The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.

  • 5 Replies
  • 3272 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pivz_ (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« on: 07/08/2015 13:27:57 »
I would like to start off with saying that I know there are other reasons why it's not possible to reach c, however I often hear the argument that the speed of light cannot be reched by a particle with mass because as its velocity increases so does the mass... (blah-blah-blah - I'm not going to explain the whole argument in detail because you probably you know how it goes) ...therefore it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.
It is true that for a stationary observer the mass of a particle (from now on it's going to be a spaceship, because they are awesome) increases as it accelerates. But in the frame of reference of the ship (as seen by, for example, passengers on board) the mass of the ship is equal to its rest mass - no relativistic mass is added. In fact, for them, the opposite happens - the mass of a particle, they were stationary to before they started moving (from now on it will be called "the Earth"), is now increasing. In the end both the passengers on the ship and [petty] Earthlings think of each other as getting heavier.
If, in the frame reference of the ship, it's of the same mass as when it started, then this argument is false, right? Or maybe my logic is flawed? Any thoughts for either side?
Thanks
PS sorry for any grammar mistakes - I'm not a native speaker
Logged
 



Offline PmbPhy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3903
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« Reply #1 on: 07/08/2015 18:43:43 »
Quote from: Pivz_
...because as its velocity increases so does the mass... (blah-blah-blah - I'm not going to explain the whole argument in detail because you probably you know how it goes) ...therefore it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.
That part is correct but as you continue, your writing gets more confusing. For example, you write
Quote from: Pivz_
It is true that for a stationary observer the mass of a particle (from now on it's going to be a spaceship, because they are awesome) increases as it accelerates.
What is that supposed to mean? The mass of a particle as measured from the rest frame of the particle is called the particle's proper mass. What is this "stationary observer" that you mentioned here? Is it a frame of reference in which the particle is moving?

Quote from: Pivz_
Observers at rest with respect to the rocket ship (or particle) will measure it to have the same mass it had before it started to move.
Correct.

Quote from: Pivz_
But in the frame of reference of the ship (as seen by, for example, passengers on board) the mass of the ship is equal to its rest mass - no relativistic mass is added. In fact, for them, the opposite happens - the mass of a particle, they were stationary to before they started moving (from now on it will be called "the Earth"), is now increasing.
I assume that you're talking about the following scenario:

For t < 0 a rocket ship and a particle is at rest in the inertial frame of reference S. When t = 0 the rocket ship starts to accelerate while the particle remains at rest. For observers at rest in frame S the particle's mass remains constant having the value of its proper mass. The mass of the rocket as observed from this frame is increasing. From the rocket's frame of reference S' the rocket's proper mass remains constant (disregarding fuel ejected to create thrust. So by "rocket" we'll mean "command capsule" where astronauts live) but observers in S' will determine that the mass of the rocket is constant but that the particle's mass is increasing.

Note: This is tricky because when we say "the mass of the particle as measured by observers in frame S' " we're talking about a non-accelerating frame that is instantaneously moving at the same speed as S'. This is because the gravitational potential contributes to the relativistic mass of a particle moving in a gravitational field and an accelerating frame is equivalent to a gravitational field. For more on this please see my website on this at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_force.htm

See Eqs. 9 and 12
Logged
 

Online evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9195
  • Activity:
    70%
  • Thanked: 918 times
    • View Profile
Re: Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« Reply #2 on: 08/08/2015 13:01:15 »
Quote from: Pivz_
in the frame of reference of the ship, it's of the same mass as when it started
This is true - observers on the ship will not notice a change in mass of the command capsule.

However, from the viewpoint of the observers on the ship, light still passes them at speed c, so despite burning lots of fuel, they have made no progress towards their goal of traveling at speed c.

So they will need infinitely more fuel than they have already burned to reach speed c.

Ideally, they would know this before they set off, so they would set themselves a more realistic goal, like reaching Alpha Centauri...
Logged
 

Offline Pivz_ (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« Reply #3 on: 08/08/2015 14:09:59 »
Quote from: PmbPhy
For t < 0 a rocket ship and a particle is at rest in the inertial frame of reference S. When t = 0 the rocket ship starts to accelerate while the particle remains at rest. For observers at rest in frame S the particle's mass remains constant having the value of its proper mass. The mass of the rocket as observed from this frame is increasing. From the rocket's frame of reference S' the rocket's proper mass remains constant (disregarding fuel ejected to create thrust. So by "rocket" we'll mean "command capsule" where astronauts live) but observers in S' will determine that the mass of the rocket is constant but that the particle's mass is increasing.
That's exactly what I meant.

Quote from: PmbPhy
For more on this please see my website on this at: newbielink:http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_force.htm [nonactive]
That's an awesome looking website. Maybe someone with more than just AS physics knowledge would understand things described there, because I don't [;D]

Quote from: evan_au
However, from the viewpoint of the observers on the ship, light still passes them at speed c, so despite burning lots of fuel, they have made no progress towards their goal of traveling at speed c.

So they will need infinitely more fuel than they have already burned to reach speed c.

So is it possible for two objects to travel at/faster than c relative to each other within the observable universe? (and is there a way for these objects to communicate with each other?). If that's the case then how will this work if all observers must agree on the speed of light? Will they disagree on the location of a photon?
« Last Edit: 08/08/2015 14:14:10 by Pivz_ »
Logged
 

Online evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9195
  • Activity:
    70%
  • Thanked: 918 times
    • View Profile
Re: Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« Reply #4 on: 09/08/2015 04:24:15 »
Quote from: Pivz_
So is it possible for two objects to travel at/faster than c relative to each other within the observable universe?
No.

I think that many questions like this come down to the addition of relativistic velocities, which is different from just adding up velocities (as Galileo & Newton would have done).

So if an observer can see one object moving away from him at half the speed of light in one direction, and another object moving away from him at half the speed of light in the opposite direction, you might expect that the two "end" observers would be moving away from each other at the speed of light.

However, when you apply the relativistic addition of velocity formula, you find that they are only moving away from each other at 80% of the speed of light, so they can still communicate with each other.
Logged
 



Offline PmbPhy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3903
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Increasing relativistic mass as an argument against reaching the speed of light.
« Reply #5 on: 09/08/2015 05:55:27 »
Quote from: Pivz_
So is it possible for two objects to travel at/faster than c relative to each other ...
What do you mean by "relative to each other"?  If, in frame S, a particle is moving at 0.9c to the left and another particle is moving at 0.9c to the right then the particles are moving away from each other at 1.8c mph as measured in frame S where by "moving away from each other" I mean that the time rate of increase of the distance between the two particles is 1.8c. However frame the rest frame of either particle the speed of the other particle is less than the speed of light.

Please describe what you mean by these two particles moving "relative to each other".
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth looked like millions of years ago?

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 9
Views: 11539
Last post 20/05/2018 00:53:37
by raf21
What is "light" pressure?

Started by sorincosofretBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 34
Views: 27691
Last post 13/02/2018 19:46:54
by Bill S
What is a halogen light bulb? What halogen is used and why is this better?

Started by chrisBoard Technology

Replies: 4
Views: 9486
Last post 02/02/2010 11:17:45
by Mazurka
Is solar energy the same as light energy?

Started by FeliciaBoard Technology

Replies: 6
Views: 19750
Last post 19/03/2020 15:17:27
by Paul25
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

Started by londounkmBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 291
Views: 100075
Last post 27/06/2020 13:55:35
by Bill S
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.229 seconds with 47 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.