Is Mass the Absolute Frame of Reference in the Universe?

[RiddlerA]

As stated in SR, mass of the object increases with its velocity right?

Lets assume that all the objects in the universe have consciousness and they all know what their rest mass is...(Leave photons out of the argument)..
And also assume they all can measure their own mass at any instant...

Since they all have mass, they surely can find whether they are moving, accelerating or at rest at any instant of time.. So this means that mass is the absolute frame of reference of the universe, don't u think?

If the above statement is true then there is no need for relativity as the objects always know when they are moving and when they are at rest...
From the mass variance formula you can even calculate your own velocity...

Any thoughts about where i went wrong?

Thanks in advance..
RA..

 

[elfmotat]

As stated in SR, mass of the object increases with its velocity right?

Not exactly... I suggest you read this:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=8547

Lets assume that all the objects in the universe have consciousness and they all know what their rest mass is...(Leave photons out of the argument)..
And also assume they all can measure their own mass at any instant...

Since they all have mass, they surely can find whether they are moving, accelerating or at rest at any instant of time.. So this means that mass is the absolute frame of reference of the universe, don't u think?

If the above statement is true then there is no need for relativity as the objects always know when they are moving and when they are at rest...
From the mass variance formula you can even calculate your own velocity...

Any thoughts about where i went wrong?

Thanks in advance..
RA..

From an object's rest frame it cannot detect any relativistic effects. It's only when you look at an object moving in your rest frame that you see effects like time dilation, length contraction, etc. (I'm using the word "look" pretty loosely here.)

 

[pervect]

Any thoughts about where i went wrong?

Thanks in advance..
RA..

Since they all have mass, they surely can find whether they are moving, accelerating or at rest at any instant of time..

If you have an observer that knows his rest mass, there isn't any way for him to tell how fast he's moving, and I really don't quite understand why you think there should be.

So this is probably where you're going wrong, but it's unclear why you're going wrong there.

 

[RiddlerA]

Imagine a flat surface with two men on it..The rest mass of both of them is same...
Man A is moving with a velocity v relative to the Man B who is standing still(v =0)..

Since motion is relative, we can either say Man A is moving while Man B is at rest Or
Man B is moving while Man A is at rest...

So from A's view, B's mass increases.. And from B's view, A's mass increases..
Now consider a 3rd FoR (say God's frame) , from there the god sees that Man A is moving while Man B is at rest...
So According to the God, Man A's mass increases while Man B's mass remains constant...

Now as i stated in the original question, All three people has a device which would tell all other's mass as well as his own mass at any instant...
So if A uses the device, he would read his rest mass coz he thinks B is moving... But at the same instant if god uses his device, then he would read A's mass to be greater than what A measured in his own frame...

How can they read different masses for the same person at the same instant?
An object cannot possesses two different masses at the same instant...

Only possible way to eliminate this ambiguity is to declare mass as the Absolute frame...
So Man A's rest frame is just an illusion... In reality, He is moving relative to the B and he would read his mass to be greater than his own rest mass...
And as for the B, he would read his own mass to be equal to his rest mass, since he is not moving...

Conclusion:
We cannot say B is moving relative to A since B's mass remains same throughout the event.. And hence with mass, we can say what is moving and what is not...


Note: The Above conclusion is just my assumption...

 

[Naty1]

for the original post: This may be the easiest way to think about it:

From an object's rest frame it cannot detect any relativistic effects.

I would clarify the statement this way:

Within an object's rest frame it cannot detect any LOCAL relativistic effects .

 

[Naty1]

How can they read different masses for the same person at the same instant?

[That's not all they read differently!]

[A really crude analogy: It's raining. No it's not. Resolution: two observers at different places or maybe different times or both! Whose right?? Bring them together... at the same x,y,z,t coordinate (worldline point) and they will agree.]


Different observers in general make different observations. Einstein showed the equal validity of all inertial frames of reference... and the nonexistence of one frame representing absolute rest. That's a version of 'the principle of relativity'.

