Radiation energy of a moving particle

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of mass-energy and its conservation in relation to the speed of light and the theory of relativity. The experts point out that the equation E=mc^2 is not always true according to their definition of mass, and that massive objects cannot travel at the speed of light due to the infinite energy required. Massless objects, on the other hand, are kinematically forbidden from going slower than light. They also bring up the question of why light is measured at the same speed by all inertial reference frames and suggest further exploration on this topic.
  • #1
tenzin
If an electron gains mass as it moves towards the speed of light where does this mass-energy come from? Does this not violate conservation of energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Exactly! With relativity there is no "conservation of energy", there is a "conservation of mass-energy" because mass and energy are different aspects of the same thing.
 
  • #3
Ok then...

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Exactly! With relativity there is no "conservation of energy", there is a "conservation of mass-energy" because mass and energy are different aspects of the same thing.

Where does the gain in mass come from.
 
  • #4


Originally posted by tenzin
Where does the gain in mass come from.
you have to do work to accelerate the object. all the energy stored in its motion which we call kinetic energy, comes from the work you did to accelerate it.

actually, the situation is the same as in the nonrelativistic case, only, in the nonrelativistic case, we don t call kinetic energy mass (sensible people don t call it mass in the relativistic case either, but that s a different story)
 
  • #5
Interesting

Given the equivalence of mass and energy why is it that massive objects can not go the speed of light but massless objects can go the speed of light. It seems to have a relation with mass as a material manifestation of energy.
 
  • #6


Originally posted by tenzin
Given the equivalence of mass and energy why is it that massive objects can not go the speed of light but massless objects can go the speed of light. It seems to have a relation with mass as a material manifestation of energy.

i am going to strongly discourage you from using relativistic mass. it confuses the issues more than it helps.

when i say mass, i mean the lorentz invariant length of the momentum of the particle. energy and mass are not equivalent, using these definitions.

anyway, massive objects cannot go the speed of light because it is dynamically ruled out: it would require an infinite force to accelerate to that speed, or a constant force for an infinite amount of time. in either case, an infinite amount of energy would be required.
 
  • #7


Originally posted by lethe
i am going to strongly discourage you from using relativistic mass. it confuses the issues more than it helps.

when i say mass, i mean the lorentz invariant length of the momentum of the particle. energy and mass are not equivalent, using these definitions.

anyway, massive objects cannot go the speed of light because it is dynamically ruled out: it would require an infinite force to accelerate to that speed, or a constant force for an infinite amount of time. in either case, an infinite amount of energy would be required.

So then E = mc^2 is not correct according to you.

You seem to have a good grasp of the mathematics and on this basis can rule out a massive object going the speed of light. There are many intelligent people who do not really think though. You can regurgitate what you learned but you still have not answered my question. It is a why question.

Why is it that massive objects can not travel the speed of light but massless objects can.
 
  • #8


Originally posted by tenzin
So then E = mc^2 is not correct according to you.
correct. this equation is not true in general, according to this definition. it does happen to be true in the rest frame of a particle though.

Why is it that massive objects can not travel the speed of light but massless objects can.

well i already told you why massive objects cannot travel at the speed of light.

as for massless particles, it is not so much why they can go the speed of light (which is the only natural speed that the universe has other than 0), but rather why they cannot go slower than light. they cannot go slower than light because this is kinematically forbidden: if a massless particle is going slower than light in some frame, then there is a frame in which it is at rest. in this frame, we see that there is no particle at all.
 
  • #9


Originally posted by lethe
correct. this equation is not true in general, according to this definition. it does happen to be true in the rest frame of a particle though.

So in the rest frame of a photon the it is true?


well i already told you why massive objects cannot travel at the speed of light.

as for massless particles, it is not so much why they can go the speed of light (which is the only natural speed that the universe has other than 0), but rather why they cannot go slower than light. they cannot go slower than light because this is kinematically forbidden: if a massless particle is going slower than light in some frame, then there is a frame in which it is at rest. in this frame, we see that there is no particle at all.

No all you told me is what the equations allow and do not allow. Secondly, it is a question as to why massless particles can go the speed of light. Either way you answer you are only regurgitating results from formulas. You need to interpret what the equations are saying.

Why is it that no one has even tackled the question as to why light is measured the same speed by all intertial reference frames? Without answering this question there is no way to progress with anything resembling real understanding.
 
  • #10
Why is it that no one has even tackled the question as to why light is measured the same speed by all intertial reference frames?

You should and on that!(and thank lethe for his help in the mean time )

Ultan!
 
