- #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?
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.
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.Originally posted by tenzin
Where does the gain in mass come from.
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.
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.
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.Originally posted by tenzin
So then E = mc^2 is not correct according to you.
Why is it that massive objects can not travel the speed of light but massless objects can.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by UltanByrne
You should and on that!(and thank lethe for his help in the mean time )
Ultan!
Originally posted by tenzin
So in the rest frame of a photon the it is true?
well, listen man, this is how physics works:No all you told me is what the equations allow and do not allow.Originally posted by lethe
well i already told you why massive objects cannot travel at the speed of light.
i don t know if this is supposed to be insulting, but i do find it so.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.
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.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.
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.Originally posted by tenzin
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.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.
Originally posted by tenzin
So you don't know.
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.
Why start now.
i don t think i will be answering any more of your questions
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.
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.
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 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.A. I am not trolling.
In fact I don't; I was being facetious.B. I don't know where you get the idea that I am gifted and smart.
A few people come to mind.C. who cares what you think.
i can assure you, not everyone here shares that opinion.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.
C. who cares what you think.
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.
Originally posted by lethe
i can assure you, not everyone here shares that opinion.
actually, i liked BigRedDot s response.
Originally posted by BigRedDot
Does anyone have any physics they want to talk about here?
Originally posted by tenzin
B. Who cares what you like.
Originally posted by lethe
you asked who cares about what BigRedDot said, and i was simply answering your question: i do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[/b/
Originally posted by tenzin
You are an idiot. Why don't you waste someone else'e time. The people I want here are intelligent.
I am very sorry. I only tried to be helpful.I didn't ask for your advice, I asked you a question. Keep you advice to yourself.
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).Second if velocity is a construct maybe you should step in front of a car in trafic.
Not important? Very much important even really trully! You don't understand.If both mass and speed are constructs why is one not important but the other happens?
My dear, COE is a formula, saying Energy(System,time1)+Energy(Universe/System,time1)= Energy(System,time2)+Energy(Universe/System,time2)Where did I give the formula for COE?
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).I am glad you have finally reached the level of a the Christians. Why don't you just tell me to read the bible.