Defining of three-dimensional acceleration and inertial mass leading to the simple form F=M A of relativistic motion equation

Grzegorz M. Koczan∗ Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS/SGGW), Poland (Dated: July 20, 2020) Newton’s II Law of Dynamics is a law of motion but also a useful definition of force (F=M A) or inertial mass (M =F/A), assuming a definition of acceleration and parallelism of force and accel- eration. In the Special Relativity, out of these three only the description of force (F=dp/dt) does not raise doubts. The greatest problems are posed by mass, which may be invariant rest mass or relativistic mass or even directional mass, like longitudinal mass. This results from breaking the assumption of the parallelism of force and standard acceleration. It turns out that these issues disappear if the relativistic acceleration A is defined by a relativistic velocity subtraction formula. This basic fact is obscured by some subtlety related to the calculation of the relativistic differential of velocity. It is based on the direction of force rather than on a transformation to an instantaneous resting system. The reference to a non-resting system generates a little different velocity subtrac- tion formulae. This approach confirms Oziewicz binary and ternary relative velocities as well as the results of other researchers. Thus, the relativistic three-dimensional acceleration is neither rest acceleration, nor four-acceleration, nor standard acceleration. As a consequence, inertial mass in any direction of the force has the same value as relativistic mass. In other words, the concepts of transverse mass and longitudinal mass, which depend on velocity, have been unified. In this work a full relativistic equation is derived for the motion of a body with variable mass whose form confirmed the previously introduced definitions. In addition, these definitions are in line with the general version of the principle of mass and energy equivalence. The work presents a detailed review and discussion of different approaches to the subject in relation to original historical and contem- porary texts. On this basis, a proposal is made for a consistent definition of relativistic quantities associated with velocity change.

Key words: relativistic acceleration, relative velocity, velocity subtraction, differential of velocity, relativistic inertial mass, variable mass, correspondence rules, mass-energy equivalence

PACS numbers: 03.30.+p, 01.65.+g, 02.00.00, 45.05.+x, 01.55.+b

Contents XIII. Spacetime-space corespondence 17 XIV. Conclusion 18 Introduction1 Appendix: Metrics in Velocity Space 19 I. Nonrelativistic motion equation3 Acknowledgments 19 II. Lorentz investigation 1899, 19044 Conflict of Interest 19 III. Kaufmann and Abraham 1901, 19024 List of Symbols 19 IV. Einstein and Planck 1905–19076 References 22 V. The mass of Lewis-Tolman 1908–1912 and the Feynman Lectures 1963–20117

VI. Actual forms of equation of motion8 INTRODUCTION VII. Adler and Okun offensive 1987–19899 VIII. Sandin, Penrose defense 1991, 2004 10 Special Relativity (SR) is well grounded, both theoret- ically and experimentally. However, within the dynam-

arXiv:1909.09084v3 [physics.hist-ph] 16 Jul 2020 IX. Three-dimensional definition of relativistic ac- celeration 10 ics of SR, there are some interpretation issues that are not fully agreed on by physicists. Disputes about these X. Force and simple second law F=M A 12 issues, although they sometimes sound explicitly or im- XI. Variable mass motion equation and velocities plicitly, are often ignored and reduced to philosophy, not subtraction methods 13 to mathematics or experiment. Proponents of a partic- XII. Inertial mass definitions 15 ular convention and interpretation are convinced that it is the only right one. In addition, the same physicists claim that there is no collision in predicting the results of experiments under the alternative conventions. If these ∗grzegorz [email protected], [email protected] conventions are to be physically equivalent, then how is 2 one of them correct and the other not? This logical in- refer as closely as possible to observable physical real- consistency shows that in SR there are issues that have ity. Unfortunately, the nature of this physical reality is not been resolved until now. at least seemingly three-dimensional, not directly four- The most famous problematic issue is the topic of rel- dimensional. The fourth dimension, which is time, is not ativistic (total) mass versus rest mass (M vs m). The perceived as a spatial dimension, and SR does not explain physicists of elementary particles try to treat mass as a its temporary limitation to a specific local value called constant parameter describing a given particle. At the the present. SR also does not have the time arrow high- same time, they display carelessness in relation to the light. In view of the above, relativistic physics can, and inertial mass in the mechanics. Einstein’s demand for even should, be formulated in three-dimensional terms. a good definition of mass (depending on velocity) has This state of affairs is confirmed by quantum mechanics. not been implemented and is misinterpreted. This prob- It turns out that relativistic quantum mechanics forces lem affects the interpretation and even the mathematical the choice of three-dimensional space in a significant dis- form of the famous principle of mass and energy equiv- tinction from the time coordinate. This is evidenced by 2 2 2 alence (E0 = mc vs E = Mc or E = γmc ). Thus, the lack of a time operator in virtually all quantum me- in analogy to the weak and strong principle of equiva- chanics, while three-dimensional position operators ex- lence of inertial and gravitational mass, we can speak of ist. The situation is even more vivid in quantum gravity. 2 2 weak-resting (E0 = mc ) and strong-general (E = Mc ) Well, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation describing quantum version of the principle of mass and energy equivalence. spacetime does not contain the fourth dimension at all, The strong-general version, which takes into account the the notion of time. Modern specialists in quantum loop kinetic and potential energy (binding energy) is not phys- gravity are trying to derive the concept of time from the ically equivalent to the formula E = γmc2 or the formula entanglement of three-dimensional quantum space. An E = p(mc2)2 + (pc)2. Of course, binding energy can additional argument in favor of three-vectors versus four- also be included in E0, but this does not change the fact vectors is that both types of vectors contain essentially that E is more general. Since the principle of energy three independent parameters. The only exception is the conservation applies, all forms of energy should have an trivial four-position vector. However, the four-vectors of equal contribution to the mass of the system. velocity and momentum are normalized, and the four- A somewhat less spectacular but closely related issue vectors of acceleration and force are orthogonal to veloc- is the dispute over the most general formula of the second ity. These conditions reduce the number of degrees of law of dynamics. It is claimed that the simple product freedom from four to three. form of this law known from the school, i.e. F = ma (or In the case of ordinary acceleration, the mentioned cor- F = MA), is less general than the form with derivative of respondence of dual quantities is more complicated than momentum with respect to time (rate form F = dp/dt). for other vectors. This correspondence can be greatly Is this really true? It turns out that in a sense no, and this simplified by the definition of three-dimensional relativis- negative answer enables for an unambiguous definition of tic acceleration A. The definition of this acceleration is the inertial mass. To justify a negative answer to this not an ad hoc definition based only on the relation of force question, it is necessary to analyze the variable mass in and relativistic mass (A = F/M). The notion of acceler- the Newton and SR mechanics. In the case of SR, the ation is based on the velocity differential (dv)rel, which difficulty is at least doubled, because a variable rest mass should actually be calculated not as an ordinary differ- m(t) should be considered, which further complicates the ence, but in accordance with the velocity algebra in SR variability of the relativistic mass or other mass M(t, v). kinematics. The essence of Einstein’s relativistic velocity Furthermore, it is not clear what the simple product form subtraction (operation 0) is the Lorentz transformation of the ordinary motion equation in SR is (F 6= ma and into a system moving at a subtracted velocity (means into M =? , A =?). What is more, the full general relativistic instantaneous rest reference system for velocity differen- equation of motion with variable rest mass is not known tial). However, if for some reasons, the transformation yet (for u 6 k v or Fext 6= 0). will be performed to slightly different reference systems Another problem of SR is the three-dimensional or (than resting), the subtraction of velocity will take on four-dimensional duality of physical vector quantities another form (e.g. differential-equivalent operations k µ µ (e.g. v, F versus ν , f ). This dualism boils down to or ⊥). When calculating the relativistic velocity dif- the equality of the spatial part of the four-vector and the ferential in the context of acceleration and motion equa- three-vector practically only for position and momentum. tion, the Lorentz transformation generally does not refer However, already for velocity or force, spatial parts of only to the instantaneous resting reference system. The the dual quantities differ by the Lorentz factor (~ν = γv, correct reference system (according to k) depends on f~ = γF). Formulating SR in Minkowski four-dimensional the direction in which the differential of velocity is cal- spacetime using four-vector is a widely recognized, ele- culated. For example, in the direction perpendicular to gant geometric method. However, one cannot forget that the velocity, no Lorentz transformation is needed at all, SR is a physical theory (it is part of physics) and should while in the direction parallel to the velocity, we need 3 transformation to the instantaneous resting system of the where: a – acceleration. The equation (1) will here be body. In the direction of force, however, the Lorentz referred to as the rate form and the equation (2) will be transformation is performed at a velocity projected on referred to as the simple form. This last form was used the direction of force. Furthermore, the interpretation by Mach in 1883 in his system of mechanical definitions: of operation ∧ in calculating the velocity differential is Moving force is the product of the mass-value of a body based on the Lorentz transformation with an infinitely into the acceleration inducted in that body [58]. low velocity (differential), so it is asymptotically asso- A naive application of the rate form for a body with ciated with the initial reference system, and not with variable mass leads to a wrong equation: rest system of the body. This method (operation ∧) d(mv) dv dm of subtracting velocity leads to the most general concept F = = m + v (incorrect). (3) dt dt dt of Oziewicz ternary relative velocity. And the operation This equation is inconsistent with the Galilean transfor- resulting from calculating the velocity of jet gases ⊥ mation [80]. The correct equation for the movement of relative to the rocket leads to Oziewicz binary velocity. a body with variable mass was not discovered until the All differential-equivalent operations ( , , , , k ⊥ ∧ ∨ 19th century: ) are also equivalent for acceleration. The existence of many differential-equivalent operations can be explained dpsys d(mv + δmu) dv dm Fext = = = m − (u − v), by the fact that the relativistic velocity differential is dt dt dt dt not an exact differential. Consequently, finite velocity (4) differences depend on the contractual integration path. where: Fext – external force, psys – momentum of sys- This situation is reminiscent of the property of noncom- tem, δm – small attaching (or detaching) mass, u – ve- mutability in the Lorentz group and is associated with locity of δm. The earliest known publication with the the Thomas-Wigner rotation. It turns out that the sub- formula (4) is the work from 1812 by von Buquoy [13], tleties of velocity vector compositions are described by continued in 1815 [14]. The problem of variable mass mathematical physicists in terms of relativistic groupoid was also studied by a well-known scientist Poisson [84] in or a loop (quasigroup) called a gyrogroup. These struc- 1819. However, the equation (4) or (5) is best known as tures are based on hyperbolic geometry applied to the Meshchersky equation from his publication of 1897 [61] or concept of relativistic relative velocity. 1904 [62]. On the basis of this equation Tsiolkovsky de- Therefore, this work does not introduce alternative rived the famous rocket equation published in 1903 [101]. content to SR. On the contrary, it deepens the concep- The second law of variable mass motion in the quasir- tual apparatus and solves the above-mentioned problems ate form (4) can be put in a simple form: in an orthodox, but original way. It has the following di- dm ma = F = F + F = F + (u − v), (5) vision of contents: sections I–V constitute a strictly his- tot ext th ext dt torical introduction, sections VI–VIII present the status where: Ftot – total force, Fth – thrust force (or braking). quo of the subject matter and sections IX–XIV present This also applies to the thrust force expression if we use the developments made by the author. The historical the third law of dynamics: part contains original and precise analysis of pioneering u − v research, e.g. the Kaufmann mass measurement experi- Fth = −Fδm = − lim δm , (6) ∆t→0 ∆t ment or various Einstein mass definitions. The status quo presentation contains a description of the criticism and where: Fδm – force acting on δm = −∆m, ∆m – mass in- polemical disputes. The author’s results are confronted crement (implicitly negative), ∆t – time increment. Ac- with contemporary results. cording to Johnson [40], the problem of variable mass was also solved by Moore in 1813 [64]. Let’s try to write the equation in simple form (5) back in the rate form: I. NONRELATIVISTIC MOTION EQUATION d(mv) dm dm = F + v = F + u. (7) dt tot dt ext dt In 1687, Newton published the second law of motion Therefore, the derivative of the momentum of the rocket equivalent to the equation [68]: is neither total force nor external force, and none of the additions to these forces is here a thrust force. dp d(mv) F = = , (1) The presented considerations show that in nonrela- dt dt tivistic mechanics the rate form equation is not more general than the simple form (see also [106]). On the where: F – force, p – momentum, t – time, m – mass contrary, (3) is false, and the equations (5) and (6) in (invariant), v – velocity. For constant mass Newton equa- the simple form are true. And the quasirate form (4) tion adopts the form well-known from school: describes a closed system with constant mass, not solely dv a body with variable mass. So equation (7) can only be F = m = ma, (2) dt called a pseudo-rate form. 4

II. LORENTZ INVESTIGATION 1899, 1904 sphere or an ellipsoid in uniform movement. This en- ergy was not proportional to velocity squared, which sug- As a result of analyses of different reference systems for gested the existence of rest energy and so-called electro- the movement of a charge in an electromagnetic field, in magnetic mass which depends on velocity. The simplest 1899 Lorentz described the dependence of inertial mass way to calculate mass from energy was the formula used on velocity and direction [55]: by Kaufmann in 1901 [41]:

