Talk:Energy–momentum relation

message: The notion of relativistic mass is highly misleading, misused by many people, and has been discarded by most modern scientists. It should be removed from this article. Using it to teach people causes more confusion in the long run than the good it does. The only thing preventing me from giving a link to this article to my students as a good resource is the presence of the relativistic mass notion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.25.85.90 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Physics student, I agree. At our university, we got rid of "relativistic mass" years ago, reducing it to a footnote in the lecture notes in freshman physics saying effectively "it's confusing, we avoid it". Unfortunately, the obsolete notions of "invariant mass", "rest mass", and "relativistic mass" are so engrained in that article, that one would have to edit the entire article to avoid inconsistency :-/ PointedEars (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Relativistic Mass

message: I like the new diagram from above discussion, but it seems a bit too technical to be at the top with the lede (in fact it appears above and before the lede text if you have a narrow screen).  I don't think most readers will be able to follow it until after they digest the lede and certain other parts of the article, and then they have to notice the connection with the diagram/caption.  Can the diagram be moved down into one of the sections?  (Or if not, then can its caption be shortened and  refer the user to a particular section for more explanation, and maybe moved to near the bottom of the lede so it simply appears next to the Contents rather than alongside/above the very first introductory sentences of the lede.) DavRosen (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. The caption is of course too long and some of it should ideally be spilled into the main text. Also, it doesn't mention that φ and φ + η are the rapidities of the blue and green frames respectively. It would be fitting in the 4-momentum section. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  more about the new image at the top 

message: The page starts with
:"the familiar mass-energy relation in both its interpretations: E = mc2 relates total energy E to the (total) relativistic mass m (alternatively denoted mrel or mtot ), while E0 = m0c2 relates rest energy E0 to rest (invariant) mass which we denote m0"
Per Lev Okun "The concept of mass" Physics Today June 1989 that statement is far from a forgone conclusion. That article has obviously not been read by the authors of this page. Hence the disputed flag. Please read that, it is straightforward, and fix. I am not really dead (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the label off the article. The flag reads "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." and implies there is something wrong with the physics. It is only that the approach is disputed, not the accuracy. The 1989 aricle by Lev Okun, () is an opinion piece and was very controversial at the time. I think Okun has a good point, but many current texts use rest mass as in this article and it should remain. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rest mass etc.

message: Under the equation there is a note saying that a factor V for potential energy needs to be added, but above that it says the equation is "assuming the special relativity case of flat spacetime".  If spacetime is flat is the potential energy zero? (I'm over my head here.) RJFJR (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential energy in flat spacetime 

message: Who arranges it:
In physics, the energy–momentum relation, or relativistic dispersion relation, is the relativistic equation relating any object's rest (intrinsic) mass, total energy, and momentum:...
    	
holds for a system, such as a particle or macroscopic body, having intrinsic rest mass m0, total energy E, and a momentum of magnitude p, 
you can't read it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.229.101 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised no one has fixed this yet, you are right, the statement is a run-on sentence and is hard to read. It is odd how you naturally interpret these things without noticing until you go back to critically read. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeating the same