Mass-energy in relativity

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












If an objects mass when measured in its frame of reference (even if that frame is moving) is invariant then why does it require more and more energy to accelerate it. I can understand this when measured by an observer in a reference frame in relative motion to it, they would measure the mass as increased but to the moving object, there would be no change. I'm running myself in circles a little bit here but maybe someone can help?



Thank you



David










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    If an objects mass when measured in its frame of reference (even if that frame is moving) is invariant then why does it require more and more energy to accelerate it. I can understand this when measured by an observer in a reference frame in relative motion to it, they would measure the mass as increased but to the moving object, there would be no change. I'm running myself in circles a little bit here but maybe someone can help?



    Thank you



    David










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      If an objects mass when measured in its frame of reference (even if that frame is moving) is invariant then why does it require more and more energy to accelerate it. I can understand this when measured by an observer in a reference frame in relative motion to it, they would measure the mass as increased but to the moving object, there would be no change. I'm running myself in circles a little bit here but maybe someone can help?



      Thank you



      David










      share|cite|improve this question













      If an objects mass when measured in its frame of reference (even if that frame is moving) is invariant then why does it require more and more energy to accelerate it. I can understand this when measured by an observer in a reference frame in relative motion to it, they would measure the mass as increased but to the moving object, there would be no change. I'm running myself in circles a little bit here but maybe someone can help?



      Thank you



      David







      special-relativity energy mass relativity






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      greenplasticdave

      332




      332




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          One needs to carefully distinguish between coordinate acceleration (which is frame dependent) and proper acceleration (which is frame invariant).



          Coordinate acceleration is the 2nd derivative with respect to time of the object's position in some (inertial) coordinate system.



          Proper acceleration is essentially the acceleration measured by an ideal accelerometer attached to the object - all observers agree on what the accelerometer reads at some event.



          In principle, an object can have constant proper acceleration of say, $1,g$. However, it is not possible in principle for an object to have constant coordinate acceleration since that implies the object eventually reaches and then exceeds $c$.



          Thus, an object with constant proper acceleration is observed to have arbitrarily small coordinate acceleration as the object's speed gets arbitrarily close to $c$.




          As an aside, the notion of a relativistic mass that is speed dependent is generally considered outdated. It's certainly not necessary.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            (This answer elaborates on the footnote in Alfred Centauri's answer.)



            This is partly a matter of definition. Sometimes the same word "mass" is used with a different meaning, and I think this difference in language may be contributing to the confusion. There are two different quantities associated with the word "mass":



            • A quantity that physicists usually call "mass", denoted $m$, that is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on how it is moving. (I haven't actually conducted a survey of professional physicists, but in my experience, this is how they usually use the word.)


            • A synonym for the object's energy $E$, but expressed in mass-like units as $E/c^2$. This is sometimes called the object's "relativistic mass", denoted $m_R$, and it does depend on how the object is moving (because the object's energy does).


            When the object is not moving, these two different quantities are equal to each other: $m_R=m$. When the "relativistic mass" language is used, the quantity $m$ (which physicists usually just call "mass") is called "rest mass."



            Here's the same answer again, with equations to help clarify things:



            The energy $E$, momentum $p$, speed $v$, and mass $m$ of an object are related to each other according to these equations:
            $$
            E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2
            hskip2cm
            v = fracpc^2E
            $$

            where $c$ is the speed of light. The $m$ in the first equation is what physicists usually mean when they use the word "mass". It is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on the object's speed. The object's energy $E$ and momentum $p$ do depend on the speed, and they do so in such a way that the combination $E^2-(pc)^2$ does not depend on the speed. That's why this particular combination is interesting, and that's why the $m$ on the right-hand side of the equation deserves a special name: mass.



