To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
So time dilation as you approach the speed of light can be interpreted as an increase in inertia. You become harder to accelerate. And what is resistance to acceleration? Inertia. Your inertia is increasing as you go faster and faster. You become harder to accelerate. Most of the energy that is put into increasing your velocity goes into increasing your inertia. What do you think Eugene? Do you agree with this? I love your simulations. I bet Einstein would be pleased that you are able to communicate his ideas through simulation.
In case, you have not already seen them, I also uploaded several other videos recently. As always, for each video that you like, you can help more people find it in their TH-cam search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Thanks.
+Feynstein100 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was told that gravity affects objects which have momentum, which both something with mass, and a photon have. Is that the reasoning for why light is affected by gravity? Or is it something else?
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky .if ,the energy is infinitely used to any object.so,it will going into the future.you said that when a object is at rest motion,so it can change mass continously.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky .if ,the energy is infinitely used to any object.so,it will going into the future.you said that when a object is at rest motion,so it can change mass continously.
This is a great video. I am a pretty typical middle school student, and without this video I would be pretty lost. Thanks for the explanation of relativistic mass!
The gravitational attraction does not increase as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light. The relativistic mass of an object does increase, because of the fact that it requires an "infinite" amount of "Energy" in the equation e=mc^2. When you change this equation to determine the value of "m," you end up with e/c^2=m. At that point, you realize the value of e=infinity when the speed of light is achieved. As a result, the value of m is increased enormously, as well. At the speed of light, virtually 100% of the constant of "c" is devoted to moving through "space," while virtually 0% is devoted to moving through "time."
If you refer to rest mass as being constant, the equation for total energy in motion is: E = (mc²)² + (pc)²^(1/2), where "p" is relativistic momentum and "m" is rest mass. Alternatively, you can write E = γmc², where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), this is called the Lorentz factor. And this factor actually gets bigger as you approach the speed of light, not the rest mass. Therefore, rest mass doesn't change as the energy increases.
After reading some discussions on the internet about this subject and thinking about it, I come to a slightly different conclusion: The gravitational field of objects moving within the same system relative to each other never changes, but this is different for objects which are not in the same system and are moving extremely fast relative to each other. For example, when the Earth and Moon would move at almost light speed relative to the rest of the solar system, Earth and Moon would indeed remain in the same relative orbit and would not fall to each other, but the gravity effect to the other, slow moving objects in the solar system would be much bigger. So gravity is relative, but it can change. It’s just like the relativity of time and length. Why? This is simply because of the relativity of kinetic energy. All energy contributes to inertia and to gravity, therefore increasing the “relativistic mass”, including kinetic energy. And when we do not work with the definition of “relativistic mass”, then we are using the definition of “relativistic momentum”, and then it is correct to say that momentum affects gravity, because momentum is kinetic energy.
@ Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky there’s one thing I want to input. Relativistic mass must affect the way it is affected by gravity. If it’s inertia changes as it’s speed increases, but the gravitational force on it does not, then that mean it would accelerate differently. The whole reason objects accelerate uniformly in a gravitational field is because the force in the object is exactly balanced by its inertia. So what I’m saying is that relativistic mass should increase how it’s affected by gravity, but it’s also increasing it’s inertia, so the effect cancels and it still accelerates the same as all other objects in a gravitational field. Does that make sense?
If you want to REALLY understand Special Relativity, then I suggest you look at the demonstration videos here: www.energyfieldtheory.com/demos The length contraction comes about due to the different Doppler shifts of the upstream and downstream wave components in the standing waves that make up matter. The standing wave nodes automatically get closer together by a factor determined by the Lorentz factor when the waves become Doppler shifted. Also, the rate of time automatically slows due to the anisotropy in the speed of light through the moving frame of reference, combined with the Doppler shifted waves. You can see this is box 3 of the demonstration video on the webpage (link given above). And, the mass (not rest mass as we are talking about objects that are moving fast, not at rest) DOES get larger, as the mass is the equivalent of the energy in the waves that form the standing waves of the particles. The energy of the standing waves is the sum of the upstream and downstream waves (over the contracted length of the object) and it comes out to EXACTLY the rest mass multiplied by the Lorentz factor! Coincidence? I think not... See this paper that proves that the Relativistic mass increase is real and makes perfect sense once you understand what is actually going on to the Electromagnetic waves that make up particles when they move fast: www.researchgate.net/publication/326647422_Relativistic_Mass_Increase_Explained If you can open your mind on this issue and want to learn more about how thing REALLY are, then please explore my other papers here: www.researchgate.net/profile/Declan-Traill/research
It is weird. Imagine we have 2 clocks: 1 is dead, 1 is working. According to Einstein's relativity, the clock that is working will have its part moving, therefore it is heavier than the clock that is dead. But we know that the difference of mass between both clocks affects their weights due to earth's gravity. Thus, it means that relativistic mass must affect gravity.
Weight is a force whereas rest mass is not. Relativistic mass is related to forces, and therefore to weight. But the effect of an object on gravity is a function of rest mass, not its relativistic mass.
@noob94884 no it's doesn't need to be traveling that fast to have relativistic mass. The faster it moves the more it will have that's why it's exponentially harder to get things close to the speed of light their mass gets bigger n bigger and takes more energy to move it.
Increasing the mass of an electron is easy. But to keep energy trapped as mass that's difficult. Everyone having 2 mirrors is able to reflect photons in the visible spectrum from one mirror to the other mirror which gives the 'illusion' of a virtual space that exceeds the actual space. This is called recursion. A photon hits an electron in one mirror. Now an electron will orbit higher around its atom(s). However now very soon the electron will fall back to its original orbit. And hereby emitting a photon - although when the photon has enough energy the electron is too excited and leaves the atom. - (Photo Electric Effect) It is very important to know that the second photon emitted after the first photon excited the electron has a fraction less of energy. Therefore in this recursive virtual 'illusive' space photons will loose energy and there fore will shift in frequency. Which means that from the perspective of the photon the space between the 2 mirrors is actually folded. From our perspective we see this as infinity between the 2 mirrors, however try this experiment for yourself. Align the mirrors vertically. By theory described here for example a blue photon emitter like a blue laser will at end shift into infra red and finally out of visible spectrum. Now comes another important probability. Make sure the mirrors are as far away from each other as you can. In human practically setups it is not possible to observe this red shift frequency. (photon loosing energy while bouncing from one mirror to the other) because light speed is to high for this experiment to notice -at small scale- this assumed phenomenon. Now one can conclude perhaps a simple fact. From the photon's point of view it looks like space it travels is folded. And so we/I call this FOLDED SPACES by POINT OF VIEW. Compare this to a marble trapped between 2 walls. Put the marble in motion. The marble will hit a wall and will reflect to the other wall until all energy of motion (momentum) in the marble is lost (increasing inertia). This makes you asking yourself where did the energy of the trapped photons between the mirrors go? Yes the photons excited electrons. Yes energy was transferred into mass. Here we see a transformation of real energy into existing mass - THE EXCITED ELECTRON. However why is the electron not able to keep its increased mass? Because the electron orbits the atom/atoms it needs energy to sustain momentum. This is not possible for the electron and ATRACTIVE FORCE from the atom core - PROTONS - force the electron to release mass so mass is transferred back to energy - the emitted photon - again. But remember, the excited photon according theory has a very tiny fraction LESS of energy than photon which excited this electron. The most promosing fact is that with photons we are actually able to create mass, but at the cost of an incredible small amount of energy. However as said we are not yet able to sustain this energy to mass conversion in the excited electron. This is what we/I mean with zerofication of the universe. For a photon time does not exist. This is reason to assume described folded space theory. However it must not be forgotten that the original photon is lost and final photon is of a totally different magnitude.
Why it is 0 is because of laws of Thermodynamics. Since the universe exists there must be something opposite to not break this law. What I say is not only was their our Big Bang, but there was an opposite Big Bang somewhere else. But this is assuming Thermodynamics law is not broken in the creation of our universe. When fusion is concerned a tiny bit of mass is lost. Helium is not as heavy as 2 times Hydrogen. The same applies to Fission. But then also mass is lost but with fission a heavier element can be created and again a tiny fraction of mass is lost. Although a lot of energy is released. And all these tiny bits of energy lost will make the universe zerofied. So the law of Thermodynamics in theory stands.
