On 08-Sep-02, Russell Standish wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Have a look at
> I'm still having a little trouble with the argument. Going
> into page 24, we have operationally defined p, E and m (ie no
> necessarily equal to the physical values).
> On page 24, Stengar demonstrates the classical relativity
> E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2 c^4
> and things like
> p -> mv, for v<<c ( where m is op. defined)
> E -> mc^2 + .5 mv^2
> However, there is nothing stopping m being a nonlinear
> function of the real mass of an object (nothing fixes the
> dimensions of p or E, for instance).
> If it could be demonstrated that the operationally defined m
> _must be_ proportional to the object's real mass, then the
> argument is clinched, since all else are arbitrary constants.
> This presentation is just a slightly more sophisitcated
> version of Stengar's.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the real mass". Stenger shows
that the rest mass m is the invariant that appears in the
E = m^2*c^2 + 0.5*m*v^2
So any operational definition (e.g. spring-mass-frequency) from
classical physics can be used to fix m.
However, it may be that I don't understand your point. I'm sure
Vic would welcome your comments. He invites them on his list,
avoid-l. Just say you'd like to join in an e-mail to
My brother rose thru his gravity, while contrariwise I sank due
to my levity.
--- Mark Twain