Timeline for If rest mass does not change with $v$ then why is infinite energy required to accelerate an object to the speed of light?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2022 at 23:55 | answer | added | robphy | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 14, 2022 at 9:20 | answer | added | AWanderingMind | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 14, 2022 at 9:09 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 14, 2022 at 8:11 | answer | added | user319836 | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 9, 2021 at 13:59 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | I am also wondering about this question. My question got closed yesterday as a duplicate of this one. I find it really weird that some top physicists quietly started "mass" to mean "rest mass", and "m" to mean "m[0]". I read and loved "Relativity Visualized" by Lewis Carroll Epstein, and I thought I understood the basics of at least special relativity. So this is all a bit shock to me. It's amazing how little this topic is talked about, as if it's being swept under the carpet. Einstein was wrong? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 12, 2014 at 13:13 | history | edited | rahulgarg12342 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 325 characters in body
|
| Oct 11, 2014 at 11:35 | answer | added | Alfred Centauri | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 11, 2014 at 10:55 | answer | added | rmhleo | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 11, 2014 at 10:34 | comment | added | dpravos | In modern physics we don't make any distinction between any type of masses (in the relativistic context). We only use the mass of the particle (the $0.5\text{ MeV}$ of the electron, for example). The relativistic energy depends on this mass, and this mass doesn't change, but depends too on the velocity, in such a way that is not allowed to trespass $c$, and infinite energy is needed to reach $c$. This has nothing to do with any (non-existing) variation in the mass. | |
| Oct 11, 2014 at 10:16 | history | edited | rahulgarg12342 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 74 characters in body
|
| Oct 11, 2014 at 10:16 | comment | added | rahulgarg12342 | I know but I meant relativistic mass. | |
| Oct 11, 2014 at 10:04 | comment | added | dpravos | There is not such a thing as 'observable mass'. The mass is the mass. In modern physics we don't speak about 'rest' mass or 'observable mass'. | |
| Oct 11, 2014 at 9:42 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 11, 2014 at 9:38 | history | asked | rahulgarg12342 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |