Thread: Unbelievable velocity mass variation!

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
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 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...and_Forces.htm

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:
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...velocities.htm
and
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...as_a_proof.htm

No one interested?

Originally Posted by 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=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
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 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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=root(1-v2/c2) actually belongs to them and not to the mass nor the momentum of particles. I explain this in: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...and_Forces.htm

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:
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...velocities.htm
and
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...as_a_proof.htm

No one interested?

I actually need to go soon, so I have only read the OP but not followed any links yet, but in hindsight, are you saying that variational mass does depend on velocity?

If so, I would be interested in a mathematical discussion, but it will have to be when I return. Good bye for now.

I actually need to go soon, so I have only read the OP but not followed any links yet, but in hindsight, are you saying that variational mass does depend on velocity?

What do you mean by "variational mass"?
The concept of mass is old and mass appears as a mathematical parameter in lot of physics formulas and equations. I'm considering mass as this parameter in physics.
I'm saying that the old experiments I mention determine that mass do vary with velocity while currently is managed in phorums the concept of invariant mass.
I'm proposing to solve the problem once for all with the mentioned experiment.

If so, I would be interested in a mathematical discussion, but it will have to be when I return. Good bye for now.

Well I think the experiment would prove something once for all but show your mathematical point.

"managed in phorums"

WTH is that?

I meant as considered many times.
English is not my natural language, does it sounds too bad? If so my apologies...

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...

I quote from the Wikipedia article for "Relativistic Energy and Momentum" :

"The intrusion of particles into particle detectors is connected with electron–positron annihilation, Compton scattering, Cherenkov radiation etc., so that a cascade of effects is leading to the production of new particles (photons, electrons, neutrinos, etc.). The energy of such particle showers corresponds to the relativistic kinetic energy and rest energy of the initial particles. This energy can be measured by calorimeters in an electrical, optical, thermal, or acoustical way.^[21]
"

As you can see, such measurements are in no way limited to just EM phenomena. Remember that mass and energy are equivalent, so the only interesting quantities here are is the relativistic energy and momentum. Both of these are experimentally very well verified.
So, to make it short - relativistic energy variation is indeed real.

Originally Posted by martillo

I meant as considered many times.
English is not my natural language, does it sounds too bad? If so my apologies...

Ok that might present problems however, so I will trust the other posters to tackle this because it seem like I haven't understood what you mean at all. For that I am sorry.

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.

Originally Posted by martillo

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

I think it has. There is a direct relationship between the de-Broglie wavelength and the total energy of a particle :

Matter wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While you are right in saying that there are no direct measurements of the de-Broglie wavelength at relativistic speeds, there are direct measurements of the relativistic energy and momentum, as described in post 8. Since those experiments showed the correct figures for energy and momentum, that means that the de-Broglie relations are also correct. It is indirect experimental confirmation.

While you are right in saying that there are no direct measurements of the de-Broglie wavelength at relativistic speeds, there are direct measurements of the relativistic energy and momentum, as described in post 8. Since those experiments showed the correct figures for energy and momentum, that means that the de-Broglie relations are also correct. It is indirect experimental confirmation.

Well I'm pointing out that this indirect confirmation is not enough and that a direct confirmation is needed. Everybody in the forums talks that science is based in evidence and that's what I'm asking. You know, why to not do the experiment? I would have done it if I could but I don't have the technology and resources available here in my country but I think is very feasible to be done in developed ones like USA, Europe, Japan, etc.

Originally Posted by martillo

Well I'm pointing out that this indirect confirmation is not enough and that a direct confirmation is needed. Everybody in the forums talks that science is based in evidence and that's what I'm asking.

Granted, that is true.
I still don't see how that experiment could yield anything other than the expected result. The de-Broglie relation is deeply ingrained in quantum physics; if it wasn't correct, I have a feeling we would have noticed already.

I still don't see how that experiment could yield anything other than the expected result. The de-Broglie relation is deeply ingrained in quantum physics; if it wasn't correct, I have a feeling we would have noticed already.

That's because you don't doubt about current theory. I know may be everybody take that for granted. I'm claiming here at the forum to not to do that and to do the experiment to verify things.

Originally Posted by martillo

That's because you don't doubt about current theory.

You may not understand this (most non-scientists don't) but scientists always doubt the current theory. That is their job. That is what they are trained to. It is what they do. The whole purpose of experimentation and the scientific method is to break theories.

You may not understand this (most non-scientists don't) but scientists always doubt the current theory. That is their job. That is what they are trained to. It is what they do. The whole purpose of experimentation and the scientific method is to break theories.