  • #11
Originally posted by UltanByrne
You should and on that!(and thank lethe for his help in the mean time )

Ultan!

Lethe had nothing to do with my thinking. I have been considering this for over 10 years.
 
  • #12


Originally posted by tenzin
So in the rest frame of a photon the it is true?

photons do not have a rest frame. they are massless, remember? this was the whole point of my above post. did you read it?


Originally posted by lethe
well i already told you why massive objects cannot travel at the speed of light.
No all you told me is what the equations allow and do not allow.
well, listen man, this is how physics works:

1. start with some physical assumptions.
2. derive the mathematical consequences of those assumptions.

you asked about why some physical phenomenon happens, and i explained to you how it follows from the principles of physics.

to recap: massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light because the basic laws of physics do not allow it.

what more do you want? if you want to see a mathematical derivation, i can surely provide it, but now i am thinking it would be a waste of my time and of yours.

if you want to know why the basic laws of physics are what they are, then i have nothing more to say. i have neither the inclination, nor the expertise, to give history lessons.

Secondly, it is a question as to why massless particles can go the speed of light. Either way you answer you are only regurgitating results from formulas. You need to interpret what the equations are saying.
i don t know if this is supposed to be insulting, but i do find it so.

Why is it that no one has even tackled the question as to why light is measured the same speed by all intertial reference frames? Without answering this question there is no way to progress with anything resembling real understanding.
this question has been tackled, and the answer is understood. if you are implying that i lack understanding, then i guess i have nothing more to say to you that wouldn t be a waste of your time.
 
  • #13
to recap: massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light because the basic laws of physics do not allow it.

How do you know the so called basic laws of physics are always correct?

what more do you want? if you want to see a mathematical derivation, i can surely provide it, but now i am thinking it would be a waste of my time and of yours.

Don't worry your level of math does not impress me. I know more than I have let on. I learned QED renormalization in about 15 minutes of reading a book I just picked up off the shelf.

if you want to know why the basic laws of physics are what they are, then i have nothing more to say. i have neither the inclination, nor the expertise, to give history lessons.


So you don't know.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by tenzin
Originally posted by lethe
what more do you want? if you want to see a mathematical derivation, i can surely provide it, but now i am thinking it would be a waste of my time and of yours.
Don't worry your level of math does not impress me. I know more than I have let on. I learned QED renormalization in about 15 minutes of reading a book I just picked up off the shelf.
well, i guess i just don t have as high a math level as you. i feel so humiliated, you know it is my only source of self worth, to know that i can impress people on message boards with my math knowledge.

but truth be told, you are right, the proof that massive objects cannot go the speed of light is mathematically well beyond my level. renormalization too.

arrogant prick. your medal for learning renormalization in 15 minutes is forthcoming.

Originally posted by tenzin
So you don't know.

i ll tell you what: if you want to ask questions about physics, go ahead and do that. i don t think i will be answering any more of your questions, as i think you are an ass-hole, but perhaps someone else will.

if you want to make conjectures about what i know instead of talking about physics, i will respond as before: mind your own fvcking business.
 
Last edited:
  • #15

well, i guess i just don t have as high a math level as you. i feel so humiliated, you know it is my only source of self worth, to know that i can impress people on message boards with my math knowledge.

but truth be told, you are right, the proof that massive objects cannot go the speed of light is mathematically well beyond my level. renormalization too.

arrogant prick. your medal for learning renormalization in 15 minutes is forthcoming.

It didn't take 15 mintues because of me. It took 15 mintues to learn because it is easy. Any person who inderstands the probablity of coin flips can understand QED. The strange thing is how easy these things are once the shroud of imaginged difficulty is lifted. The so called intellectuals purposely make things harder than they are in order to promote themselves as smart.


i don t think i will be answering any more of your questions
Why start now.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by tenzin
It didn't take 15 mintues because of me. It took 15 mintues to learn because it is easy. Any person who inderstands the probablity of coin flips can understand QED. The strange thing is how easy these things are once the shroud of imaginged difficulty is lifted. The so called intellectuals purposely make things harder than they are in order to promote themselves as smart.

oh yes, the international conspiracy of physicists trying to make themselves look smart and exclude the common man.

you hit the nail right on the head.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by lethe
oh yes, the international conspiracy of physicists trying to make themselves look smart and exclude the common man.

you hit the nail right on the head.

I don't know where I implied conspiracy.
 
