and then this levels off?
   In any event right now I am looking at my basic concepts to see if ideas have changed over the years.
There is a playground ride (merry-go-round), a circular platform with bars placed radially serving as hand holds. Someone gripping a bar runs along side putting the ride into motion. Once in motion, he can stand at a fixed position, grab a bar as it goes by and give it a push to speed it up. Given he makes the same effort each cycle, as the bar goes by at an increasing rate, more of his energy is used to match the speed of the bar, and less to pushing the bar. Thus "diminishing returns (less acceleration) on his (energy)  investment". The process becomes less efficient the greater the speed. More of the energy becomes momentum. The interpretation as increasing inertial resistance led to the "increasing mass" idea.
The light clock is a similar case. As the clock moves faster, and given a constant c, the cx component increases to compensate for clock motion, while the vertical cy component decreases, resulting in time dilation (less energy for the clock function). Time is the issue, not mass.
At increasing high speeds, the transfer of energy via light requires an increasing amount of time as observed from other reference frames.
As was mentioned, the effects have been redefined.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
When a particle is accelerated with the same increment of energy. the faster it and the source move the longer it takes for absorption. It's a case of diminishing returns on your investment. The particle is perceived to offer more inertial resistance to acceleration, thus the false interpretation.
There are still the same number of components in the particle.
  I do not quite understand what you are saying. If we heat up  mass, the number of components remains the same but we added energy and doesn't the mass increase? Likewise if we add linear energy doesn't the mass increase for awhile and then this levels off?
   In any event right now I am looking at my basic concepts to see if ideas have changed over the years.
There is a playground ride (merry-go-round), a circular platform with bars placed radially serving as hand holds. Someone gripping a bar runs along side putting the ride into motion. Once in motion, he can stand at a fixed position, grab a bar as it goes by and give it a push to speed it up. Given he makes the same effort each cycle, as the bar goes by at an increasing rate, more of his energy is used to match the speed of the bar, and less to pushing the bar. Thus "diminishing returns (less acceleration) on his (energy)  investment". The process becomes less efficient the greater the speed. More of the energy becomes momentum. The interpretation as increasing inertial resistance led to the "increasing mass" idea.
The light clock is a similar case. As the clock moves faster, and given a constant c, the cx component increases to compensate for clock motion, while the vertical cy component decreases, resulting in time dilation (less energy for the clock function). Time is the issue, not mass.
At increasing high speeds, the transfer of energy via light requires an increasing amount of time as observed from other reference frames.
As was mentioned, the effects have been redefined.
  I see what you are saying but to my mind mass is caused by spherical patterns of energy. When you heat up a hydrogen atom with a photon, the electron moves to a higher orbit as per the Bohr model.  It then has a greater pattern of spherical energy and thus its mass increases.
   When photons enter an electron, some of the energy increases the mass of the electron (relativistic mass) and some of the energy results in accelerated motion. The faster the electron moves the less the efficiency of mass creation compared to energy expended. Thus some of what you are saying in your example makes sense to me. I just posted "What does a photon look like and how does it work" in New Theories. Appreciate your comments.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums