Unbelievable Velocity Mass Variation!

[martillo]

It is being said in physics forums that the concept of mass variation is an "archaic" concept and that currently is considered that the "real" mass does not vary with velocity. Particularly in Relativity theory the "relativistic factor" gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) (please allow me this relaxed notation) is being said to be present in the momentum p=gamma.m.v but not belonging to mass.

I don't know if this treatment comes from some problem in high energy particle physics or what but seems some very well known old experiments have been forgotten:

1)The "Kaufmann-Bucherer-Newmann experiments":

Kaufmann-Bucherer-Newmann experiments

The problem I see here is that in spite of simply mass they came to talk about "transverse electromagnetic mass". What a hell is this?

The mentioned experiments clearly show that if the electric and magnetic fields are the classical ones the simple mass of electrons must vary with velocity.

2) "Relativistic cyclotron experiment":

Cyclotron

The experment also clearly shows again that if the electric and magnetic fields are the classical ones the mass of the electrons do increase with velocity.

 

Now my point is that the confusion actually comes because the real electric and magnetic fields are not exactly the classical ones and that the "Lorentz factor" gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) actually belongs to them and not to the mass nor the momentum of particles. I explain this in: New E/B fields

 

There's a very feasible experiment (just a modification of the known "Davisson-Germer experiment") that can elucidate this daemon problem in Physics and which I have been asking to be done since 2005 and I can't believe nobody seemed interested. I present shortly the experiment in:

Davisson-Germer experiment at high velocities

and

The experiment as a proof

 

No one interested?

Edited February 18, 2012 by martillo

[sigurdV]

It is being said in physics forums that the concept of mass variation is an "archaic" concept and that currently is considered that the "real" mass does not vary with velocity. Particularly in Relativity theory the "relativistic factor" gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) (please allow me this relaxed notation) is being said to be present in the momentum p=gamma.m.v but not belonging to mass.

I don't know if this treatment comes from some problem in high energy particle physics or what but seems some very well known old experiments have been forgotten:

1)The "Kaufmann-Bucherer-Newmann experiments":

Kaufmann-Buchere-Newmann experiments

The problem I see here is that in spite of simply mass they came to talk about "transverse electromagnetic mass". What a hell is this?

The mentioned experiments clearly show that if the electric and magnetic fields are the classical ones the simple mass of electrons must vary with velocity.

2) "Relativistic cyclotron experiment":

Cyclotron

The experment also clearly shows again that if the electric and magnetic fields are the classical ones the mass of the electrons do increase with velocity.

 

Now my point is that the confusion actually comes because the real electric and magnetic fields are not exactly the classical ones and that the "Lorentz factor" gamma=1/root(1-v2/c2) actually belongs to them and not to the mass nor the momentum of particles. I explain this in: New E/B fields

 

There's a very feasible experiment (just a modification of the known "Davisson-Germer experiment") that can elucidate this daemon problem in Physics and which I have been asking to be done since 2005 and I can't believe nobody seemed interested. I present shortly the experiment in:

Davisson-Germer experiment at high velocities

and

The experiment as a proof

 

No one interested?

I am not able to contribute,

but on first reading

I believe you are correct,

and I wish you good luck! :)

[martillo]

I have found this interesting refutation in other forum:

Mass is an invariant. Its not "relativity" that has ever held otherwise. It is an increadibly outdated definition made prior to our improved understanding of relativity in terms of the full tensor modeling of the laws of physics that you are stuck on. With the understanding of relativity that we have now mass in terms of the force law you are missunderstanding is the proportionality constant between four-vector force F and four-vector acceleration A in

F = mA

It does not change with speed which has to be the case in the full tensor equation because the very postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics do not depend on frame. The mistake others have made and you are following is that when you transform the proper time derivatives in the definitions of F and A to the labs coordinate time due to time dilation the expressions you end up with have factors of γ that you then missassociate with the mass even though they actually had nothing to due with it. They were due to time dilation. So called mass dilation experiments that you are referring to are not actually confirming mass dilation, but are actually confirming time dilation and the tensor law.

I must review some things...

 

Anyway I think the proposed experiment is very interesting...

