Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

1

Qv 2

An exponential variation of mass with velocity

Mm = Mrest e 2c

Ajay Sharma

Fundamental Physics Society, His Mercy Enclave, Post Box 107 GPO Shimla 171001 HP
India

Email: ajoy.plus@gmail.com
Abstract

Einstein quoted the postulate of constancy of speed of light and deduction relativistic variation of mass with velocity in his un-reviewed and unreferenced June 1905 paper. Thomson,
Searle-Abraham, Lorentz , Bucherer-Langevin etc. had contributed to phenomena of relativistic
variation of mass. Lorentz put forth equation for relativistic mass Mrest / [1

v 2 1 / 2
] , and asc2

sumed value of =1 as unity thus equation is used. The equation of exponential variation of
Qv 2

mass Mm = Mrest e 2c has been put forth. Both Lorentzs equation as exponential equation give
2

same results when velocity is less than 0.1c (relativistic region). The main difference is exponential equation does not predict infinite mass when v=c, which Lorentzs equation (=1 or different) predicts when v=c. Even a body of mass 10-10000 kg or less becomes infinite if it moves
with speed of light. In first three year run of the LHC operated at 7-8 TeV and speed of protons
was found equal to 299 789 760 m/s (99.9999991% the speed of light) which implies its relativistic mass must be 235.2 times rest mass of proton. The relativistic mass must be taken in calculations. In second run energy of protons has been increased to 13-14TeV but speed of protons
had yet not been declared as in previous case. If at these high energies the speed is quantitatively
measured then relativistic mass can be assessed. It is clearly stated in paper while explaining the
results of ICARUS experiment in LAr-TPC events that the result t=0.4.9(stat.)9.0(syst.)
ns is compatible with the simultaneous arrival of all events with speed equal to that of light. The
presented data in the paper implies that the average value of t for seven individual events ( 6,
0, 5, 19 , +7,+ 3, +18 ) is +0.3ns or 0.29ns . The speed of neutrinos must be measure d for
each event individually, as results have been drawn for average value.

1.0

Introduction

The constancy of speed of light.


Newton (1704) concluded that different colors of light move at same speed [1]. So Henri Poincar (1898) in his paper The Measure of Time drew some important consequences on the basis of
existing processes and explained that astronomers, in determining the speed of light, simply assume that light has a constant speed and that this speed is the same in all directions [2] . In simple words it implies that speed of light is constant and same in all directions. Without
this postulate it would be impossible to infer the speed of light from astronomical observations,
as Ole Rmer (1675) did base on observations of the moons of Jupiter.
The same notion was re-quoted by Einstein in paper Electrodynamics of Moving bodies [3] as
postulate 2 (constancy of speed of light).
Any ray of light moves in the stationary system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Hence
Velocity = light path / time interval

(1)

It implies that speed of light is always constant or absolute, not relative its magnitude does not
increase or decrease. But the postulate does not restrict that velocity of particle or body is always less than c i.e. no particle or body can attain speed more than that of light. It simply implies that speed of light remains constant, which existed since two centuries before in scientific
literature. The speed of light had different values at different times Romer and Huygen (1675)
measured speed of light as (2.2 x108m/s ), Rosa Dorsey (1907) as ( (2.299710x108 km/s ) and
the current value of speed of light adapted in 17th CGPM (1983) (2.299792x108km/s) . These
measurements are made in vacuum. Nobody can move with speed of light it had been independent conclusion of Thomson in 1893. Further final and improved equation of relativistic variation
of mass was established by Lorentz in 1904 continuation with existing studies. Einstein applied
the same (but did not invent) in calculation of relativistic energy in 1905.
The speed of light must be measured from various sources of light e.g. firefly (
biological source) , candle (chemical source) laser (technological sources) moon (reflected
light) , sun ( light due to fusion). Initially Poincare meant the constancy of speed of light for

heavenly bodies i.e. stars etc. Whereas Einstein used it in general sense i.e. Any ray of light
moves, which is true for all sources of light.
1.1