  • #18
If I were as gifted and smart as you truly are tenzin, I think I'd find a more useful or at least profitable out let for my gifts than trolling internet messages boards. That would just be me, though. I mean, whatever floats your tub toys.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by BigRedDot
If I were as gifted and smart as you truly are tenzin, I think I'd find a more useful or at least profitable out let for my gifts than trolling internet messages boards. That would just be me, though. I mean, whatever floats your tub toys.

A. I am not trolling.

B. I don't know where you get the idea that I am gifted and smart.

C. who cares what you think.
 
  • #20
A. I am not trolling.
A matter of opinion, surely. It looks to me like you posted your question, with your answer already in mind ("I know more than I have let on.") just so that you could pounce on a well-meaning respondent. I call that a troll.
B. I don't know where you get the idea that I am gifted and smart.
In fact I don't; I was being facetious.
C. who cares what you think.
A few people come to mind.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by tenzin
A. I am not trolling.

B. I don't know where you get the idea that I am gifted and smart.
i can assure you, not everyone here shares that opinion.


C. who cares what you think.

actually, i liked BigRedDot s response.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by BigRedDot
A matter of opinion, surely. It looks to me like you posted your question, with your answer already in mind ("I know more than I have let on.") just so that you could pounce on a well-meaning respondent. I call that a troll.


So now you can read my mind.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by lethe
i can assure you, not everyone here shares that opinion.




actually, i liked BigRedDot s response.

A. I never said anything about my smarts but if you feel upset that (in your mind) there is someone smarter than you this is really not my problem.

B. Who cares what you like.
 
  • #24
Does anyone have any physics they want to talk about here?

Edit: I mean really, the questions you ask -- the ultimate "why" sort of questions -- belong to the realm of philosophy. Why is a photon evidently massless? Who knows, that's just the way our universe operates. No experiment will tell you "why." Ultimately, at some level, science only offers descriptions and models, not explanations.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Originally posted by BigRedDot
Does anyone have any physics they want to talk about here?

Yes see my thread under general physics -> theory developmment -> Questions on Light
 
  • #26
Originally posted by tenzin

B. Who cares what you like.

you asked who cares about what BigRedDot said, and i was simply answering your question: i do.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by lethe
you asked who cares about what BigRedDot said, and i was simply answering your question: i do.

Why don't you simply say something that actually makes sence.
 
  • #28
If an electron gains mass as it moves towards the speed of light where does this mass-energy come from? Does this not violate conservation of energy?
Why is it that massive objects can not travel the speed of light but massless objects can.
No all you told me is what the equations allow and do not allow. Secondly, it is a question as to why massless particles can go the speed of light. Either way you answer you are only regurgitating results from formulas. You need to interpret what the equations are saying.

Okay. So this is a "why" question, is it?
1. What is "electron"?
2. What is "mass" and "energy"?
3. What is "speed"?

Nothing but ideas, really. Mental constructs, mathematical crutches. What you need here is not an answer to your question but a good read on philosophical aspects of physics (or science in general). Try some Karl Popper for starters.

Since you are good at math - you question the axioms here. And ask for someone to prove them to you. Silly - don't you think?

You see, there is no need for an electron to gain mass as it approaches the speed of light - 'tis but a theory. What "really" happens is that some guys at CERN speed up some electrons (or so they think), and watch the results (whatever they think they are watching), then they use some formulae (perhaps tweak some constants for better fitting), rarely come up with a new formula (which doesn't break the other) and then go and get something to eat.

You are free to make a theory of your own. It will be quite hard to make it as consistent as the current one though (and even the current one has cracks all over).

BTW: You've used the term "conservation of energy". What it this, if not a regurgitation of a formula. A really old and simple one at that.

PS: Really... Go read some Popper. It'll do you good.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by odiedog
Okay. So this is a "why" question, is it?
1. What is "electron"?
2. What is "mass" and "energy"?
3. What is "speed"?

Nothing but ideas, really. Mental constructs, mathematical crutches. What you need here is not an answer to your question but a good read on philosophical aspects of physics (or science in general). Try some Karl Popper for starters.

Since you are good at math - you question the axioms here. And ask for someone to prove them to you. Silly - don't you think?

You see, there is no need for an electron to gain mass as it approaches the speed of light - 'tis but a theory. What "really" happens is that some guys at CERN speed up some electrons (or so they think), and watch the results (whatever they think they are watching), then they use some formulae (perhaps tweak some constants for better fitting), rarely come up with a new formula (which doesn't break the other) and then go and get something to eat.

You are free to make a theory of your own. It will be quite hard to make it as consistent as the current one though (and even the current one has cracks all over).