Excellent. Then you must agree that the proposed experiment must be done even if it were just to verify current formulation of De Broglie law. It is very feasible so why not to do it?
What I don't understand is why there's no mention anywhere of an attempt to try the Davisson-Germer experiment at higher velocities to check the relativistic effects and if there were problems why not to talk about them...

Originally Posted by martillo

I still don't see how that experiment could yield anything other than the expected result. The de-Broglie relation is deeply ingrained in quantum physics; if it wasn't correct, I have a feeling we would have noticed already.

That's because you don't doubt about current theory. I know may be everybody take that for granted. I'm claiming here at the forum to not to do that and to do the experiment to verify things.

I share your enthusiasm for experimental verification, and I am not saying that this shouldn't be tested at relativistic speeds. It would be a good thing to have this verification.
I am merely trying to point out that this relation is an integral part of quantum mechanics and QFT, and it being wrong would necessitate a major re-think on the way we understand and formulate QM; quantum physics in its current form would no longer be correct, and I think if that was the case we would have noticed already.
But like I said, I would be the first one to be happy to have experimental verification.

That's because you don't doubt about current theory.

I know, I probably come across this way with my posts on this forum. Would it surprise you to learn that I in fact have massive doubts on certain aspects of mainstream theoretical physics ? For example, I believe that our very basic understanding of how space and time relate to matter and energy ( and the other way around ) is incomplete at best, and grossly misguided at worst.
The things is just this - I am smart enough to understand that I have no better solution to offer to the remaining mysteries of the universe than mainstream science does, mainly for a lack of a formal science qualification. There are many things I don't know and understand about the maths of the current theories. Thus I know better than to publish my doubts on this or any other platform, unless I have some tangible model at hand which is self-consistent, well formulated and makes at least some kind of sense. But unfortunately I don't, so I keep my mouth shut and advocate mainstream theories, because, let's face it, they are the best thing we have at the moment to explain the universe around us.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I know, I probably come across this way with my posts on this forum. Would it surprise you to learn that I in fact have massive doubts on certain aspects of mainstream theoretical physics ? For example, I believe that our very basic understanding of how space and time relate to matter and energy ( and the other way around ) is incomplete at best, and grossly misguided at worst.

I have heard many people who know a lot about the science say exactly this. I have never heard anyone with any level of expertise say that they have no doubts about current physics.

The only people who express no doubt are people with their own personal non-science theories. They are absolutely certain that all or most conventional science is wrong and absolutely certain that they are right. This certainty is a sure sign of the crackpot.

"Crackpot"..."crackpot"... This is something always came when there were no rational mathematical and physical argumentation to some propositions. Don't you have anything better to say? Is this the expected behavior of a good physicist in front of some different proposition whether it would be right or wrong? Do you feel really comfortable posting this stupid thing again and again? Forums were made to discuss things rationally not to just trow pejorative words. Ashaming behavior...

Originally Posted by martillo

"Crackpot"..."crackpot"... This is something always came when there were no rational mathematical and physical argumentation to some propositions. Don't you have anything better to say? Is this the expected behavior of a good physicist in front of some different proposition whether it would be right or wrong? Do you feel really comfortable posting this stupid thing again and again? Forums were made to discuss things rationally not to just trow pejorative words. Ashaming behavior...

Strange was merely pointing out ( in response to my post ) that not having any doubts about ones beliefs is a sign of crackpots. And very rightly so.
This was not directed at yourself. No one called you a crackpot, I have already said that I would be more than happy to have the experimental verification you are proposing. You have no reason to be offended.

Originally Posted by martillo

"Crackpot"..."crackpot"... This is something always came when there were no rational mathematical and physical argumentation to some propositions. Don't you have anything better to say? Is this the expected behavior of a good physicist in front of some different proposition whether it would be right or wrong? Do you feel really comfortable posting this stupid thing again and again? Forums were made to discuss things rationally not to just trow pejorative words. Ashaming behavior...

As Markus pointed out, this is not aimed at you or, in fact, anyone discussing science. It is aimed at people who say things like "Einstein was wrong because blue neutrinos don't have schizophrenia" or "nuclear energy exist because of compressed energy from photons" or something even more meaningless.

My apologies then...

Originally Posted by martillo

My apologies then...

And mine for causing confusion

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: M.I.T. Junior Lab 8.13/ 8.14
Lab guide (pdf): http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp09.pdf

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: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...and_Forces.htm
New interpretations for old experiments: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...xperiments.htm

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?