Einstein found that space and time CAN vary in different inertial frames...so different observers make different measurements. ...But they are NOT inconsistent.

Lorentz transforms are the correct ones to use with all physical laws: when you make such 'adjustments' to bring observers together their apparently different measurements will agree. In other words, different observers are in fact separated not by fixed time and fixed distance but by the lorentz transforms.


Check out the Wikipedia article where it makes these points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

This theory (SR)has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[5] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers.

The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions relativity and light speed invariance are compatible if relations of a new type ("Lorentz transformation") are postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events...

[This means different observers are NOT separated by fixed distance and fixed times but rather they are separated via the Lorentz transform.]

 

[ghwellsjr]

As stated in SR, mass of the object increases with its velocity right?

Not any more. Did you do what I asked you to do in your previous thread when you brought up this subject?

Mass Variation:

And also My mass would increase by the factor 1/√(1-v2/c2)

This is what I was taught in school many decades ago but I'm told that this idea is no longer in vogue. If you want to know more, do a search in this forum for "mass" and specify "Search Titles Only".

If you haven't done this search and read up on this subject, please do it now.

 

[HallsofIvy]

You seem to be under the impression that a moving object will detect its own increasing mass. That is incorrect. An object always is motionless relative to itself and whatever method it uses to determine its mass, it will get its rest mass. It is only observers moving relative to the object that will measure a higher mass for it.

 

[Janus]

Imagine a flat surface with two men on it..The rest mass of both of them is same...
Man A is moving with a velocity v relative to the Man B who is standing still(v =0)..

Since motion is relative, we can either say Man A is moving while Man B is at rest Or
Man B is moving while Man A is at rest...

So from A's view, B's mass increases.. And from B's view, A's mass increases..
Now consider a 3rd FoR (say God's frame) , from there the god sees that Man A is moving while Man B is at rest...
So According to the God, Man A's mass increases while Man B's mass remains constant...

Then you aren't considering a "third" frame, At most, you have add an additional observer to the rest frame of Man B.

Now as i stated in the original question, All three people has a device which would tell all other's mass as well as his own mass at any instant...
So if A uses the device, he would read his rest mass coz he thinks B is moving... But at the same instant if god uses his device, then he would read A's mass to be greater than what A measured in his own frame...

Again, god's frame is just B's frame. It seems like you are trying to equate "god's frame to being an absolute frame. In other words, you are assuming the existence of an absolute frame to prove the existence of an absolute frame.

 

[Michael C]

Imagine a flat surface with two men on it..The rest mass of both of them is same...
Man A is moving with a velocity v relative to the Man B who is standing still(v =0)..

Careful! It looks like you're assuming your conclusion by already defining an absolute rest frame for B.

Since motion is relative, we can either say Man A is moving while Man B is at rest Or
Man B is moving while Man A is at rest...

So from A's view, B's mass increases.. And from B's view, A's mass increases..

That's better!

Now consider a 3rd FoR (say God's frame) , from there the god sees that Man A is moving while Man B is at rest...
So According to the God, Man A's mass increases while Man B's mass remains constant...

The "God" point of view is no different from B's point of view. You don't make this frame special by calling it "God's frame".

Now as i stated in the original question, All three people has a device which would tell all other's mass as well as his own mass at any instant...
So if A uses the device, he would read his rest mass coz he thinks B is moving... But at the same instant if god uses his device, then he would read A's mass to be greater than what A measured in his own frame...

How can they read different masses for the same person at the same instant?
An object cannot possesses two different masses at the same instant...

The error here is to consider that mass is an intrinsic, unchangeable property that a body "possesses". It isn't: mass (as defined in relativity) is different depending on what frame is used to measure it. Your statement above is absolutely correct: in the frame where A is stationary, B's relativistic mass is more than his rest mass, and in the frame where B is stationary, A's relativistic mass is more than his rest mass.

 

[pervect]

Imagine a flat surface with two men on it..The rest mass of both of them is same...
Man A is moving with a velocity v relative to the Man B who is standing still(v =0)..

