Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400? And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

Thanks

--
Matt Hickman

"Matt Hickman" wrote in message ps.com...
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400?

Sort of, yes. It means that we would observe decaying particles
of that matter with a normal half-life time H, to have a half-life
time of 400 H.

And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

It hasn't. See for instance
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

Dirk Vdm

On Jun 22, 11:51 am, Matt Hickman wrote:
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400? And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

The relativistic effect on inertia is not called a
"mass increase" any more. Instead of saying the
momentum is m_r * v, where m_r is the thing that used
to be called "relativistic mass", we say the momentum
is gamma*m*v, where m is the invariant mass, what used
to be called the "rest mass" but is now just the mass,
period.

The only place "relativistic mass" ever came up was
as a way of expressing the momentum and it created
a lot of confusion.

Anyway, the short answer to your question is that
the mass isn't changed, but the momentum is 400*m*c
(since v is approximately c) and the kinetic energy,
rather than being 0.5*m*c^2, is more like 400*m*c^2.

- Randy

Dear Matt,

On Jun 22, 8:51 am, Matt Hickman wrote:
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked
matter being expelled at 99.999% light-speed.
This is said to give a Lorentz factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter
has slowed down by a factor of 400?

As compared to similar processes nearly at rest wrt us, yes.

And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

You might be interested in this particle... would cross the Milky Way
in ~1 week proper time:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html

David A. Smith

Matt Hickman wrote:
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400? And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

Thanks

For this 400 factor-matter, only one thing has increased : the inertia
it undergoes. Imagine it has a little clock on board with a little
pendulum : that pendulum would be subjected to 400 times more inertia,
thus it would move 400 times slower. It would be exactly the same effect
as if the pendulum would be 400 times heavier.

If a mass undergoes 400 times more inertia, it becomes 400 times harder
to accelerate : you not to apply much more energy to accelerate it even
further. When this mass approaches very near light speed, the inertia
becomes almost infinite, and more and more impossible to accelerate
further. That is why the speed of light is the absolute speed limit.
If a mass undergoes almost infinite inertia, the pendulum of a clock
would be impossible to move back and forth. Then time would halt.

Why does a moving object undergo more inertia ? It is a property of
space, that is also dependent on gravitating mass. I do not like the
expression "gravitating mass". Mass creates an inertial field, and if
this field has a gradient, it is stronger in point a than in point b,
then there is gravitation from b to a.

In a very strong inertial field, near a black hole a clock also slows
down extremely

A clock is an inertiameter.

Uwe Hayek.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:02:51 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Matt Hickman" wrote in message ps.com...
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400?

Sort of, yes. It means that we would observe decaying particles
of that matter with a normal half-life time H, to have a half-life
time of 400 H.

And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

It hasn't. See for instance
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

Dirk Vdm
To the contrar;y, If you study that reference you will find only
obfuscation. "Physicists dont talk about relativistic mass anymore".
and even Einstein said "avoid gamma" (just do something else).

Relativity has a problem. It's p = gamma mc for momentum which, if
gamma m is disallowed, means there's gamma c which is greater than c.
The total energy equation implies a velocity greater than c, and
that's a problem.
John Polasek

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:33:50 +0200, Hayek
wrote:

Matt Hickman wrote:
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400? And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

Thanks

For this 400 factor-matter, only one thing has increased : the inertia
it undergoes. Imagine it has a little clock on board with a little
pendulum : that pendulum would be subjected to 400 times more inertia,
thus it would move 400 times slower. It would be exactly the same effect
as if the pendulum would be 400 times heavier.
The mass does not increase. Also a pendulum clock is not the timepiece
of choice here.

If a mass undergoes 400 times more inertia, it becomes 400 times harder
to accelerate : you not to apply much more energy to accelerate it even
further. When this mass approaches very near light speed, the inertia
becomes almost infinite, and more and more impossible to accelerate
further. That is why the speed of light is the absolute speed limit.
If a mass undergoes almost infinite inertia, the pendulum of a clock
would be impossible to move back and forth. Then time would halt.

Such whimsical concepts arise because relativity does not have a
working model to test ideas against.

Why does a moving object undergo more inertia ? It is a property of
space, that is also dependent on gravitating mass. I do not like the
expression "gravitating mass". Mass creates an inertial field, and if
this field has a gradient, it is stronger in point a than in point b,
then there is gravitation from b to a.

Do you have a name for this theory? Any good equations?
In a very strong inertial field, near a black hole a clock also slows
down extremely

A clock is an inertiameter.
Except there's no really good way to read it.
Uwe Hayek.
John Polasek

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:33:50 +0200, Hayek
wrote:

Matt Hickman wrote:
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down
by a factor of 400? And what does this mean for the mass of the
matter? How much as this increased?

Thanks
For this 400 factor-matter, only one thing has increased : the
inertia it undergoes. Imagine it has a little clock on board with a
little pendulum : that pendulum would be subjected to 400 times
more inertia, thus it would move 400 times slower. It would be
exactly the same effect as if the pendulum would be 400 times
heavier.

The mass does not increase.
That was my point. Since we cannot increase inertia in laboratory
settings, we cannot experiment with it and therefore we have no
intuition towards it. But it is the same effect AS IF we increased the
mass. Got it ? SIMULATING a 400 times inertial increases by a 400 times
increase in mass. The result is the same : the mass becomes 400 times
harder to accelerate.