Variation of mass with velocity and denominator becomes zero

George Stokes (1843) concluded while studying phenomena in hydrodynamics showed that inertia of moving body in an incompressible perfect fluid increases.[2]) [4]. The inertia is measure of
mass. For first time increase in mass with velocity was experimentally observed by J J Thomson
[3] at that time eq.(2) was not discovered. It was recognized by J. J. Thomson in 1881[1] [5] that
a charged sphere moving in a space filled with a medium of a specific inductive capacity (the
electromagnetic aether of James Clerk Maxwell), is harder to set in motion than an uncharged
body. This idea was worked out in more detail by Oliver Heaviside (1889),[3] [6], Thomson
(1893),[4] [7] (1897),[5] [8] , Searle, (1897), Max Abraham (1902),[6] [9], Hendrik Lorentz (1892, 1904),[7][8] [10-11] and was directly applied to the electron by using the Abraham
Lorentz force. Now it is also applied for neutral particles for various velocities.
Thomson (1893) put forth that electromagnetic momentum and energy of charged bodies and
therefore their masses depend on the speed of the bodies as well. He wrote:[4] [7,12]
When in the limit v = c, the increase in mass is infinite, thus a charged sphere moving with the
velocity of light behaves as if its mass were infinite, its velocity therefore will remain constant,
in other words it is impossible to increase the velocity of a charged body moving through the dielectric beyond that of light.
From Searle's formula, Walter Kaufmann(1901) and Abraham (1902) derived the
formula for the longitudinal and transverse masses of moving bodies:[6] [13] . On the other
hand, already in 1899 Lorentz assumed that the electrons undergo length contraction in the line
of motion, which leads to results for the acceleration of moving electrons that differ from those
given by Abraham. Lorentz obtained factors of k3 parallel to the direction of motion and k
v2
perpendicular to the direction of motion, where k = 1 2
c

and is an undetermined fac-

tor.[11] [14]. In general , is indeterminate coefficient differing from unity by a quantity of the order v2/c2 [8]. Lorentz expanded his 1899 ideas in his famous 1904 paper, where he set the factor
to unity, thus:[8] [15 ].

mT =

mrest

(2)

, mL=

v
1 2
c

mrest
v
1 2
c
2

3
2

(3)

If the value of is different from unity ( in general is indeterminate coefficient differing from
unity by a quantity of order v2/c2 ) then coefficient will appear in the denominator the magnitudes of longitudinal and transverse masses will vary.
mT =

mrest
2

(2a)

v
1 2
c

mL=

mrest
v
1 2
c
2

3
2

(3a)

So the eqs.(2,3) are based upon assumption =1, but not determined experimentally and theoretically. If general values of are taken then magnitude of eq.(2) varies. In the existing literature
value of other than unity is not considered and in all significant results e.g. derivation of rest
mass energy Erest = Mrest c2 ,transverse mass is considered not longitudinal . If longitudinal mass
is considered then equation for rest mass energy would be different. Mathematically values of
other than unity and both masses are equally feasible. For wider understanding and analysis all
possibilities (, other than unity and longitudinal mass) values of must be considered. So, eventually Lorentz arrived at the same conclusion as Thomson in 1893: no body can reach the speed of
light because the mass becomes infinitely large at this velocity.
Einstein wrote to Lincoln Barnett [17] , that it is not good to introduce the concept of
the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no
other mass concept than the rest mass Mrest . Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the
expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion. However Einstein [3] had used
eq.(2) in calculation of rest mass energy Erme=Mrestc2 .
The various existing equations ( empirical in nature) for increase in mass as function of velocity
are given by
Searle-Abraham [ 1897]
Lorentz [1904 ] if
Lorentz [1904 ]

=1

( ) =

1 2 1
1]
lg
[
1
4 2 2
3

(4)

( ) = (1- 2 ) 1 / 2

(5)

( ) = (1- 2 ) 1 / 2

(6)