F k 3 F⊥ 1 dE  1 dE  µk = = γ m , µ⊥ = = γm, (8) µ = = µ = k , (11) ak a⊥ v dv k v dv where: µk – longitudinal mass, µ⊥ – transverse mass, where: µ – electron mass (longitudinal, electromagnetic), γ = 1/(1 − v2/c2)1/2 – Lorentz factor, c – speed of light, E – electron electromagnetic field energy (or relativistic Fk – component of vector parallel to velocity (for force), energy), Ek – kinetic energy. a⊥ – component of vector perpendicular to velocity (for It was only later when it turned out that the said for- acceleration). These formulas were presented by Lorentz mula determined the so-called longitudinal mass (µ = in a text at the end of his work from 1899 and then in- µk). The terms of longitudinal mass and transverse mass cluded in his work from 1904 [56] in a form that looks like were introduced using momentum by Abraham in 1902 a vector (of mass). In both works Lorentz also considered [1]: additional scaling factor of spacetime coordinates (dilata- tion), which in this work equal 1. Surprisingly, correct dp p µk = , µ⊥ = , (12) formulas (8) were obtained by Lorentz on the basis of the dv v not perfectly explicit and clear transformation [55, 56]: where: p – electron electromagnetic field momentum (or electron momentum). He also gave other formulae based 1 v 0 0 on the Lagrangian function L of the electron field (or x = γx˜ , t = t − γ 2 x˜ (unclear), (9) γ c electron itself): 0 0 where: x , t – position and time in a moving system; x, t d2L 1 dL µ = , µ = , (13) – position and time in an initial system, andx ˜ ≡ x−vt is k dv2 ⊥ v dv implicitly the position in a moving system calculated ac- cording to the Galileo transformation (originally denoted which was recognised in the next work by Abraham [2] by x)[18]. Interestingly, the original transformation de- from the same year. It should be noted that Abra- noted by Lorentz (x withoutx ˜) with accuracy of the fol- ham apart from Lagrangian in (13) distinguished in (11) lowing inversion x → −ct0, x0 → −ct, t → x0/c, t0 → x/c electrostatic energy (resting energy) and magnetic en- is in accordance with transformation given by Tangher- ergy (simplified kinetic energy of motion). It was some- lini in 1958 [99], Mansouri and Sexl in 1977 [59] and some what related to the longitudinal and transverse mass, but other contemporary independent scholars [97]. It turns also generated an additional division into electromagnetic out that such a modified transformation can be explained mass and specific mass (see e.g [65]). However, as part within SR by means of appropriate clocks synchroniza- of the dynamics of the SR, this division does not seem tion, in this case external synchronization [52]. The necessary here. Similarly, for E, p, L no distinction is Lorentz transformation was simplified (implicitly equiva- made between field and particles designations, although lent) and clearly recorded on 5th June 1905 by Poincare they may differ and lead to different formulae for masses. [83], who gave it a form very close to its contemporary Kaufmann mass calculated from Searl’s energy and version: Abraham’s masses, which were calculated for the spher- ical electron, satisfies the inequality:  v  x0 = γ(x − vt) , t0 = γ t − x , y0 = y , z0 = z, (10) c2 m m µk ≤ 6 , µ⊥ ≤ 2 (incorrect). (14) 1 − v2
5 1 − v2
5 where: y, z, y0, z0 – coordinates along the directions per- c2 c2 pendicular to velocity. Poincare originally used units like The original equalities were more complex and contained c = 1, and additionally, just like Lorentz, he considered logarithms. The simpler inequities given here are correct scaling (dilatation), which is omitted here. in relation to the equalities of Abraham, but they con- tradict the correct formulae of Lorentz (8). The source of this contradiction was the omission of the longitudinal III. KAUFMANN AND ABRAHAM 1901, 1902 contraction of the spherical electron in motion. Abraham derived formulae with equalities for sphere in its first pub- In 1897 Searle [95] calculated the energy E (originally lication [1] and finally concluded them in his third work denoted by W) of electromagnetic field generated by a from 1903 [3]. 5

In 1901 Kaufmann [41] was experimenting with the dependence of mass on velocity for radium beta radiation (see Tab.I ).

TABLE I: Kaufmann’s measurements results for calculation of dynamic (transverse) mass. Characteristic parameters and measured values of the experiment refer directly to the work [41]. However, the velocity and the ratio of dynamic mass to charge were calculated all over again (for two variants of assumptions). Kaufmann originally gave the reverse charge- to-mass ratio, but similarly to the velocity calculations, he reproduced a fatal error. This error was corrected in another work [42] containing unfortunately another unjustified modi- fication. Original results Compiled results Recomp. results Kaufmann 1901 Koczan 2019 h0 = 1.873 cm 0 0 z0 y0 v M/e v (M/e) 8 m −12 kg 8 m −12 kg [cm][cm] [10 s ] [10 C ] [10 s ] [10 C ] 0.271 0.0621 2.82 16.14 2.97 15.29 0.348 0.0839 2.68 13.32 2.82 12.63 0.461 0.1175 2.53 10.79 2.67 10.23 0.576 0.1565 2.37 9.39 2.50 8.89 FIG. 1: A print from Kaufmann’s work from 1901 [41] show- 0.688 0.198 2.24 8.51 2.36 8.06 ing schematically the electron trajectory in the experiment. x1 x2 δ U B h The homogeneous magnetic field was directed in the opposite [cm][cm][cm][V ][T ][cm] direction to the y axis and covered the entire area of electron 2.07 2 0.1525 6750 0.0299 1.775 movement. The homogeneous electric field was parallel to the magnetic one but only covered the K capacitor area. The electron that was recorded at the point P (0, y0, z0) on the He measured specific charge e/M of fast electrons on photographic plate yz had to pass through the hole B, fly- the basis of trajectory deviation in parallel electric and ing out earlier from the radioactive source located below the magnetic fields (see Fig.1 ). The symbol M refers here capacitor. The capacitor was thin enough (δ/x1 ≈ 0.07) so to apparent dynamic (transverse) mass (F/a for F ⊥ v). that it can be roughly considered that the electrostatic force Electric field of the value E = U/δ acted on the electron was perpendicular to the velocity of the electron. In addition, for about half of its trajectory. Next, the electron was the electron exited the capacitor at exactly the same speed at which it fell into it. Thus, the experiment determined the deviated only by the magnetic field of the value B and transverse mass, which was approximately constant during registered on a photographic plate. The main measur- the electron movement. ing device was slightly over 4 cm long. An analysis of the photographic plate required the use of a microscope micrometer. Unfortunately, in 1901 Kaufmann miscalcu- dium chloride RaCl2. He received this source from Maria lated the radius ρ of curvature of electrons trajectory. He Sklodowska-Curie and Pierre Curie [43]. corrected the mistakes in his next work in 1902 [42], in The measurements results by Kaufmann were analysed which he additionally rescaled the data, which brought in 1904 by Lorentz [56]. However, his evaluation was not his results closer to Abraham theory. The intervention in exhaustive and unambiguous, for as he wrote: I have not the data was considerable enough to lead Kaufmann to found time for calculating the other tables in Kaufmann’s remove one of the five experimental points (the one with paper. Lorentz analysed tables III and IV from [43] and the highest velocity). The results compiled in Tab.I tables II and III from [44]. At the end of his analysis, were obtained in a very similar method as used by Kauf- Lorentz wrote: We may expect a satisfactory agreement mann in 1901. Basically, only the error in counting the with my formulae. In 1906 Kaufmann’s works [46] (table radius of curvature has been corrected and greater preci- VI, VII) were analysed by Planck [82]. Despite the line sion of calculations has been applied. Apart from radius of thinking drawn with his previous article [81], Planck correction, the modified Kaufmann’s calculation method had to admit a slight advantage of Abraham theory: It from 1902 was not used. can be seen that the latter are closer to the sphere theory Between 1902 and 1906 Kaufman continued his re- than to the relative theory. Still, because of insufficient search, but because of the lack of determining an unam- precision of the measurements, Planck did not consider biguous value of magnetic field induction (among others) the Kaufmanns conclusion of his critic of Lorentz and he did not solve the problem [43–46]. However, Kauf- Abraham theories as final. mann significantly improved the precision of experimen- A thorough review of Kaufmann’s works and their tal points by using a strong source in the form of pure ra- analysis by Lorentz and Planck (and even Einstein) was 6

Planck’s approximation is equivalent to h0 ≈ 1.07h, and here h0 ≈ 1.06h is assumed. However, due to the com- pliance with the Lorentz theory of the h version, and not h0, the correctness of the version with the raw data h can be considered post factum. Thus, it can be said that the reanalysis of the first Kaufmann experiment of 1901 showed post factum compliance with Lorentz’s the- ory and not with Abraham’s. Officially, the experimental confirmation of the superi- ority of Lorentz theory over Abraham theory came with the experiments by Butcherer in 1908 [12], who used perpendicular, not parallel, magnetic and electric fields [108]. It is worth adding that Bucherer in 1904 [11], as well as Langevin in 1905 [51] gave yet another model of electromagnetic mass, which one was not confirmed. In the Bucherer–Langevin model, the transverse mass was 2/3 FIG. 2: The dependence of ratio of dynamic mass (trans- γ m. In practice, their formula did not differ much verse) and electron charge on its velocity on the basis of the from the Abraham formula, and for v = 0.9650c both first measurements by Kaufmann from 1901 [41]. Five exper- formulae will be equal. While the Abraham model was imental points are blurred into sections depending on how far based on an invariably spherical electron, the Bucherer– the electric field goes beyond the plates of the capacitor. The Langevin model assumed sphere deformation during mo- calculation of the left ends of the sections neglects the electric tion that retained volume [39]. However, according to field outside the capacitor, and the right ones assume its bi- SR, the sphere should flatten in the direction of move- lateral exit by 1/3 of the distance between the plates and the aperture with the hole for electrons. Correct calculations did ment, and its volume should then decrease. The smaller not require the use of relativistic mechanics and knowledge of size of the charge is the greater energy of the electromag- physical constants. netic field around it, which may explain why the theory with the largest (transverse) mass has been experimen- tally confirmed. Contrary to appearances, Lorentz did made by Cushing in 1981 [17]. Cushing’s work con- not explicitly derive his theory from full calculations of tains many important drawings and tables regarding the energy of the flattened sphere, but from transformational Kaufmann experiments. Rather, this work confirms af- rules (somewhat like Einstein later). ter Lorentz and Planck the lack of conclusiveness of the Kaufmann experiments regarding Abraham’s theory in relation to Lorentz’s theory. However, Cushing’s orygi- IV. EINSTEIN AND PLANCK 1905–1907 nal analysis of the Kaufmann experiment from 1901 was based on too many approximations. On 30 June 1905, Albert Einstein published his work The subtlety of distinguishing Lorentz theory from [21] where, based on the postulate of constant speed of Abraham theory is best evident from the diagram on light, he derived the correct transformation of coordi- Fig.2 drawn on the basis of the first ever Kaufmann ta- nates in the form of (10). Based on that he determined ble [41]. Contrary to the analyzes by Lorentz and Planck, the transformation of the component of velocity parallel the diagram takes into account the calculations of the ra- to the motion of frame (relativistic velocity subtraction tio of mass (transverse) and charge from the experiment. formula): Also, the points on the graph do not use any physical constants values m, e and c and all given data are calcu- u − v (u − v) = u v = u0 = , (16) lated from experiment. However, if we assume the value rel 1 − uv/c2 of c = 3 · 108m/s to calculate the proper electron charge p 2 2 e/m = 1 − v /c e/M based on Tab.I then we get: where: u – body velocity, v – boost velocity, u0 – body e/m = (1.738 ± 0.021) · 1011C/kg (reanalysis), (15) velocity in a new frame. Originally, Einstein wrote the law for addition, not subtraction of velocity. He also while the accepted value is 1.75888 · 1011C/kg. There- proposed a general expression for the value of resultant fore, Kaufmanns raw data fit better with Lorentz theory. velocity vector |u 0 v|. For further applications, con- However, this conformity fails if we assume that electric sider here the (seemingly) equivalent vector form of this 0 field is slightly outside the capacitor area (h < h < x1). velocity subtraction (see [27] for u 0 v := (−v) ⊕ u): Based on Cushing [17], Kaufmann measured this, and γ Planck approximated the field decay at the edge of the u − v + v (u × v) × v/c2 u v = u0 = γv+1 =: u , (17) capacitor with a linear function. The averaging of the 0 1 − uv/c2 0 7 where Lorentz factor γv depends on v. This formula load acceleration (equals kinetic energy) [21]: is called Einstein’s relativistic law of velocity composi- 2 4 tion (subtraction or addition). In fact, Einstein, speci- 2 mv 3 mv Ek = W = mc (γ − 1) ≈ + + ... . (21) fying this law only for the velocity value, determined it 2 8 c2 with the accuracy of rotation. Thus, in a sense, Einstein Because of the facts presented above Einstein never ac- left a gap here for Thomas-Wigner rotation. Formula cepted the idea of mass depending on velocity [35]. Evi- (17) is a vector generalization of the formula (16), but dence of that is a letter to Barnett from 1948 whose frag- (u v) 6≡ u v . Therefore, index 0 was used for 0 i i i ment can be found in Okun’s work [71], and its corrected the vector operation. Zero means that this is not the translation in discussion [90]. Many critics of relativistic only possible way to approach the problem of subtrac- mass refer to this letter. But they forget that from the tion of velocity vectors. The simplest, but not entirely beginning Einstein was having problems defining mass correct vector generalization (depending on the choice of and he was searching for the right definition. Surpris- the Cartesian xyz system) is the transfer of operation ingly, he did not find it in the mass-energy relation nor (16) to the components as (u v) := u v . 1 i i i in the work from 1905 [22], nor in the work from 1907 Another important element of the work [21] was the [24], where he included the following equations (see also derivation of relativistic equation of motion for a charge [29]): in electromagnetic field: 2 3 2 E0 mc mγ a = qE , mγ a⊥ = γq(E⊥ + v × B), (18) m = ,E = , (22) k k c2 p1 − v2/c2 where: E – intensity of electric field, B – induction where: m – rest mass, E – rest energy, E – relativis- of magnetic field, q – electric charge. The method for 0 tic energy (total energy of the body, means the sum of derivation those equations, as well as their form, referred kinetic and resting energy). to the components of force vector in a resting frame of a Another step of the evolution of the relativistic equa- body. So Einstein explicitly determined longitudinal and tion of motion was rewriting Einstein equation (18) by transverse mass as follows: Planck in 1906 [81] in the form: 0 0 F k F 3 0 ⊥ 2 2 µk = = γ m , µ⊥ = = γ m (unclear), (19) mγa = q(E + v × B) − q(vE)v/c . (23) ak a⊥