Because, our solar system move with one constant speed, the speed of light, so just try put that speed into calculation (change v=c in gamma term), and you'll get the answer
"If a spaceship's speed is equal to the speed of light, then an infinite force would be required to increase the spaceship's speed even further" Not quite correct. You need an infinite amount of force just to get the spaceship to the speed of light to begin with.
YellowKazooie Both statements are correct. We would need an infinite amount of force to reach the speed of light, and then we would also need an infinite amount of force to go even faster.
sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Infinite is infinite. You can't apply an infinite force two times. What is surprising is that in the animation the ship is going slower than light, so I thought it was just an error in the text above it
YellowKazooie Actually, we can't apply an infinite force even once. You are correct that it is not possible for an object with mass to travel at exactly the speed of light, as the speed must always be slightly less than the speed of light, which is why I made the animation the way I did. In the text, I was just saying that if the spaceship was hypothetically going at the speed of light, then an infinite amount of force would be required to move it even faster, leaving aside the fact that the spaceship would never get to that speed in the first place.
how do you know your velocity in space? from your point of view your mass should be always the same because you are always still and the rest of the universe is moving!
Much of this video is mainly correct, however it not true that the inertial mass explained in the video, is different in magnitude to gravitational mass, as this equivalence is actually the principle upon which Einstein's theory of General Relativity is founded. All objects have an agreed rest mass but their relativistic mass depends on the relative speed of the observer. The source in Einstein's field equation is (for stationary observers) the rest mass (and also energy and momentum/stress terms) but for observers approaching a large gravitational mass at high speed, there are relativistic transformations in the distance, time and mass and this is all accommodated in the tensor formulation of his field equations. [For more details cf. General relativity: A concise guide for beginners" available from LULU.com as an electronic download as is the precursor on special relativity.]
+Prom Etheus, I never said that the inertial mass was different than the gravitational mass. What I said was that you can use relativistic mass in the equation F=mA but not in the equation for gravity. In General Relativity, gravity is not even a force, and hence the equation for forces wouldn't apply anyway.
+Eugene Khutoryansky Thanks for the clarification Eugene, however my main point I wanted to add, is that the source term in the field equation (a rank 2 tensor), automatically accommodates the relativistic change in space-time and the mass of the gravitational source, (for individual observers moving at different speeds.) This of course was one of the problems with Newton’s law, in that different observers would observe a different gravitational mass and hence force for the Sun. This is not a problem in Einstein’s theory, in which both sides of his field equation are covariant. Even though different observers measure a different relativistic mass for a star and a different distance between the star and a planet in orbit, the same field equation is still valid.
So does the slower time compensate increased inertia? How about an object on earth at 1 m height? If Earth travels at velocity near c then slower time would compensate the increased potential energy.
How fast is gravitational interactions? Think it this way. When will earth go off from the orbit around sun when the sun disappeared in a moment. Would it be instantly or 8 mins later like light?
According to everything thing he's said, everything would appear normal to anyone in the spaceship -- because he isn't moving at all from his point of view.
Motion & Mass are equivalent & mutually convertible. In annihilation mass of electron & positron changes to motion of photons which convert back to mass of electron & positron during pair production. In nuclear reactions also mass changes to motion of neutrons & gamma photons released by atoms. As meteors pass through earth atmosphere they slow down due air resistance. They heat up and emit heat & light radiations which are electromagnetic waves. Photons emitted by meteors against loss of motion can be converted to mass. Therefoe we can call relativistic mass as kinetic mass as motion can be converted to mass.
So relativistic mass is related to the energy required to speed up an object in motion and rest mass is the standard Density * Volume which is used to calculate gravitation pull, correct?
TheThePinkPrincess77 Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you like them. In reply to your question, the amount of time necessary to make the animations varies for each video. For example, the animations for my video on Thermodynamics, and the animations for my video on Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism each took several months to make. Though, this video on Relativistic Mass did not take very long at all, due to the fact that for many of the scenes, I was able to reuse animations I had already made for some of my previous videos. Thanks.
I am a little bit confused. I thought that the relativistic mass is the source of the gravitational field. Because the source is the energy-momentum-tenstor, which also includes the kinetic energy of an object. For example if one takes serious the quark model, which concludes that only a little fraction of the effective mass of the proton is due to the rest mass of their constituents, the gravitational effect of all barionic objects would only be that little fraction as big as in a model, where the mass of the proton is considered to be its rest mass. But as I am informed there would not be a difference between such two models regarding the effect on gravity, would it?
The kinetic energy does contribute to the curvature of space-time, but it is more complicated than just using relativistic mass instead of rest mass. I cover some of this in my video on Gravito-electromagnetism at th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html And I also have a much more advanced video explaining Einstein's Field Equations at th-cam.com/video/UfThVvBWZxM/w-d-xo.html
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky But if this effect of increased energy requirements to accelerate at higher speeds is called "relativistic mass", then does this mean, that DECREASING the speed of an object moving close to the speed of light costs the same amount of energy as to increase the speed? Because if it doesn't cost the same, then using the relativistic mass in equations doesn't give the same results as using rest mass, because you would need different amounts of mass depending on the direction of force
Is it harder to just increase velocity further or is it harder to change velocity at all (changing direction, slowing down)? Because if it's the former, it doesn't really seem to make sense to call it 'mass' regardless if you separate it from gravitational mass because that doesn't really seem to be what inertia is.
The acceleration is greater if the force is perpendicular to the direction of motion. The acceleration is less if the force is parallel to the direction of motion. For this reason, Einstein originally had a variable for "transverse mass" and a variable for "longitudinal mass."
@@EugeneKhutoryansky That's really interesting. Seems like Special and General Relativity breaks Newtonian Mechanics in more ways than I thought. So what's causing this weird effect? Is it due to length contraction so there's a difference "force density" applied parallel vs perpendicular? Or am I guessing wrong?
This happens because the total velocity changes more if you add/subtract an extra small velocity vector parallel to the present velocity, than if you add the same extra small velocity vector perpendicular to the present velocity.
Like the cosmological constant, could the “relativistic mass” be another one of Einstein’s “blunders” or “regrets” that ultimately has some sort of deep physical meaning rooted in physical reality?
@Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky I'm a bit confused. Another physicist on TH-cam said that an object in motion (like a satellite orbiting a planet) makes its own stress energy tensor, and so bends space-time more. Which is correct?
Motion does affect the curvature of Space-Time, but not in a straightforward way. The following two videos may be helpful. Simple video: Gravito-electromagnetism -- th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html Advanced video: Einstein's Field Equations -- th-cam.com/video/UfThVvBWZxM/w-d-xo.html
Relativistic mass is just gamma times mass (γm). So your mass is not actually increasing, but gamma is. And gamma is just a function of velocity (γ = 1/(sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2))). 😁
Correct me if I'm wrong about this historical question. but did Einstein derive E=mc² from relativistic mass, and then the equation is actually true but for rest mass by coincidence?
I think that aspects of this video are somewhat misleading. For example, as an object's kinetic energy increases, then due to E=mc^2 its inertial (relativistic mass) increases, and to re-express this as being an 'alternative way in which it will reacts to a force', is unnecessary. More importantly, the statement that the gravitational mass of an object does not increase with speed, even though its inertial (relativistic) mass does, flies in the face of the main axiom of General Relativity viz. the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.[This is one of the reasons for the Gamma factor occurring in the stress tensor.]
I believe your primary misconception here with regards to her definitions of mass is that relativistic mass is NOT inertial mass. Inertial mass is equivalent, as you said, to what we can call the "gravitational charge", i.e. m = F/a. Relativistic mass is essentially saying that m'=m/¥ (pretend the denominator is a gamma). Thus inertial mass is the rest mass is the gravitational mass, and relativistic mass is the inertial mass divided by rad[1-(v/c)^2]. I don't think you had a misconception in the theory itself, rather I think you may have possibly misunderstood what she was getting at. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Personally, I much prefer using the equation E = ¥mc^2 out of the sheer conceptual convenience, and that at low speeds we obtain E=mc^2 anyways. Gotta love that Lorentz transformation!