Bucherer-Langevin [1905]
where

( ) = (1- 2 ) 1 / 3

(7)

v
c

Thus factor beta [1

v 2 1 / 2
involves in equations in one form or other since beginning of the
]
c2

perception which implies that denominator becomes zero when v=c. Under this condition mass
becomes infinity, hence body cannot move with speed more than that of light. However till date
no particle or body has been observed to move with speed equal to or more than that of light.
Thus the variation of mass with velocity is different concept established before postulate
of constancy of speed of light. The postulate of constancy of speed of light does not restrict
body to move with speed equal or more than c. It simply states that speed of light remains constant. This restriction is (i.e. no body can move with speed more than that of light) laid down by
Thomson (1893), Searle, Kauffman Abraham and Lorentz (1904) much before Einstein. Einstein simply quoted the equations of Lorentz of longitudinal and transverse mass from existing
literature [15]. Now the relativistic equation for variation of mass with velocity (suggested by
Lorentz improving previous perceptions) is given by eq.(2).
The eq.(2) is improved form of various equations illustrating variations of mass and velocity. In
various experiments eq.(2) is confirmed within accuracy of 1% [16]. Till date experimentally
and theoretically it is regarded as absolute and it sets upper limit for velocity equal to c, as no
particle or body is confirmed to move with speed more than that of light.
Ideally an equation should be such that this situation does not arise. In this case mass becomes infinity i.e. M = . If v>c, then mass becomes imaginary. This equation provides a new
perception of creation of mass of universe. It is explicit prediction from eq.(2), that only one
particle will obtain speed equal to that of light and expand to infinitely large universe. If v>c,
then mass becomes imaginary. Thus to obey the mathematical predictions or deductions, constraints are set on speed of light that it does not exceed c.
Although division by zero is not allowed yet denominator in eq.(2) becomes zero when
body starts moving with speed of light. Einstein had to abandon theory of static universe due to
reason that denominator involves division by zero, theoretically similar situation in eq.(2) when
v=c. According to eq.(1) a body of mass, even 10-100000 kg or less can never attain speed equal

to that of light even if infinite amount of energy is applied.


Only one particle can attain v=c, this prediction means if a body of mass 10-100000 kg
or less attains velocity equal to that of light then its mass becomes infinite which will be accommodated in the infinite space. It is all together different from existing perception of origin of creation of universe.
1.2

Scientific confirmation of eq.(2)

Successively more and more refined experiments have been conducted to confirm eq.(2), but
equation for longitudinal mass i.e. eq.(3) is not confirmed. The eq.(3) also follows from Lorentzs same deduction. In this regard the most established experiment had been reported by
Rogers et al. [16]. It is concluded by scientists that his experiment is seen as being sufficiently
precise to distinguish between the theories. Further such experiments are mentioned.
Regarding experimental confirmation of eq.(2) an important observations have been reported by
Roger [ 16] . In the paper just three points are reported for velocities 0.5c, 0.7c and 0.75c and
concluded that it is confirmed within accuracy of 1%. Moreover to confirm such an equation
large number of observations are needed with velocities tending to c. But no such detailed information is available. These observations at highest velocity 0.75c may not be regarded as scientifically sufficient. After this, many additional experiments concerning the relativistic mass-energymomentum relation have been conducted, including measurements of the deflection of electrons,
all of them confirming special relativity to high precision. It is indicated that special theory of
relativity (which has many aspects) has been justified, but here we need specific experiments for
measuring mass of particles at various velocities ay 0.1c, 0.4c, 0.8c,0.9c , 0.9999c etc. It is unscientific to conclude that if phenomena of time dilation is obeyed at v=0.99c (say) then eq.(2) is
also obeyed simultaneously or regarded as obeyed. Further eq.(2) is written under the condition
that when indeterminate coefficient is assumed to be unity i.e. =1. Thus more specific experiments regarding relativistic variations are required to be conducted over wide range of parameters. It is concluded by scientists in the recent publication [17] that this experiment is seen
as being sufficiently precise to distinguish between the theories. [17]. And no other experiments
are mentioned. It implies that scientists find these observations sufficient which is apparently not
so. Also in modern particle accelerators, the predictions of special relativity are routinely confirmed [18]. However specifically we are discussing precise experimental confirmation of

