Is this relativistic mass?Relativistic Black Hole?Would an object lose physical mass if it accelerated to a relativistic speed (would an object burn it's own mass)?Is the energy of momentum stored physically?If rest mass does not change with $v$ then why is infinite energy required to accelerate an object to the speed of light?Will objects heat up and become hidden at relativistic speed?Dark Matter vs. Mass from Kinetic EnergyCan relativistic mass be treated as rest mass?Questions on MassProper mass and space-time wrap questionAre relativistic momentum and relativistic mass conserved in special relativity?

Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?

If a centaur druid Wild Shapes into a Giant Elk, do their Charge features stack?

What to wear for invited talk in Canada

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?

Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?

Is this relativistic mass?

Is there a familial term for apples and pears?

Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium

Hosting Wordpress in a EC2 Load Balanced Instance

Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?

Information to fellow intern about hiring?

How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?

Check if two datetimes are between two others

Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?

Pristine Bit Checking

Finding files for which a command fails

Crop image to path created in TikZ?

Can I find out the caloric content of bread by dehydrating it?

Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?

Where to refill my bottle in India?

Ideas for 3rd eye abilities

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"



Is this relativistic mass?


Relativistic Black Hole?Would an object lose physical mass if it accelerated to a relativistic speed (would an object burn it's own mass)?Is the energy of momentum stored physically?If rest mass does not change with $v$ then why is infinite energy required to accelerate an object to the speed of light?Will objects heat up and become hidden at relativistic speed?Dark Matter vs. Mass from Kinetic EnergyCan relativistic mass be treated as rest mass?Questions on MassProper mass and space-time wrap questionAre relativistic momentum and relativistic mass conserved in special relativity?













3












$begingroup$


I have seen in a lot of places in here clearly stating that relativistic mass is outdated, that we can make do just fine with the concept of invariant mass,etc. But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object. This confuses me. Doesn't relativistic mass imply that I should observe your mass to increase as your velocity increases? Doesn't an increase in internal energy mean an increase in the constituent atom's velocity?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    3












    $begingroup$


    I have seen in a lot of places in here clearly stating that relativistic mass is outdated, that we can make do just fine with the concept of invariant mass,etc. But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object. This confuses me. Doesn't relativistic mass imply that I should observe your mass to increase as your velocity increases? Doesn't an increase in internal energy mean an increase in the constituent atom's velocity?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      3












      3








      3


      1



      $begingroup$


      I have seen in a lot of places in here clearly stating that relativistic mass is outdated, that we can make do just fine with the concept of invariant mass,etc. But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object. This confuses me. Doesn't relativistic mass imply that I should observe your mass to increase as your velocity increases? Doesn't an increase in internal energy mean an increase in the constituent atom's velocity?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I have seen in a lot of places in here clearly stating that relativistic mass is outdated, that we can make do just fine with the concept of invariant mass,etc. But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object. This confuses me. Doesn't relativistic mass imply that I should observe your mass to increase as your velocity increases? Doesn't an increase in internal energy mean an increase in the constituent atom's velocity?







      special-relativity






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 6 hours ago









      Achilles' AdvisorAchilles' Advisor

      538




      538




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$


          But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object.




          Yes, and this is not in contradiction with the convention of invariant mass. Mass is defined by the identity $m^2=E^2-p^2$ (in units where $c=1$), which implies that it isn't additive. So say I have two electrons, each with mass $m$. If one is moving to the right at $0.9c$, and the other is moving to the left at $-0.9c$, then the mass of the whole system is greater than $2m$. However, each electron individually still has mass $m$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            -3












            $begingroup$

            Yes, you can obtain alternatives to the ordinary Einstein equivalence relation, for instance, Max Planck suggested a correction of the form



            $E = mc^2 + PV$



            Which would take into account internal thermal contributions to the rest mass. The constituent particles which a system is also subject to kinetic energy (they are in motion) and as predicted from the theory of systems being heated, the particles gain energy and so contribute to rest mass. It's sort of similar to when a photon enters a box, the box's mass will increase according to the energy gained. In the same way, kinetic theory of heat involves the excitation of many particles and so contribute to larger mass. But it certainly is not a relativistic mass for the system contribution.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
              $endgroup$
              – Ben Crowell
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
              $endgroup$
              – Gareth Meredith
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
              $endgroup$
              – Gareth Meredith
              5 hours ago











            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',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            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%2f471382%2fis-this-relativistic-mass%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            6












            $begingroup$


            But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object.




            Yes, and this is not in contradiction with the convention of invariant mass. Mass is defined by the identity $m^2=E^2-p^2$ (in units where $c=1$), which implies that it isn't additive. So say I have two electrons, each with mass $m$. If one is moving to the right at $0.9c$, and the other is moving to the left at $-0.9c$, then the mass of the whole system is greater than $2m$. However, each electron individually still has mass $m$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              6












              $begingroup$


              But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object.