So, if I understand correctly, f=m*a doesnt hold if we exclude the relativistic mass? Since accelarating an object at high speed requires more energy thus more force?
So are gravitational mass and rest mass the same, at least in classical mechanics? And What about the Expanded form of the equation, E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2? Isn't this the equation for a moving object?
electrocat1 The equation you wrote is valid if rest mass is used in the equation, instead of relativistic mass. And yes, rest mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. In classical mechanics, there was only one kind of mass.
If I am moving close to the speed of light in a spaceship and I fire up the engine so that a constant force is provided, what would I experience in regards to my velocity?
+Alexander Bray, from the perspective of an outside observer, the speed of the ship would get closer and closer to the speed of light, but never reach it. From your own perspective, you would think that the space ship has always been standing still, and is continuing to remain still, and you would think that there is an extra gravitational field throughout the universe, exactly balancing out the force from your rockets.
So I would witness the universe around me experiencing more and more length contraction and time dilation just us the outside observers would witness me exhibiting those increasing relativistic effects?
I'm confused... Here people clearly state that motion changes gravitation field. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63961/does-relativistic-mass-have-weight. Thus a moving object is "heavier". What do I miss?
Sir i think that my majority of friends after studying higgs field and higgs boson have started thinking that thr mass of a particle indeed increases ad it moves with relativistic speed because it intracts more with tje higgs field . Sir please tell me is this right or a misconception
A photon always has zero mass. Photons are affected by gravity because gravity is a curvature of space-time, and even massless objects are affected by the curvature of space-time.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Mass of human body is relativistic mass or rest mass? Because we are made up of particles with a lot of kinetic and potential energy which manifest itself as mass right?
@@EugeneKhutoryansky For example, microscopically, if kinetic energy of molecules increase, the mass of of water increase according E=mc2. Macroscopically, if kinetic energy of object increases, why mass (relativistic) of object does not increase as well? I could not understand why the concept "relativistic mass" is being rejected.
Eugene Khutoryansky, I'd like to ask you an unrelated question please. If you dont respond no biggie, I've always pondered a question I have and have never ran across the same idea. That is "We know that SPACE itself is expanding and not the Universe, however I question is there a possibility that all things in the Universe EXCEPT Space infinitely SHRINKING? I don't see where it would look any differently than what we observe now, and (loosely speaking) sounds just as Crazy as an Infinite Expansion. I'd like to disprove or rule this out so that I can free up some RAM on the Hard drive in my head. Thank you, I really like to know what you think.
Andrew Karpinen We know that the distances between the stars inside a Galaxy is not increasing. It is only the distances between Galaxies that is increasing. I think this would rule out the theory that everything other than space is shrinking, since this would mean that it would appear that the distances between stars inside a Galaxy would also appear to increase, but we know that this is not the case.
Eugene Khutoryansky Wow! Thanks very much for answering my question and with enough detail explaining it. Simple, and works for me. Really I appreciate this very much.
It's not the gravitational mass that increases, it's the inertial mass of an object. The gravitational mass is different than inertial mass irrespective of the state of motion. Moreover, these values are not equal. The Newtons law of Gravity uses gravitational mass whereas his second law of motion F=ma uses inertial mass.
ok... a simple thought experiment... You have a spaceship in empty space, He is always stationary to it's self. He starts accelerating from it's starting point by 1m/s that requires a force of 1N. He has now accelerated to 50% of the speed of light from it's starting point. BUT relative to it self, it's still stationary object and it's not moving at all... THEREFOR it's accelerating from 0 again even tho relative to it's starting point it's traveling at 50% of the speed of light... In that manner, you can go infinite speed and your mass will stay the same relative to it self... so you will still be needing just 1N of force to keep the same acceleration...
@@EugeneKhutoryansky the law wont be violated by saras perspective nor the guy on the ships perspective, but given the condition i gave... If the guy on the ship mesures the distance traveled from his starting point and now, you will realize he waas traveling at the speed of light at some point compared to his starting point, even tho you wont be able to mesure it from any reference point for the same reason you have a cosmic event horisont..
But can rest mass be converted into other types of energy according to E = mc^2? And could the phenomenon you describe also be explained by time dilation, since F = m*a and acceleration as a concept requires time?
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: th-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=AU_O9yrgwhk&ref=share You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.
Hello, from general relativity is not the source of gravity not mass but energy and momentum ? Why relativistic mass adn energy is not causing bigger attraction when object has higher energy ?
Then what changes as you go faster that prevents and object from going faster than light. Why do you need an infinite amount of energy at light speed but less than that at anything below it. If you are traveling at 99.999999999% light speed and you need a lot of energy to get you there (let's say a ridiculously large number) why does it then jump to infinity at the light speed barrier? No matter how big the amount of energy is infinity is infinitely bigger, which makes it tough for me to understand the answer.
Mark G The equation for relativistic mass is Relativistic Mass = Rest Mass / square_root (1- [velocity^2 / speed_of_light^2]) As the velocity approaches the speed of light, the denominator in that equation approaches zero. And as the denominator approaches zero, the equation approaches infinity.
Eugene Khutoryansky Thank you kindly for the reply, but what I have always heard is that the energy of motion is converted to mass. I will not claim to have studied Special Relativity in detail so my knowledge on this subject might in fact be ignorance. I thought that as you move faster you are creating greater warping in spacetime and as you approach light speed it would be similar to creating a black hole because all of that energy would cause that part of space to be warped tremendously by the energy of the acceleration of the object. I appreciate the equations and understand they hold firm, but when I understand something it is in pictures or at the least concepts. This is not always easy with ideas such as Entanglement and Coherence. If you have a moment I would appreciate any sort of reply.
Mark G You would not create a black hole by moving close to the speed of light, because your gravitational mass does not increase as you move faster. If this were not the case, then from your point of view, everything other object in the Universe would become a black hole, due to the fact that from your perspective, you are standing still, and it is the rest of the Universe that is moving at close to the speed of light.
Eugene Khutoryansky I noticed that the equation describing the relationship between relativistic mass and rest mass has the same form as the equation for time's dilation between a moving object and one at rest relative to the other. Why is this so? Is this some sort of common form that relativity equations take? Is there a link here between mass and time, or force, or something of the like? Thanks, and awesome video!
Ass acceleration increases, mass decreases. Hot water (accelerated molecules) has less mass than cold water. Solar sails are heating up and radiating mass into space. F=ma and E=mc^2 shows that mass decreases as acceleration increases. Even if you could keep solar sales from being reduced to massless objects (some sort of cooling), they would have the same amount of mass. Kinetic energy would increase but not mass. To increase mass, you would need to capture that radiant energy and convert it to mass, aka photosynthesis.
Hi eugene,plz make video about free fall acceleration why all objects regardless their mass fall freely with same acceleration, how spacetime or relativity theory explains this...plz it's request....thx
Gaurav Sharma I already have a video that covers this. This is explained at the end of my video titled "Laws of Motion - Newton and Beyond." You can find the link to it on my TH-cam home page. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky a real person, like the person that recorded google voice or a real person like a person that recorded for those videos? I feel like being trolled
It is the voice of my friend, Kira Vincent, who does the narration for all my videos. The fact that she is the narrator is written on the screen at the end of my videos.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky cool... I've watched the video until the very end, but entered lethargic mode when the lecture ended. Those are some nice videos you've got, very high quality work overall, text, animations, narrating... keep up with the good work. I'd suggest more vids about advanced mechanics, like the one you did about stability. Very few stuff on the internet. Not even Khan, for instance, talks about it...
h0Nt667 The fact that relativistic mass does not behave like normal mass is one of the reasons many people think that relativistic mass does not actually exist, and that it is just a mathematical construct.
