DISCUSSION ON THE EQUIVALENCE OF THE GRAVITATIONAL AND INERTIAL MASSES
IS GRAVITATION INTERACTION OR JUST CURVED-SPACETIME GEOMETRY? (2016) (pdf)
As there have still been attempts to regard gravity, a 100 years after Einstein's general relativity, not as a manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime, but as a physical field (and therefore as a force), it is high time to face the ultimate judge ‑ the experimental evidence ‑ to settle this issue once and for all. Two rulings of the ultimate judge are reminded ‑ (i) the experimental fact that falling particles do not resist their fall rules out the option that gravity may be a force, and (ii) the experiments that conformed the relativistic effects are impossible in a three-dimensional world, which also implies that gravity is indeed manifestation of the geometry of the real spacetime. It is also stressed that not only are attempts to impose a kind of scientific democracy in physics doomed to failure (because the question of what the external world is, is not necessarily determined by what the majority of physicists claim), but such attempts might, in the end, hamper the advancement of fundamental physics.
A simple, general discussion of the problem of inertia is provided both in classical physics and in the quantum world. After briefly reviewing the classical principles of equivalence (weak (WEP), Einstein (EEP), strong (SEP)), I pass to a presentation of several equivalence statements in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and for quantum field vacuum states. It is suggested that a reasonable type of preferred quantum field vacua may be considered: those possessing stationary spectra of their vacuum fluctuations with respect to accelerated classical trajectories.
Submitted alleged Taught fundamental discovery, establishing dependence conventional mass gravity of a massive object on its velocity relative to the physical vacuum, as well as establishing the independence of the mass inertia of the object from any relative velocity. Taking into account the factor of denying the alleged discovery of the principle of equivalence, open phenomenon is called the principle in Article Nonequivalence. Submitted by indirect proof of the relativistic principle equivalent. Proposed affordable way to test the principle of direct and quantitative confirmation Nonequivalence derived mathematical relationship. The proposed test is costly and feasible in any sufficiently powerful modern particle accelerators. Checking can be performed in the background under other planned tests.
Sergey A. Vasiliev
The concept of the relativistic mass and its equivalence to the energy was recently negated within the framework of the special relativity theory (SRT). As a consequence, the relativistic mass notion was excluded from majority modern textbooks and books on SRT. The analysis of this negation is carried out in this paper. By the definition, the mass is the measure of inertia. Therefore everywhere, where inertia exists, the measure of this inertia, that is the mass, should exist. The inertia exists at relativistic velocities. Hence, the relativistic mass is obliged to be presented in SRT. The founders of SRT were right in their formulations from the very beginning and there is no need to revise their physical approaches concerning the relativistic measure of inertia. At the correct approach to the problem, the relativistic mass is returned to SRT. The relativistic mass is the measure of inertia, but it is not a scalar in SRT. It is the component of a 4-vector here. Since the relativistic mass is the component of the 4-vector, the fundamental equivalence of the measure of inertia and the energy is valid at all velocities (less or equal to the light velocity). The above mentioned negation is not harmless for science because it closes the road to some basic researches and generates the confusion in the students' brains.
EINSTEIN’S FORMULA : Е0 = mс2 – isn’t God laughing about it ? (pdf, in Russian)
Einstein has repeatedly stressed that the body mass m is equivalent to its rest energy E0. But he also often used a less clear formulation about the equivalence of mass and energy. As a result, today, the Einstein formula E0 = mc2 remains much less known than its popular form (E = mc2), where E is the total energy equal to the energy of rest and the kinetic energy of a freely moving body. One consequence of this is the widespread misconception that weight increases with its speed and that this is even an “experimental fact”.
Contemporary understanding of the relationship between mass and energy. Learn about the history of archaic terms and concepts commonly used in the literature, in the discussion of mass and energy. Arguments justifying the necessity to reject these archaic terms and concepts.