Advertisement

The relativistic mass increase for spinning systems

Part I. Mass quantization: The search for the basis states
Part of the Lecture Notes in Physics book series (LNP, volume 81)

Keywords

Special Relativity Gravitational Potential Inertial Frame Linear Motion Inertial Mass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References for Chapter 6

  1. 1a.
    The quotation by Max von Laue at the beginning of the chapter is from the article “Inertia and Energy,” which was published in the book Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Tudor Publishing Company, New York (1949).Google Scholar
  2. 1b.
    The quotation by Leonard Schiff at the beginning of the chapter is from his classic textbook Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, Second Edition (1955),page 331. Other textbooks are not in agreement with this viewpoint; for example, in the book Introduction to Modern Physics, McGraw-Hill, New York, Fifth Edition (1955), by F. K. Richtmyer, E. H. Kennard, and T. Lauritsen, a discussion is given on page 252 in which a rotating Lorentz electron has a relativistic distortion of the charge distribution which produces a change in the energy of the electron. The reason we included this quotation by Schiff is that it serves to illustrate the conceptual difficulties imposed by the point electron. According to present-day relativity theory, when a relativistic transformation is made that involves spin 1/2 particles, this transformation can cause a change in the spatial orientation of the spin vectors, but it is not assumed to cause any change in the spin energy of the particle.Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    See, for example, The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, page 69.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    See Ref. 1, page 116.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    C. W. Berenda, Phys. Rev. 62, 280 (1942).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Henri Arzeliès, Relativistic Kinematics, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1966), Chapter IX.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    H. J. Hay, J. P. Schiffer, T. E. Cranshaw, and P. A. Egelstaff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 165 (1960).Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    D. C. Champeney and P. B. Moon, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) A77, 350 (1960)Google Scholar
  9. 6 a.
    D. C. Champeney, G. R. Isaak, and A. M. Khan, ibid. A85, 583 (1965).Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 274 (1960).Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    C. W. Sherwin, Phys. Rev. 120, 17 (1960).Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    C. Møller, The Theory of Relativity, Oxford Univ. Press, London (1952); see page 318, Eq. (42) and the accompanying discussion.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    H. Dingle, Nature 144, 888 (1939) and 179, 866 (1957) and 180, 1275 (1957).Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    H. E. Ives, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 27, 305 (1937).Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    For example, see Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Dover, New York (1962), pp. 269–273. Also see H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Mass. (1950), Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    E. L. Hill, Phys. Rev. 69, 488 (1946); N. Rosen ibid. 70, 93 (1946);71, 54 (1947); B. Kursunoglu, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 47, 177 (1951); H. Takeno, Prog. Theor. Phys. 7, 367 (1952); G. H. F. Gardner, Nature 170, 243 (1952); J. L. Synge, ibid. 170, 243 (1952); T. E. Phipps, ibid. 195, 67 (1962); J. G. Fletcher, ibid. 199, 994 (1963); J. L. Anderson, Principles of Relativity Physics, Academic Press, New York (1967), p. 183; E. L. Hill, Phys. Rev. 71, 318 (1947).Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    M. H. Mac Gregor, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4, 211 (1970); Phys. Rev. D9, 1259 (1974), Appendix B.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    G. Salzman and A. H. Taub, Phys. Rev. 95, 1969 (1954); J. E. Hogarth and W. H. McCrea, Proc. Carob. Phil. Soc. 48, 616 (1952); W. H. McCrea, Proc. Phil. Soc. A206, 562 (1951); G. C. Mc Vittie, ibid. A211, 295 (1952); also Ref. 4.Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    See Ref. 4, Sec. IX, [120], p. 237.Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    Arzeliès, Ref. 16, mentions that the special-relativistic stretching strains may not be real. We can extend this result by noting that the non-Euclidean geometry near the equator that is experienced by the moving observer may minimize the stresses that originate as centrifugal effects.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    See Ref. 9, pages 220–221.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1978

Personalised recommendations