Edited February 19, 2012 by martillo

[CraigD]

Kaufmann-Bucherer-Newmann experiments

The problem I see here is that in spite of simply mass they came to talk about "transverse electromagnetic mass". What a hell is this?

Transverse and longitudinal electromagnetic mass are ideas rooted in the effort of late 1800s physicists to describe mass not as in intrinsic property of bodies, as we usually do today, but as an electromagnetic effect of charged particles. It’s a complicated subject, and not much studied these days (unless you study your physics from Feynman’s 1960s lectures, and remember it in great detail – see section 28 – electromagnetic mass here), but the essence of it’s this:

 

If we assume Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism, then assume that charged particles like the proton and electron are small spheres with their charge evenly distributed on their surfaces or through their volumes, then apply Lorentz’s length contraction, you can show that as these spheres become shortened along their axis of motion, their inertial mass behaves much as special relativity explains that that of all bodies, charged or not, does. However, for a moving charged body, this “electromagnetic mass” is direction dependent, with different transverse and longitudinal values.

 

Though it made many of the same predictions as relativity, electromagnetic mass as an explanation for inertial mass had a lot of unresolved difficulties – enough that Feynman describes it in his lecture as “falling on its face” – that it was pretty much abandoned by 1915.

 

Though Feynman thought it important that physics students understand this history, I recommend that, unless you’re intent on having a deep understanding of science history, you just think of electromagnetic mass as an elegant but wrong old theory.

[martillo]

Anyway the proposed experiment would verify experimentally if the Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) is really present in the De Broglie law.

I mean De Broglie law hasn't been verified experimentally at relativistic speeds!

The Davisson-Germer experiment uses very slow velocities (about 0.2% of the c velocity of light) and only classical formulas are applied (for instance Kinetic Energy = (1/2)mv2).

There's no mention in the entire web for any experiment showing the "relativistic effect" in the De Broglie law!

The presented pages (Davisson-Germer experiment at high velocities and The experiment as a proof) point out a possible problem that could appear and that could give "strange results". That is considering the possibility that actually the Electric and Magnetic Fields not be exactly the classical ones and could have a dependency with the Lorentz factor. That is the possibility that the Lorentz factor could actually belong to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not to the De Broglie law.

The proposed experiment points out a way to overcome this problem.

I think the experiment must be done to verify the De Broglie relation at some high enough velocities to show the "relativistic" effect.

I think is a very interesting an important experiment to be done in Physics.

Edited March 14, 2012 by martillo

[martillo]

Due to some discussion in another forum I have realized that is not so easy to accelerate electrons at considerable relativstic velocities with just voltage applied to parallel plates. There I was shown that below 60 Kv no considerable effects would be obtained and 60 Kv is too much about what I was thinking in just adding a velocity selector to the original Davisson-Germer experiment 's apparatus. But there's another way to have electrons at some relativistic velocities in a low scale lab. Is to have a radioactive source of electrons. This is what is done at the MIT Junior Lab the experiment I have already mentioned in earlier posts:

Web page of the "Relativistic Dynamics" experiment: Relativistic Dynamics Experiment

Lab guide (pdf): Lab Guide

 

This would allow to produce the proposed experiment in a low scale lab setup.

Other way would be to perform it in large accelerators like CERN.

I think that if I'm right and someone perform the proposed experiment whatever the way it would be done and the predicted results would be observed it will be performed again in many other places perhaps in different ways.

You know, the argued presence of the Lorentz's factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) in the Electric and Magnetic Fields changes it all! This means that with Classical Physics the same dynamical results as that of the relativistic predictions would be obtained. Please take a lok at:

New Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces

New interpretations for old experiments

 

I have also made the mathematical analisis in the MIT JLB experiment and with the classical Kinetic Energy=(1/2)mv2 and the Lorentz's factor in the Electric and Magnetic Fields as proposed the same result as the relativistic predictions is obtained.

 

Just one to start is needed at this time...

Not anyone interested?

At least, whatever the results would be, an experimental verification of De Broglie law would be accomplished and I think this is important and missing in Physics.

Not anyone interested?

Edited March 26, 2012 by martillo