Since motion is relative, we can either say Man A is moving while Man B is at rest Or
Man B is moving while Man A is at rest...

So from A's view, B's mass increases.. And from B's view, A's mass increases..

You seem to be conflating (i.e. combining and confusing) rest mass and relativistic mass.

The rest mass of an observer does not increase when they move.

So if A is stationary, his rest mass is some number M_a. If A is moving, his rest mass is the same number, M_a.

 

[RiddlerA]

So the rest mass remains constant no matter how fast you move, it is only the inertia that increases not the mass?

Imagine the two same men A and B.. this time B is riding a bike while A is standing still... So B burns some energy(fuel of bike) to move while A is at rest... The other way around, B burns some energy to stay in his rest frame while A is moving without spending energy...
How is this possible?


Different topic:

If relativity is true, then geocentric theory of the universe is just as true as the heliocentric theory... So that makes galileo's observations wrong... why do they have to discover that the Sun is at the center of the solar system and all other planest revolve around it?
So the frame from which galileo, copernicus and many others imagined our solar system is from the god's frame(i.e. a frame out of the solar system)... I can say boldly that from Earth's rest frame, the whole universe revolves around it.. But it just doesn't seem right..

Not any more. Did you do what I asked you to do in your previous thread when you brought up this subject?

If you haven't done this search and read up on this subject, please do it now.

I m not sure which post you are referring to.. So can you please post the link here?

 

[Michael C]

So the rest mass remains constant no matter how fast you move, it is only the inertia that increases not the mass?

Yes, the rest mass remains constant. The "relativistic mass" increases. The distinction between rest mass and relativistic mass can be confusing, which is why many writers prefer not to use the concept of relativistic mass. Instead, they use only the concepts of momentum and energy. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Controversy

Imagine the two same men A and B.. this time B is riding a bike while A is standing still... So B burns some energy(fuel of bike) to move while A is at rest... The other way around, B burns some energy to stay in his rest frame while A is moving without spending energy...
How is this possible?

You don't need to burn energy just to keep moving at a constant speed in a straight line (see Newton's first law). The bike rider is burning more energy than the person standing still because he is working against friction and air resistance.

It's easy to get stuck on the idea that one of the men is "moving" while the other is "at rest". To simply state "B is moving" has no meaning, since all motion is relative! What is really happening is that B is moving relative to the ground and air, whereas A is at rest relative to the ground and air.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Not any more. Did you do what I asked you to do in your previous thread when you brought up this subject?

If you haven't done this search and read up on this subject, please do it now.

I m not sure which post you are referring to.. So can you please post the link here?

Click on the little arrow to the right of a user name and it will take you to the original quote. So if you click on the arrow next to my name in this post, it will take you up to post #7 where I quote you and my response where you can do some more clicking to get the previous thread.

 

[RiddlerA]

You don't need to burn energy just to keep moving at a constant speed in a straight line (see Newton's first law). The bike rider is burning more energy than the person standing still because he is working against friction and air resistance.

It's easy to get stuck on the idea that one of the men is "moving" while the other is "at rest". To simply state "B is moving" has no meaning, since all motion is relative! What is really happening is that B is moving relative to the ground and air, whereas A is at rest relative to the ground and air.

Sorry I forgot about that the Newton's first law...
But there are no inertial frames in the universe, so can we avoid the SR altogether ?, since SR is valid only in inertial frames...

 

[RiddlerA]

Click on the little arrow to the right of a user name and it will take you to the original quote. So if you click on the arrow next to my name in this post, it will take you up to post #7 where I quote you and my response where you can do some more clicking to get the previous thread.

I did the search but I am getting many threads, which one you are referring to?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Make sure you use the advance search and select search on titles only. Here's one that looks promising:

Does mass really increase with speed

 

[Michael C]

But there are no inertial frames in the universe

What do you mean by that?

 

[alexg]

But there are no inertial frames in the universe, so can we avoid the SR altogether ?, since SR is valid only in inertial frames...