0 0 Because of the last element in this equation, it did not where: F k, F ⊥ – values of force components in a rest 0 have the simple form, so Planck gave his equation the frame, µ⊥ – Einstein’s transverse mass. Wanting to reduce the difference between longitudinal and trans- rate form: verse mass, Einstein choose the definition overstating the dp d(mγv) q(E + v × B) =: F = = . (24) transverse mass by gamma factor. He was referring there dt dt to the rest value of force, at the same time using not rest acceleration (see [7]). The factor γ2 does occur with mass This equation could be presented seemingly in the simple in the perpendicular component of four-force and in al- form: ternative energy based on four-force instead of force [74], d(γv) d~ν but Lorentz proposal (8) was more correct. If Einstein F = m = m , (25) dt dt had used in (19) primes in the denominator instead of the numerator, he would have a longitudinal mass equal where ~ν = γv is the three-dimensional part of the four- m and a transverse mass equal m/γ. velocity. But from the perspective of 3D such an equation Einstein even devoted one of his theoretical works from does not have correctly separated mass and acceleration 1906 to the possibility of experimental measuring the ra- (in the sense of (2) or (8)). In the following sections we tio of transverse and longitudinal mass [23]. Unfortu- will also see that this apparently simple form does not nately, Einstein used the ordinary and wrong formula translate into an equation with a variable mass. with longitudinal mass (like Bucherer in 1904 [11]):

µ v2  mv2 3 mv4  V. THE MASS OF LEWIS-TOLMAN 1908–1912 E = k ≈ + + ... (incorrect). (20) k 2 2 4 c2 AND THE FEYNMAN LECTURES 1963–2011

Despite that, as well as (19) and (8), the presented the- Until that time, mass in the relativistic theory had ory of masses was called by Einstein as Lorentz–Einstein been mostly electromagnetic mass, and its transforma- theory [23], which is somewhat justified [107]. However, tion principles resulted from Maxwell equations and the writing the formula (20) is surprising because already in formula for Lorentz force of motion equations. It was 1905 Einstein gave the correct expression for work W of only in 1908 Lewis and 1909 when Lewis and Tolman 8 generalized the Einstein’s relation of equivalency of rest VI. ACTUAL FORMS OF EQUATION OF mass and energy (22) onto a case of motion [53, 54]: MOTION

E In 3D formalism, the most popular became the rate M = , (26) c2 form equation by Planck (24), explicitly: ! where: M – relativistic mass also described by (27). d mv F = . (28) Originally, the authors used m instead of M (and rest dt p1 − v2/c2 mass was denoted with m0 instead of m). Lewis showed in [53] that the principle of mass and energy equivalence This equation can be presented in the following form: (26) implies a relativistic mass formula (27). The same 3 2 3 derivation is given in the Feynman Lectures on Physics F = mγa + mγ (va)v/c = mγa⊥ + mγ ak, (29) [28](Sec. 15-9), what is copied in work [30]. or equivalently using the vector product [33]: In 1912, Tolman introduced theoretical dependence of mass from velocity based on the relativity principle [102]: F = mγ3[a + v × (v × a)/c2]. (30)

m Somewhat simpler is the counterpart of the equation M = mγ = = µ⊥. (27) p1 − v2/c2 (23): mγa = F − (vF)v/c2 = F + γ−2F , (31) Tolman considered the principle of momentum conserva- ⊥ k tion in a perfect inelastic collision. Its derivation which which gets complicated by using a vector product: regards mass as a coefficient of velocity in the expression for momentum determined transverse mass in accordance mγa = γ−2F − v × (v × F)/c2. (32) with (12). But earlier Lewis and Tolman had stressed a more universal, i.e. (26), character of mass M. Contrary In 4D formalism, the movement equation was written to the popular belief, it is not Einstein who should be in 1908 by Minkowski [63] basically in one of the following considered the author of the relativistic mass but Lewis forms: and Tolman [35]. Einstein did not consider this concept d2xµ dνµ dpµ until 1946, but he did not explicitly accept it [26]. f µ = m = m = = maµ, (33) dτ 2 dτ dτ In 1914, the ideas of Lewis and Tolman were inde- pendently confirmed in a more comprehensive and a bit where: f µ – four-vector of force, νµ – four-vector of ve- forgotten work by Lorentz [57]. Lorentz used the same locity, aµ – four-vector of acceleration, τ – rest time of notations M and m as in this work. He also called mass body. The price for the simplicity of this equation is re- M as transverse mass, but he did not use longitudinal defining of the notions of f µ, νµ, aµ, τ in relation to the mass in his work. 3D notions of F, v, a and time t. For example, the spatial Derivations such as that by Tolman for relativistic part of the four-acceleration is expressed as follows: mass are propagated in several excellent textbooks, in- d~ν d(γv) 2 4 cluding the famous Feynmans lectures [28] (Sec. 16-4). ~a = = γ = γ a⊥ + γ a (34) dτ dt k Unlike Tolman, Feynman presented a derivation based on elastic collision. In section 15-1 [28], Feynman called the and not parallel to ordinary acceleration a. Thus, the relativistic mass the Einstein correction regarding New- last two expressions in (33) are not the rate form, or the tonian mass. It was a logical but not historiographic simple form, of the equations of dynamics in the sense un- opinion. derstood here. This is evident from the rate form (24), Feynman’s lectures are a series of old textbooks from which differs from the above mentioned. Similarly, ap- the sixties. However, they are constantly being revised, parent simple form (25) differ from (33) gamma factor. renewed and authorized. The latest edition has been The proper simple form has not yet been found, its best called the New Millennium Edition (2011) and is au- substitute being (31). thorized by the California Institute of Technology (Cal- The relativistic equation of movement of a body with tech). The preface to the previous edition (2005) was variable mass was derived in 1946 by Ackeret [4]: written by later Nobel prize winner Kip Thorne. Ex- dm tensive documentation of corrections to these lectures is F = mγ3a = γ u v, (35) th dt available at www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/info/.It is surprising, therefore, that content provided by Feynman where: u – velocity of the jet gasses in external frame, and authorized today can be completely independently – relativistic subtraction of velocity in accordance with subjected to such strong criticism (see section VII). (16). Originally, Ackeret did not use here the thrust force 9

Fth, so he reduced one factor γ in this equation. How- gravitational field, which is contradictory to the theory ever, his equation is not a full equivalent of Meshchersky of relativity (both SR and GR). formula (5) because it does not contain external force Adler described inertial mass as follows: and it determines movement only in one spatial dimen- |F| mγ sion. Similar to other researchers, Ackeret concentrated I = = (approximate), (37) |a| 1 − (v/c)2 cos2 θ on a relativistic generalization of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. On the left side of the formula (35) there cor- where: I – inertial mass depending on the direction, θ rectly occurs longitudinal mass; the expression γdm on – the angle between force and velocity. This formula the right side can be interpreted, with precision to a sign, has been corrected in the same parametrization (denoted as relativistic mass of jet gasses (relative to the rocket ob- here θ) by Nowik [69]: server). 3 q In this section of the article it is worth emphasizing mγ 2 4 2 I = p = mγ sin α + γ cos α, that SR has been confirmed experimentally not only in cos2 θ + γ4 sin2 θ electrodynamics or mechanics, but also at the level of (38) Lorentz invariance in particle physics. For example, the where was introduced additional parametrization of the result of weak interaction research published in 2013 [66] angle α between acceleration and velocity (see Fig.3 ). and neutrino research results from 2018 [6] did not con- It is worth noting that the parametrization of this for- firm any violations of Lorentz symmetry. Despite this, mula with the angle β between force and standard accel- the work from 2019 [67] shows that in the area of SR (in eration does not exist. We will later see how it is easiest the context of quantum mechanics of massive gravitons), to fix the formula (37) by modifying its left-hand side original theoretical results are still possible. In addition, rather than the right-hand side as in (65). violations of Lorentz symmetry and CPT are constantly In 1989, Okun became one of serious critics of the no- monitored [48]. tion of relativistic mass [71]. Unfortunately, also he failed to avoid certain mistakes which may point to the biased nature of his article. Okun formulated two questions con- VII. ADLER AND OKUN OFFENSIVE 1987–1989 cerning the relation between energy and mass. First, the most correct formula should be indicated, and secondly, At the beginning of the 1940s, Landau and Lifshitz re- the formula derived by Einstein. The reader could chose leased a textbook on the field theory [50] which included from four presented below expressions, which have been SR and GR which had no reference to relativistic mass paired here according to the correctness, in accordance M. This trend was continued by Taylor and Wheeler [98] with the notations adopted in this work (which corre- and by Ugarov [103] in the 1960s. spond to the notations in Okun’s work): Let us assume the year 1987 of publication of Adler’s 2 2 a) E0 = Mc , b) E = mc , (incorrect) (39) work titled “Does Mass Really Depend on Velocity,

Dad?” [5] as the formal beginning of open criticism of the 2 2 notion of relativistic mass. Despite the fact that the work c) E0 = mc , d) E = Mc . (40) mirrors the past and contemporary views of the major- According to the author (Okun), twice the answer was to ity of physicists (see Meissner’s lecture [60]), Adler did the formally incorrect formula a). While the true formula not escape certain inconsistencies, crucial for this sub- d) was incorrect for Okun because it was not used by ject matter, in the formulas for gravitational and inertial Einstein. In reality, Okun wanted to push forward answer mass. Because I belong to the supporters of the notion of c) but he got lost in their notations. This is proved by the relativistic mass, who are in the minority, I concentrate next formula in his article explicitly defining relativistic on the mistakes made by its critics. However, further in mass M (which he denoted as m and the rest mass by the article I also described the errors made by supporters m0 instead of m). In this context, on the last page of of the relativistic mass in equations (94, 95, 108, 109). his article Okun has objections to Hawking that the only Gravitational mass according to Adler had the follow- formula he had placed in his “A Brief History of Time” ing form: [36] book was equivalent to d) and not c) (although it m originally looked like b)). It is worth noting that even mg = (incorrect), (36) in 1935 Einstein propagated the formula c) (for c = 1), p1 + 2Φ/c2 − v2/c2 while formula d) actually ignored [25, 31]. Another element of Okun’s work was a formula for the where: m – (passive) gravitational mass, Φ – poten- g force of gravity, presented without any reference, which tial of gravitation. Despite the fact that this interesting was equivalent to: formula refers to the general theory of relativity, it is contradictory to the velocities near the velocity of light GM E/c2 F = − [r+v×(r×v)/c2] (incorrect), (41) (Φ < 0). It implies diminishing of the velocity of light in g r3 10 for  = 1, where: Fg – force of gravity, G – gravitational called it rest mass. He described the properties of these constant, M – source of gravitational field, r – position types of mass which can be formalized in the notations vector. This formula for  = −1/2 and E = E0 can be used here for the isolated frame of two not interacting obtained from the transformation of Lorentz force with bodies: a precision of second order in v (obviously, it is not the proper methodology to apply here). Formula (41) was M 6= inv ,M1 ]M2 = M1 +M2 ,M1 +M2 = const; (44) uncritically repeated by Roche [91] for  = 1, despite the fact that the author (R.) quoted the formula for F and m = inv , m1 ]0 m2 6≡ m1 +m2 , m1 +m2 6≡ const; (45) for him “i” in which  = −1, and E/c2 was replaced with mγ3. Okun used his formula for photons, so in where: inv – invariant symbol, ] – relativistic mass con- fact he applied approximation for low velocities to the nection rule, ]0 – rest mass connection rule. As we can ultrarelativistic case. Next, he based on this doubtful see, mass M and mass m have opposing properties re- approximation one of the pillars of his criticism of the garding invariance, additivity and conservativity in the relativistic mass. additive sense. Due to the lack of additivity of rest mass, Okun’s work faced some criticism in collected corre- the later property can be replaced with: spondence [90] which also contained his defence. Okun states there that he had found the formula (41) only m1 ]0 m2 = const. (46) in one textbook by Bowler [9]. Moreover, referring to This formula, however, does not refer to strong interac- E. Schucking, he presents a more general formula the rel- tion. The analysis taking into account the contribution ativistic apple for the gravity force corresponding to (41) of potential and nuclear energy to mass is included in for small M . In 1998, Okun exchanged emails with Einstein’s short article [26] or in Brillouin’s book [10]. M.R. Kleemans a student of Bernard de Wit, about it At present, the principle of mass and energy equivalence [72]. Both men agreed on the issue of Bowler deriva- in the context of nuclear energy and mass deficit is such tive: If this is the one you mean, I agree, is not a very a well-established experimental fact that it does not even good derivation (Kleemans); and they both had doubts require a reference. concerning the factor in the second order term. In 1990, Okun was invited by R.H. Romer to publish in AJP in the context of Adler and Sandin’s works. This in- IX. THREE-DIMENSIONAL DEFINITION OF vitation resulted in a publication [73] only in 2009 which RELATIVISTIC ACCELERATION focused on algebraic aspects of the following relation: Acceleration is a derivative of velocity with respect to m2 = (E/c2)2 − (p/c)2 or E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2. (42) time. In an inertial system, we should use time from In addition, Okun once again criticized Hawking for the this system. And the differential of velocity should be form of quoting the formula of the mass and energy equiv- calculated in accordance with the relativistic law of sub- alence in his new book [37]. tracting velocity of type (16), but not exactly (17). In the plane determined by velocity v and standard accel- eration a in the natural base of this space, we can define VIII. SANDIN, PENROSE DEFENSE 1991, 2004 the relativistic acceleration as:

In 1991, Sandin publishes a work titled “Defence of (dv )rel (v + dv ) v a A = k = k = γ2a = k , (47) Relativistic Mass” [93]. It contains the idea of the fol- k dt dt k γ2 lowing Lemma by Sandin:   dM dM |F| (dv ) (0 + dv ) 0 a F = M(v)a+ v ⇒ 6= 0 ⇒ M 6= , (43) A = ⊥ rel = ⊥ = a = ⊥ , (48) dt dt |a| ⊥ dt dt ⊥ γ2 whose seemingly trivial proof requires the assumption where: Ak,A⊥ – components of relativistic acceleration, M 6= mc2/v2. This Lemma shows that the standard respectively parallel and perpendicular to velocity; ak, a⊥ Adler’s definition of inertial mass (37) is not proper if – components of the spatial part of four-acceleration ~a. the mass changes. In other words, in the light of this The relativistic differential perpendicular to the velocity methodology, only transverse mass is fully consistent. does not differ from the ordinary differential, while the A recognised contemporary relativist, R. Penrose, re- parallel differential is calculated as follows: ferred in his book “The Road to Reality” (2004) in a concise way to the concept of mass [79]. He denoted the v + dvk − v dvk 2 (v+dvk) v = 2 = 2 2 +O(dvk). relativistic mass M as m and named it total mass, and 1 − (v + dvk)v/c 1 − v /c invariable mass m he referred to as µ (like Einstein) and (49) 11