The expressions Relativistic Mass is confusing. Think of an object. It has two kind of masses. One is the Rest Mass or Gravitational Mass. This one is fixed and is the one you consider for the gravitational interaction. But when you consider the equation F= m·a, that mass is the Inertial Mass, because if inertia is the tendency of an object to keep staying in the same state, the higher the inertia (the inertial mass), the higher the force needed to accelerate this object. And surprise, the Relativistic mass IS the Inertial Mass. As Eugene pointed out, the Rel. Mass equation is Rel.Mass = Rest mass / [1 - (v^2 / c^2)]. For a still object, v is zero and the two masses are indentical. For small speeds (human speeds), the ratio at the denominator is quite small and negligible, making the ratio Inertial Mass / Rest Mass just a little bit higher than 1 (1 plus "10 to the minus something"), which for small speeds makes F= ma usable with the Rest Mass. But as I said, the Inertial Mass is the one to consider while engaging forces, and that mass is a function of the speed of the object. As the speed of the object increases, the ratio v2/ c2 is no more negligible! This makes the denominator smaller... And this means that the INERTIAL mass of an object INCREASES with speed. The more the mass, the higher the force to create an acceleration. This is why the so-called Relativistic Mass behaves differently from "normal mass". Because the "normal mass" is the one creating the gravitational field of the object (by warping space etc etc), but the Inertial Mass is the one you have to consider when you want to accelerate an object, because the object will try to keep its state, offering a resistance to the force, which limits the acceleration you can get with the same force by the Newton's Law F= ma (or better, dp/dt = ma, where p is the momentum). Is that a bit clearer now?
The moon circling the earth image looks like the moon could collide with the Earth at any second. Why doesn't that seem to be happening? In fact the moon is slowly getting further from the earth in reality.
Relativistic mass is only apparent. Of course this means that you are unable to explain why it is not possible to accelerate an object to the speed of light.
Your videos are very good!!! To represent relativistic mass we can place the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time between the energy and mass of Einstein’s famous equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞
E=MC^2 is simply invalid for two very important reasons. First, C is max Acceleration and, therefore, no A exists beyond C. This means adding any value to C is invalid. Thus, multiplying C by M or squaring C is impossible - let alone doing both at the same time! Second, and the real reason this equation is invalid is because mass doesn't actually exist. M is only an apparent value; it's not real or true. This is a long-standing issue going back to Classical Greece. The fact is no one has ever challenged the concept of mass. I can elaborate but I don't think anyone is going to read my comment anyway. The mistake made in this video, as with many other claims out there, is in mixing Special Relativity (SR) with General Relativity (GR) by using both the above equation (mass-energy equivalence from SR) with relativistic mass (from GR). These theories are distinct and don't so easily overlap. Wanting to believe does not make true.
ratamacue0 You are free to make such claims; however, you are making a common mistake in assuming C is only the speed of light. In that case your assertion would be correct; however, in Einstein's equation mass is being accelerated to the speed of light from a relativistic rest. Energy is the result. Einstein didn't stray as far from Newton as your assertion suggests. F still equals MA. "A" as in acceleration.
+DK Kempion no bro the C in the equation doesnt necessarily mean its "doing" anything its just a constant which is derived from working out the energy for a body in relativistic motion minus its kinetic energy mv^2/2
Imagine a rocket with endless fuel. This rocket has inertia. First fuel will be used to overwin inertia. Assume a stable amount of fuel to produce a stable propulsion force is available. Now relativity formulas say the faster the rocket goes the more energy it has. But this applies to the rocket fuel too. The faster the rocket goes the more energy per mass unit the fuel has. So actually you need less fuel per time to keep acceleration the faster the rocket goes. This relativistic energy changes the rockets inertia. But at a certain point relativistic energy suddenly rises exponentially causing exponential inertia for the rocket when approaching light speed. E=(mc^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 and according to this formula both the energy potential of the rocket fuel and inertia of the rocket rise incredible so despite endless theoretical fuel lightspeed cannot be reached. But the good news is, the faster the rocket goes the more potent energy its fuel has as long as you keep below a certain treshold. Meaning to for example keep acceleration with 1g you need less and less fuel because of this relativistic phenomenon. But lightspeed can never been reached though. Regards, and thanks to the person telling me electron and positron create gamma rays when they meet each other. ( 511 kilo electron volt for each gamma photon. )
Eugene Khutoryancky, the fact is, that definitely Einstein thought, the relativistic energy-mass does have inertial mass ability. And as we know inertial mass and gravitational mass have same value or are identical, so we have to use indeed the larger relativisticaly caused masses for gravitational calculations. In this video You tell, that to accelerate a fast moving object becomes more and more difficult. By increasing inertial mass! And that mass is gravitational mass too. It is a good document of how wrong physicians do understand relativity. As did Einstein too. In GRT only time and lenght are relativistically changed, but not mass. Fact, but why I didnt find any answer.
If the gravitational mass really did change, then this means that if you move near the speed of light relative to a star, then from your point of view, the star would form a black hole, because from your point of view it is the star that is moving near the speed of light. However, this is a contradiction, because all observers in all reference frames should agree on whether or not the star forms a black hole. You might be interested in my video on Gravito-electromagnetism where I explain the gravitational effects of moving objects in more detail: th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html
To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available).
--To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable.
--To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video.
--If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
So time dilation as you approach the speed of light can be interpreted as an increase in inertia. You become harder to accelerate. And what is resistance to acceleration? Inertia. Your inertia is increasing as you go faster and faster. You become harder to accelerate. Most of the energy that is put into increasing your velocity goes into increasing your inertia. What do you think Eugene? Do you agree with this?
I love your simulations. I bet Einstein would be pleased that you are able to communicate his ideas through simulation.
In case, you have not already seen them, I also uploaded several other videos recently. As always, for each video that you like, you can help more people find it in their TH-cam search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Thanks.
How come your videooutput increased by like 100 times?
Eugene Khutoryansky I really like your videos, keep them coming.
+Feynstein100 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was told that gravity affects objects which have momentum, which both something with mass, and a photon have. Is that the reasoning for why light is affected by gravity? Or is it something else?
Michael Bishop Light has a very small amount of momentum. I am not sure how much, but I think it does have momentum
Michael Bishop Oh, I've heard of that equation, isn't it
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
Awesome that you are updating this channel much more often now! :)
Jon L Thanks. And lots more videos are coming soon.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky .if ,the energy is infinitely used to any object.so,it will going into the future.you said that when a object is at rest motion,so it can change mass continously.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky .if ,the energy is infinitely used to any object.so,it will going into the future.you said that when a object is at rest motion,so it can change mass continously.
This is a great video. I am a pretty typical middle school student, and without this video I would be pretty lost. Thanks for the explanation of relativistic mass!
The gravitational attraction does not increase as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light. The relativistic mass of an object does increase, because of the fact that it requires an "infinite" amount of "Energy" in the equation e=mc^2. When you change this equation to determine the value of "m," you end up with e/c^2=m. At that point, you realize the value of e=infinity when the speed of light is achieved. As a result, the value of m is increased enormously, as well. At the speed of light, virtually 100% of the constant of "c" is devoted to moving through "space," while virtually 0% is devoted to moving through "time."
If you refer to rest mass as being constant, the equation for total energy in motion is:
E = (mc²)² + (pc)²^(1/2), where "p" is relativistic momentum and "m" is rest mass.
Alternatively, you can write E = γmc², where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), this is called the Lorentz factor.
And this factor actually gets bigger as you approach the speed of light, not the rest mass. Therefore, rest mass doesn't change as the energy increases.
After reading some discussions on the internet about this subject and thinking about it, I come to a slightly different conclusion:
The gravitational field of objects moving within the same system relative to each other never changes, but this is different for objects which are not in the same system and are moving extremely fast relative to each other.
For example, when the Earth and Moon would move at almost light speed relative to the rest of the solar system, Earth and Moon would indeed remain in the same relative orbit and would not fall to each other, but the gravity effect to the other, slow moving objects in the solar system would be much bigger. So gravity is relative, but it can change. It’s just like the relativity of time and length.
Why? This is simply because of the relativity of kinetic energy.
All energy contributes to inertia and to gravity, therefore increasing the “relativistic mass”, including kinetic energy.
And when we do not work with the definition of “relativistic mass”, then we are using the definition of “relativistic momentum”, and then it is correct to say that momentum affects gravity, because momentum is kinetic energy.
I just love the music you use. It's so fitting.
0:28 the correct equation is E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2
If the object is not moving then p=0,and we get back E=mc2
Then how do you explain photon inertia?