eq.(2). Further Rogers experiment [16 ] which was conducted in 1940 is regarded as final confirmation because no significant developments are reported afterwards. This experiment is regarded as final basis. Thus specific experiments for more precise confirmation of eq.(2) are
needed.
1.3 Results of ICARUS
In ICARUS experiment the time of flight difference between the speed of light and the arriving
neutrino LAr-TPC events has been analysed. Ideally time of flight between arriving neutrinos
must be less than speed of light, only then speed of neutrinos would be less than speed of light.
Now in this regard various terms are understood as
tofc : time of flight based in speed of light.
tof : time of flight based on speed of neutrino.
The difference t = tof c tof between the expected time of flight based on speed of light (tof c
= 2 439 098 1.7 ns) and the actual arrival time of neutrino in the ICARUS detector is shown in
the last row [19].
Antonello et al. [19] had measured that the t (tofc tofv ) =0.34.9(stat.)9.0(syst.) ns and
stated that it is compatible with the simultaneous arrival of all events with estimated speed equal
to that of light. The exact quotation is . The result t = 0. 4.9(stat.) 9.0(syst.) ns is compatible with the simultaneous arrival of all events with speed equal to that of light.
This aspect is being investigated here in view of the experimental data provided.
The time of flight based on the speed of light ( tofc =24390981.7ns) and neutrino time of flight
(tofv ) have different values measured experimentally i.e. 2439104 ns, 2439098ns , 2439103ns ,
2439117ns , 2439091 ns , 2439095 ns and 2439080ns . The presented data [19] in the paper implies that the average value of t for seven individual events ( 6, 0, 5, 19 , +7,+ 3, +18 ) is
+0.3ns or 0.29ns . The time difference ( t = tofc tofv) in various seven individual neutrino
events are shown as in last row in Table I [19]. It implies in the second event the neutrinos (nonzero mass) move with speed equal to that of light, according to eq.(1) the mass must become infinite.
It means that for various individual events value of t is negative ( 6,
5, 19 ), positive (+7,+ 3, +18 ) or zero (0), hence tofv also varies. The value of net t is 2,
and average value (of seven events) is 0.2857 or 0.3 ns , as interpreted above. For three individu-

al events time difference ( t ) is negative, for three events time difference is positive and for one
event is zero. The individual events (difference in times) have not been discussed in this regard
by Antonello et al. [19], the average of seven events is taken. Eq.(2) is meant for every individual particle and has to be confirmed for all. There is no logical scientifically prevailing reason
that average of seven events has to be taken. The value of t for first, second and seven events
we get
tofc = - 6+ tofv

(8)

tofc = tofv

(9)

tofc = 7 + tofv

(10)

Eq.(8 ) implies that time of flight based upon speed of flight is more than neutrino time of flight.
It is correct result. However eq. (9) implies that the time of flight based upon speed of light is
equal to time based upon neutrino time of flight. It implies that speed of neutrino in this particular event is equal to that of light. Neutrino has definite but subtle mass, thus under the condition,
v=c , the mass of neutrino must become infinity. Also eq.(10) implies that speed of neutrino
exceeds speed of light, thus its mass must be imaginary.
Antonello et al. [19] had discussed average value of t for seven events , the average
value of t

is positive (0.3 ns) , hence speed of light is more than speed of neutrino collec-

tively, it is similar to eq.(10). Had all values of time for seven individual events been positive
the results would have been justified? The values of t such as 6, 0, 5, 19 for individual
events are not consistent as in such cases i.e. tofv > tofc .This issue is not discussed by
Antonello et al. [19]. It is true for average value of t only not for individual values.
Further more precise experiments of speed of neutrinos the MINOS+ experiments are being
conducted . The experiment will aim to measure the time a neutrino needs to travel from Fermi
Lab to Soudane mine with precision of about 1 nanosecond. The results from this experiment
would be decisive in this regard [20].
1.4

Large Hadron Collider results: speed of protons tends to c

During its first three years, the LHC ran at collision energy of 7 to 8 TeV delivering particle
collisions to experiments [21]. Speed of protons at the collision 299 789 760 m / s (speed of
light is 299 792 458 m/s ). Then

Relativistic mass of proton

M=

M rest
v2
1 2
c

= 235.70088 (rest mass of proton)

(11)

If eq.(2a) is used
Relativistic mass of proton, M =

M rest
v2
1 2
c

= 235.70088 (rest mass of proton) /

(11a)