By differential definition high order terms are skipped de- in the linear part (by differential definition) takes the spite using exact equality = instead approximate ≈. The following form: law of velocity subtraction was used in (47, 48) in the v(vdv) sense of following the velocity components, and not as a (dv) = dv + γ2 = γ2dv + dv . (54) rel c2 k ⊥ transforming to a rest frame (concerns the second equa- tion). Therefore, strictly speaking, equation (48) does The operation k (52) in velocity differential (53) can be equivalently replaced by (16) or in Frenet base, not match to 0 (17), but is compatible with (16) in 1 but not by (17). A vector definition of relativistic the sense (u 1 v)i := ui vi. The obtained acceleration 0 does not coincide with the rest acceleration (59) in any three-acceleration can now be given: component. The above definition implicitly prefers two (dv)rel v(t + ∆t) k v(t) ˆ A := := lim , (55) versors of Frenet natural base: t – tangential versor, nˆ dt ∆t→0 ∆t – normal versor. Where this base does not exist (v = 0 or a = 0), any base can be used. In general terms, not where k can be fully equivalently replaced by ⊥ (78) all directions produce a correct value of the acceleration or other operations discussed in section XI. In addition, component. The third and the most important direction in section XI this definition is presented in the form of of the conformity of the definition is the direction of the a ordinary derivative of relative velocity. The new accel- acceleration itself: eration corresponds with the four-acceleration and the standard acceleration as follows:

(dvA )rel aA a cos β ~a 2 A = = = , (50) A = = Sγ (a) = γ2a + a , (56) dt 1 − v2 /c2 1 − (v/c)2 cos2 θ 2 v k ⊥ A γ

γ2 where: vA – velocity component in the direction of A, aA where Sv means stretching (directional scaling) in the – standard acceleration component in the direction of A, direction of velocity v and scale γ2. This transformation β – the angle between standard and relativistic acceler- can be demonstratively interpreted on Fig.3 as dou- ation, θ – the angle between velocity and relativistic ac- ble inversion of Lorentz contraction resulting from the celeration (also force). The above relation requires proof second order differential of position d2r which occurs in based on the components: acceleration. This interpretation would be more accurate for dr2 instead of d2r. 2 2 2 aA/A (γ a + a⊥)A q = k = γ4a2 + a2 = A. (51) (vA)2 A2 − v2 γ4a2 k ⊥ 1 − c2A2 c2 k The definition of acceleration A uses the rule of compo- sition velocity (16) in the direction of the velocity com- ponents into vectors ˆt, nˆ or A. It turns out that it can be generalised for any direction by introducing a vector rule changing only the parallel component of velocity:

u − v + uv (u × v) × v/c2 u v = v2 =: w . (52) k 1 − uv/c2 1

Thus, by definition, this operation does not change the component u perpendicular to v, i.e. (u k v)⊥ = u⊥, while operation on parallel components is carried out ac- cording to (16) and (17). This subtraction operation in- FIG. 3: Diagram showing the relations of the main ac- troduces the function factor ϕ only for the subtractive celeration vectors and their components. The new three- vector, as follows u k v = u − ϕ v. The condition dimensional vector of relativistic acceleration A is a parallel for the parallel component is sufficient to calculate the projection of ordinary acceleration a along the velocity on the ϕ function. Therefore, the resulting vector w1 will be direction of force (or spatial part of the four-acceleration ~a). called relative axial-type velocity. A similar law of veloc- Thanks to this, the construction of acceleration A is simpler ity composing was researched by Fern´andez-Guasti [27] than the construction of rest acceleration a0 and acceleration a . in 2011. Still, his formula “(1)” is dependent of the co- 1 ordinate system (like 1), but no specific system was chosen (like Frenet base). But formally the next vector For comparison purposes, we will also use the vector representation “(6)” is equivalent to (52). Thanks to this law of velocity composing (17) into velocity differentia- law the relativistic differential of velocity vector: tion: γ3 v(vdv) (dv)0 = (v + dv) 0 v = γdv + , (57) (dv)rel = (v + dv) k v, (53) γ + 1 c2 12 which can be simplified to the following form: work of Fern´andez-Guasti containing operation (52). Un- gar [104, 105] and Oziewicz [76–78] did not present the 2 (dv)0 = γ dvk + γdv⊥, (58) differential approach either. It turns out that Lorentz group (of composition veloc- This differential may be used to determining the proper ity and rotations) has many spectacular properties. The (rest) acceleration: best example is the Thomas precession described in 1926 [100] in the context of centripetal acceleration in quan- v(τ + ∆τ) 0 v(τ) 3 2 tum mechanics. Thomas precession surprised even Ein- a0 = lim = γ ak + γ a⊥, (59) ∆τ→0 ∆τ stein himself [19] and, according to R¸ebilas,he surprises physicists to this day [86]. Indeed, the physical phe- where the derivative is calculated with respect to the self nomenon of Thomas precession in the face of the mathe- time ∆τ = ∆t/γ. The product of resting mass and rest- matical effect of Thomas–Wigner rotation gives grounds ing acceleration gives resting force, which gives agree- for an alternative approach to subtraction of velocity vec- ment (59) with Einstein’s masses definition (19). tors [19, 104]. Ungar described this as a loop structure It is also worth considering acceleration occurring in (quasi group), which he called the gyrogroup [104, 105]. (25): Oziewicz, on the other hand, describes it in terms of rel- ativistic groupoid [77]. d~ν d(γv) v(τ + ∆τ) k v(τ) a1 := := := lim . (60) dt dt ∆τ→0 ∆τ X. FORCE AND SIMPLE SECOND LAW F=M A Despite the simplicity of the first two records, this definition has a hybrid nature, because the numerator and denominator refers to different formalisms: four- Planck determined force F by formula (24) in anal- dimensional or three-dimensional. This also applies to ogy to Newton formula (1). In Minkowski spacetime, the last record, in which the denominator refer to the rest however, we have four-force (33), which is expressed as system, and the numerator is based on the new rule of follows: subtracting the components of the velocity, which does (f µ) = (f 0, f~) = (γFv/c, γF). (62) not consist in a full transformation to the rest system. The non-hybrid version of this record is the correct rel- Thus, we should know and be able to justify which of ativistic acceleration (55) or proper (rest) acceleration the vectors F or f~ is the vector of force which occurs in (59). In contrast, the hybrid acceleration itself is related the definition of work. The choice of work in the form of to others as follows: δW = Fδr is the standard SR, and choosing δw = fδ~ r leads to alternative energy [74]. It is also worth know- 3 µ a1 = γA = ~a/γ = γ ak + γa⊥. (61) ing that four-dimensional work nullifies itself fµδx = 0. For this and other reasons (see (64) for the first com- The relations between all considered acceleration vectors ponent), alternative energy is incorrect and inconsistent are shown in the Fig.3 . with experiment. The norm of four-force in the signature Probably the relativistic velocity differential, for one (+, −, −, −) is: dimension acceleration, was first calculated by Barrett µ 2 2 2 in 2002 [8]. Barrett’s differential is only compatible with fµf = −Fk − γ F⊥. (63) equation (49) and does not resolve the key difference of Since the norm of four-force is equal with accuracy to vector expressions (54) and (57). The vector relativis- the sign to the norm of three-force parallel to velocity, tic velocity differential for acceleration was analysed by this can suggest that vector F is more important than f~. R¸ebilas[85] in 2008. However, he used the common ap- But let us consider the following four-covector of work- proach to the algebra of velocity, which led to the confu- impulse: sion which Einstein obtained in (19). Moreover, R¸ebilas applied relativistic addition, not subtraction, of veloc- (δWµ) = (fµ)δτ = (Fδr/c, −Fδt), (64) ity, which forced a rearranged order of operations and an equation inverse of (57), but equivalent. This differential where δW0 = δW/c, but δWt = δW . Exchange F to ~ (dv)0 (57, 58), calculated according to the usual algebra f would destroy transformational laws for (64). In the of speed vectors, can also be found in Dragan’s studies work [33], the vector F is called the Lorentz force, and [19, 20]. The square of such rest differential velocity can the vector f~ or the four-vector f µ is the Minkowski force, be seen in the formula of the Lobachevsky-Einstein ge- while the product of ma is called Newtonian force. One ometry metric described by Fock in the late fifties, to of the objectives of present work is to unify Lorentz force which Cannoni refers (see Appendix). However, the dif- with properly understood Newtonian force. ferential (dv)rel (53, 54) does not appear in the works The derivation of the second law of dynamics in a sim- of Foc, Barrett, R¸ebilas,Dragan, Cannoni or even in the ple form will begin with the correction Adler’s formula 13

(37). It turns out that this formula should be presented XI. VARIABLE MASS MOTION EQUATION AND in the sense of component of the force direction: VELOCITIES SUBTRACTION METHODS

|F| F mγ Now a relativistic generalization of the Meshchersky = = 2 2 . (65) aF a cos β 1 − (v/c) cos θ equation (5), more general than the Ackeret equation (35), will be found. In order to do that, we will use four- Which can be transformed to an equation in the direction vector rate form of the motion equation for a system of of force operation: body and additional mass: a d [m(τ)x ˙ µ + δm(τ)υµ] F = mγ F , (66) f µ = , (72) 1 − v2 /c2 ext F dτ where: f µ – external four-fource, m(τ) – body rest mass which can be proved with the help of (50) using the par- ext depends on self time,x ˙ µ – body four-velocity as a deriva- allelism of F and A from (29) and (47, 48). Using (50), tive of the position with respect to self time, υµ – four- we can write it in the following form: velocity of little additional mass δm. Calculation of the derivative leads to the equation: (dv ) (v + dv ) v F = mγ F rel = mγ F F F . (67) dt dt µ µ µ µ fext = mx¨ +m ˙ x˙ + δmυ˙ . (73)

This equation is true for any force direction, regardless ν The condition of orthogonality fextx˙ ν = 0 allows to cal- of the direction of velocity. Also true are the equations culate: in the direction parallel and perpendicular to velocity: 2 ν δm˙ = −mc˙ /(υ x˙ ν ). (74) (dv )rel (dv ) F = mγ k , F = mγ ⊥ rel . (68) k dt ⊥ dt Application of this relation in (73) will lead to a ready equation: It turns out that the correction of Adler formula (66) µ µ µ µ 2 ν will not be true for every direction. For example, in the fext = mx¨ +m ˙ [x ˙ − υ c /(υ x˙ ν )]. (75) direction a a slightly different relation occurs: Note that the expression in square brackets is orthogonal to the four-velocityx ˙ µ = νµ. It turns out that this ex- Fa a = . (69) pression with the opposite sign equals Oziewicz’s binary mγ(1 + γ2v2/c2) a relative velocity [75] – here, for example, the velocity of jet gases relative to the rocket: However, thanks to (53) in every direction and in ev- ery orthonormal Cartesian coordinate system the motion c2 ωµ(ν, υ) = υµ − νµ (Oziewicz’s). (76) equation is true in the following vector form: υ · ν (dv) Relative velocity is a space-like four-vector, which is nor- F = mγ rel = MA. (70) dt malized like three-dimensional velocity in rocket frame µ 2 2 (with accuracy to the sign) ωµω = −(u 0 v) = −u0, µ µ 2 This is the title relativistic motion equation in the simple not like four-velocities υµυ = νµν = c . If there is a form. It is worth stressing that for the basic directions, relative velocity in the equation, it should also be visible i.e. parallel and perpendicular to velocity and parallel in a three-dimensional version analogous to the Meshch- to force (or relativistic acceleration), the equation does ersky or Ackeret equation: not go beyond the principle (16). Only other arbitrary directions require the use of the equation (52) or (78, 83, d(γv) dm Fext = m − γ u ⊥ v. (77) 89, 90) (see below). dt dt

