No, it doesn't decrease by speed but by acceleration. By the same way an age of accelerated body increases less than an age of inertial body.

Esa Säkkinen, thank you for answer. Much is written about observations of the distant observer. Little is said about experience of the traveler, which may be the more definitive measurement in distant travel under continual acceleration.

There are other possible assumptions than constant h. These are theories of departures from GR at extreme high energy. They seem to lead toward the same conclusions about mc2 but with unproven components.

There is a consensus that GR needs help when QM cannot be ignored, as in the extreme high energy cases. The consensus does not apply to the possible choices for h.

An ultimate local value of mc2 depends on experimental measurements by the traveler.

SR gives results of distance and time based on velocity, but applied to the accelerated observer. This case is L=1 or at least approximately so.

Dear Jerry,

Walter Kaufman's experiments in the first years of the 1900's experimentally proved that the mass of electrons increases with velocity.

"Über die electromagnetische Masse des Elektrons":

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/kaufmann_ngwg_291_03.pdf

It seems however that his important papers on this issue seem not to have yet been translated to English.

Best Regards

André

André

The increase of apparent mass with velocity is measured in the frame of the laboratory, not in the frame of the electron. My question is for measurement in the moving frame.

Increase of mass with velocity was popular for a while and widely taught. It has become unpopular because increased gravity force on high energy electrons has not been detected in experiments.

The popular view in recent years is that momentum becomes non linear at high speed.

Dear Jerry,

You write: "The popular view in recent years is that momentum becomes non linear at high speed."

Well, it is popular now, but it was precisely what the Kaufman experiments demonstrated almost 120 years ago, also reported by Abraham and Poincare at the time.

His data show that it is non-linear in the sense that the higher the velocity, the more momentum energy strays from linear in the sense that the faster an electron moves the more energy is required for similar increases in velocity.

His data also confirmed that in the relativistic range, a difference can be measured between the electron longitudinal inertia and its transverse inertia, also reported by Poincare in his book "La valeur de la science".

Strangely, these finding were analyzed by Max Abraham who collaborated with him and Poincare, but to my knowledge, their formal peer-reviewed papers have never been translated to English from their original German versions, and so have not been referred to in the literature of the past century, or if they have, the references have escaped my quite extensive searches.

In 2003, Paul Marmet discovered that it was the magnetic field of the electron that contributes to the increase in mass with velocity, thus indirectly to a related increase in momentum energy required to "propel", so to speak, the increasing mass of the electron, which directly explains the data that Kaufman collected so long ago. Seems to me that an increase in the electron magnetic field would be in the moving frame of the electron.

If truly interested, you will find a link to Marmet's original paper in the reference section of this recently published paper. In Sections 2 and 3 of this recently published paper, you will also find a detailed and easy to verify mathematical run through of how Marmet's discovery explains the non-linear momentum growth curve that you mention and that the Kaufman data confirms.

The paper is titled "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States". In context, this is explained as a set up to further analyze the hydrogen ground state orbital, but it also applies to the mass of free moving accelerating electrons that you are considering:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm

The equations can easily be verified with a simple hand held scientific calculator.

Best Regards

André

Thank you André.

Walter Kaufman is often quoted in English but apparently not translated. During the years he was most active most of the physicists read German and French well enough that they didn't need a translation.

Kaufman almost discovered the electron. He contributed enough toward it that Abraham Pais suggested Kaufman's papers should be remembered when writing about Einstein life and times. Then he gives the 5 German references.

There was a debate about electron mass, whether or not it is completely derived from EM or only partly from EM. The conclusion was that part of the mass for electron was not of electromagnetic origin. The argument was that if all of the mass is EM the electron might spontaneously convert into a group of photons.

For the present question in a large mass with a traveler at high speed, the traveler makes measurements with substantially different results than the distant observer at the origin although the scientific laws are the same.

On several occasions I would like to relate the continuum predictions to the quantum processes that must occur in local space to accommodate the passing of such an energetic vehicle.

So far in the answers it appears that the traveler will find acceleration less demanding of on board power supplies as the acceleration continues, although the non traveler will observe the opposite.

Rememeber that a speed is relative but an acceleration is "absolute" invariant equivalent to mass and time.

Dear Jerry,

Thank you for your complementary information about the Kaufman papers, that is, that from your investigation also, his papers seem not to ever have been made available in English to be made available to the community at large for consideration.

Quire regrettable and shameful for the community, considering that he was the first who experimentally accelerated electrons in a bubble chamber into the relativistic range, and thus discovered their behavior in the relativistic range.

From my understanding of fundamental electromagnetism, if the complete mass of the electron was of EM origin, which it definitely seems to be, this would not result in it spontaneously converting into a group of photons.

Indeed, it is well established since the 1930's that massive electron-positron pairs can be produced, and are routinely produced in high energy accelerators by destabilizing electromagnetic photons of energy 1.022+ MeV (double the energy going into the mass of one electron or positron).

It is also well established that electrons do not convert to photon state unless captured into a metastable quickly degrading system involving a pair of electron and positron that then accelerate concentrically until they join to convert into 2 or more EM photons.