              Yes, and this is not in contradiction with the convention of invariant mass. Mass is defined by the identity $m^2=E^2-p^2$ (in units where $c=1$), which implies that it isn't additive. So say I have two electrons, each with mass $m$. If one is moving to the right at $0.9c$, and the other is moving to the left at $-0.9c$, then the mass of the whole system is greater than $2m$. However, each electron individually still has mass $m$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$















                6












                6








                6





                $begingroup$


                But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object.




                Yes, and this is not in contradiction with the convention of invariant mass. Mass is defined by the identity $m^2=E^2-p^2$ (in units where $c=1$), which implies that it isn't additive. So say I have two electrons, each with mass $m$. If one is moving to the right at $0.9c$, and the other is moving to the left at $-0.9c$, then the mass of the whole system is greater than $2m$. However, each electron individually still has mass $m$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$




                But I've also seen people saying that a hotter object is heavier than a colder object. Where they say that the internal energy of the constituent atoms contribute to the mass of the object.




                Yes, and this is not in contradiction with the convention of invariant mass. Mass is defined by the identity $m^2=E^2-p^2$ (in units where $c=1$), which implies that it isn't additive. So say I have two electrons, each with mass $m$. If one is moving to the right at $0.9c$, and the other is moving to the left at $-0.9c$, then the mass of the whole system is greater than $2m$. However, each electron individually still has mass $m$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 5 hours ago









                Ben CrowellBen Crowell

                53.9k6165313




                53.9k6165313





















                    -3












                    $begingroup$

                    Yes, you can obtain alternatives to the ordinary Einstein equivalence relation, for instance, Max Planck suggested a correction of the form



                    $E = mc^2 + PV$



                    Which would take into account internal thermal contributions to the rest mass. The constituent particles which a system is also subject to kinetic energy (they are in motion) and as predicted from the theory of systems being heated, the particles gain energy and so contribute to rest mass. It's sort of similar to when a photon enters a box, the box's mass will increase according to the energy gained. In the same way, kinetic theory of heat involves the excitation of many particles and so contribute to larger mass. But it certainly is not a relativistic mass for the system contribution.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Ben Crowell
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago















                    -3












                    $begingroup$

                    Yes, you can obtain alternatives to the ordinary Einstein equivalence relation, for instance, Max Planck suggested a correction of the form



                    $E = mc^2 + PV$



                    Which would take into account internal thermal contributions to the rest mass. The constituent particles which a system is also subject to kinetic energy (they are in motion) and as predicted from the theory of systems being heated, the particles gain energy and so contribute to rest mass. It's sort of similar to when a photon enters a box, the box's mass will increase according to the energy gained. In the same way, kinetic theory of heat involves the excitation of many particles and so contribute to larger mass. But it certainly is not a relativistic mass for the system contribution.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Ben Crowell
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago













                    -3












                    -3








                    -3





                    $begingroup$

                    Yes, you can obtain alternatives to the ordinary Einstein equivalence relation, for instance, Max Planck suggested a correction of the form



                    $E = mc^2 + PV$



                    Which would take into account internal thermal contributions to the rest mass. The constituent particles which a system is also subject to kinetic energy (they are in motion) and as predicted from the theory of systems being heated, the particles gain energy and so contribute to rest mass. It's sort of similar to when a photon enters a box, the box's mass will increase according to the energy gained. In the same way, kinetic theory of heat involves the excitation of many particles and so contribute to larger mass. But it certainly is not a relativistic mass for the system contribution.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    Yes, you can obtain alternatives to the ordinary Einstein equivalence relation, for instance, Max Planck suggested a correction of the form



                    $E = mc^2 + PV$



                    Which would take into account internal thermal contributions to the rest mass. The constituent particles which a system is also subject to kinetic energy (they are in motion) and as predicted from the theory of systems being heated, the particles gain energy and so contribute to rest mass. It's sort of similar to when a photon enters a box, the box's mass will increase according to the energy gained. In the same way, kinetic theory of heat involves the excitation of many particles and so contribute to larger mass. But it certainly is not a relativistic mass for the system contribution.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 5 hours ago

























                    answered 5 hours ago









                    Gareth MeredithGareth Meredith

                    1




                    1







                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Ben Crowell
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago












                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Ben Crowell
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Gareth Meredith
                      5 hours ago







                    2




                    2




                    $begingroup$
                    This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ben Crowell
                    5 hours ago




                    $begingroup$
                    This seems obscure, historical, or speculative. The OP isn't asking anything obscure. They're just asking a question about how mass behaves in standard SR.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ben Crowell
                    5 hours ago












                    $begingroup$
                    This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gareth Meredith
                    5 hours ago




                    $begingroup$
                    This isn't obscure, or speculative. Give some reasons why?
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gareth Meredith
                    5 hours ago












                    $begingroup$
                    And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gareth Meredith
                    5 hours ago




                    $begingroup$
                    And no they are not, they are asking how thermal contributions from the constituent particles of a system, may contribute to the rest mass of a system, including also if this is a case of relativistic mass, which I explained it wasn't. This is good old classical physics and equipartition.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gareth Meredith
                    5 hours ago

















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471382%2fis-this-relativistic-mass%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

                    Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"

                    Haugesund Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisHaugesund pagina interretialisAmplifica