At the end of this section, consider the form of a motion The operation ⊥ is a new, but the simplest so far, way equation that will appeal to the supporters of the rest to subtract velocity vectors: mass as an inertial mass: u − v + (u × v) × v/c2 u v = =: w. (78) d(γv) (v + dv) v ⊥ 2 F = m = m k = ma . (71) 1 − uv/c dt dτ 1 This subtraction determines the relative velocity of the However, acceleration a1 has an artificial character, jet gases, therefore w it will be called the jet-type rela- which was already justified and will still be in section tive velocity. The operation ⊥ can be interpreted on the XIII. basis of a simplified method of its derivation, that is, by 14 projecting the quasi-four-vector (c, v) onto a hyperplane new and appears in the literature on the subject [19, 27, perpendicular to it in the direction of the quasi-four- 76, 105]. Particularly interesting is the antisymmetric vector (c, u). The projection result contains the analyzed operation from Dragan’s monograph containing lectures formula (..., −u ⊥ v). However, in three-dimensional from SR [19]: terms, it is enough to know that u ⊥ v = ψ u − v, −1 −1 and the compatibility of parallel components (up to v) (γ + γ )(γuu − γvv) u v = u v =: W (Dragan’s). with (15) or (16) enables the calculation of the function ∧ uv u2v2 1 − c2 + γuγv(1 − c4 ) ψ. That is why the rule ⊥ (78) of velocity used for (83) parallel velocities, similar to k (52), coincides with the This complicated formula is the solution to the physically original rule 0 (17). All three rules work differently for simple problem of finding the velocity W, which converts perpendicular velocities, k does not change the perpen- the velocity u to the velocity v, namely u 0 W = v. In dicular component, and ⊥ changes it the most. In spite other words, the relative velocity W of systems in which of this difference, the modified versions of the velocity the velocities of the same body are u and v, respectively, substraction formula are differentially equivalent: is sought. So the solution to this reverse velocity issue is the new subtraction formula W = u ∧ v. The asym- (v + dv) ⊥ v = (v + dv) k v = (dv)rel, (79) metry of this operation (u ∧ v = −v ∧ u) results from where the details are presented in (54), and differ from the properties of Lorentz transformation. Due to this asymmetry and interpretation of relative velocity, it can- (57). Operation ⊥ results from the analysis of the variable mass equation, but it can also be derived from not be ruled out that operation ∧ (83) is a more rea- Oziewicz’s binary relative velocity. It is enough to show sonable subtraction of velocities than operation 0 (17). that this spatial-like four-velocity can be expressed using It turns out that Dragan’s velocity is a special case of three-velocity w in a way analogous to four-force (62). ternary relative velocity introduced by Oziewicz in 2004 Then, such velocity w determines the subtraction of the (see (87)), which can be expressed covariantly by three velocities u and v in another equivalent way: four-velocities: 2 µ µ ν ν µ 0 µ σ · (υ + ν)(c δν − σ σν )(υ − ν ) (ω ) = (ω , ~ω) = (γwv/c, γw) → w = u ⊥ v, (80) ξ = , (84) (σ · υ)2 + (σ · ν)2 + c2υ · ν − c4 where γ depends on v. The vector and value of three- µ dimensional relative jet-type velocity w are not equal to where σ is the four-velocity reference system in which the velocity υµ relative to νµ is determined. Ternary the vector and value u0 of velocity u in a system mov- ing at velocity v, but it is a form of its transformation. velocity is an antisymmetric space-like four-vector, whose After all, it is obvious that for v 6= 0 the input refer- special case is binary velocity: ence system is not resting for v. In other words, we µ µ µ µ are talking here about the additional relativity of rela- ξ (σ, ν, υ) = −ξ (σ, υ, ν) , ξ (ν, ν, υ) = ω (ν, υ). (85) tive velocity associated with the third reference system Ternary velocity is based on the Lorentz transformation (our own). Contrary to intuition, this double kind of in the same way as Dragan’s velocity, to which it is re- relativity also occurs in Galileo spacetime. The idea of duced in the reference system σµ = (c, 0, 0, 0): such relative relativity is qualitatively similar to the idea of Oziewicz ternary relative velocity [76]. By referring (ξµ) = (ξ0, ξ~) = (0, W) → ξ~ = W. (86) to such a “binary-ternary” velocity in a given reference {σ} {σ} {σ} {σ} system to the velocity of the body relative to the uni- The similarity of 4D and 3D formulas is clearer if the form co-moving system w(t0, t) = v(t) ⊥ v(t0), one can ternary velocity is expressed by subtraction of binary ve- simply express relativistic acceleration: locities – what was done by Oziewicz [75, 76]:

dw µ µ A(t0) = (t0, t)|t=t . (81) (γ + γ )(γ ω − γ ω ) dt 0 µ 1 2 2 2 1 1 ξ = 2 2 2 (Oziewicz’s), γ1 + γ2 + γ1γ2(1 + ω1 · ω2/c ) − 1 Instead of the jet-type velocity w, the axial-type velocity (87) w (52) or W (83) can be used here, equivalently. An µ µ µ µ 1 where: ω1 = ω (σ, ν), ω2 = ω (σ, υ), γ1 = (1 + analogous definition for relative four-velocity leads to the 2 2 −1/2 ω1/c ) . Contrary to appearances, gamma factors do ordinary four-acceleration: not differ by the plus sign from Lorentz factors (ω2 < 0), µ but they are formally invariants here. µ dω a (τ0) = (τ0, τ)|τ=τ , (82) Despite the complexity and differences, it can be dτ 0 proved that operation ∧ (83) is differentially equivalent where self time was used. to operations k (52), ⊥ (78): An alternative approach to the algebra of velocity quasigroup (or groupoid) is not something completely (v + dv) ∧ v = (v + dv) k v = (dv)rel. (88) 15

Therefore, under the interpretation of operation ∧ the Operation ⊥ here refers to finite velocities, so it cannot velocity differential is explicitly equal to the Lorentz be replaced by another differential equivalent operation. transformation velocity W = (dv)rel. This velocity In this way, this simplest operation stands out from the tends to zero when calculating the derivative defining ac- others. Despite being based on Oziewicz binary velocity, celeration A. Accordingly, acceleration A is defined in this simple operation has not yet appeared in the litera- a system that asymptotically tends to the main system, ture. and not to any other, in particular (not) to the resting Equation (93), like operation ⊥, does not appear in system of the described body (for v 6= 0). Even the four- the literature, either. For example, consider the equation acceleration, which uses the body’s resting time, does not given in 2019 by Wolny and Strzalka [106]: meet this criterion. Based on the proove of (88), many simpler antisym- dp dM dm dγ = Fext + u = Fext +γ u+m u (incorrect). metric and differential-equivalent operations can be con- dt dt dt dt (94) structed. The simplest of them is operation that looks For dm/dt = 0, this equation is contrary to the ordinary almost like a four-velocity substraction: motion equation (24) due to the last non-disappearing −1 −1 p 2 term. The authors tried to generalize the equation (31) u ∨ v = γuv (γuu − γvv), γuv = 1 − uv/c . (89) for the variable rest mass. Work [106] does not contain In his work, Ungar called a similar operation Einstein’s an exact derivation of the relativistic issue of the variable cooperation [105]: rest mass, but loose generalizations of cases dm/dt = 0 and u = 0 modeled on a non-relativistic (or relativistic) γuu − γvv u v = 2 · , (Ungar’s) (90) version. In one spatial dimension, equation (94) can be γu + γv converted equivalently to the following form: whereby the specific original multiplication ⊗ has been dv F dm replaced here by a simple multiplication “·” by 2. Both mγ3 = ext + γ u v (incorrect). (95) dt 1 − uv/c2 dt operations ∨ (89) and (90) can be interpreted as an- tisymmetric subtraction (as simple as possible) of spatial Nevertherest, the authors gave a different equation [106]: parts of four-velocities. However, in (89) the gamma fac- tor of the result contains uv instead of the square of dv dm mγ3 = F + γ u v. (96) velocity, while in (90) it is the arithmetic mean of the dt ext dt gamma factors for u and v. The differential still unifies This spatially one-dimensional equation is correct and the new and the previous operations (except for opera- consistent with equation (93). Omitting the contradic- tion ): 0 tion of derivation with (94) and (95), the above equation (96) could be considered as a partial generalization of (v + dv) v = (v + dv) ∨ v = (v + dv) k v = (dv)rel. (91) the Ackeret equation (35) for external force. However, In view of these next equivalences, the interpretation deriving the full equation (93) for all cases and spatial of examples (89) and (90) is no longer so important. dimensions was much more difficult. Strong interpretation of operation ∧ (83) is sufficient, additionally supported by interpretations of operations XII. INERTIAL MASS DEFINITIONS k (52) and ⊥ (78). All the operations listed above ( ∧, k, ⊥, ∨, ) are differentially equivalent. This means that they are an important class of local oper- After World War II (and after the atomic bombings µ 2 ations on the four-velocity hyperboloid ν νµ = c , to of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), Einstein wrote a short and which vector operation 0 (17) does not belong. The rarely cited popular science article about the analysis of four-velocity hyperboloid is a curved surface, so the im- the generalization of the principle of mass and energy portant role of differentials in the context of such differ- equivalence in the case of potential gravity energy and ential geometry should not come as a surprise (see Ap- nuclear energy [26]. It was basically Einstein’s only arti- 2 pendix). cle in which he considered mass in the general form E/c , 2 The most general variable mass motion equation (77) and not only in resting form E0/c ([26] vs [35]). Unfor- can be written in a simple form as follows: tunately, Einstein tried to reject this concept on the basis of a negligible mass of heat energy. However, in the case d(γv) γdm of nuclear energy, its contribution to mass is already mea- mγA = m = Fext + Fth = Fext + u ⊥ v, dt dt surable. Einstein described this fact, but without explicit (92) 2 2 reference to the expression E/c (or E0/c ). or in a less expanded form: As mentioned earlier, Einstein in his letter to Barnett ∂M from 1948 postulated the need to present a good defini- MA = F + u v. (93) ext ∂t ⊥ tion of the mass dependent on the velocity. Below are 16 given 10 equivalent, but not identical, definitions of in- 6. Generalization of the Kaufmann formula: ertial mass (dependent on velocity), of which the first 3 1 dE are sufficiently general. M := . (102) v (dv)rel 1. Force and relativistic acceleration ratio (for A 6= 0): This definition used without the velocity substra- F F M := = . (97) tion formula (11) determined the longitudinal mass. (dv ) A F rel dt 7. Generalization of Abraham’s second formula: The direction of the force is absolutely free, and the d2E velocity subtraction rule for differential of velocity M := . (103) (dv)2 does not go beyond (16). rel 2. Time component of mass-momentum four-vector: In its original version (13) for Lagrangian function and without rel, this formula defines longitudinal ∂ ∂ M := pt , pˆ = mγ + mγv , (98) mass. ∂t ∂r wherep ˆ is expressed here in the language of mod- 8. Thrust mass implies with (35) or (92): ern differential geometry (classical, not quantum). M := γ|δm|. (104) This definition of mass does not refer directly to δm the velocity of light c and it is correct also in the It can be noticed that a change in the rest mass Galilean spacetime. leads to relativistic mass regardless of the direction and value of jet velocity with the Lorentz factor for 3. Mass energy equivalent in general form: body velocity. E p M := = t , pˇ = mγc2dt + mγvdr. (99) c2 c2 9. A simple definition consistent with the Sandin lemma: This definition is not the same as (98) because F F energy-momentum four-covectorp ˇ does not exist M(v) = const ∧ a 6= 0 ⇒ M := = ⊥ . (105) in Galilean spacetime, which makes the correspon- a a⊥ dence with a non-relativistic theory difficult. Ein- Inertial mass favours transverse mass as it does not stein used the formula E = mc2 or E = mγc2, 0 change during measuring (defining). but he eventually did not decide to adopt the for- mula E = Mc2 [24, 25, 31, 35]. While there is no 10. Average longitudinal mass: rational reason to consider this formula improper 1 Z v [10, 16, 26, 89]. Most probably, Lewis was the first M := µk(v)dv. (106) ones to propose it [53]. Feynman presented a sim- v 0 ilar approach [28] (Sec. 15-9). The general ver- This definition allows us to easily calculate acceler- sion of the mass-energy equivalence principle has ation time with a constant force: such great heuristic power that, despite some sub- Z t Z v tleties, it can be studied theoretically [110], as well Mv F dt = µk(v)dv ⇒ t = , (107) as planned experimental studies [94] of the phe- 0 0 F nomenon of gravitational mass deficit. which approaches ∞ for v → c. And if we make the 4. Momentum and velocity ratio (for v 6= 0): mistake of averaging the relativistic mass (instead p of the longitudinal mass): M := . (100) v Z T Z c This is the simplest definition of the notion of mass, F dt = M(v)dv (incorrect), (108) 0 0 but it may not be convincing in the light of the redefinition of the formula for momentum with the this time will turn out to be finite [34]: factor γ. This definition was used, among others, π mc T = (incorrect). (109) by Abraham, Lewis and Tolman and Feynman. 2 F 5. Generalization of Abraham’s first formula: The formula (108) can be easily corrected by chang- dp ing dv to (dv) . This observation allows to rewrite M := . (101) rel (dv)rel (106) as a self-consistent formula for averaging one type of mass: The original formula (12) without the relativis- tic differential of velocity determined longitudinal 1 Z v M(v) ≡ M(u)(du)rel. (110) mass. v 0 17