Any frame of reference which is not undergoing acceleration is an inertial frame.

 

[RiddlerA]

What do you mean by that?

Every possible FoR in the universe has some kind of acceleration cause every mass attracts everyother mass, so there are no inertial FoR in the universe...

 

[Michael C]

Every possible FoR in the universe has some kind of acceleration cause every mass attracts everyother mass, so there are no inertial FoR in the universe...

That's a bit like saying that it's impossible to draw a theoretically perfect circle, so we won't bother with Euclidean geometry.

If we are looking for a mathematically perfect inertial frame, we will theoretically always be able to find some gravitational attraction, however small. In practice we can find a multitude of frames that are so close to inertial that it makes no difference. For experiments at a human scale, the frame defined by the surface of the Earth is close enough to be considered perfectly inertial (note: we must always make a correction for the constant force of gravity).

 

[jtbell]

Every possible FoR in the universe has some kind of acceleration cause every mass attracts everyother mass

Frames of reference are mathematical constructs that do not need to be "attached" to masses.

 

[RiddlerA]

Frames of reference are mathematical constructs that do not need to be "attached" to masses.

I didnt say FoR is attached to the masses, I meant whatever present in the FoR must have some mass.. A FoR can be at rest or at motion but its speed can never reach speed of light..

 

[Naty1]

If we are looking for a mathematically perfect inertial frame, we will theoretically always be able to find some gravitational attraction, however small.

Not in the math...flat spacetime is easy to model..., but in the physical cosmos there ARE effects.

This becomes important, for example, in describing observations of the evolution of black holes and causes a lot of confusion in these forums.

 

[bahamagreen]

Frames of reference are mathematical constructs that do not need to be "attached" to masses.

If this is so, what constraint prevents me from mathematically constructing a frame of reference that exceeds c? I could posit a FOR that moves relative to another at any arbitrary speed by just defining it...

In other words, I define two FOR relative to a third. The first is moving at 1/2 c, the other is moving at 3xc... what is the difference (in the construction process) that allows the first but prevents (the construction process) of the second?

In more other words, since the FOR is not tied to mass, what specifically prevents the construction of FOR >c?

For example, I'm imagining a FOR which relative to me on Earth crosses the galaxy in four seconds... no mass or light is surpassing c, there is no portion of space surpassing c, only the mathematical construction of the coordinates is surpassing c... the construction itself (coordinates) has no substance... or do I have to take into account that the coordinate system will be deformed in my view? It is not made of mass, light, or space... I'm not "seeing" any light coming from it. I don't think it should be affected in any way in so far as it is a construct, not a "thing".

 

[Naty1]

If this is so, what constraint prevents me from mathematically constructing a frame of reference that exceeds c? I could posit a FOR that moves relative to another at any arbitrary speed by just defining it...

ok,then what would you do with it.

I can write d = 3ct; and calculate things; doesn't mean it really happens.

 

[jtbell]

If this is so, what constraint prevents me from mathematically constructing a frame of reference that exceeds c? I could posit a FOR that moves relative to another at any arbitrary speed by just defining it...

Try plugging a v > c into the Lorentz transformation and see what you get. Or the length-contraction or time-dilation equations if you're not acquainted with the Lorentz transformation.

 

[pervect]

If this is so, what constraint prevents me from mathematically constructing a frame of reference that exceeds c? I could posit a FOR that moves relative to another at any arbitrary speed by just defining it...

You can easily define coordinates that way. For example t' = t, x' = x-3ct. While perfectly acceptable as coordinates, it wouldn't really constitute what you'd think of as a reference frame.

I"m not sure if you are familiar with the concept of basis vectors, but if you are familiar with the concept and if you look closely at the basis vectors for this coordinate system, I think you'll find that the coordinate basis vectors are all spacelike.

If you're not familiar with the math, all I can say is that this coordinate choice won't necessarily represent any intuitive notion of a "reference frame".

 

[bahamagreen]

Thanks for the replies...

So let me try it another way to see if I understand.