            To relate this to the "relativistic mass" $m_R$ (which, again, is not used by the majority of physicists in my experience), re-arrange the second equation shown above to get
            $$
            p = fracEc^2v.
            $$

            If we use $m_R$ as an abbreviation for $E/c^2$, then this becomes
            $$
            p = m_R v,
            $$

            which looks superficially like the more familiar low-speed approximation $p=mv$. This resemblance might be comforting to some, but it is also misleading, because the energy $E$ (and therefore $m_R$) is a function of $v$. The momentum $p$ is not really proportional to the velocity $v$ (except approximately when $vll c$).






            share|cite|improve this answer






















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "151"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437475%2fmass-energy-in-relativity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              3
              down vote













              One needs to carefully distinguish between coordinate acceleration (which is frame dependent) and proper acceleration (which is frame invariant).



              Coordinate acceleration is the 2nd derivative with respect to time of the object's position in some (inertial) coordinate system.



              Proper acceleration is essentially the acceleration measured by an ideal accelerometer attached to the object - all observers agree on what the accelerometer reads at some event.



              In principle, an object can have constant proper acceleration of say, $1,g$. However, it is not possible in principle for an object to have constant coordinate acceleration since that implies the object eventually reaches and then exceeds $c$.



              Thus, an object with constant proper acceleration is observed to have arbitrarily small coordinate acceleration as the object's speed gets arbitrarily close to $c$.




              As an aside, the notion of a relativistic mass that is speed dependent is generally considered outdated. It's certainly not necessary.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                One needs to carefully distinguish between coordinate acceleration (which is frame dependent) and proper acceleration (which is frame invariant).



                Coordinate acceleration is the 2nd derivative with respect to time of the object's position in some (inertial) coordinate system.



                Proper acceleration is essentially the acceleration measured by an ideal accelerometer attached to the object - all observers agree on what the accelerometer reads at some event.



                In principle, an object can have constant proper acceleration of say, $1,g$. However, it is not possible in principle for an object to have constant coordinate acceleration since that implies the object eventually reaches and then exceeds $c$.



                Thus, an object with constant proper acceleration is observed to have arbitrarily small coordinate acceleration as the object's speed gets arbitrarily close to $c$.




                As an aside, the notion of a relativistic mass that is speed dependent is generally considered outdated. It's certainly not necessary.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  One needs to carefully distinguish between coordinate acceleration (which is frame dependent) and proper acceleration (which is frame invariant).



                  Coordinate acceleration is the 2nd derivative with respect to time of the object's position in some (inertial) coordinate system.



                  Proper acceleration is essentially the acceleration measured by an ideal accelerometer attached to the object - all observers agree on what the accelerometer reads at some event.



                  In principle, an object can have constant proper acceleration of say, $1,g$. However, it is not possible in principle for an object to have constant coordinate acceleration since that implies the object eventually reaches and then exceeds $c$.



                  Thus, an object with constant proper acceleration is observed to have arbitrarily small coordinate acceleration as the object's speed gets arbitrarily close to $c$.




                  As an aside, the notion of a relativistic mass that is speed dependent is generally considered outdated. It's certainly not necessary.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  One needs to carefully distinguish between coordinate acceleration (which is frame dependent) and proper acceleration (which is frame invariant).



                  Coordinate acceleration is the 2nd derivative with respect to time of the object's position in some (inertial) coordinate system.



                  Proper acceleration is essentially the acceleration measured by an ideal accelerometer attached to the object - all observers agree on what the accelerometer reads at some event.



                  In principle, an object can have constant proper acceleration of say, $1,g$. However, it is not possible in principle for an object to have constant coordinate acceleration since that implies the object eventually reaches and then exceeds $c$.



                  Thus, an object with constant proper acceleration is observed to have arbitrarily small coordinate acceleration as the object's speed gets arbitrarily close to $c$.




                  As an aside, the notion of a relativistic mass that is speed dependent is generally considered outdated. It's certainly not necessary.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 2 hours ago









                  Alfred Centauri

                  46.4k344139




                  46.4k344139




















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      (This answer elaborates on the footnote in Alfred Centauri's answer.)



                      This is partly a matter of definition. Sometimes the same word "mass" is used with a different meaning, and I think this difference in language may be contributing to the confusion. There are two different quantities associated with the word "mass":



                      • A quantity that physicists usually call "mass", denoted $m$, that is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on how it is moving. (I haven't actually conducted a survey of professional physicists, but in my experience, this is how they usually use the word.)


