Abstract
A. Einstein and H.A. Lorentz had found that the mass of an accelerated body traveling at relativistic velocity appears to depend on whether the acceleration is performed in the direction of motion or in a transverse direction. E.P. Epstein rejected this result in the “Annalen der Physik”; he rather postulated an additional force that turns up when the body is accelerated in the longitudinal direction. It can be shown that the concept of an increased longitudinal mass is based on a simple mathematical error. When correcting this error, it turns out that Epstein’s additional, hidden force is indispensable in order to avoid an inner inconsistency of Special Relativity. It does most of the total work absorbed by the moving object, and is thus responsible for most of the increase in its energy (=mass), given the speed attained is relativistic. In other words: While the total force on the body needed to maintain a constant acceleration a0 is “(1-v2/c2)-1ma0=m0(1-v2/c2)-3/2a0”, the technical force needed to maintain that acceleration amounts only to “ma0=m0(1 - v2/c2)-1/2a0”. The total energy of two objects that undergo a symmetrical, elastic head-on collision is therefore not conserved during the collision, thus requiring the involvement of a hidden reservoir of energy. This result is confirmed by calculations that use the concept of momenergy. The phenomenon of an apparent disappearance of energy has been noticed in particle physics already (target-experiment), but its consequences have been ignored. Instead, an explanation has been given (reduced “energy of the center of mass”) which is inconsistent and violates the relativity principle.
Highlights
1) In the past, Special Relativity has been subject to various attempts to modify it
Epstein rejected this result in the “Annalen der Physik”; he rather postulated an additional force that turns up when the body is accelerated in the longitudinal direction
Since Special Relativity is based on the rigorous assumption of the speed of light being invariant for any observer without any exceptions, Special Relativity would not be a valid description of nature if the “viscous liquid” theory regarding an ether were true
Summary
1) In the past, Special Relativity has been subject to various attempts to modify it. My article which I am presenting here is of a different kind It is by no means an attempt to modify and refute the basic assumptions of Special Relativity. What it does is the following: it reveals some strict, physically surprising mathematical consequences of these basic assumptions, which have so far been overlooked. The reason for this failure lies in the fact that a parameter which turns up in one of the equations of Special Relativity has commonly been interpreted in a way which contradicts a presupposition. One should expect that the resistance a moving body offers against accele-
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
