Re: Who coined the term "relativistic mass"?



"J. J. Lodder" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1ijbjop.1ql4rwc1ipz5vqN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pmb <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"J. J. Lodder" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1ij3syw.1r5vjhmktjz94N@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pmb <peter.m.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Moderator's note: Too much quoted text trimmed. -P.H.]

I asked this question before and never got an answer. I'm hoping that
new people are on here who might just know the answer to the question:
Who coined the term "relativistic mass" and where, i.e. I need a
reference so I can read the source of the terms original usage. Thanks
in advance.

Wikipedia says that Richard Tolman did it, in 1912, by defining
relativistic momentum (as defined by Planck) as relativistic mass times
velocity.

He defined the concept of a velocity dependant mass.

That's most certainly wrong.
The velocity dependent mass (Lorentz, electromagnetic mass)
predated relativity by about 10 years.

However he didn't use the term "relativistic mass" in that paper.

Wiki says explicitly 'coined the expression' that he did
===
The velocity dependent mass of Lorentz and Abraham were replaced by the
concept of relativistic mass, an expression which was coined by Richard
C.
Tolman in 1912, who stated: "the expression m0(1 - v2/c2)-1/2 is best
suited for THE mass of a moving body."[13]
===
If you know better you should perhaps correct this wiki entry.
Do you have a copy of of their ref [13]
R. Tolman, Philosophical Magazine 23, 375 (1912).
at hand?

Yes.

(thereby getting rid of the miseries of transverse and
longitudinal 'masses', and freeing the concept from attemps to
formulate
quasi-Newtonian 'force laws')

This seems to be common knowledge. You have a reason for doubting this?

I don't doubt that Tolman defined mass as the m in p = mv. What I'm
looking
for is the first usage of the term "relativistic mass." I had stated this
above. I had hoped I was being clear. Perhaps not? Thanks for your
response.
Always appreciated.

You are not clear about having seen ref. [13] yourself.
(I'll try to have a look later)
Did you?

Yes. I thought I made this clear since I stated explicitly above
"However he didn't use the term "relativistic mass" in that paper."
Didn't that tell you that I read the paper? If not then I apologize for
the confusion. I'll write to wiki. Thanks.

Pete

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: ON THE CO-DEPENDENCE OF TIME DILATION, SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITIES, AND RELATIVISTIC MASS
    ... Time Dilation, Relativistic Mass, and c as a limit (Superluminal ... THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITIES. ... I thought it was understood as Einstein posed it --- motion is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... This is a well written article on this whole relativistic mass thing. ... Energy, on the other hand, is defined in physics in rather ad hoc ways. ... NOT reflect the underlying kinematical symmetry (local Lorentz ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... acceleration is very fundamental", I would say its definition as "how ... "relativistic mass" does ... This disqualifies "relativistic mass" as being mass. ... the atoms. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... acceleration is very fundamental", I would say its definition as "how ... "relativistic mass" does ... This disqualifies "relativistic mass" as being mass. ... the atoms. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Nature of Mass
    ... Does mass change with velocity? ... Sometimes people say "mass" when they mean "relativistic mass", ... the definition of invariant mass is much ...
    (sci.physics)