This aspect should be interpreted in the results. But in the experimental data the relativistic mass
of proton at this velocity is not mentioned in LHC data. Now in 2015 run, energy of particles will
be 13-14TeV or higher, it is just possible that in such experiments or more energetic experiments, speed of particles may approach to c (significant increase in mass ) or becomes equal to
c and exceed c (final results would be clear after experiments). Now protons have been accelerated to energies 13-14 TeV but velocities are not stated as in previous case (7 to 8 TeV) velocity had been measured equal to 299 789 760 m / s (99.9999991% the speed of light) at speed of
protons at the collision . Further energy of particles can be more than 14TeV depending upon
technological improvements and lighter particles can be subjected to experimental observations.
1.5 General experimental observations.
According to relativistic variation of mass, the mass increases with velocity and particle of mass
10-10000 kg or less becomes infinite if it moves with speed of light. Tachyons are hypothetical
particles which move with speed more than that of light [22] but not discovered yet. Cherenkov
radiations, are electromagnetic radiations are emitted when a charged particles pass through a
dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light, in that medium [23]. But in
second postulate of relativity i.e. in eq.(1) , there is no mention of phase velocity or group velocity. The phase velocity of a wave is the rate at which the phase of the wave propagates in space.
The group velocity of a wave is the velocity with which the overall shape of the waves' amplitudesknown as the modulation or envelope of the wavepropagates through space.
The variability in speed of light was expressed by Einstein [24-25]. The variation in
value of fine structure constant is observed experimentally [26] implies variation in speed of
light. The theory of variability of speed of light is developed to understand the phenomena [27].

10

Apparent natural superluminal motion (faster than light) is observed in many radio galaxies, blazars, quasars and recently also in microquasars. The red shift numbers, z=v/c (indicator of
the fact that heavenly bodies recede away or expansion of universe) of 1.4 (v=1.4c) or 8.2
(v=8.2c) or higher [28,29]. It indicates apparently speed of heavenly body must be more than
that of light. However the speed of light is regarded as less than c. The same method is used to
verify Hubbles parameters (V=HS) and its inverse gives age of universe.
This is experimental observation based upon established experimental techniques
and theoretical basis. These observations appear to indicate that the speed of heavenly bodies
must be more than c. However the speed of heavenly bodies is always regarded as less than c, so
that results are necessarily consistent with eq.(2). Are the experimental and theoretical deductions based on redshift not genuine? This observation is related with age of universe. If so then it
must be pointed out so that improvements may be done. Should experimental results be ignored
if they are not consistent with established equations? It would not be illogical if other possibilities are considered to access the experimental observations.
The Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, proposed it in 1842. Subsequently, Edwin Hubble discovered an approximate relationship between the redshifts of heavenly bodies and
the distances to them with the formulation of his eponymous Hubble's law [28,29]. These observations corroborated Alexander Friedmann's 1922 work, in which he derived the famous Friedmann equations[30].
They are today considered strong evidence for an expanding universe and the Big
Bang theory[31]. So redshift is useful in understanding many phenomena.
Qv 2

3.0 A new equation for relativistic or non relativistic variation of mass : M = M0 e 2c

A new equation exponential in nature for variation of mass with velocity is suggested and interpretted.
Qv 2

Exponential variation

Mm = Mrest e 2c

(16)

In eq.(2) the value of is assumed to be unity by Lorentz. If general value of is considered

11

then we have
Mm =

M rest

(2a)

v2
1 2
c

Applying approximations to Lorentz and Exponential equations we get


Lorentz equation

Mm = Mrest (1- 2 ) 1 / 2 = Mrest (1+ v2/2c2 +3v4/8c4 +.)

(12)

If eq.(2a) is used
Lorentz equation Mm = Mrest (1- 2 ) 1 / 2 =

M rest

or Lorentz equation Mm = Mrest (1- 2 ) 1 / 2 =

(1+ v2/2c2 +3v4/8c4 +.. ) (13)

M rest

(1+ v2/2c2 +3v4/8c4 +.. ) (13a)

Qv 2

Exponential equation

Mm = Mrest e 2c = Mrest (1+Qv2/2c2 + Qv4/8c4+..)


