# Can non-free forces change the rest mass?

While reading Hobsen et al.'s "General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists", I came across a bit confusing derivation. Multiplying the 4-force and 4-velocity, the following derivation can be made

$\boldsymbol{u} \cdot \boldsymbol{f} = \boldsymbol{u} \cdot {d\boldsymbol{p} \over d\tau} = \boldsymbol{u} \cdot ({dm_0 \over d\tau}\boldsymbol{u} + m_0{d\boldsymbol{u} \over d\tau}) = c^2 {dm_0 \over d\tau} + m_0 \boldsymbol{u} \cdot {d\boldsymbol{u} \over d\tau} = c^2 {dm_0 \over d\tau}$

After this derivation, the authors make the following conclusion:

where we have (twice) used the fact that $\boldsymbol{u} \cdot \boldsymbol{u} = c^2$. Thus, we see that in special relativity the action of a force can alter the rest mass fo a particle! A force that preserves the rest mass is called a pure force and must satisfy $\boldsymbol{u} \cdot \boldsymbol{f} = 0$

1. The rest mass is by definition a constant, so it should have been considered a constant while differentiating.

2. If we go back to Newton's second law, which is still valid under the special theory of relativity (though with some correction), the mass is the resistance of a body to changes in velocity, i.e. the larger the mass is, the stronger the force we need to change its velocity. But a non-free force seems to contradict this basic concept when $dm_0 \over d\tau$ is negative, because this means that the force is reducing the resistance of the body towards the force. As a funny comparison, imagine that the harder you push a heavy box, the lighter it becomes (which is obviously not the case even in Newtonian mechanics, not to mention that special relativity predicts the opposite, i.e. the faster the body is, the harder it becomes to increase its velocity)!!

3. Unless the mass is being converted to energy or transferred somewhere else (which is not inferred from the derivation, as the derivation comes straightforward from the force equation without depending on any other equation), where is the mass going?! Isn't this contradictory to the conservation of mass an energy law?

4. If we assumed in this derivation that the rest mass is variable, why didn't we do so in many other derivations in the special theory of relativity?

5. Do we have examples of such forces anyway? :-)

-
Read the wikipedia article on rest mass... it is not by definition constant -- you're thinking of the fact that it's invariant across all inertial frames. and the invariant will only be changed by escaping (ex: via light or heat). –  Chris Gerig Jan 6 '12 at 0:20