Direct head on collisions between an electron and a positron have been recorded as resolving into a single 1.022+ MeV photon. So there is no doubt anymore that the complete mass of electrons is of electromagnetic origin.

With respect to large masses, it is out of our technical means and may always be to accelerate such masses into the relativistic range that would allow measuring the slightest mass increase.

The reason is that to get into even the low relativistic velocities range, there is need to reach the 2000 km per second range, which is easily reached with elementary particles such as the electron at the submicroscopic level, but at our macroscopic level, even the fastest meteorites that hit the Earth, after accelerating from interstellar space, barely exceed the 60 km per second range. For comparison, the ISS orbits us at about 7.5 km per sec. Way insufficient to show any relativistic effect.

All velocities possible at our macroscopic range lie at the infinitesimal end of the momentum energy growth curve with velocity of macroscopic massive bodies. This means that in practice, whether relative or absolute, any measurement that we can actually measure will show no measurable difference.

So any conclusion regarding relativistic behavior at our macroscopic range can only be speculative.

Best Regards

André

Thanks again Esa and André.

I'm in the group that believes there is possibility to develop curl free vector field effect propulsion that might provide acceleration something like Earth gravity for a period of years.

As André pointed out the conventional processes will not accomplish the high speed and prolonged acceleration.

Earth gravity is acceleration only 3% more than one light year per year squared. So deep space travel is quite difficult but not totally out of the question, unless obstacles are arbitrarily applied. In many threads I am testing the assumptions and finding cause to continue.

For this there is need to understand how the continuum and quantum fields relate to each other and how a fast vehicle interacts with the local vacuum.

In the present question we are exploring the challenges a traveler will face and making estimates about how the challenges might be met.

Dear Jerry,

You wrote:"I'm in the group that believes there is possibility to develop curl free vector field effect propulsion that might provide acceleration something like Earth gravity for a period of years."

This might surprise you, but what I have come to understand from plain basic electromagnetism leads me to conclude that eventual development of a spacecraft engine that would allow such a continuous acceleration may well be possible without involving carrying impossible amounts of propelling media.

This possibility is specifically mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of page 14 of the following paper, and is more extensively introduced in the 2 previous pages:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

This description will make no sense however unless the complete analysis of adiabatic processes presented in this paper is well understood.

References to papers providing full analysis of proton and neutron generation by this process are given in reference and patents are even applied for. Funding and access to technical means are now the issue.

Best Regards

André

Thank you André.

Adiabatic processes are described in Thermodynamics with which I have a long career of professional experience. Thermo is developed on the macro scale but found to also function on the micro scale.

For those who are not familiar adiabatic processes are actions that occur in a system without addition or subtraction of heat or mechanical energy. There are many examples, some with practical applications, in which Entropy increases to prevent the reverse action.

Considering propulsion Heisenberg Uncertainty allows energy to be borrowed from the vacuum and returned after a specific short period of time. It is the basis of the weak nuclear interactions and applies to the reference on elementary particles. The larger the energy, the shorter the allowed time. Energy conservation is not violated. Momentum will also be conserved one way or another.

One way momentum can be conserved is if the vehicle accelerates by a certain impulse, while an equal but opposite impulse is emitted as a stress energy wave in the opposite direction. In principle the rules of Entropy require either that some small auxiliary power be supplied to make up losses, or the system is constructed of non random and irreversible subunits operating at less than 2.7 degrees K, a difficult concept with a rational explanation based on dark current in diodes.

Even for a very high frequency of operation the energy borrowed per cycle is extremely small, requiring tiny components and a great many of them. The balance must be made per component and per cycle where v is the velocity difference between the vehicle and the stress energy wave. dp = (dE)/v

Obviously a small v is preferred, suggesting a curl free vector potential.

Dear Jerry,

The adiabatic nature of progressive energy induction in elementary charges by the Coulomb force is not described in thermodynamics. This paper is the first study on this issue to ever have been carried out regarding the submicroscopic level.

This analysis induces awareness of the existence of a second non linear energy growth curve, strictly function of proximity between charges instead of function of velocity, adiabatic this time, that cannot be detected from the data of any experiment carried out with macroscopic masses, for reasons given in the article. Time is not an issue, and momentum conservation needs to be correctly refocused.

Again, clear understanding of this adiabatic process is mandatory to understand the consequences. Nothing to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle nor with the Born-Fock analysis carried out end of the 1920's, that did not take into account the electric nature of the charges of elementary particles, and that they are de facto subject to Maxwell's first equation, that is, Gauss's equation for the electric field.

Best Regards

André

The apparent mass of a fast moving particle measured in its own frame will be the same as its proper mass and hence there will be no effect of its velocity on its energy mc2 when measured in its own frame

Dear Balwant,

You are absolutely right.

From correlating the Kaufman data with Marmet's discovery, it can be established that the velocity related instantaneous mass increment of the electron is provided by the electron carrying energy as electromagnetically oscillating separately from the energy making up the invariant mass of the electron.

It is thus clearly established that the rest mass of the electron remains absolutely invariant whatever its velocity.

Best Regards

André