For simplicity, let's assume an empty universe with two FOR in relative motion of a fixed rate less than c, the lengths and times aligned in the directions of motion of each distant other FOR will be different from those of the local self-same FOR - relativity effects will be present.

So relativity operates on the FOR coordinates even if there is no matter or light present? So space and time are always implied in any FOR (and thereby the constraints) but not mass? Is that it?

 

[Dale]

If this is so, what constraint prevents me from mathematically constructing a frame of reference that exceeds c?

You could do that, it just wouldn't be an inertial frame.

So relativity operates on the FOR coordinates even if there is no matter or light present? So space and time are always implied in any FOR (and thereby the constraints) but not mass? Is that it?

Yes, the Lorentz transform is a transformation between two different coordinate systems, not between different masses. That is the mathematical content of SR. The physical content of SR is the idea that the laws of physics are invariant under the Lorentz transform.

 

[bahamagreen]

Thanks DaleSpam, apologies for the clarifying diversion from the thread topic.

 

[RiddlerA]

Er... I still didnt get an answer for one of my questions..

Why do people still believe in heliocentric theory?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Er... I still didnt get an answer for one of my questions..

Why do people still believe in heliocentric theory?

Here's your original question:

If relativity is true, then geocentric theory of the universe is just as true as the heliocentric theory... So that makes galileo's observations wrong... why do they have to discover that the Sun is at the center of the solar system and all other planest revolve around it?
So the frame from which galileo, copernicus and many others imagined our solar system is from the god's frame(i.e. a frame out of the solar system)... I can say boldly that from Earth's rest frame, the whole universe revolves around it.. But it just doesn't seem right..

A geocentric frame is much more complicated than a heliocentric frame. That's the main reason the solar system is described from the point of view of the sun rather than the earth. But if you're going to include the whole universe, a heliocentric frame would be more complicated than a Milky Way galaxy frame and you really need a GR understanding rather than simply an SR one.

 

[bahamagreen]

Er... I still didnt get an answer for one of my questions..

Why do people still believe in heliocentric theory?

I'll try...

Relativity (SR) requires that frames of reference be inertial - not undergoing acceleration. This ensures the equivalence or interchangeability of the frames. Not all points of view will qualify as Relativistic frames of reference, and won't be "equivalent". GR surely has more to say about it... but I'm not sure Relativity even needs to be called up to address this question.

If you assign the galaxy at rest, you must conclude that the universe rotates about it.
If you assign the Sun at rest, you must conclude that the galaxy rotates about it, and the universe makes a compound rotation about the galaxy.
If you assign the Earth at rest, you must conclude the Solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe all make stacked complex compound rotations.
And if you assign an individual atom at rest, you must conclude an even more bizarre compound motion of the Earth, Solar system, galaxy, and universe about that.
If you assign an individual proton at rest... well, so you see where this goes.
At some point you have to ask where all the energy is coming from to maintain all these changing motions, and why all these moving things are not observed to suffer from the huge accelerations of curved motion, centrifugal force, conservation of angular momentum, etc.

Rotation is always quantifiable and detectable because of the measurable accelerations of curved motion, centrifugal force, conservation of angular momentum, etc. There is a state of no rotation in the absolute sense where these measures go to zero. From that frame of reference the universe is observed to be at rest and the galaxies, solar planetary systems, atoms, and so on are all complexly forming compound hierarchal stacked rotations in concert with the principles of curved accelerations, centrifugal effects, and angular momentum conservation. The energies required for the observed motions are all recognizable, the right amounts, and generally well accounted (as far as we understand so far...).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

The heliocentric model is held because it fits our scientific theories. And by scientific theories I mean everything from geometry to F = ma to general relativity. All of these things have been tested and affirmed and so they are held to be true.

Something like a geocentric model conflicts with a lot of our scientific models, and thus would oppose many of those things that we have tested and affirmed. So we'd be saying "even though we have weighed the rock to be 5 tons and has a density of 10 g/cm^3, we believe it will float if we drop it in some water"