All the definitions lead to the same formula M = mγ. In nian dynamics, which are not disputed by the theory of some cases it is obvious and in others it requires elemen- relativity. tary differentiation or integration. This work concerns only Special Relativity (SR), so it The time has come to present the final interpretation is not attempting to prove that M is a passive or active of mass M depending on velocity. First and foremost, gravitational mass, because it would require the use of it is not self or rest mass but the mass expressing the General Relativity (GR). This does not mean, however, dynamic relation of motion of a body in relation to the that this is not true, which is partly suggested by the spacetime. As postulated by Mach, physical mass is not work from 2019 [110], contrary to some previously cited only an immanent property of a body but it also deter- works. Similarly, the relativistic mass of photons has mines its relations with the environment. In this case, not been discussed here, because it would require the use it is the relation connected with motion, which is rela- of quantum mechanics and the formulae of wave-particle tive. Mach criticized the substantial definition of mass duality E = hf and p = h/λ. The use of these formu- by Newton and in 1883 he wrote: The true definition of lae for photons can be found in another author’s work mass can be deduced only from the dynamical relations [47]. The particle mass with classic spin [49] was also of bodies [58]. An increase of mass along with velocity not discussed here. It turns out that for such particles is similar to the contraction of length, but it operates in there is some variation already at the level of rest mass √ µ µ 2 the opposite direction. In a rest frame, a body has a par- definition m = pµp /c orm ˜ = pµν /c . The most ticular rest length and rest mass. In a frame moving fast precision determination of the rest mass of an electron relative to a body, the instantaneous length of the body based on the measurement and calculations of quantum is smaller and the inertial mass is higher. Contraction of electrodynamics is in the works [96, 109]. Lorentz length is considered to be an experimental and theoretical fact, but the increase of mass has many oppo- nents among physicists (e.g. [5, 60, 69–71]). Supporters XIII. SPACETIME-SPACE CORESPONDENCE of the relativistic mass are rather an older generation of relativists (e.g. [10, 28, 57, 79, 88, 93]). Mass growth can Let’s consider in Minkowski space the physical quan- µ 0 also be compared to time dilation. It is often acknowl- tity: four-vector (q ) = (q , ~q) or scalar q. This quantity edged that the relativistic mass results from time dilation corresponds to the three dimensional vector Q or a semis- and is denied its own sense. The matter, however, is not calar Q. If the following relation occurs: obvious, because the acceleration determining the iner- ~q = γnQ or q = γnQ (111) tial mass is the second (and not the first) derivative of displacement over time. Time is subject to dilation, and we will say that the given quantity has the rank n. The displacement is subject to a form of contraction, so with Tab.II presents seven most important mechanical quan- the second derivative it is difficult to say that only the tities (four kinetic and three dynamic), which meet the first effect decides. These controversies arose from the aforementioned condition. lack of a solid definition of inertial mass based on the relativistic law of velocity subtraction, ergo on the lack TABLE II: Corespondence of 4D and 3D quantities. The of a correct manner of determining acceleration. The observable physical world is three-dimensional, so rules are lack of these definitions entailed numerous, and not al- needed to define three-dimensional observables based on ways correct, speculations. The dependence of mass on spacetime quantities. Theory of relativity does not explain velocity has been demonstrated experimentally by Kauf- why time is not observed as a geometrical dimension. Perhaps mann four years before Einstein announced his theory of this problem will be explained by quantum gravity [38, 92]. relativity. The fact of this dependence was undeniable, Quantity Spacetime (4D) Rank Space (3D) and only its detailed formula was debatable (Lorentz’s Position (xµ) = (ct, r) 0 r = ~x formula versus Abraham’s formula). In later years the Velocity (νµ) = (γc, γv) 1 v = ~ν/γ analogous experiments [12] were repeated but the results Rel. velocity (ωµ) = (γwv/c, γw) 1 w = ~ω/γ of the measuring points were presented in the form of rest Acceleration (aµ) = (γ4av/c,~a) 2 A = ~a/γ2 µ dνµ dωµ dw mass m = m (v) = const. In the author’s opinion, such a = dτ = dτ A = dt 0 2 4 2 an approach is inconsistent with the historic Kaufmann ~a = γ a + γ (av)v/c Momentum (pµ) = (mγc, mγv) 0 p = ~p and Newtons point of view (in the sense of its simple Force (f µ) = (γFv/c, γF) 1 F = f/γ~ form), although it was convenient in the verification of √ µ Mass m = pµp /c –1 M = mγ the theory. The point is that the calculation of the rest M = pt = p0/c = mγ M = pt mass m of a moving body requires the application and selection of a specific theory (e.g. Lorentz or Abraham) and knowledge of the value of c. In contrast, the value We can see that without introducing a new definition of M in the Kaufmann experiment results more directly of relativistic acceleration A and relativistic mass M, from the measurement under the foundations of Newto- the Tab.II would not be so clear. Velocity is the first 18 derivative with respect to time, so it has the rank 1 (both Operations k and ⊥ turned out to be differentially- ordinary and relative). By analogy, acceleration has the equivalent to the antisymmetric operation ∧ found in rank 2. Force is a derivative of momentum (rank 0) with the literature. Operation ∧ allows the velocity differ- respect to time, so it has rank 1. The consequence of the ential to be interpreted asymptotically within a local ob- relation of momentum and velocity or force and acceler- server, without any reference to the instantaneous rest- ation is mass rank of −1. The second rank of acceler- ing system of the body. In addition, the result of ∧ ation A is a counter-argument against the acceleration turned out to be a three-dimensional version of the co- a1 of the first rank as a seemingly elementary relativis- variant 4D Oziewicz ternary relative velocity. A simpli- tic acceleration. Therefore, the four acceleration can be fied differential-equivalent version ∨ of the found oper- expressed as follows: ation was also given. Ultimately, it turned out that all considered alternative operations k, ⊥, ∧, ∨ are µ 0 2 2 (a ) = (a , ~a) = (γ Av/c, γ A). (112) differentially-equivalent to operation similar to Ein- stein’s cooperation in the theory of gyrogroup. We can see that there are two natural conventions of mass. The first one is based on the scalar m in 4D and The consequence of the correct definition of relativis- semiscalar M in 3D. Definition (111) refers to this ap- tic three dimensional acceleration, motion equation in proach. The second convention regards the time compo- the simple form and of using the relativistic velocity sub- nent of four-momentum (98), which in both spaces gives struction formula is clarification, generalisation and uni- mass M. This approach corresponds very well with mass fication of numerous formulae for inertial mass (relativis- in Galilean spacetime. tic mass). Five of the ten definition mass formulae (97, In the context of this section, it is worth knowing that 101, 102, 103, 110) given in section XII are based on there are three-vector invariants of Lorentz transforma- the notion of relativistic differential velocity. In these tion described by R¸ebilas [87]. definitions, it is not necessary to replace the standard subtraction velocity (16) with other alternative opera- tions considered (and it would be equivalent anyway). In XIV. CONCLUSION other words, in the direction parallel to the velocity, all the laws of velocity subtraction considered in the work The title purpose of this work to write a relativistic are differential-equivalent, without exceptions. Similarly, equation of motion in simple form F = MA has been the defined inertial mass meets the general principle of fully realised by the equation (70). This was possible mass and energy equivalence E = Mc2, without excep- thanks to deriving original definitions (55) and (81) of tion for kinetic energy. In addition, it has been shown relativistic acceleration A based on the relativistic dif- at the level of dimensional analysis and transformation ferential of velocity (dv)rel (53, 54, 79, 88) or axial-type, laws that the time component of the four-momentum is jet-type and binary and ternary relative velocities (52, strictly speaking the mass pt = M, and not energy or 78, 80, 83, 86): its other conversion equivalent (e.g. E/c). This fact also applies to Galileo’s spacetime, where pt = M = m. The (dv) dw dw dW d(γv) A := rel := 1 := := ≡ . (113) energy in Minkowski spacetime is strictly the time com- dt dt dt dt γdt ponent of the four-momentum covector pt = E, which has no equivalent in Galileo’s spacetime. The analysis of The relativistic differential definition of the main direc- the equation describing relativistic rockets showed that tions k (47), ⊥ (48), F or A (50) does not exceed beyond jet gases have a relativistic mass with a Lorentz factor unidimensional velocity composition formula (16) in for the rocket. And the relative velocity of jet gases it- the sense of following to velocity components and not self is determined by the operation , by subtraction as a transforming to a rest frame (vector operation ). ⊥ 1 rocket velocity. The 4D covariant form of jet gases ve- Most importantly, the acceleration A is parallel to the locity relative to the rocket is exactly Oziewicz binary force F and has the rank of 2. relative velocity. But for any give direction, the velocity vector opera- tion 0 (17) and even components operation (16) (vec- The final confirmation of the correctness of the adopted tor operation 1) must be replaced with operation k definitions is the simplification of the correspondence be- (52) or operation ⊥ (78) or operation ∧ (83), equiva- tween the 4D spacetime and 3D space quantities de- lently. The penultimate operation ⊥ was derived with a scribed in the previous section. The introduction of ac- completely independent method, which increases the im- celeration A significantly simplified and unified this cor- portance of those differential equivalent operations (79, respondence. An important element of the justification 88). This independent method is in fact the derivation of this correspondence was previously introduced work- of a general relativistic equation (in SR) of body motion impulse four-covector δWµ (64). This object determined with a variable rest mass in the covariant form (75), three correspondence for force regardless of Planck’s formula dimensional form (77) and even the simple form (92). (28). 19

APPENDIX: METRICS IN VELOCITY SPACE it will be equal to the ternary velocity differential under- stood strictly as:

Only two non-trivial velocity differentials are consid- µ µ dξ   ered in this work. The first of these is the rest differential dξ = dτ0 σ(~0), ν(τ0), ν(τ) . (119) dτ τ=τ0 (dv)0 (57, 58) relates to the system, which instantaneous co-moving with the body. The second is a relativistic Now the relativistic velocity metric can be written by the differential (dv)rel (53, 54). The relativistic differential formula: defines the relativistic acceleration and the spatial part of 2 µ the four-acceleration. However, the rest differential can (dv)rel = −dξµdξ . (120) only be used to determine the rest acceleration. The square of velocity differential creates a kind of In a sense, this reflects the covariant nature of the rela- non-Euclidean metric in space of velocity. Fock called tivistic differential of velocity and its metric, while at the this geometry (for rest differential) “The Lobachevsky– same time showing its ternary character and the need to Einstein Velocity Space” [32]. Often this space is called refer to a given reference system. In Special Relativity, hyperbolic geometry for Special Relativity [8, 15, 104, both 3D velocity and its differential depend on the refer- 105]. It has a metric that is equal to the square of the ence system. rest differential [15, 32]: (dv)2 − (v × dv)2/c2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (dv)2 = = γ4dv2 + γ2dv2 . (114) 0 (1 − v2/c2)2 k ⊥ Many thanks to my friend engineer Marcin Nolbrzak, It is not difficult to notice that the metric is overstated without whose this article would not have came into be- at least γ2 times. Indeed, this is not a three-velocity ing. Our discussions have deepened the analysis of the v metric, but a four-velocity νµ = (γc, γv) metric on Kaufmann experiment measuring the relativistic mass. hyperboloid ν2 = c2: Also big thanks go to Jacek Zatorski in his technical 2 µ µ assistance in the process of typesetting and language cor- (dv)0 = −dνµdν = −dωµdω . (115) rections. At the same time, as you can see, it is also the metric I also would like to thank to my supervisor, Pawel for binary velocity differential. This result should not Kozakiewicz thanks to whom I began to publish science µ be surprising, because the binary velocity dω of four- articles. Similarly, I thank Jerzy Kami´nski,who encour- µ µ µ velocity ν + dν relative ν refers to the temporarily aged me to publish in the best journals. In turn, I thank µ resting system (for ν ). Tomasz Borowski for motivational support in the difficult In view of the above, the 3D velocity metric should re- publication process. fer only to the three-dimensional part of the four-velocity I thank my student Juliusz Ziomek for his questions 2 2 metric, i.e. (d~ν) = d(γv) , and should also be scaled by concerning the variable mass motion equations. 2 factor γ : Thanks very much to Ryszard Kostecki for the many 2 constructive comments. (d~ν)2 d(γv) 2 Finally, thank you to Zbigniew Oziewicz from Mexico (dv)rel = 2 = . (116) γ γ for consultations on binary and ternary relative velocity. Differentiation is not commutative with multiplication and division by the factor γ, so we get a result consistent with (54): CONFLICT OF INTEREST

2 4 2 2 (dv)rel = γ dvk + dv⊥. (117) The author declares no conflict of interest. However, one may ask why at the beginning we did not This work is in line with Einstein’s Special Relativity take the usual dv2 metric for three-dimensional velocity. and the Lorentz group. However, it contains important This did not happen because a priori we do not know and novelty issues commonly ignored in the context of the metric for dv, and we know the metric for both dνµ velocity, acceleration, mass, and equations of motion. and d~ν. So we had to use a known metric, but we had to relate it to 3D velocity, not a four-velocity that was LIST OF SYMBOLS generally γ times greater. If we determine the differential ternary velocity in the µ selected reference system with the four-velocity σ (~0) = α the value of the angle between ordinary (c,~0): acceleration and velocity a the value of ordinary acceleration µ µ   dξ = ξ σ(~0), ν, ν + dν , (118) ak component (coordinate) of ordinary 20

acceleration parallel to velocity of velocity perpendicular to velocity a⊥ component (coordinate) of ordinary dvF component (coordinate) of ordinary differential acceleration perpendicular to velocity of velocity in force direction aA component of ordinary acceleration (dv)rel relativistic differential of value of velocity in the direction of relativistic acceleration (identity equal to (dvk)rel) aF component of ordinary acceleration (dvk)rel component (coordinate) of relativistic velocity in the direction of force (equal to aA) differential parallel to velocity a the 3D vector of ordinary acceleration (dv⊥)rel component (coordinate) of relativistic velocity ak vector component of ordinary differential perpendicular to velocity acceleration parallel to velocity (dvA)rel component (coordinate) of relativistic velocity a⊥ vector component of ordinary differential in direction of A acceleration perpendicular to velocity (dvF)rel component (coordinate) of relativistic velocity |a| value of ordinary acceleration (equal to a) differential in direction of F (same for A) a0 the rest 3D vector of acceleration dv ordinary differential of velocity vector a1 ratio of the force vector and rest mass dvk vector component of ordinary differential aµ four-acceleration 4D vector of velocity parallel to velocity 0 a c-time (ct) component of four-acceleration dv⊥ vector component of ordinary differential ~a the spatial 3D part of four-acceleration of velocity perpendicular to velocity ~ak vector component of ~a parallel to velocity (dv)0 rest differential of velocity vector in instantaneous ~a⊥ vector component of ~a perpendicular to velocity co-moving system ak component (coordinate) of ~a parallel to velocity (dv)rel relativistic differential of velocity vector 2 a⊥ component (coordinate) of ~a perpendicular to (dv)0 invariant rest metric in velocity space 2 velocity (dv)rel relativistic metric in velocity space A the value of relativistic acceleration dωµ binary velocity of νµ + dνµ relative to νµ µ Ak component (coordinate) of relativistic (equal differential of ω ) acceleration parallel to velocity dw dt derivative of jet-type velocity w(t0, t) A⊥ component (coordinate) of relativistic with respect to t (default for t = t0) acceleration perpendicular to velocity dw1 dt derivative of axial-type velocity of the body A the 3D vector of relativistic acceleration relative to uniform co-moving system respect Ak vector component of relativistic to time (default at the point of overlapping) acceleration parallel to velocity dW dt derivative of ternary-type velocity of the body A⊥ vector component of relativistic relative to uniform co-moving system respect acceleration perpendicular to velocity to time (default at the point of overlapping) β the value of the angle between ordinary dξµ ternary velocity of νµ + dνµ relative to νµ acceleration and force in reference to stationary system σµ(~0) B value of the magnetic field induction vector (equal differential of ξµ in stationary system) B magnetic field induction vector  factor equal to ±1 or −1/2 c speed of light in a vacuum e absolute value of the electron charge δ capacitor plates distance E total relativistic energy δµ Kronecker delta (equal to 1 or 0) ν E0 rest energy δm small attaching (or detaching) rest mass Ek kinetic energy δw abstract work of four-force E electric field intensity vector δW real work (portion) Ek electric field parallel to velocity δWµ work-force impuls 4D four-covector E⊥ electric field perpendicular to velocity δW0 c-time (ct) component of δWµ ϕ factor-function for subtrahend velocity in k δWt time component of δWµ (equal to work) Φ potential of gravitation ∆m rest mass increment (implicitly negative) f photon frequency ∂ µ ∂r three base vectors (versors) for spatial x, y, z f four-force 4D vector coordinates in the derivative representation f 0 c-time (ct) component of four-force ∂ base vector (versor) for time in the derivative ∂t f~ spatial 3D part of four-force operator representation F value of force vector ∂M partial derivative of relativistic mass with ∂t Fk force component (coordinate) respect to time regarding changing rest mass parallel to velocity dM total derivative of relativistic mass with dt F⊥ force component (coordinate) respect to time perpendicular to velocity dνµ differential of four-velocity Fa force component (coordinate) d~ν differential of 3D part of four-velocity in direction of a (d~ν)2 Euclidean square of 3D differential 0 F k rest value of force component dv ordinary differential of the value of velocity parallel to velocity (identity equal to dv ) 0 k F ⊥ rest value of force component dvk component (coordinate) of ordinary differential perpendicular to velocity of velocity parallel to velocity F force 3D vector dv component (coordinate) of ordinary differential ⊥ Fk force parallel to velocity 21