                      • A synonym for the object's energy $E$, but expressed in mass-like units as $E/c^2$. This is sometimes called the object's "relativistic mass", denoted $m_R$, and it does depend on how the object is moving (because the object's energy does).


                      When the object is not moving, these two different quantities are equal to each other: $m_R=m$. When the "relativistic mass" language is used, the quantity $m$ (which physicists usually just call "mass") is called "rest mass."



                      Here's the same answer again, with equations to help clarify things:



                      The energy $E$, momentum $p$, speed $v$, and mass $m$ of an object are related to each other according to these equations:
                      $$
                      E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2
                      hskip2cm
                      v = fracpc^2E
                      $$

                      where $c$ is the speed of light. The $m$ in the first equation is what physicists usually mean when they use the word "mass". It is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on the object's speed. The object's energy $E$ and momentum $p$ do depend on the speed, and they do so in such a way that the combination $E^2-(pc)^2$ does not depend on the speed. That's why this particular combination is interesting, and that's why the $m$ on the right-hand side of the equation deserves a special name: mass.



                      To relate this to the "relativistic mass" $m_R$ (which, again, is not used by the majority of physicists in my experience), re-arrange the second equation shown above to get
                      $$
                      p = fracEc^2v.
                      $$

                      If we use $m_R$ as an abbreviation for $E/c^2$, then this becomes
                      $$
                      p = m_R v,
                      $$

                      which looks superficially like the more familiar low-speed approximation $p=mv$. This resemblance might be comforting to some, but it is also misleading, because the energy $E$ (and therefore $m_R$) is a function of $v$. The momentum $p$ is not really proportional to the velocity $v$ (except approximately when $vll c$).






                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        (This answer elaborates on the footnote in Alfred Centauri's answer.)



                        This is partly a matter of definition. Sometimes the same word "mass" is used with a different meaning, and I think this difference in language may be contributing to the confusion. There are two different quantities associated with the word "mass":



                        • A quantity that physicists usually call "mass", denoted $m$, that is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on how it is moving. (I haven't actually conducted a survey of professional physicists, but in my experience, this is how they usually use the word.)


                        • A synonym for the object's energy $E$, but expressed in mass-like units as $E/c^2$. This is sometimes called the object's "relativistic mass", denoted $m_R$, and it does depend on how the object is moving (because the object's energy does).


                        When the object is not moving, these two different quantities are equal to each other: $m_R=m$. When the "relativistic mass" language is used, the quantity $m$ (which physicists usually just call "mass") is called "rest mass."



                        Here's the same answer again, with equations to help clarify things:



                        The energy $E$, momentum $p$, speed $v$, and mass $m$ of an object are related to each other according to these equations:
                        $$
                        E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2
                        hskip2cm
                        v = fracpc^2E
                        $$

                        where $c$ is the speed of light. The $m$ in the first equation is what physicists usually mean when they use the word "mass". It is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on the object's speed. The object's energy $E$ and momentum $p$ do depend on the speed, and they do so in such a way that the combination $E^2-(pc)^2$ does not depend on the speed. That's why this particular combination is interesting, and that's why the $m$ on the right-hand side of the equation deserves a special name: mass.



                        To relate this to the "relativistic mass" $m_R$ (which, again, is not used by the majority of physicists in my experience), re-arrange the second equation shown above to get
                        $$
                        p = fracEc^2v.
                        $$

                        If we use $m_R$ as an abbreviation for $E/c^2$, then this becomes
                        $$
                        p = m_R v,
                        $$

                        which looks superficially like the more familiar low-speed approximation $p=mv$. This resemblance might be comforting to some, but it is also misleading, because the energy $E$ (and therefore $m_R$) is a function of $v$. The momentum $p$ is not really proportional to the velocity $v$ (except approximately when $vll c$).






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          (This answer elaborates on the footnote in Alfred Centauri's answer.)



                          This is partly a matter of definition. Sometimes the same word "mass" is used with a different meaning, and I think this difference in language may be contributing to the confusion. There are two different quantities associated with the word "mass":



                          • A quantity that physicists usually call "mass", denoted $m$, that is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on how it is moving. (I haven't actually conducted a survey of professional physicists, but in my experience, this is how they usually use the word.)