BTW: You've used the term "conservation of energy". What it this, if not a regurgitation of a formula. A really old and simple one at that.

PS: Really... Go read some Popper. It'll do you good.

Now we have someone who actually "reads-between-the-lines" of the threads on this boards!

So let's re-evaluate where the thread disintegrates?..

Tenzin ask's:If an electron gains mass as it moves towards the speed of light where does this mass-energy come from? Does this not violate conservation of energy?

And now we find the answer to this question lies in the very first word> If..

Should not tenzin be explaining to the rest of us what his/her meaning of this word (If) is?, in relation to the rest of the sentence?

Some 'if's' are well worth exploring more than others! before moving on to the full question, I ask tenzin to give everyone here viewing the thread his/her a physical explanation of his/her (tenzin's) relation to this word 'If'..where it originated?...whats it relationship in meaning to the user?.. and why this word was used in the context of the full sentence...

Then tenzin may get some insights to his/her's own ability to formulate questions, and not be so dis-respectful to other people's response's?

I would be quite happy if (
) tenzin provides the mathematical proof of the word if!..or if that's asking just a tad to much.. if 'If' (word) exists , then where? and how?..and what this if can be?

The only thing I personally do not understand from tenzins original post are the words [If] and the word [Does]? and their relationaship to the rest of the question, I freely admit this may be due to my own deep understanding of Einstien..Feynman..Born..Bohr..and others..but its definatly..(well..definate maybe!) not due to my understanding of tenzin.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Originally posted by odiedog
Okay. So this is a "why" question, is it?
1. What is "electron"?
2. What is "mass" and "energy"?
3. What is "speed"?

Nothing but ideas, really. Mental constructs, mathematical crutches. What you need here is not an answer to your question but a good read on philosophical aspects of physics (or science in general). Try some Karl Popper for starters.


I didn't ask for your advice, I asked you a question. Keep you advice to yourself.

Second if velocity is a construct maybe you should step in front of a car in trafic.


You see, there is no need for an electron to gain mass as it approaches the speed of light - 'tis but a theory. What "really" happens is that some guys at CERN speed up some electrons (or so they think), and watch the results (whatever they think they are watching), then they use some formulae (perhaps tweak some constants for better fitting), rarely come up with a new formula (which doesn't break the other) and then go and get something to eat.


If both mass and speed are constructs why is one not important but the other happens?


BTW: You've used the term "conservation of energy". What it this, if not a regurgitation of a formula. A really old and simple one at that.

Where did I give the formula for COE?

PS: Really... Go read some Popper. It'll do you good.

I am glad you have finally reached the level of a the Christians. Why don't you just tell me to read the bible.
 
  • #31

Should not tenzin be explaining to the rest of us what his/her meaning of this word (If) is?, in relation to the rest of the sentence?

What do you mean by 'is'?


I would be quite happy if (
) tenzin provides the mathematical proof of the word if!..or if that's asking just a tad to much.. if 'If' (word) exists , then where? and how?..and what this if can be?

Please explain what you mean by the work 'if' as in 'if that's asking just a tad to much.'


The only thing I personally do not understand from tenzins original post are the words [If] and the word [Does]? and their relationaship to the rest of the question, I freely admit this may be due to my own deep understanding of Einstien..Feynman..Born..Bohr..and others..but its definatly..(well..definate maybe!) not due to my understanding of tenzin.
[/b/

I am not surprised you don't understand me. If you keep working hard someday you will be as smart as me.
 
  • #32
[/b]
Please explain what you mean by the work 'if' as in 'if that's asking just a tad to much.'


I am not surprised you don't understand me. If you keep working hard someday you will be as smart as me. [/B][/QUOTE]


The only thing I personally do not understand from tenzins original post are the words [If] and the word [Does]? and their relationaship to the rest of the question, I freely admit this may be due to my own deep understanding of Einstien..Feynman..Born..Bohr..and others..but its definatly..(well..definate maybe!) not due to my understanding of tenzin.

I only say this with the LEAST!, Definate of the Most Probable Certainty according to the Understanding Principle, based on nothing but good intentions!

You may want to read the posts again, as some of them have an inbuilt Time-delay-Mechanisim, based on Sarcasm?
 
  • #33
You are an idiot. Why don't you waste someone else'e time. The people I want here are intelligent.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by tenzin
You are an idiot. Why don't you waste someone else'e time. The people I want here are intelligent.

Tenzin, you are one of those people who THINK you know everything, and are really starting to Annoy those of who do!

