What about objects already traveling at the speed of light?

In summary: Basically, when discussing mass, it's important to be clear about what we're referring to. In this context, the quantity m is sometimes called the relativistic mass. In summary, the other guy from K-PAX said that the relativistic mass of an object grows to infinity as its energy does. He also said that this is why rest mass is preserved in modern physics.
  • #1
FUNKER
121
0
I was watching the movie K-PAX the other day and the dude from K-PAX (another planet obviously)was asked how he can travel at the speed of c because his mass would have to infinate, through Einstiens statements and he replied that Albert was not wrong but we just read the statement wrong, he said we cannot accelerate to the speed of light but what about objects alreday traveling at the speed of light? This got me thinking; any comments would be most welcome
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Don't think too much. It's a movie.

- Warren
 
  • #3
What about objects already traveling at a speed of light?
nothing!
consider a photon. It is already traveling at c. But can you stop a photon? :) the only thing you can do - either absorb it, or force to rotate around a black hole :) The guy from K-PAX was not photon...

by the way, just can not leave it:
not the mass of an object grows to infinity, but its energy is going to infinity, the results are obvious.

Of course, K-PAX is a good movie, but it's a movie
 
  • #4
Again all light particles that is true

The other idea is . again all light particles , that is true but it is meanless. sorry as it.
 
  • #5
Did he mean the guy himself moving at the speed of light or his vehicle? If he meant his vehicle, that answer is obvious; warp spacetime around it. They are already working on faster than light travel at quite a few centers around the world and the main hurdle right now is to create enough energy to make a warp bubble around the ship. The basic concept is to compress space-time in front of you and expand it behind you, in essence standing still yet moving.

As to particles already traveling at the speed of light, I'm not sure what that has to do with a humanoid; not sure what he meant. But if he's not already traveling at the speed of light and if particles that are already traveling at the speed of light are not a part of him, then I have no idea what kind of crap he's spewing.

P.S. Hummel, you're wrong. It's the mass that grows to infinity and the amount of energy needed to propel it closer and closer to the speed of light becomes infinite.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
P.S. Hummel, you're wrong. It's the mass that grows to infinity and the amount of energy needed to propel it closer and closer to the speed of light becomes infinite.
Then, let me ask, how do you define mass?
 
  • #7
Well, you see, we are both right...
There is rest mass and relativistic mass.

it is described very good here.
In this context, the quantity m is sometimes called the relativistic mass.

Well, i believe one should understand "sometimes", in the quote above, as a result of that this quantity is convinient in a very small area of physics.
I'try to explain why:
Consider the expression for the energy:
E=m*c^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2);
here m - is a rest mass.
You can surely rewrite this as
E=m*c^2;
with m denoting the relativistic mass.

But the problem (well not a real problem) arises when you try to derive the expression for the force from the momentum (p=E*v/c^2)...
Using the relativistic mass, the momentum is written as p=m*v - as in classical physics.
Deriving it, we receive the expression for the force, where relativistic gamma is in the power of 3/2 (if considering rest mass), and if we try to substitute a relativistic mass, we will not receive F=m*a...
Not very convinient? eh?
Moreover, it is difficult to give the relativistic mass a real physical interpretation. That's why in modern physics rest mass is preserved, and it is much more convinient to use
E=m*c^2*(relativistic gamma)
p=m*v*(relativistic gamma)
and so on...

But of course, i agree with you, if dealing with relativistic mass - it is being increased...
That's what i meant :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

What is the speed of light?

The speed of light is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second, or about 186,282 miles per second.

Can anything travel faster than the speed of light?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is the absolute limit for the speed of anything in the universe. Therefore, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

What would happen if we could travel at the speed of light?

If we could travel at the speed of light, we would experience time dilation, where time would appear to slow down for us relative to someone not traveling at the speed of light. It would also take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, so it is currently impossible for humans to physically travel at this speed.

How close have we come to traveling at the speed of light?

The fastest man-made object, NASA's Juno spacecraft, has reached a speed of about 165,000 miles per hour, which is only 0.0003% of the speed of light. The Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator, can accelerate particles to about 99.999999% of the speed of light.

What is the significance of traveling at the speed of light?

Traveling at the speed of light would have huge implications for space travel and exploration, as it would significantly reduce travel time to other planets and potentially allow us to visit distant galaxies. It would also open up possibilities for time travel and further our understanding of the laws of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
312
Replies
48
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top