F⊥ force perpendicular to velocity vector operation of relativistic velocities subtraction |F| values of force (equal to F) Ungar’s operation called Einstein’s cooperation Fδm force acting on jet gases for antisymmetric subtraction of velocity vectors Fext external force ⊕ relativistic Einstein rule of velocity vectors addition Fg gravitational force (asymmetric, nonassociative, arbitrary order) Fth thrust force ] relativistic mass connection rule (ordinary addition) Ftot total force ]0 rest mass connection rule (nontrivial, but equal to γ Lorentz factor sum of relativistic masses in mass center frame) γu Lorentz factor for speed u p the value of momentum γv Lorentz factor for speed v p momentum 3D vector γuv Lorentz type factor with the square of velocity psys momentum of the variable mass body system converted to uv with additional low mass µ γ1 invariant Lorentz type factor for binary relative p four-momentum (mass-momentum) 4D vector velocity between νµ and σµ (Oziewicz gamma factor) in contravariant index form γ2 invariant Lorentz type factor for binary relative pˆ four-momentum (mass-momentum) 4D vector velocity between υµ and σµ (Oziewicz gamma factor) in derivation form G gravitational constant p0 c-time (ct) component of four-momentum vector h Planck constant (equal to Mc = E/c) h capacitor height pt time component of four-momentum (equal to M) h0 height (length) of the electric field in the capacitor ~p spatial 3D part of four-momentum vector i spatial index for 3D velocity (without metric minus) (equal to p) i Roche inertial mass reference pµ four-momentum (energy-momentum) 4D covector I Adler inertial mass in covariant index form λ photon wavelength pˇ four-momentum (energy-momentum) 4D covector L Lagrangian in differential form µ mass in Kaufmann’s theoretical formula (longitudinal, p0 c-time (ct) component of four-momentum covector although he measured transverse) (equal to Mc = E/c) µk longitudinal mass pt time component of four-momentum covector 2 µ⊥ transverse mass (equal to E = Mc ) 0 µ⊥ transverse mass according to Einstein ψ factor-function for minuend velocity in ⊥ µ upper contravariant index of four-vector q physical invariant scalar quantity in spacetime (4D) µ lower covariant index of four-covector Q physical semiscalar quantity in space (3D) m rest invariant mass correspond with spacetime invariant q m˜ Kosyakov rest mass qµ four-vector of physical quantity in spacetime 0 µ m0 rest mass symbol in references q c-time (ct) component of four-vector q µ mg Adler gravitational mass ~q spatial 3D part of four-vector q m˙ derivative of rest mass with respect to self time Q three dimensional equivalent of quantity qµ m1 rest mass of the first body of binary system ρ radius of curvature m2 rest mass of the second body of binary system r position vector 3D M relativistic inertial mass (total mass) σ four-velocity of basic frame (implicit index) µ Mδm relativistic mass of jet gases σ four-velocity of basic frame (contravariant index) M gravitational field source mass (e.g. Sun’s) σν four-velocity of basic frame (covariant index) M1 relativistic mass of the first body of binary system σ(~0) four-velocity (c, 0, 0, 0) of the stationary system 2 M2 relativistic mass of the second body of binary system Sγ stretching (directional scaling) in the direction (M/e)0 recompiled relativistic mass and charge ratio v of velocity v and scale γ2 ν upper contravariant index of four-vector τ self time lower covariant index of four-covector ν τ fixed self time for velocity of instantaneous nˆ normal versor of Frenet base 0 and uniform co-moving system ~ 0 null 3D velocity vector t time one-dimensional operation of relativistic t0 Lorentz transformation of t velocities subtraction t0 fixed time for velocity of uniform and instantaneous 0 Einstein’s vector operation of relativistic co-moving system (parameter, not variable) velocities subtraction ˆt tangent versor of Frenet base 1 vector operation of relativistic velocities subtraction, θ the value of the angle between force and velocity based on in the distinguished Cartesian system υ four-velocity of the second body (implicit index) (equal to k in the Frenet base) υµ four-velocity of the second body (contravariant index) k vector operation of relativistic velocities subtraction, υν four-velocity of the second body (covariant index) (which only changes direction of subtracted velocity) ~υ spatial 3D part od four-velocity υµ ⊥ vector operation of relativistic velocities subtraction, υ · ν scalar product of 4D vectors equal based on the binary velocity of rocket jet gases υ νµ = υ ν0 + υ ν1 + υ ν2 + υ ν3 Dragan antisymmetric vector operation of relativistic µ 0 1 2 3 ∧ υ νµ = υ0ν0 − υ1ν1 − υ2ν2 − υ3ν3 velocities subtraction, leading to ternary velocity µ u the value of velocity u the simplest differential equivalent of antisymmetric ∨ u three dimensional velocity correspond to υµ 22

(is not equal to ~υ) Physikalische Zeitschrift 4 (1b), pp. 57–62 (1902). u0 relative velocity based on Einstein subtraction 0 [3] M. Abraham, “Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons uv scalar product of 3D vectors (Principles of the Dynamics of the Electrons)”, Annalen U capacitor voltage der Physik 10, pp. 105–179 (1903). ν four-velocity of the first body (implicit index) [4] J. Ackeret, “Zur Theorie der Raketen (On the theory νµ four-velocity of the first body (contravariant index) of rockets)”, Helvetica Physica Acta 19, pp. 103–112 νν four-velocity of the first body (covariant index) (1946). ~ν spatial 3D part of four-velocity νµ [5] C. G. Adler, “Does mass really depend on velocity, v the value of velocity v dad?”, American Journal of Physics 55 (8), pp. 739–743 v0 recompiled electron velocity value (1987). v three dimensional velocity correspond to νµ [6] B. Aharmim, S. N. Ahmed, A. E. Anthony, N. Barros, (is not equal to ~ν) E.W. Beier, A. Bellerive, B. Beltran, M. Bergevin, S. D. ωµ Oziewicz binary 4D velocity of υµ relative to νµ Biller et al., “Tests of Lorentz invariance at the Sudbury ω0 c-time (ct) component of ωµ Neutrino Observatory”, Physical Review D 98, 112013 ~ω spatial 3D part of ωµ (2018). 2 µ 2 ω square of binary velocity equal to ωµω = −u0 [7] S. L. Ba˙za´nski, “Powstawanie i wczesny odbi´or µ µ µ ω1 binary velocity of ν relative to σ szczeg´olnejteorii wzgl¸edno´sci(Formation and early re- µ µ µ ω2 binary velocity of υ relative to σ ception of special relativity)”, Post¸epy Fizyki 56 (6), pp. ω(τ0, τ) binary four-velocity of the body in self time τ 253–267 (2005). relative to the four-velocity of the body in time τ0 [8] J.F. Barrett, “Review of problems of dynamics in the w jet-type relative velocity based on ⊥ and three hyperbolic theory of special relativity”, PIRT Conf., Im- dimensional equivalent of ωµ (not equal to ~ω) perial Coll., London, Proceedings ISBN 1 873 694 07 5, w1 axial-type relative velocity based exactly on k PD Publications (Liverpool), pp. 17–30 (2002). or simpler based on or 1 in Frenet base [9] M. G. Bowler, “Gravitation and Relativity”, Pergamon, w(t0, t) jet-type velocity of the body in time t relative to Elmsford, New York (1976). the velocity of the body in time t0 [10] L. Brillouin, “Relativity Reexamined”, Academic Press, W Searle electromagnetic energy of the moving charge New York, London (1970). W Einstein’s work of accelerating the body [11] A. H. Bucherer, “Mathematische Einf¨uhrung in die W Dragan ternary-type relative velocity based on ∧ Elektronentheorie (Mathematical introduction to the and 3D equivalent of ξµ (not equal to ξ~) theory of electrons)”, Verlag von B. G. Teubner, Leipzig ξµ Oziewicz ternary 4D velocity of υµ relative to νµ (1904). in related to reference system σµ [12] A. H. Bucherer, “Messungen an Becquerelstrahlen. Die ξ0 c-time (ct) component of ξµ experimentelle Best¨atigungder Lorentz-Einsteinschen ξ~ spatial 3D part of ξµ Theorie. (Measurements of Becquerel rays. The Experi- (ξµ) ternary velocity ξµ in rest frame for σµ mental Confirmation of the Lorentz-Einstein Theory)”, {σ} Physikalische Zeitschrift 9 (22), pp. 755–762 (1908). ξ~ vector ξ~ in rest frame for σµ (equal to W) {σ} [13] G. von Buquoy, “Analytische Bestimmung des Gesetzes x the first position coordinate der Virtuellen Geschwindigkeiten in Mechanischer und x˜ Galilean transformation of x Statischer Hinsicht (Analytical determination of the law x0 Lorentz transformation of x of virtual velocities in mechanical and static terms)”, xµ four-position 4D vector Breitkopf und Hartel, Leipzig (1812). ~x spatial 3D part od xµ (equal to r) [14] G. von Buquoy, “Exposition dun nouveau principe x˙ µ derivation of xµ with respect to self time g´en´eral de dynamique, dont le principe des vitesses (equal to four-velocity νµ) virtuelles nest quun cas particulier (Exhibition of a new x distance of the hole from the radioactive source 1 general principle of dynamics, have the principle of vir- x distance from the hole to the photographic plate 2 tual velocities is only a particular case)”, V Courcier, y the second position coordinate Paris (1815). y0 Lorentz transformation of y (equal y here) [15] M. Cannoni, “Lorentz invariant relative velocity and rel- y coordinate of the electron on the photographic plate 0 ativistic binary collisions”, arXiv:1605.00569v2 (2016). (conditioned by electric field) [16] C. Criado, N. Alamo, “From E = mc2 to the Lorentz z the third position coordinate transformations via the law of addition of relativistic z0 Lorentz transformation of z (equal z here) velocities”, European Journal of Physics 26, pp. 611– z coordinate of the electron on the photographic plate 0 616 (2005). (conditioned by magnetic field) [17] J. T. Cushing, “Electromagnetic mass, relativity, and the Kaufmann experiments”, American Journal of Physics 49 (12), pp. 1133–1149 (1981). [18] T. Damour, “Poincar´e,the Dynamics of the Electron, and Relativity”, arXiv:1710.00706v1 (2017). [19] A. Dragan, “Niezwykle szczeg´olnateoria wzgl¸edno´sci. [1] M. Abraham, “Dynamik des Electrons (Dynamics of Roz. 3. Obr´ot Thomasa–Wignera (Unusually Electrons)”, G¨ottingerNachrichten, pp. 20–41, January special theory of relativity. Chap. 3. Thomas– 11 (1902). Wigner rotation)”, monograph – lecture notes, [2] M. Abraham, “Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elek- www.researchgate.net/publication/265887295 (2012). trons (Principles of the Dynamics of the Electrons)”, [20] A. Dragan, T. Odrzyg´o´zd´z,“Half-page derivation of the 23

