Mass, Special Relativity and the Equivalence Principle

  • Constantinos G. Vayenas
  • Stamatios N.-A. Souentie
Chapter

Abstract

The equivalence principle states that inertial mass of a particle, i.e. the ratio of force and acceleration, is equal to the gravitational mass, i.e. equal to the quantity responsible for the gravitational force. Special relativity dictates that this inertial or gravitational mass of a particle equals γ3 m o where m o is the rest mass of the particle and \(\gamma (= {(1 -{{ v}}^{2}/{c}^{2})}^{-1/2})\) is the Lorentz factor. The latter is unbound when the particle velocity relative to a laboratory observer approaches the speed of light c. This is a well-known result for linear motions and, using instantaneous frames of reference, is shown here to be valid also for arbitrary particle motion. Thus it is the gravitational mass γ3 m o, rather than the relativistic mass, γm o, defined from Einstein’s famous E = γm o c 2 which must be used in Newton’s gravitational law. This difference is totally negligible for non-relativistic velocities, e.g. v < 0. 1c, but can become quite important when v approaches c. Thus special relativity coupled with Newton’s gravitational law dictates that the gravitational attraction becomes much stronger under relativistic conditions than that expected from the simple Newton’s gravitational law using the rest, m o, or relativistic mass, γm o of the particles involved. This is consistent with the expectation, based on general relativity, that Newton’s gravitational law when used with rest or the relativistic masses, may not be valid under highly relativistic conditions. The implications are quite significant for fast subatomic particles.

Keywords

Mercury Electromagnetism 

References

  1. 1.
    Roll PG, Krotkov R, Dicke RG (1964) The equivalence of inertial and passive gravitational mass. Annals of Physics 26(3):442–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gundlach JH, Merkowitz SM (2000) Measurement of Newton’s constant using a torsion balance with angular acceleration feedback. Phys Rev Lett 85(14):2869–2872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoyle CD et al (2001) Sub-millimeter tests of the gravitational Inverse-Square Law: a search for “Large” extra dimensions. Phys Rev Lett 86:1418–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Long JC, Chan HW, Churnside AB, Gulbis EA, Varney MCM, Price JC (2003) Upper limits to submillimetre-range forces from extra space-time dimensions. Nature 421:922–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freund J (2008) Special relativity for beginners. World Scientific Publishing, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    French AP (1968) Special relativity. W. W. Norton and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Einstein A (1952) Relativity: the special and the general theory, 15th edn. Crown, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Misner CW, Thorne KS, Wheeler JA (1973) Gravitation. W.H. Freeman, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hawking SW, Ellis GFR (2006) The large scale structure of space-time, 20th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Misner CW, Thorne KS, Zurek WH (2009) John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information. Phys Today 62(4):40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moffat JW (2006) Scalar-tensor-vector gravity theory. J Cosmology Astroparticle Phys 3:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milgrom M (2009) Bimetric MOND gravity. Phys Rev D 80(12). arXiv:0912.0790Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Einstein A (1917) Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, gemeinverständlich, BraunschweigGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dyson FW, Eddington AS, Davidson C (1920) A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total Eclipse of May 29, 1919. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond A 220:291–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Will CM (1993) Theory and experiment in gravitational physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Will CM (2004) The conformation between general relativity and experiment. Pramana J Phys 63(4):731–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiller S et al (2009) Einstein gravity explorer-a medium-class fundamental physics mission. Exp Astronom 23:573–610; 220(571–581):291–333Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilhelm K, Dwivedi BN (2011) An explanation of the Pioneer anomaly involving accelerated atomic clocks. Astrophys SpaceSci Trans 7:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashok D (2011) Lectures on gravitation. World Scientific Publishing, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amelino-Camelia G, Ellis J, Mavromatos NE, Nanopoulos DV, Sarkar S (1998) Tests of quantum gravity from observations of γ-ray bursts. Nature 393:763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amelino-Camelia G (2001) A phenomenological description of space-time noise in quantum gravity. Nature 410:1065–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rovelli C (2004) Quantum gravity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantinos G. Vayenas
    • 1
  • Stamatios N.-A. Souentie
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations