# Tag Info

0

A Non-Relativistic Interpretation of Relativistic Results Million years ago, when self-studying special relativity, an exercise was created in order to understand non-relativistically the relativistic result that a force could not accelerate a particle to speed greater than $\:c\:$. The exercise, the Figure and the solution are already in LaTeX and are ...

0

Particles that have no mass, as photons, have momentum based on their energy, more especificaly on the relation $$p=\frac{E}{c}$$ Where $p$ is the momentum, $E$ is the energy and $c$ is the speed of light. You can think of it intuitively by noticing Einstein's famous equation, $E=mc^2$, and substituting it on the classical momentum formula $p=mv$, using ...

0

By inertia I assume you mean momentum. The momentum is related to the energy of the object by: $$E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4$$ and to the velocity by: $$p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$ The momentum does indeed tend to infinity as $v \rightarrow c$, but note that it will never reach an infinite value because no massive object can travel at the ...

1

Inertia is just another name for mass: it is the property that if you kick a rock so that it makes a certain arc, it will take twice the force to make that arc when you kick two rocks glued together (twice the mass, twice the inertia). You do not really "overcome it" in the sense of finally being victorious and never having to care about it again. In ...

0

Even if neutrinos were massless, which they aren't, they would still be affected by gravity because of their energy content. For example light is composed of massless photons but these can and are still affected by gravity because of $E=mc^2$ But that's null because we know neutrinos are massive because they oscillate.

11

It would help if you gave some context. Is there any evidence, or even theoretical work, that suggests neutrinos are not affected by gravity? I suppose you could argue that the similar arrival times of photons and neutrinos from SN 1987A was evidence that neutrinos and photons are following the same path through spacetime and both being "gravitationally ...

0

Inertia is what we simply called 'quantity of material'. The word material has been used here to specify the matter of body. For example, a plastic chair, a wood chair and an iron chair. Among them, a plastic chair will have less inertia because it will apply less reaction force, so it is easy to lift it. And the word quantitative is used to define the ...

0

There are a lot of complex answers. I am just gonna give you a simple one. When we talk about Inertia, just think of it as a property of a body that allows it to stay in its state of rest or uniform motion. Just think of it as a resistance to change in the state of body. Just for a simple example, say you have a pitcher of water, if you put your finger in ...

0

With the term "inertia" it is understood the capability of a body of opposing resistence to changes of its status of motion, caused by some forces. Remember that, in general, the motion of a mechanical system can be decomposed in center of mass (CoM) motion and a rotating motion about the CoM. Indeed, one usually speaks about the inertial mass for the first ...

0

Inertia is the resistance of movement when a body is a subject for some sort of stress. In Newtonian physics, we can define inertia according to Newton's Second Law of Motion $\mathbf{F}=\dfrac{d\mathbf{p}}{dt}\simeq \dfrac{\Delta \mathbf{p}}{\Delta t} = m \dfrac{\Delta \mathbf{v}}{\Delta t} = m\mathbf{a}$. In this case, $m$ is the inertial mass and the mass ...

0

In classical mechanics, inertia=force applied/acceleration applied. It's how much acceleration you apply to a body for the amount of force you apply. You could also phrase it as how much resistance a body has to change in velocity.

0

Inertia is not a force. There are four fundamental forces: (1) Strong nuclear force carried by gluons, (2) Electro-magnetic force, (3) Weak force carried by intermediate vector bosons, and (4) Gravity. In addition to the four fundamental forces, the word "force" is used to describe these mechanical operations: (1) Applied force actively exerted, (2) Normal ...

-1

Inertia is considered in physics when we want to do work in sense of physics. It's not a force exerted by body instead it is force need by body to move. If it was a force exerted by body then equation will itself be changed. In equation acceleration is the need one to move it. If it was exerted by body then mass and acceleration would not be mentioned it ...

0

There can be two answers. The first one, concerns Newton's third law. For me to extert a force upon a body and change its state of motion, the body needs to exert a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to me. Or, in other words, the body excerts a resistance to me. This action and reaction forces are used all the time when you consider systems ...

0

Even without gravity, momentum conservation will still hold. If you elastically scatter an unknown mass $m$ with an initial (known) velocity $v$ against a known mass at rest, for instance we can take the SI standard of $1$ Kg, then from the resulting measured velocities you should be able to find $m$. Thus Yes, there will still be a mass.

Top 50 recent answers are included