Thomas precession”, American Journal of Physics 81 from 1850 to 1940, Carlsberg Academy, Copenhagen, (8), 631 (2013). September 26–28 (2002). [21] A. Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K¨orper (On [40] W. Johnson, “Contents and commentary on William the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies)”, Annalen der Moore’s A treatise on the motion of rockets and an es- Physik 17, pp. 891–921, June 30 (1905). say on naval gunnery”, International Journal of Impact [22] A. Einstein, “Ist die Tr¨agheiteines K¨orpers von seinem Engineering 16 (3), pp. 499–521, June (1995). Energieinhalt abh¨angig? (Does the Inertia of a Body [41] W. Kaufmann, “Die magnetische und elektrische Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?)”, Annalen der Ablenkbarkeit der Becquerelstrahlen und die scheinbare Physik 18, pp. 639–643, September 27 (1905). Masse der Elektronen (The magnetic and electrical de- [23] A. Einstein, “Uber¨ eine Methode zur Bestimmung flectability of Becquerel rays and the apparent mass des Verh¨altnissesder transversalen und longitudinalen of electrons)”, G¨ottingerNachrichten (2), pp. 143–155 Masse des Elektrons (On a method for determination (1901). ratio of transverse and longitudal mass of electron)”, [42] W. Kaufmann, “Uber¨ die elektromagnetische Masse des Annalen der Physik 21 (13), pp. 583–586 (1906). Elektrons (On the Electromagnetic Mass of the Elec- [24] A. Einstein, “Uber¨ die vom Relativit¨atsprinzip trons)”, G¨ottinger Nachrichten (5), pp. 291–296, July geforderte Tr¨agheitder Energie (On the inertia of en- 26 (1902). ergy required by the relativity principle)”, Annalen der [43] W. Kaufmann, “Die elektromagnetische Masse des Elek- Physik 23 (328/7), pp. 371–384 (1907). trons (The Electromagnetic Mass of the Electrons)”, [25] A. Einstein, “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence Physikalische Zeitschrift 4 (1b), pp. 54–57, October 10 of Mass and Energy”, American Mathematical Society (1902). Bulletin 41, pp. 223–230 (1935). [44] W. Kaufmann, “Uber¨ die Elektromagnetische Masse [26] A. Einstein, “E = mc2: The Most Urgent Problem of der Elektronen (On the Electromagnetic Mass of Elec- Our Time”, Science Illustrated (The manuscript and tron)”, G¨ottinger Nachrichten (3), pp. 90–103 (1903). reprints have survived) (1946). [45] W. Kaufmann, “Uber¨ die Konstitution des Elektrons [27] M. Fern´andez-Guasti,“Alternative realization for the (On the Constitution of the Electrons)”, Sitzungs- composition of relativistic velocities”, Proc. of SPIE berichte der K¨oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wis- Vol. 8121, 812108 (2011). senschaften (45), pp. 949–956 (1905). [28] R. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, “The Feyn- [46] W. Kaufmann, “Uber¨ die Konstitution des Elektrons man Lectures on Physics”, Vol. 1, Sec. 15-1 “The prin- (On the Constitution of the Electron)”, Annalen der ciple of relativity”, Sec. 15-9 “Equivalence of mass and Physik 19, pp. 487–553 (1906). energy”, Sec. 16-4 “Relativistic mass”, Addison-Wesley [47] G. Koczan, “Wyprowadzanie promieniowania (1963, 2005), Basic Books (2011). Hawkinga: Cz¸e´s´c II. Mechanika kwantowa oraz [29] J. H. Field, ‘Einstein and Planck on mass-energy equiv- statystyczna stan´ow fotonowych (Derivation of alence in 1905-06: a modern perspective”, European Hawking Radiation: Part II. Quantum and Journal of Physics 35 (5) (2014). statistical mechanics of photon states)”, Fo- [30] J. H. Field, ‘Feynman’s dynamical route to special rela- ton 141 Lato, pp. 4–32 (2018), English version: tivity via work-to-energy conversion and Newton’s sec- www.researchgate.net/publication/330369679 (2019). ond law”, Fundamental Journal of Modern Physics 11 [48] A. Kostelecky, N. Russell, “Data Tables for Lorentz (2), pp. 191–226 (2018). and CPT Violation”, Review of Modern Physics 83, 11 2 [31] F. Flores, “Einstein’s 1935 Derivation of E = mc ”, (2011), https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287v13 (2020). Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics [49] B. P. Kosyakov, “On inert properties of particles in clas- 29 (2), pp. 223–243 (1998). sical theory”, arXiv:hep-th/0208035v1 (2002). [32] V. Fock, “The Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation”, [50] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, “Teoriya polya (The Clas- 1st ed. 1959, 2nd rev. ed., translated by N. Kemmer, sical Theory of Fields)”, Russian (1941, 1948), English: Pergamon Press (1964). Addison-Wesley (1951), Pergamon Press (1959). [33] J. Franklin, “The lack of rotation in a moving right angle [51] P. Langevin, “La physique des ´electrons(The physics lever”, European Journal of Physics 29, pp. N55-N58 of electrons)”, Revue g´en´eraledes sciences pures et ap- (2008). pliqu´ees16 (6), pp. 257–276, March 30 (1905). [34] J. Gluza, “Relikt w fizyce – poj¸eciemasy relatywisty- [52] C. L¨ammerzahl,“Special Relativity and Lorentz Invari- cznej (Relic in physics – concept of relativistic mass)”, ance”, Annalen der Physik 14 (1-3), pp. 71–102 (2005). Fizyka w Szkole 5, 269 (1992). [53] G. N. Lewis, “A revision of the Fundamental Laws of [35] E. Hecht, “Einstein Never Approved of Relativistic Matter and Energy”, Philosophical Magazine S. 6 Vol. Mass”, The Physics Teacher 47, September (2009). 16 No. 95, pp. 705–717 (1908). [36] S. Hawking, “A Brief History of Time: From the Big [54] G. N. Lewis, R. C. Tolman, “The Principle of Rela- Bang to Black Holes”, Bantam Books (1988). tivity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics”, Proceedings of [37] S. Hawking, “The Universe in a Nutshell”, Bantam the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 44 (25), Spectra (2001). pp. 709–726 (1909). [38] A. Jaffe, “The illusion of time”, Nature 556 (7701), pp. [55] H. A. Lorentz, “Simplified Theory of Electrical and Op- 304–305 (2018). tical Phenomena in Moving Systems”, Proceedings of [39] M. Janssen, M. Mecklenburg, “Electromagnetic Models the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1, of the Electron and the Transition from Classical to Rel- pp. 427–442 (1899). ativistic Mechanics”, text from conference: The Inter- [56] H. A. Lorentz, “Electromagnetic phenomena in a system action between Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy moving with any velocity smaller than that of light”, 24

Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts [72] L. B. Okun, “Energy and Mass in Relativity Theory”, and Sciences 6, pp. 809-831 (1904). World Scientific (2009). [57] H. A. Lorentz, “Das Relativit¨atsprinzip.Drei Vorlesun- [73] L. B. Okun, “Mass versus relativistic and rest masses”, gen gehalten in Teylers Stiftung zu Haarlem. (The Rela- American Journal of Physics 77 (5), pp. 430–431 (2009). tivity Principle. Three lectures held at the Teylers Foun- [74] Z. Osiak, “Energy in Special Relativity”, Theoreti- dation in Haarlem.)”, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig and Berlin cal Physics 4(1), pp. 22–25, Isaac Scientific Publishing (1914). (2019), www.researchgate.net /publication/322626086 [58] E. Mach, “Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung - His- (2018), first preprint 1512.0449 (2015). torisch kritisch dargestellt (The Science of Mechanics - [75] Z. Oziewicz, “How do you add relative velocities?”, A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development)”, Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, Conference Se- first German (1883), first English (1893), fourth En- ries Number 185, pp. 439–444, CRC Press (2004). glish: T. J. McCormack, The Open Court Publishing [76] Z. Oziewicz, “Ternary relative velocity”, CO. (1919). arXiv:1104.0682v1 (2011). [59] R. Mansouri, R. U. Sexl, “A Test Theory of Special [77] Z. Oziewicz, “Relativity groupoid, instead of relativity Relativity: I. Simultaneity and Clock Synchronization”, group”, International Journal of Geometric Methods in General Relativity and Gravitation 8 (7), pp. 497–513 Modern Physics 04 (05), pp. 739–749 (2007). (1977). [78] Z. Oziewicz, “Relativity without Lorentz group”, mono- [60] K. A. Meissner, “E = mc2”, multimedia lecture in graph, www.academia.edu/17230451 (2004, 2007). National Centre for Nuclear Research May 23 (2011) [79] R. Penrose, “The Road to Reality”, Chap. 18.6–18.7, and Faculty of Physics University of Warsaw (2014), Jonathan Cape, London (2004–2007). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= VDAy9zyvZ0 [80] C. P. Pesce, L. Casetta, “Variable mass systems dynam- (2016). ics in engineering mechanics education”, Proceedings [61] I. V. Meshchersky, “Dinamika tochki peremnnoy massy of COBEM, 19th International Congress of Mechanical (Dynamics of a point of variable mass)”, Akademia Engineering, Brasilia (2007). Nauk, Peterburskij Universitet, St Petersburg (1897). [81] M. Planck, “Das Prinzip der Relativit¨atund die Grund- [62] I. V. Meshchersky, “Uravneniya dvizheniya tochki pere- gleichungen der Mechanik (The Principle of Relativity mennoy massy v obshchem sluchaye (Equations of mo- and the Fundamental Equations of Mechanics)”, Verh. tion of a variable mass point in the general case)”, St. D. Phys. Ges. 8, pp. 136–141, March 23 (1906). Petersburg Polytechnic University News 1, pp. 77–118 [82] M. Planck, “Die Kaufmannschen Messungen der (1904). Ablenkbarkeit der β-Strahlen in ihrer Bedeutung f¨urdie [63] H. Minkowski, “Die Grundgleichungen fr die elektro- Dynamik der Elektronen (The Measurements of Kauf- magnetischen Vorg¨angein bewegten K¨orpern (The Fun- mann on the Deflectability of β-Rays in their Impor- damental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in tance for the Dynamics of the Electrons)”, Physikalische Moving Bodies)”, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft Zeitschrift 7, pp. 753–761, September 19 (1906). der Wissenschaften zu G¨ottingen, Mathematisch- [83] H. Poincar´e,“Sur la dynamique de l´electron(On the Physikalische Klasse, pp. 53–111, Berlin (1908). Dynamics of the Electron)”, Comptes rendus hebdo- [64] W. Moore, “A Treatise on the Motion of Rockets and madaires des s´eancesde l’Acad´emiedes sciences 140, An Essay on Naval Gunnery”, The Military Academy pp. 1504–1508, June 5 (1905). at Woolwich, G. & S. Robinson, London (1813). [84] S. D. Poisson, “Sur le mouvement dun systeme de corps, [65] V. B. Morozov, “On the question of the electromagnetic en supposant les masses variables (On the motion of a momentum of a charged body”, Physics–Uspekhi 54, pp. body system, assuming variable masses)”, Bull. Sci. Soc. 371–374 (2011). Philomat. 60-2, Paris (1819). [66] S. E. M¨uller,E. A. Dijck, H. Bekker, J. E. van den Berg, [85] K. R¸ebilas,“Derivation of the relativistic momentum O. B¨oll, S. Hoekstra, K. Jungmann, C. Meinema, J. P. and relativistic equation of motion from Newton’s sec- Noordmans et al., “First Test of Lorentz Invariant in ond law and Minkowskian space-time geometry”, Ape- the Weak Decay of Polarized Nuclei”, Physical Review iron 15 (3), July (2008). D 88, 071901 (2013). [86] K. R¸ebilas,“Comment on Elementary analysis of the [67] A. Naruko, R. Kimura, D. Yamauchi, “On Lorentz- special relativistic combination of velocities, Wigner ro- invariant spin-2 theories”, Physical Review D 99, 084018 tation and Thomas precession ”, European Journal of (2019). Physics 34, pp. L55–L61 (2013). [68] I. Newton, “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathe- [87] K. R¸ebilas,“Lorentz-invariant three-vectors and alter- matica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philoso- native formulation of relativistic dynamics”, American phy) (Matematyczne zasady filozofii przyrody)”, Lon- Journal of Physics 78, 294 (2010). don (1687), A. Motte (1729), J. Wawrzycki, Copernicus [88] W. Rindler, “Introduction to Special Relativity”, Ox- Center Press, Cracow (2011). ford University Press (1982). [69] A. Nowik, “Prawda jest jedna, a glupstw tysi¸ace– uwagi [89] W. Rindler, “Relativity: Special, General and Cosmo- do dyskusji o masie relatywistycznej (The truth is one, logical”, Oxford University Press (2001, 2006). and the lies are thousands – remarks on the discus- [90] W. Rindler, M. A. Vandyck, P. Murugesan, S. Ruschin, sion about the relativistic mass)”, Fizyka w Szkole z C. Sauter, L. B. Okun, “Putting to Rest Mass Miscon- Astronomi¸a4, pp. 33–34 and 37 (2016). ceptions”, Physics Today, Letters 43 (5), pp. 13–14, 115, [70] G. Oas, “On the abuse and use of relativistic mass”, 117, May (1990). arXiv:physics/0504110v2 (2005). [91] J. Roche, “What is mass?”, European Journal of [71] L. B. Okun, “The Concept of Mass”, Physics Today 42 Physics 26, pp. 1–18 (2005). (6), pp. 31–36 (1989). [92] C. Rovelli, “The Order of Time”, Penguin Books (2018). 25

[93] T. R. Sandin, “In defense of relativistic mass”, Ameri- 375–380 (1912). can Journal of Physics 59 (11), pp. 1032–1036 (1991). [103] V. A. Ugarov, “Special Theory of Relativity”, Russian [94] L. A. Savrov, “Gravitational Shielding and the Equiva- (1969), English Y. Atanov Mir (1979). lence Principle”, Gravitation and Cosmology 18 (4), pp. [104] A. A. Ungar, “Thomas precession: its underlying gy- 270–278 (2012). rogroup axioms and their use in hyperbolic geometry [95] G. F. C. Searle, “On the Steady Motion of an Electrified and relativistic physics”, Foundations of Physics 27, pp. Ellipsoid”, Philosophical Magazine 5, 44(269), pp. 329– 881-951 (1997). 341 (1897). [105] A. A. Ungar, “Gyrogroups, the Grouplike Loops in the [96] S. Sturm, F. K¨ohler,J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Har- Service of Hyperbolic Geometry and Einstein’s Special man, G. Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel, K. Blaum, Theory of Relativity”, Quasigroups and Related Sys- “High-precision measurement of the atomic mass of the tems 15, pp. 141–168 (2007). electron”, Nature 506, pp. 467–470 (2014). [106] J. Wolny, R. Strza lka, “Momentum in the Dynamics [97] K. Szostek, R. Szostek, “The derivation of the general of Variable-Mass Systems: Classical and Relativistic form of kinematics with the universal reference system”, Case”, Acta Physica Polonica A 135(3), pp. 475–479 Results in Physics 8, pp. 429–437 (2018). (2019). [98] E. F. Taylor, J. A. Wheeler, “Spacetime physics - intro- [107] A. K. Wr´oblewski,“Historia fizyki – od czas´ownaj- duction to special relativity”, W.H. Freeman and Com- dawniejszych do wsp´o lczesno´sci(History of physics – pany (1966, 1992). from the earliest times to the present day)”, PWN [99] F. R. Tangherlini, “The velocity of light in uniformly (2007). moving frame, A dissertation”, Stanford University [108] A. K. Wr´oblewski,J. A. Zakrzewski, “Wst¸epdo fizyki (1958), The Abraham Zelmanov Journal Vol. 2, pp. 44– (Introduction to physics)” Vol. 1, PWN (1976, 1984). 110 (2009). [109] J. Zatorski, B. Sikora, S. G. Karshenboim, S. Sturm, [100] L. H. Thomas, “Motion of the spinning electron”, Na- F. K¨ohler-Langes, K. Blaum, C. H. Keitel, Z. Harman, ture 117, 514 (1926). “Extraction of the electron mass from g factor measure- [101] K. Tsiolkovsky, “Issledovaniye mirovykh prostranstv ments on light hydrogenlike ions”, Physical Review A reaktivnymi priborami (Exploration of world spaces by 96, 012502 (2017). reactive devices)”, A Scientific-Philosophical and Lit- [110] M. Zych,L.Rudnicki, I. Pikovski, “Gravitational mass erary Journal (in Russian) No. 5, St Petersburg May of composite systems”, Physical Review D 99, 104029 (1903). (2019). [102] R. Tolman, “Non-Newtonian Mechanics. The Mass of a Moving Body”, Philosophical Magazine 23(135), pp.