E=MoC2 for an object at rest. The. Einstein Mass Energy Equivelence with MOMENTUM is E2=m2c4 + p2c2
Andrew Karpinen That equation with momentum is for the case where it is rest mass that is used, instead of relativistic mass.
Eugene Khutoryansky Ahhh! Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Love this topic. Love the music. Love Eugene!!
@ Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky there’s one thing I want to input. Relativistic mass must affect the way it is affected by gravity. If it’s inertia changes as it’s speed increases, but the gravitational force on it does not, then that mean it would accelerate differently. The whole reason objects accelerate uniformly in a gravitational field is because the force in the object is exactly balanced by its inertia. So what I’m saying is that relativistic mass should increase how it’s affected by gravity, but it’s also increasing it’s inertia, so the effect cancels and it still accelerates the same as all other objects in a gravitational field. Does that make sense?
If you want to REALLY understand Special Relativity, then I suggest you look at the demonstration videos here: www.energyfieldtheory.com/demos
The length contraction comes about due to the different Doppler shifts of the upstream and downstream wave components in the standing waves that make up matter.
The standing wave nodes automatically get closer together by a factor determined by the Lorentz factor when the waves become Doppler shifted.
Also, the rate of time automatically slows due to the anisotropy in the speed of light through the moving frame of reference, combined with the Doppler shifted waves.
You can see this is box 3 of the demonstration video on the webpage (link given above).
And, the mass (not rest mass as we are talking about objects that are moving fast, not at rest) DOES get larger, as the mass is the equivalent of the energy in the waves that form the standing waves of the particles. The energy of the standing waves is the sum of the upstream and downstream waves (over the contracted length of the object) and it comes out to EXACTLY the rest mass multiplied by the Lorentz factor! Coincidence? I think not... See this paper that proves that the Relativistic mass increase is real and makes perfect sense once you understand what is actually going on to the Electromagnetic waves that make up particles when they move fast: www.researchgate.net/publication/326647422_Relativistic_Mass_Increase_Explained
If you can open your mind on this issue and want to learn more about how thing REALLY are, then please explore my other papers here: www.researchgate.net/profile/Declan-Traill/research
I love your videos, just wanted to let you know :)
Daniel Lassander Thanks. That's great to hear. Lots more videos are on their way.
It is weird. Imagine we have 2 clocks: 1 is dead, 1 is working. According to Einstein's relativity, the clock that is working will have its part moving, therefore it is heavier than the clock that is dead. But we know that the difference of mass between both clocks affects their weights due to earth's gravity. Thus, it means that relativistic mass must affect gravity.
Weight is a force whereas rest mass is not. Relativistic mass is related to forces, and therefore to weight. But the effect of an object on gravity is a function of rest mass, not its relativistic mass.
and what if it is a digital clock?? no moving parts.. and it has to be travelling near light speed to have relativistic mass???
@noob94884 no it's doesn't need to be traveling that fast to have relativistic mass. The faster it moves the more it will have that's why it's exponentially harder to get things close to the speed of light their mass gets bigger n bigger and takes more energy to move it.
Increasing the mass of an electron is easy. But to keep energy trapped as mass that's difficult. Everyone having 2 mirrors is able to reflect photons in the visible spectrum from one mirror to the other mirror which gives the 'illusion' of a virtual space that exceeds the actual space. This is called recursion. A photon hits an electron in one mirror. Now an electron will orbit higher around its atom(s). However now very soon the electron will fall back to its original orbit. And hereby emitting a photon - although when the photon has enough energy the electron is too excited and leaves the atom. - (Photo Electric Effect) It is very important to know that the second photon emitted after the first photon excited the electron has a fraction less of energy. Therefore in this recursive virtual 'illusive' space photons will loose energy and there fore will shift in frequency. Which means that from the perspective of the photon the space between the 2 mirrors is actually folded. From our perspective we see this as infinity between the 2 mirrors, however try this experiment for yourself. Align the mirrors vertically. By theory described here for example a blue photon emitter like a blue laser will at end shift into infra red and finally out of visible spectrum. Now comes another important probability. Make sure the mirrors are as far away from each other as you can. In human practically setups it is not possible to observe this red shift frequency. (photon loosing energy while bouncing from one mirror to the other) because light speed is to high for this experiment to notice -at small scale- this assumed phenomenon. Now one can conclude perhaps a simple fact. From the photon's point of view it looks like space it travels is folded. And so we/I call this FOLDED SPACES by POINT OF VIEW. Compare this to a marble trapped between 2 walls. Put the marble in motion. The marble will hit a wall and will reflect to the other wall until all energy of motion (momentum) in the marble is lost (increasing inertia). This makes you asking yourself where did the energy of the trapped photons between the mirrors go? Yes the photons excited electrons. Yes energy was transferred into mass. Here we see a transformation of real energy into existing mass - THE EXCITED ELECTRON. However why is the electron not able to keep its increased mass? Because the electron orbits the atom/atoms it needs energy to sustain momentum. This is not possible for the electron and ATRACTIVE FORCE from the atom core - PROTONS - force the electron to release mass so mass is transferred back to energy - the emitted photon - again. But remember, the excited photon according theory has a very tiny fraction LESS of energy than photon which excited this electron. The most promosing fact is that with photons we are actually able to create mass, but at the cost of an incredible small amount of energy. However as said we are not yet able to sustain this energy to mass conversion in the excited electron. This is what we/I mean with zerofication of the universe. For a photon time does not exist. This is reason to assume described folded space theory. However it must not be forgotten that the original photon is lost and final photon is of a totally different magnitude.
Why it is 0 is because of laws of Thermodynamics. Since the universe exists there must be something opposite to not break this law. What I say is not only was their our Big Bang, but there was an opposite Big Bang somewhere else. But this is assuming Thermodynamics law is not broken in the creation of our universe. When fusion is concerned a tiny bit of mass is lost. Helium is not as heavy as 2 times Hydrogen. The same applies to Fission. But then also mass is lost but with fission a heavier element can be created and again a tiny fraction of mass is lost. Although a lot of energy is released. And all these tiny bits of energy lost will make the universe zerofied. So the law of Thermodynamics in theory stands.
You get the world record for longest comment on TH-cam.
@@enveloreal and most skipped
you should do a video on non-euclidean geometry soon,
it would be great!
Eduardo Policarpo Yes, that is on my list of videos that I would eventually like to make. Thanks.
Could the failure of relativistic mass to play a role in gravitational attraction be due to gravito-electromagnetic effects?
Because, our solar system move with one constant speed, the speed of light, so just try put that speed into calculation (change v=c in gamma term), and you'll get the answer
Another brilliant video! You are a genius. Thanks again!
jdigi82 Thanks for that really great compliment. I am glad you liked the video.
"If a spaceship's speed is equal to the speed of light, then an infinite force would be required to increase the spaceship's speed even further"
Not quite correct. You need an infinite amount of force just to get the spaceship to the speed of light to begin with.
YellowKazooie Both statements are correct. We would need an infinite amount of force to reach the speed of light, and then we would also need an infinite amount of force to go even faster.
sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Infinite is infinite. You can't apply an infinite force two times.
What is surprising is that in the animation the ship is going slower than light, so I thought it was just an error in the text above it
YellowKazooie Actually, we can't apply an infinite force even once. You are correct that it is not possible for an object with mass to travel at exactly the speed of light, as the speed must always be slightly less than the speed of light, which is why I made the animation the way I did. In the text, I was just saying that if the spaceship was hypothetically going at the speed of light, then an infinite amount of force would be required to move it even faster, leaving aside the fact that the spaceship would never get to that speed in the first place.
What will happen if spaceship will acquire velocity = c ?
@@shilpaverma8732 Time will stop.
how do you know your velocity in space? from your point of view your mass should be always the same because you are always still and the rest of the universe is moving!
Awsome videos, great explanation and incredible choice of music, excellent work, keep them coming.
Thanks for the compliments. More videos are on their way.
Much of this video is mainly correct, however it not true that the inertial mass explained in the video, is different in magnitude to gravitational mass, as this equivalence is actually the principle upon which Einstein's theory of General Relativity is founded. All objects have an agreed rest mass but their relativistic mass depends on the relative speed of the observer. The source in Einstein's field equation is (for stationary observers) the rest mass (and also energy and momentum/stress terms) but for observers approaching a large gravitational mass at high speed, there are relativistic transformations in the distance, time and mass and this is all accommodated in the tensor formulation of his field equations. [For more details cf. General relativity: A concise guide for beginners" available from LULU.com as an electronic download as is the precursor on special relativity.]