Also a pendulum clock is not the timepiece of choice here.

It works for any clock. Every clock measures inertia, by accelerating
some mass.

If a mass undergoes 400 times more inertia, it becomes 400 times
harder to accelerate : you not to apply much more energy to
accelerate it even further. When this mass approaches very near
light speed, the inertia becomes almost infinite, and more and more
impossible to accelerate further. That is why the speed of light is
the absolute speed limit. If a mass undergoes almost infinite
inertia, the pendulum of a clock would be impossible to move back
and forth. Then time would halt.

Such whimsical concepts arise because relativity does not have a
working model to test ideas against.

I do not think it is whimsical.

Why does a moving object undergo more inertia ? It is a property of
space, that is also dependent on gravitating mass. I do not like
the expression "gravitating mass". Mass creates an inertial field,
and if this field has a gradient, it is stronger in point a than in
point b, then there is gravitation from b to a.

Do you have a name for this theory? Any good equations?

It is called GR. The only difference is the level of understanding of
GR. Inertia instead of gravitation. A clock measuring that inertia,
instead of magically "reacting" to gravitation that magically influences
"time".

Looking at it this way, immediately resolves the uncertainty problem,
and the GR-Quantum divide : GR is about inertia, and inertia gives us
certainty : thanks to inertia, we can predict that an object stays put
in place, or predict its trajectory.
Remove inertia, and you remove time and certainty : objects are no
longer localized. Inertia kicks in when an object exceeds the conditions
set by the Heisenberg equation.

I can safely say that *nobody* so far understood GR nor uncertainty/QM,
and simply because they never gave inertia the place that it deserved.

Quotes
The last thing fish would study is water -- Anonymous.

The physicist may be satisfied when he has the mathematical scheme and
knows how to use for the interpretation of the experiments. But he has
to speak about his results also to nonÐphysicists who will not be
satisfied unless some explanation is given in plain language. Even for
the physicist the description in plain language will be the criterion of
the degree of understanding that has been reached. -- Werner Heisenberg
in Physics and Philosophy
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...eisenberg.html
UNQUOTEs


If searchers do not understand something, they assume it is complicated
and tend to look for evermore complex solutions. It is really hard to
step back and simplify things, to get rid of a dimension, in stead of
adding one or more.

Also, your request for more formulas is a symptom of the disease I call
formulitis.
How do formulas come about : one does an experiment, and tries to model
the data into a formula, then it becomes a "law" in physics. As
Heisenberg puts it, it is the explanation of the formula, the
description in plain language that is the criterion for the level of
understanding.

Another example of formulitis is Schrödinger : he wrote down the wave
function as a result of what he saw in experiments, and it is certainly
no small achievement, but he taught that his equation was going to lead
to determinism, and he was very disappointed the results were probabilistic.

Quote
Thus, the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to
think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.
--Erwin Schrödinger

A clock is a fairly simple mechanism, but nobody realizes that it just
measures inertia. Yet look at the mechanism and you know. Look at the
Earth rotating, and you know.

In a very strong inertial field, near a black hole a clock also
slows down extremely

A clock is an inertiameter.

Except there's no really good way to read it.

If we could control inertia in an easy way, like we had control over a
magnetic field we would understand it right away. Its seems hard,
because no great scientist ever thought of it. The problems lie in an
too easy acceptance of the formulas as they are, and no longer looking
for a mechanical model.

When I first toyed with relativity the question that haunted my mind was
: there must be something physical that slows down that clock and all
the rest of the physical processes.

Another Quote :
"It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
it:" " - lord Kelvin

Lord Kelvin was right, and still is right, even in modern Physics.

Uwe Hayek.

On Jun 22, 4:54 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:02:51 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"



wrote:

"Matt Hickman" wrote in glegroups.com...
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400?

Sort of, yes. It means that we would observe decaying particles
of that matter with a normal half-life time H, to have a half-life
time of 400 H.

And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

It hasn't. See for instance
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

Dirk Vdm

To the contrar;y, If you study that reference you will find only
obfuscation. "Physicists dont talk about relativistic mass anymore".
and even Einstein said "avoid gamma" (just do something else).

Do you have some evidence for this latter statement?

Relativity has a problem. It's p = gamma mc for momentum which, if
gamma m is disallowed, means there's gamma c which is greater than c.

WHAT?

It's gamma*m*c. Three terms. Gamma*m is not the mass, gamma*c
is not the velocity. The momentum is gamma times mass times
velocity.

- Randy

On Jun 22, 4:54 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:02:51 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"



wrote:

"Matt Hickman" wrote in glegroups.com...
Recent gamma-ray burster observations have clocked matter being
expelled at 99.999% light-speed. This is said to give a Lorentz
factor of 400.

Does this mean that time for the speeding matter has slowed down by a
factor of 400?

Sort of, yes. It means that we would observe decaying particles
of that matter with a normal half-life time H, to have a half-life
time of 400 H.

And what does this mean for the mass of the matter?
How much as this increased?

It hasn't. See for instance
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

Dirk Vdm

To the contrar;y, If you study that reference you will find only
obfuscation.

Where "obfuscation" means "perfectly clear statements that I
either don't understand, choose not to read, or disagree with."

"Physicists dont talk about relativistic mass anymore".

They talk about invariant mass, what was formerly called
"rest mass". Why is that "obfuscation"?

and even Einstein said "avoid gamma" (just do something else).

No idea where you think you read that whopper.

- Randy