                          • A synonym for the object's energy $E$, but expressed in mass-like units as $E/c^2$. This is sometimes called the object's "relativistic mass", denoted $m_R$, and it does depend on how the object is moving (because the object's energy does).


                          When the object is not moving, these two different quantities are equal to each other: $m_R=m$. When the "relativistic mass" language is used, the quantity $m$ (which physicists usually just call "mass") is called "rest mass."



                          Here's the same answer again, with equations to help clarify things:



                          The energy $E$, momentum $p$, speed $v$, and mass $m$ of an object are related to each other according to these equations:
                          $$
                          E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2
                          hskip2cm
                          v = fracpc^2E
                          $$

                          where $c$ is the speed of light. The $m$ in the first equation is what physicists usually mean when they use the word "mass". It is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on the object's speed. The object's energy $E$ and momentum $p$ do depend on the speed, and they do so in such a way that the combination $E^2-(pc)^2$ does not depend on the speed. That's why this particular combination is interesting, and that's why the $m$ on the right-hand side of the equation deserves a special name: mass.



                          To relate this to the "relativistic mass" $m_R$ (which, again, is not used by the majority of physicists in my experience), re-arrange the second equation shown above to get
                          $$
                          p = fracEc^2v.
                          $$

                          If we use $m_R$ as an abbreviation for $E/c^2$, then this becomes
                          $$
                          p = m_R v,
                          $$

                          which looks superficially like the more familiar low-speed approximation $p=mv$. This resemblance might be comforting to some, but it is also misleading, because the energy $E$ (and therefore $m_R$) is a function of $v$. The momentum $p$ is not really proportional to the velocity $v$ (except approximately when $vll c$).






                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          (This answer elaborates on the footnote in Alfred Centauri's answer.)



                          This is partly a matter of definition. Sometimes the same word "mass" is used with a different meaning, and I think this difference in language may be contributing to the confusion. There are two different quantities associated with the word "mass":



                          • A quantity that physicists usually call "mass", denoted $m$, that is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on how it is moving. (I haven't actually conducted a survey of professional physicists, but in my experience, this is how they usually use the word.)


                          • A synonym for the object's energy $E$, but expressed in mass-like units as $E/c^2$. This is sometimes called the object's "relativistic mass", denoted $m_R$, and it does depend on how the object is moving (because the object's energy does).


                          When the object is not moving, these two different quantities are equal to each other: $m_R=m$. When the "relativistic mass" language is used, the quantity $m$ (which physicists usually just call "mass") is called "rest mass."



                          Here's the same answer again, with equations to help clarify things:



                          The energy $E$, momentum $p$, speed $v$, and mass $m$ of an object are related to each other according to these equations:
                          $$
                          E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2
                          hskip2cm
                          v = fracpc^2E
                          $$

                          where $c$ is the speed of light. The $m$ in the first equation is what physicists usually mean when they use the word "mass". It is an intrinsic property of the object and does not depend on the object's speed. The object's energy $E$ and momentum $p$ do depend on the speed, and they do so in such a way that the combination $E^2-(pc)^2$ does not depend on the speed. That's why this particular combination is interesting, and that's why the $m$ on the right-hand side of the equation deserves a special name: mass.



                          To relate this to the "relativistic mass" $m_R$ (which, again, is not used by the majority of physicists in my experience), re-arrange the second equation shown above to get
                          $$
                          p = fracEc^2v.
                          $$

                          If we use $m_R$ as an abbreviation for $E/c^2$, then this becomes
                          $$
                          p = m_R v,
                          $$

                          which looks superficially like the more familiar low-speed approximation $p=mv$. This resemblance might be comforting to some, but it is also misleading, because the energy $E$ (and therefore $m_R$) is a function of $v$. The momentum $p$ is not really proportional to the velocity $v$ (except approximately when $vll c$).







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited 1 hour ago

























                          answered 2 hours ago









                          Dan Yand

                          5889




                          5889



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437475%2fmass-energy-in-relativity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              Comments

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              What does second last employer means? [closed]

                              Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                              One-line joke