+Prom Etheus, I never said that the inertial mass was different than the gravitational mass. What I said was that you can use relativistic mass in the equation F=mA but not in the equation for gravity. In General Relativity, gravity is not even a force, and hence the equation for forces wouldn't apply anyway.
+Eugene Khutoryansky
Thanks for the clarification Eugene, however my main point I wanted to add, is that the source term in the field equation (a rank 2 tensor), automatically accommodates the relativistic change in space-time and the mass of the gravitational source, (for individual observers moving at different speeds.) This of course was one of the problems with Newton’s law, in that
different observers would observe a different gravitational mass and hence force for the Sun. This is not a problem in Einstein’s theory, in which both sides of his field equation are covariant. Even though different observers measure
a different relativistic mass for a star and a different distance between the star and a planet in orbit, the same field equation is still valid.
F=ma is not true even using the concept of relativistic mass.
BlueCosmology f=ma is not true why?explain me bro.
Pretty sure that all forms of energy constituting mass and therefore gravitational field is one of the cornerstones of general relativity.
So does the slower time compensate increased inertia? How about an object on earth at 1 m height? If Earth travels at velocity near c then slower time would compensate the increased potential energy.
You are much better than khan academy in explaining things. And the visuals are excellent.
khan have some awesome math lessons dude
Your videos have inspired me to make my own videos on a brief introduction to radiochemistry. Thank you for your time and work!
How's that video coming along?
if mass increases by 250% and velocity decreases by 20% calculate the % change in momentum and Kinetic energy?
please answer sir
%change in momentum= 180%
%change in kinetic energy= 124%
(in classical physics, v must be small compared to c)
How fast is gravitational interactions? Think it this way. When will earth go off from the orbit around sun when the sun disappeared in a moment. Would it be instantly or 8 mins later like light?
I have watched your videos many times both the art and scientific value are exceptional, thank you for driving this content.
Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you like my videos.
Does that mean that it would be hard for the person inside the ship to move around when traveling close to speed of light (due to inertial increase)?
According to everything thing he's said, everything would appear normal to anyone in the spaceship -- because he isn't moving at all from his point of view.
Motion & Mass are equivalent & mutually convertible. In annihilation mass of electron & positron changes to motion of photons which convert back to mass of electron & positron during pair production. In nuclear reactions also mass changes to motion of neutrons & gamma photons released by atoms. As meteors pass through earth atmosphere they slow down due air resistance. They heat up and emit heat & light radiations which are electromagnetic waves. Photons emitted by meteors against loss of motion can be converted to mass. Therefoe we can call relativistic mass as kinetic mass as motion can be converted to mass.
So relativistic mass is related to the energy required to speed up an object in motion and rest mass is the standard Density * Volume which is used to calculate gravitation pull, correct?
Thank you for making these videos!!!! How much work goes into each one? The animation is very detailed.
TheThePinkPrincess77 Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you like them. In reply to your question, the amount of time necessary to make the animations varies for each video. For example, the animations for my video on Thermodynamics, and the animations for my video on Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism each took several months to make. Though, this video on Relativistic Mass did not take very long at all, due to the fact that for many of the scenes, I was able to reuse animations I had already made for some of my previous videos. Thanks.
***** For the 3D animations, I use "Poser" from Smith Micro.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky
I am a little bit confused. I thought that the relativistic mass is the source of the gravitational field. Because the source is the energy-momentum-tenstor, which also includes the kinetic energy of an object. For example if one takes serious the quark model, which concludes that only a little fraction of the effective mass of the proton is due to the rest mass of their constituents, the gravitational effect of all barionic objects would only be that little fraction as big as in a model, where the mass of the proton is considered to be its rest mass. But as I am informed there would not be a difference between such two models regarding the effect on gravity, would it?
The kinetic energy does contribute to the curvature of space-time, but it is more complicated than just using relativistic mass instead of rest mass. I cover some of this in my video on Gravito-electromagnetism at
th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html
And I also have a much more advanced video explaining Einstein's Field Equations at th-cam.com/video/UfThVvBWZxM/w-d-xo.html
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky
But if this effect of increased energy requirements to accelerate at higher speeds is called "relativistic mass", then does this mean, that DECREASING the speed of an object moving close to the speed of light costs the same amount of energy as to increase the speed?
Because if it doesn't cost the same, then using the relativistic mass in equations doesn't give the same results as using rest mass, because you would need different amounts of mass depending on the direction of force
if it wasn't the same, there would probably be a way to extract infinite energy from the system
Is it harder to just increase velocity further or is it harder to change velocity at all (changing direction, slowing down)? Because if it's the former, it doesn't really seem to make sense to call it 'mass' regardless if you separate it from gravitational mass because that doesn't really seem to be what inertia is.
The acceleration is greater if the force is perpendicular to the direction of motion. The acceleration is less if the force is parallel to the direction of motion. For this reason, Einstein originally had a variable for "transverse mass" and a variable for "longitudinal mass."
@@EugeneKhutoryansky That's really interesting. Seems like Special and General Relativity breaks Newtonian Mechanics in more ways than I thought. So what's causing this weird effect? Is it due to length contraction so there's a difference "force density" applied parallel vs perpendicular? Or am I guessing wrong?
This happens because the total velocity changes more if you add/subtract an extra small velocity vector parallel to the present velocity, than if you add the same extra small velocity vector perpendicular to the present velocity.
Like the cosmological constant, could the “relativistic mass” be another one of Einstein’s “blunders” or “regrets” that ultimately has some sort of deep physical meaning rooted in physical reality?
@Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky
I'm a bit confused. Another physicist on TH-cam said that an object in motion (like a satellite orbiting a planet) makes its own stress energy tensor, and so bends space-time more. Which is correct?
Motion does affect the curvature of Space-Time, but not in a straightforward way. The following two videos may be helpful.
Simple video: Gravito-electromagnetism -- th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html
Advanced video: Einstein's Field Equations -- th-cam.com/video/UfThVvBWZxM/w-d-xo.html
Relativistic mass is just gamma times mass (γm). So your mass is not actually increasing, but gamma is. And gamma is just a function of velocity (γ = 1/(sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2))). 😁
Correct me if I'm wrong about this historical question.
but did Einstein derive E=mc² from relativistic mass, and then the equation is actually true but for rest mass by coincidence?
I think that aspects of this video are somewhat misleading. For example, as an object's kinetic energy increases, then due to E=mc^2 its inertial (relativistic mass) increases, and to re-express this as being an 'alternative way in which it will reacts to a force', is unnecessary. More importantly, the statement that the gravitational mass of an object does not increase with speed, even though its inertial (relativistic) mass does, flies in the face of the main axiom of General Relativity viz. the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.[This is one of the reasons for the Gamma factor occurring in the stress tensor.]
Holy shit dude
I believe your primary misconception here with regards to her definitions of mass is that relativistic mass is NOT inertial mass. Inertial mass is equivalent, as you said, to what we can call the "gravitational charge", i.e. m = F/a. Relativistic mass is essentially saying that m'=m/¥ (pretend the denominator is a gamma). Thus inertial mass is the rest mass is the gravitational mass, and relativistic mass is the inertial mass divided by rad[1-(v/c)^2].
I don't think you had a misconception in the theory itself, rather I think you may have possibly misunderstood what she was getting at. At least, that's how I interpreted it.
Personally, I much prefer using the equation E = ¥mc^2 out of the sheer conceptual convenience, and that at low speeds we obtain E=mc^2 anyways.
Gotta love that Lorentz transformation!
I didn't know that there was relativistic mass concept opposition. What would the other camp be called? Something related to forces?
So, if I understand correctly, f=m*a doesnt hold if we exclude the relativistic mass? Since accelarating an object at high speed requires more energy thus more force?
+Bart Kwezelstaart, that is correct.
Thanks for the (quick) response!
It still applies but mass becomes a function of velocity instead of a constant.
What's the name of the Background music?
