Is relativistic mass real?

One of the oddest features of special relativity is the inability to go faster than the speed of light and this is absolutely true. The most common explanation is that the mass of an object increases with speed, but this particular explanation simply isn’t true. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the truth behind this. (And, no, don’t send him emails about how this proves relativity is wrong. He is a strong believer in properly-understood relativity.)

[sangvinhun]

layman: so, how do we go from newtonian mechanics to relativistic?
physicist: just put in the lorentz gamma factor into every equation bro

[kripashankarshukla]

Earlier, I found relativistic mass concept very difficult but after watching this video, I finally understood the whole concept. You are just awesome.

[stevee]

His T-shirt says: "It's all fun and games until someone divides by zero"

[davidwright]

Equations are fine! they're just more precise (and so more useful) than saying exactly the same thing, in any spoken language. Please use them often! With, of course your usual clarity of explanation. Thanks!

[dlam]

1:43 i think all your viewers are "physics minded"

[PenaUrkuri]

Too technical? not at all! you explained the equations used in really simple terms. Bring more equations in! they don't take away they ad to it. I am a teacher my self from Finland, history thou not physics, and primary sources are always welcome. Like a historian might bring up radiocarbon dating method physics need to show what tools it uses. Not everyone might understand the whole thing, but in general scientific understanding videos, like all fermilab videos, aim is to show and tell how we do these things and how science works. Keep up the good work!

[yce]

I enjoy the more technical, mathematical, deeper discussion. Good work!

[matthiasburger]

Thank you for this video! I remember my prof at university explaning this (in 1995) and adding: "Imagine a Lorentz-Transformation of an object with mass m. Time and velocity changes under this transformation - what would identify this object as itself, when its mass would change, too? Mass needs to be invariant under Lorentz-Transformation."

[ZachDxn]

Fantastic video! I love that you give the equations but still make the theory easily understood for people who aren't interested in them. More formulas would be great as long as you can continue to explain the concepts without needing them.

[aidanandrewson]

I very much love these videos in any format, so I'd do what feels comfortable for you

[yukterez]

There wasn't too much math but too little, we want to see what effects the kinetic energy of a moving objects excerpts on the gravitational field, because we know gravity couples not only to the rest mass but also to the momentum (a box of gas weights and gravitates more if you heat it up because of the kinetic energy of the gas atoms divided by c²)

[oomegalinux]

I liked the fact that this video was more technical than others. In fact, I'd like to see more equations, but this is just me. I think is not bad to put the equations as long as you explain the idea behind them. Then people that can understand the equations and the ones that don't will benefit from the videos.

[davidmarilley]

Important post since we hear "rest mass" too often. Thanks for giving it a rest.

[anno]

Finally. I was confused af when I learned that when something move at the speed of light it should have an infinite mass, while the photons have 0 mass, and after that I thought when u move a bigger mass it would be harder to move than a lighter mass so imagine that you should move an infinite mass that would be infinitely hard, but that turned out to be not true thanks to your explanation 😃

[marcmarc]

I'm a huge fan of the channel and I really enjoyed this video in particular. I thought you were, indeed, gental when you used those few equations. I love how much you smile throughout the videos; it brightens up my day. Keep up the great work!

[threadthathasnoend]

I really liked this video and would love to see more similar to it. I'm not in physics but I do have a passing interest. Thank you for what you guys do

[quecisneros]

I am a theoretical chemist earlier in my career an organic chemist and I love these explanations with more fundamentals and formulas already known and yet with a digestible way to explain them to the general public. I believe these should be taught to more people so that they now how modern World functions and spell the act of charlatans off.
I love your explanations I am a fan.

[johnlary]

Thank you for improving my understanding of physics. No problem with your use of equations. No problem with your tackling fundamental errors or explaining more deeply than popular physics explanations. Please continue to drill down into fundamental ideas, even if more equations are needed. It's worth the work.

[GulfsideMinistries]

I'm not a physicist. I barely got through Algebra! But I know enough that I took a few minutes and worked out some examples of the equation you invited us to play with and saw you were right (as I expected you were). I learned several neat things in this video, so thank you for it. Not too technical at all. Keep up the good work!

[karlscheel]

Thanks for removing the confusion regarding relativistic momentum! ALL physics professors should ditch the concept of relativistic mass and ALWAYS include gamma when explaining Einstein's famous equation! It would make it MUCH easier for ALL students to grasp!

It's quite easy for the average person to see mathematically, that as you approach the speed of light, you get closer to division by zero in the gamma term, which is ALWAYS equal to infinity.