2

(14)

Thus both equations can give same values if proper value of Q is chosen . There are numerous
values of coefficients of proportionality in existing literature, so the perception of Q is consistent
with existing literature.
We can assess that the variation in mass with velocity is proportional to the mass M and velocity
v . Thus we can write variation in mass with velocity v as
dM
M
dv

dM
Mv
dv

dM
dv

or

dM
= Kvdv
M

(15)

where K is coefficient of proportionality and depends upon inherent experimental conditions of


the process. It has dependence like resistance (V=IR or R = L /a, resistivity, L length and a is
area of conductor) in the existence in the literature. Similarly in Hubble Law i.e. V=HS , the
Hubbles coefficient have different values. Thus age of universe is not fixed , it is understood in
form of range. The other coefficients of proportionality are coefficient of viscosity, coefficient of
thermal conductivity, coefficient of expansion etc.
K

1/c2 or K =Q/c2

The value of K is non-zero and definite. Now integrating within limits (mass varies from Mrest to

12

M , and velocity 0 to v ).
dM
Q
Mrest M = c 2
M

vdv
0

Further
Qv 2

or

M = Mrest e 2c

(16)

Similarities between eq.(2) based on assumption =1 and eq.(16 )


(i) Both equations predict that mass increases with velocity.
(ii) When v=0, then both equations predict M =Mrest. At lower velocities (less than 0.1c) both
equations give same results.
Dissimilarities
(i) Theoretically Eq.(16) implies that mass of body must become infinite when v=
(ii) Eq.(2) implies that speed of body cannot be equal to c . If v=c then mass becomes infinite.
(iii) Eq.(16) implies that velocity of body can become equal to or more than c, mass does not
become infinite or imaginary . The mass of body only becomes infinite only when speed of body
is also infinite.
(vi) It may be perceived that infinite amount of energy is required to impart body of non-zero
mass, infinite velocity. This infinite energy exhibits in form of infinite mass. Whereas as according to Lorentzs equation, infinite energy is needed to accelerate body of mass 10-10000000 kg or
less to velocity 3x108m/s. Thus deduction from eq.(16) appears more genuine than eq.(2).
Calculation of Q
Qv 2

M =Mrest e 2c

Kv2

ln M /Mrest

= ln(e 2c ) = Qv2 /2c2

Q= 2c2ln (M /Mrest )/v2

(17)

Table I. Equality of eq.(2) with =1 and eq.(16) , the value of K is shown in last column.

13

Sr

Velocity

The value of K for

No
M=

M rest
v2
1 2
c

Qv 2

= Mrest e

2c 2

equality for both equations.

v=0

Mrest

v=0.0001c

1.000000005 Mrest

v=0.001c

1.0000005Mrest

v=0.01c

1.000050 Mrest

v=0.1c

1.00503 Mrest

1.0034

v=0.2c

1.02062 Mrest

1.0206

v=0.5c

1.1547 Mrest

1.1507

v=0.9c

2.294 Mrest

2.0501

v=0.999991c

235.708 Mrest

10.9249

At v=c, eq.(2) predicts infinite mass , hence comparison is not scientific.

Acknowledgements
Author is highly indebted to Prof. Robert Bradley, Dr Steve Crothers and Anjana Sharma for
comments, suggestions and encouragements on the topic
References
[1] Sir Isaac Newton, Opticks, pp. CVX (1704; reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc., New York,
(1952) .
[2] Poincar, Henri , La mesure du temps, Revue de mtaphysique et de morale 6: 1-13
(1898), Poincar, Henri , The Measure of Time, The Foundations of Science (The Value of
Science), New York: Science Press, pp. 222-234(1913).

14

[3] Einstein, A, Annalen der Physik, 17, 891-921 (1905)