Moonlight_Sonata_by_Beethoven from the free TH-cam audio library
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you!
So are gravitational mass and rest mass the same, at least in classical mechanics? And What about the Expanded form of the equation, E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2? Isn't this the equation for a moving object?
electrocat1 The equation you wrote is valid if rest mass is used in the equation, instead of relativistic mass. And yes, rest mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. In classical mechanics, there was only one kind of mass.
Eugene Khutoryansky By classical mechanics, I meant non-quantum mechanics. But thank you.
If I am moving close to the speed of light in a spaceship and I fire up the engine so that a constant force is provided, what would I experience in regards to my velocity?
+Alexander Bray, from the perspective of an outside observer, the speed of the ship would get closer and closer to the speed of light, but never reach it. From your own perspective, you would think that the space ship has always been standing still, and is continuing to remain still, and you would think that there is an extra gravitational field throughout the universe, exactly balancing out the force from your rockets.
So I would witness the universe around me experiencing more and more length contraction and time dilation just us the outside observers would witness me exhibiting those increasing relativistic effects?
+Alexander Bray, yes. To you, everything inside the spaceship will always look normal.
Thanks again for the clarification Eugene. Can I ask what sort of work you do aside from making these amazing videos?
I'm confused... Here people clearly state that motion changes gravitation field. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63961/does-relativistic-mass-have-weight. Thus a moving object is "heavier". What do I miss?
oh my god now im absolutely confused who do I believe!?
Sir i think that my majority of friends after studying higgs field and higgs boson have started thinking that thr mass of a particle indeed increases ad it moves with relativistic speed because it intracts more with tje higgs field . Sir please tell me is this right or a misconception
Can I say that photon would be affected by gravity because of their relativistic mass?
A photon always has zero mass. Photons are affected by gravity because gravity is a curvature of space-time, and even massless objects are affected by the curvature of space-time.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Mass of human body is relativistic mass or rest mass? Because we are made up of particles with a lot of kinetic and potential energy which manifest itself as mass right?
@@EugeneKhutoryansky For example, microscopically, if kinetic energy of molecules increase, the mass of of water increase according E=mc2. Macroscopically, if kinetic energy of object increases, why mass (relativistic) of object does not increase as well? I could not understand why the concept "relativistic mass" is being rejected.
Eugene Khutoryansky, I'd like to ask you an unrelated question please. If you dont respond no biggie, I've always pondered a question I have and have never ran across the same idea. That is "We know that SPACE itself is expanding and not the Universe, however I question is there a possibility that all things in the Universe EXCEPT Space infinitely SHRINKING? I don't see where it would look any differently than what we observe now, and (loosely speaking) sounds just as Crazy as an Infinite Expansion. I'd like to disprove or rule this out so that I can free up some RAM on the Hard drive in my head. Thank you, I really like to know what you think.
Andrew Karpinen We know that the distances between the stars inside a Galaxy is not increasing. It is only the distances between Galaxies that is increasing. I think this would rule out the theory that everything other than space is shrinking, since this would mean that it would appear that the distances between stars inside a Galaxy would also appear to increase, but we know that this is not the case.
Eugene Khutoryansky Wow! Thanks very much for answering my question and with enough detail explaining it. Simple, and works for me. Really I appreciate this very much.
It's not the gravitational mass that increases, it's the inertial mass of an object. The gravitational mass is different than inertial mass irrespective of the state of motion. Moreover, these values are not equal. The Newtons law of Gravity uses gravitational mass whereas his second law of motion F=ma uses inertial mass.
ok... a simple thought experiment...
You have a spaceship in empty space,
He is always stationary to it's self.
He starts accelerating from it's starting point by 1m/s that requires a force of 1N.
He has now accelerated to 50% of the speed of light from it's starting point.
BUT relative to it self, it's still stationary object and it's not moving at all...
THEREFOR it's accelerating from 0 again even tho relative to it's starting point it's traveling at 50% of the speed of light...
In that manner, you can go infinite speed and your mass will stay the same relative to it self... so you will still be needing just 1N of force to keep the same acceleration...
I cover that in my video at th-cam.com/video/qhVgIW4_-AQ/w-d-xo.html
@@EugeneKhutoryansky the law wont be violated by saras perspective nor the guy on the ships perspective, but given the condition i gave...
If the guy on the ship mesures the distance traveled from his starting point and now, you will realize he waas traveling at the speed of light at some point compared to his starting point, even tho you wont be able to mesure it from any reference point for the same reason you have a cosmic event horisont..
This phenomenon*
Phenomena is plural
But can rest mass be converted into other types of energy according to E = mc^2? And could the phenomenon you describe also be explained by time dilation, since F = m*a and acceleration as a concept requires time?
Well, yes, when matter and anti-matter come into contact, they annihilate and their rest mass is converted to EM radiation energy.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link:
th-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=AU_O9yrgwhk&ref=share
You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately.
Details about adding translations is available at
support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en
Thanks.
Hello, from general relativity is not the source of gravity not mass but energy and momentum ? Why relativistic mass adn energy is not causing bigger attraction when object has higher energy ?
I cover this in detail in my video on Gravito-electromagnetism at th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html
Fantastic video. You explain topics quite well.
Kent A. Vander Velden Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you liked it.
Great video. I just wanted to know what the song in the background was.
Moonlight_Sonata_by_Beethoven from the free TH-cam audio library,
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky thank you
An infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate any mass to the speed of light, not to exceed it. Am I wrong?
That is correct.
Then what changes as you go faster that prevents and object from going faster than light. Why do you need an infinite amount of energy at light speed but less than that at anything below it. If you are traveling at 99.999999999% light speed and you need a lot of energy to get you there (let's say a ridiculously large number) why does it then jump to infinity at the light speed barrier? No matter how big the amount of energy is infinity is infinitely bigger, which makes it tough for me to understand the answer.
Mark G The equation for relativistic mass is
Relativistic Mass = Rest Mass / square_root (1- [velocity^2 / speed_of_light^2])
As the velocity approaches the speed of light, the denominator in that equation approaches zero. And as the denominator approaches zero, the equation approaches infinity.
Eugene Khutoryansky Thank you kindly for the reply, but what I have always heard is that the energy of motion is converted to mass. I will not claim to have studied Special Relativity in detail so my knowledge on this subject might in fact be ignorance. I thought that as you move faster you are creating greater warping in spacetime and as you approach light speed it would be similar to creating a black hole because all of that energy would cause that part of space to be warped tremendously by the energy of the acceleration of the object. I appreciate the equations and understand they hold firm, but when I understand something it is in pictures or at the least concepts. This is not always easy with ideas such as Entanglement and Coherence. If you have a moment I would appreciate any sort of reply.
Mark G You would not create a black hole by moving close to the speed of light, because your gravitational mass does not increase as you move faster. If this were not the case, then from your point of view, everything other object in the Universe would become a black hole, due to the fact that from your perspective, you are standing still, and it is the rest of the Universe that is moving at close to the speed of light.
Eugene Khutoryansky I noticed that the equation describing the relationship between relativistic mass and rest mass has the same form as the equation for time's dilation between a moving object and one at rest relative to the other. Why is this so? Is this some sort of common form that relativity equations take? Is there a link here between mass and time, or force, or something of the like? Thanks, and awesome video!
Awesome video, Thanks for making it!
blake301987 Glad you liked it. Thanks.
What is the minimum accelerating rate to become infinite mass according to special relativity theory 🤔?
light speed??
Ass acceleration increases, mass decreases. Hot water (accelerated molecules) has less mass than cold water. Solar sails are heating up and radiating mass into space. F=ma and
E=mc^2 shows that mass decreases as acceleration increases.
Even if you could keep solar sales from being reduced to massless objects (some sort of cooling), they would have the same amount of mass. Kinetic energy would increase but not mass. To increase mass, you would need to capture that radiant energy and convert it to mass, aka photosynthesis.
Hi eugene,plz make video about free fall acceleration why all objects regardless their mass fall freely with same acceleration, how spacetime or relativity theory explains this...plz it's request....thx
Gaurav Sharma I already have a video that covers this. This is explained at the end of my video titled "Laws of Motion - Newton and Beyond." You can find the link to it on my TH-cam home page. Thanks.