Coming to an office near you soon :Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into Jet engines! David Brent 'THE' office Philosopher.

America look out!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/characters/profile_david.shtml

And here is the Ultimate Mr Spock Question:http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/clips/series1/clip6.shtml [Broken]

As defined by the One and Only DB.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
I didn't ask for your advice, I asked you a question. Keep you advice to yourself.
I am very sorry. I only tried to be helpful.
Second if velocity is a construct maybe you should step in front of a car in trafic.
Speed in Newtonian physics seems quite simple - being a subject our mind is well adjusted to. The concept of speed on the quantum level, especially when you start mixing it up with relativity, is not. Along with concepts like causality, spatial determination (but you know all this).

If both mass and speed are constructs why is one not important but the other happens?
Not important? Very much important even really trully! You don't understand.
We were talking about the concepts, which are far removed from what one could consider everyday experience. Electron is a particle, as well as wave-function. This is weird. This is modelling to fit what we can observe.
So going back to CERN - when one accelerates (adds kinetic energy to) the electron, its kinetic energy continues to mount, but its speed starts to lag behind. This is what happens. Did its mass increase? According to the law of maximum conservation of physical formulae - it does.

Where did I give the formula for COE?
My dear, COE is a formula, saying Energy(System,time1)+Energy(Universe/System,time1)= Energy(System,time2)+Energy(Universe/System,time2)
I am glad you have finally reached the level of a the Christians. Why don't you just tell me to read the bible.
LOL. What are we but Newton-Einstein- Bohr-...-ians. We have our faith in science, in scientific method. We believe in statistics and Gaussian (Poisson, beta,...) distrubution. This is just what you need to see for yourself. This is what mr. Popper was talking about (plus introduced some pretty fresh concepts like falsifiability).
 
<h2>1. What is radiation energy of a moving particle?</h2><p>The radiation energy of a moving particle refers to the energy that is emitted or absorbed by a particle as it moves through space. This energy can take the form of electromagnetic radiation, such as light or radio waves, or it can be in the form of particles, such as alpha or beta particles.</p><h2>2. How is radiation energy of a moving particle measured?</h2><p>The radiation energy of a moving particle is typically measured in units of electron volts (eV) or joules (J). These units represent the amount of energy that a particle gains or loses as it moves through an electric field.</p><h2>3. What factors affect the radiation energy of a moving particle?</h2><p>The radiation energy of a moving particle is affected by several factors, including the speed and direction of the particle's movement, the strength of the electric field it is moving through, and the type of particle it is (e.g. alpha, beta, or gamma).</p><h2>4. How does radiation energy of a moving particle relate to ionization?</h2><p>When a moving particle collides with an atom or molecule, it can transfer energy to the atom or molecule, causing it to become ionized. The amount of energy transferred in this process is directly related to the radiation energy of the moving particle.</p><h2>5. What are the potential hazards of radiation energy from moving particles?</h2><p>Radiation energy from moving particles can be hazardous to living organisms, as it can cause damage to cells and DNA. This can lead to health issues such as radiation sickness or an increased risk of cancer. It is important to properly shield and handle radioactive materials to minimize exposure to radiation energy from moving particles.</p>

1. What is radiation energy of a moving particle?

The radiation energy of a moving particle refers to the energy that is emitted or absorbed by a particle as it moves through space. This energy can take the form of electromagnetic radiation, such as light or radio waves, or it can be in the form of particles, such as alpha or beta particles.

2. How is radiation energy of a moving particle measured?

The radiation energy of a moving particle is typically measured in units of electron volts (eV) or joules (J). These units represent the amount of energy that a particle gains or loses as it moves through an electric field.

3. What factors affect the radiation energy of a moving particle?

The radiation energy of a moving particle is affected by several factors, including the speed and direction of the particle's movement, the strength of the electric field it is moving through, and the type of particle it is (e.g. alpha, beta, or gamma).

4. How does radiation energy of a moving particle relate to ionization?

When a moving particle collides with an atom or molecule, it can transfer energy to the atom or molecule, causing it to become ionized. The amount of energy transferred in this process is directly related to the radiation energy of the moving particle.

5. What are the potential hazards of radiation energy from moving particles?

Radiation energy from moving particles can be hazardous to living organisms, as it can cause damage to cells and DNA. This can lead to health issues such as radiation sickness or an increased risk of cancer. It is important to properly shield and handle radioactive materials to minimize exposure to radiation energy from moving particles.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
261
Replies
5
Views
776
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
925
Replies
8
Views
854
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
764
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
748
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
596
Back
Top