[4]. Stokes, George Gabriel (1844), "On some cases of fluid motion on Internet Archive", Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 8 (1): 105137 (Read May 29,
1843).
[5] Thomson, J J Philosophical Magazine, 1881,5 11 (68): 229-249
[6] Heaviside, Oliver (1889), "On the Electromagnetic Effects due to the Motion of Electrification through a Dielectric", Philosophical Magazine, 5 27 (167): 324339,
[7] Thomson, Joseph John (1893), Notes on recent researches in electricity and magnetism on Internet Archive, Oxford: Clarendon Press George Frederick Charles Searle (1897),[5]
[8] Searle, George Frederick Charles (1897), "On the Steady Motion of an Electrified Ellipsoid", Philosophical Magazine, 5 44(269): 329341,Max Abraham (1902),[6]
[9] Abraham, Max (1903), "Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons", Annalen der Physik 315 (1):
105179,Bibcode:1902AnP...315..105A, doi:10.1002/andp.19023150105
[10] Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1892a), "La Thorie electromagntique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants onInternet Archive", Archives nerlandaises des sciences exactes et
naturelles 25: 363552 ,
[11] Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light",Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 6: 809831
[7,12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass
[13] Abraham, Max (1903), "Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons", Annalen der
Physik 315 (1): 105179,Bibcode:1902AnP...315..105A, doi:10.1002/andp.19023150105 .
[14] Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1899), "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena
in Moving Systems", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1:
427442.
[15 ] Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1904), "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with
any velocity smaller than that of light",Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts
and Sciences 6: 809831

15

[16] Rogers, M. M. et al. (1940), "A Determination of the Masses and Velocities of Three Radium B Beta-Particles", Physical Review 57: 379383.
[17] Staley, Richard (2008), Einstein's generation, Chicago: University Press, ISBN 0-22677057-5
[18]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_exper
iments
[18] Staley, Richard (2008), Einstein's generation, Chicago: University Press, ISBN 0-22677057-5
[19]. M. Antonello et al., Physics Letters B 713 (2012) 1722.
[20] Kurt Riesselmann, Office of Communication, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
in scientific communicated dated 27 August 2014.
[21]. 7-8TeV
[22] Feinberg, G. (1967). "Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Particles". Physical Review 159 (5):
10891105. Bibcode:1967PhRv..159.1089F. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.159.1089. See also Feinberg's
later paper: Phys. Rev. D 17, 1651 (1978)
[23]. Cherenkov, Pavel A. (194). "Visible emission of clean liquids by action of radiation".
Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 2: 451. Reprinted in Selected Papers of Soviet Physicists, Usp.
Fiz. Nauk 9 (1967) 85. V sbornike: Pavel Alekseyevich erenkov: Chelovek i Otkrytie pod
redaktsiej A. N. Gorbunova i E. P. erenkovoj, M.,"Nauka, 1999, s. 149-153 .
[24] Einstein, A. Jahrbuch fr Radioaktivitt und Elektronik , 4 411-462 (1907).
[25] Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik 35: 898 906.(1911) doi:10.1002/andp.19113401005.
[26] J.K.Webb et. al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (9): 091301 (2001)
[27] A. Albrecht, J. Magueijo

Phys. Rev. D59: 043516 (1999). arXiv:astro-ph/9811018. Bib-

code:1999PhRvD. 59d3516A.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043516
[28] "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 15 (3):
168-173. Bibcode:1929PNAS...15..168H.doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168. PMC 522427.PMID 16577160..
[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light.

16

[30] Friedman, A. A. (1922). "ber die Krmmung des Raumes". Zeitschrift fur Physik 10 (1):
377386.Bibcode:1922ZPhy...10..377F.doi:10.1007/BF01332580. English translation
in Friedman, A. (1999). "On the Curvature of Space". General Relativity and Gravitation 31 (12): 19912000.Bibcode:1999GReGr..31.1991F.doi:10.1023/A:1026751225741.)
[31] Eddington, Arthur (1933). The Expanding Universe: Astronomy's 'Great Debate', 1900
1931.Cambridge University Press. (Reprint: ISBN 978-0-521-34976-5)

Table I. Equality of eq.(2) with =1 and eq.(16) , the value of K is shown in column
Sr

Velocity

The value of K for

No
M=

M rest
v2
1 2
c

Qv 2

= Mrest e

2c 2

equality for both equations.

v=0

Mrest

v=0.0001c

1.000000005 Mrest

v=0.001c

1.0000005Mrest

v=0.01c

1.000050 Mrest

v=0.1c

1.00503 Mrest

1.0034

v=0.2c

1.02062 Mrest

1.0206

v=0.5c

1.1547 Mrest

1.1507

v=0.9c

2.294 Mrest

2.0501

v=0.999991c

235.708 Mrest

10.9249

At v=c, eq.(2) predicts infinite mass , hence comparison is not scientific.