Awesome stuff, keep up the great work.
Alan Douglas Thanks. Lots more videos are on their way.
what is meaning of "rest"? "rest" is relative to what?
rest mass mean that the mass of an object when the object is not in motion or the object is at zero velocity
+Fathur Rachman Motion of one is always relative to another. any object in earth is not in rest as earth is in motion to sun!
Relative to anything. Energy is not absolute it is relative as well. Crazy i kno.
Please explain me theoretically how mass increases when v=c
Beautiful voice. Can't tell though whether this is computer generated or actual reading.
It is the voice of a real person.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky a real person, like the person that recorded google voice or a real person like a person that recorded for those videos? I feel like being trolled
It is the voice of my friend, Kira Vincent, who does the narration for all my videos. The fact that she is the narrator is written on the screen at the end of my videos.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky cool... I've watched the video until the very end, but entered lethargic mode when the lecture ended.
Those are some nice videos you've got, very high quality work overall, text, animations, narrating... keep up with the good work.
I'd suggest more vids about advanced mechanics, like the one you did about stability. Very few stuff on the internet. Not even Khan, for instance, talks about it...
"Phenomena" is plural; "phenomenon" is singular.
I still don't get this concept of "relativistic mass". Why should not it behave like normal mass?
h0Nt667 The fact that relativistic mass does not behave like normal mass is one of the reasons many people think that relativistic mass does not actually exist, and that it is just a mathematical construct.
The expressions Relativistic Mass is confusing. Think of an object. It has two kind of masses. One is the Rest Mass or Gravitational Mass. This one is fixed and is the one you consider for the gravitational interaction. But when you consider the equation F= m·a, that mass is the Inertial Mass, because if inertia is the tendency of an object to keep staying in the same state, the higher the inertia (the inertial mass), the higher the force needed to accelerate this object. And surprise, the Relativistic mass IS the Inertial Mass. As Eugene pointed out, the Rel. Mass equation is
Rel.Mass = Rest mass / [1 - (v^2 / c^2)]. For a still object, v is zero and the two masses are indentical. For small speeds (human speeds), the ratio at the denominator is quite small and negligible, making the ratio Inertial Mass / Rest Mass just a little bit higher than 1 (1 plus "10 to the minus something"), which for small speeds makes F= ma usable with the Rest Mass. But as I said, the Inertial Mass is the one to consider while engaging forces, and that mass is a function of the speed of the object. As the speed of the object increases, the ratio v2/ c2 is no more negligible! This makes the denominator smaller... And this means that the INERTIAL mass of an object INCREASES with speed. The more the mass, the higher the force to create an acceleration. This is why the so-called Relativistic Mass behaves differently from "normal mass". Because the "normal mass" is the one creating the gravitational field of the object (by warping space etc etc), but the Inertial Mass is the one you have to consider when you want to accelerate an object, because the object will try to keep its state, offering a resistance to the force, which limits the acceleration you can get with the same force by the Newton's Law F= ma (or better, dp/dt = ma, where p is the momentum). Is that a bit clearer now?
Owls always know what time it is.
Even if i don't really understand this, and what it means in our live, it's beautifull anyway!
all these things lie upon 1 fact. i.e , speed of light is constant for all the observers. i wonder why it is so.
Your logo is amazing 😊
Great video as always!
Theenerd ジェームズ Thanks. I am glad you liked it.
The moon circling the earth image looks like the moon could collide with the Earth at any second. Why doesn't that seem to be happening? In fact the moon is slowly getting further from the earth in reality.
Absolutely flawless.
Relativistic mass is only apparent. Of course this means that you are unable to explain why it is not possible to accelerate an object to the speed of light.
I wish amazing things for you and your loved ones.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Wery god video rly enjoy pls do more
Background music sounds so spooky😨😨
Your videos are very good!!! To represent relativistic mass we can place the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time between the energy and mass of Einstein’s famous equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞
how i calculate transformer. and thankyou for this video.
So many great videos
MrCristie1 I am glad you like them. Thanks.
As always, Awsome Video :)
Odin 7 Thanks. I am glad you liked it.
Great job as always
cocoarecords Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you liked the video.
awesome.
Thanks.
you must explain very deeply
i had not understood many things:(
E=MC^2 is simply invalid for two very important reasons. First, C is max Acceleration and, therefore, no A exists beyond C. This means adding any value to C is invalid. Thus, multiplying C by M or squaring C is impossible - let alone doing both at the same time! Second, and the real reason this equation is invalid is because mass doesn't actually exist. M is only an apparent value; it's not real or true. This is a long-standing issue going back to Classical Greece. The fact is no one has ever challenged the concept of mass. I can elaborate but I don't think anyone is going to read my comment anyway.
The mistake made in this video, as with many other claims out there, is in mixing Special Relativity (SR) with General Relativity (GR) by using both the above equation (mass-energy equivalence from SR) with relativistic mass (from GR). These theories are distinct and don't so easily overlap. Wanting to believe does not make true.
DK Kempion Your explanation goes wrong already in your second sentence, since c is a velocity (m/s), not an acceleration (m/(s^2)).
ratamacue0
While C is also max velocity, in this equation its role is as acceleration.
DK Kempion I've shown by the units alone how you're mistaken. Your retort amounts to little more than "nah-uh".
ratamacue0
You are free to make such claims; however, you are making a common mistake in assuming C is only the speed of light. In that case your assertion would be correct; however, in Einstein's equation mass is being accelerated to the speed of light from a relativistic rest. Energy is the result. Einstein didn't stray as far from Newton as your assertion suggests. F still equals MA. "A" as in acceleration.
+DK Kempion no bro the C in the equation doesnt necessarily mean its "doing" anything its just a constant which is derived from working out the energy for a body in relativistic motion minus its kinetic energy mv^2/2
Imagine a rocket with endless fuel. This rocket has inertia. First fuel will be used to overwin inertia. Assume a stable amount of fuel to produce a stable propulsion force is available. Now relativity formulas say the faster the rocket goes the more energy it has. But this applies to the rocket fuel too. The faster the rocket goes the more energy per mass unit the fuel has. So actually you need less fuel per time to keep acceleration the faster the rocket goes. This relativistic energy changes the rockets inertia. But at a certain point relativistic energy suddenly rises exponentially causing exponential inertia for the rocket when approaching light speed. E=(mc^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 and according to this formula both the energy potential of the rocket fuel and inertia of the rocket rise incredible so despite endless theoretical fuel lightspeed cannot be reached. But the good news is, the faster the rocket goes the more potent energy its fuel has as long as you keep below a certain treshold. Meaning to for example keep acceleration with 1g you need less and less fuel because of this relativistic phenomenon. But lightspeed can never been reached though. Regards, and thanks to the person telling me electron and positron create gamma rays when they meet each other. ( 511 kilo electron volt for each gamma photon. )
Thanks for the video!
Thanks.
'This' is singular, 'phenomena' plural.
Thanks mam for this information
the background music
is quite depressing
Eugene Khutoryancky, the fact is, that definitely Einstein thought, the relativistic energy-mass does have inertial mass ability. And as we know inertial mass and gravitational mass have same value or are identical, so we have to use indeed the larger relativisticaly caused masses for gravitational calculations. In this video You tell, that to accelerate a fast moving object becomes more and more difficult. By increasing inertial mass! And that mass is gravitational mass too.
It is a good document of how wrong physicians do understand relativity. As did Einstein too.
In GRT only time and lenght are relativistically changed, but not mass. Fact, but why I didnt find any answer.
If the gravitational mass really did change, then this means that if you move near the speed of light relative to a star, then from your point of view, the star would form a black hole, because from your point of view it is the star that is moving near the speed of light. However, this is a contradiction, because all observers in all reference frames should agree on whether or not the star forms a black hole. You might be interested in my video on Gravito-electromagnetism where I explain the gravitational effects of moving objects in more detail: th-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/w-d-xo.html
what do u mean ha ?that mass does not increase with the increase of speed?then what einstein was wrong ?
That lady is She-Hulk part 2
How to go faster than light ,
Travel at the speed of light, time becomes 0, speed =d/t, speed becomes infinite
(It’s a joke)
Gostei!!!!!