Questioning speed of light and infinite mass

In summary, the conversation discusses the effects of Einstein's theories on objects approaching the speed of light and their mass approaching infinity. It is explained that photons have zero rest mass and only objects with non-zero rest masses will have an increase in relativistic mass. The conversation also touches on the idea of accelerating an electron to near infinite mass and its effect on Earth's orbit, as well as the role of energy and rest mass in gravitational attraction. The topic of dark energy and dark matter and their gravitational effects is also mentioned.
  • #1
btgream
1
0
If Einstein's theories are correct, specifically about objects approaching the speed of light and their mass approaching infinity, how is it that a photon (and object with mass or mostly energy) is able to remain nearly massless? Why doesn't an electron fired through a particle accelerator approach near infinite mass and throw the Earth out of orbit? or worse? Are the equations wrong to presume that all matter at the speed of light reaches infinite mass? Why doesn't light also curve space?

- An uneducated curiosity

http://members.fortunecity.com/templarseries/Yahoo/Omegaman/relativity/REL7.gif

[PLAIN]http://members.fortunecity.com/templarseries/Yahoo/Omegaman/relativity/REL7.gif [/PLAIN]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
btgream said:
If Einstein's theories are correct, specifically about objects approaching the speed of light and their mass approaching infinity, how is it that a photon (and object with mass or mostly energy) is able to remain nearly massless?
Photons have zero rest mass. Only objects with non-zero rest masses would have an increase in relativistic mass.
Why doesn't an electron fired through a particle accelerator approach near infinite mass and throw the Earth out of orbit? or worse?
Accelerating an electron up to 99.9999995% percent of the speed of light (about the highest accelerators have achieved) would increase its mass by a factor of ~100,000, since the rest mass of an electron is only 9 e_31 kg to begin with, you would only be increasing its mass to around that of an average atom.
Secondly, the energy to accelerate the electron has to come from the Earth, and this would reduce the relativistic mass of the Earth. IOW, the Relativistic mass of the electron-Earth total would stay constant.
Are the equations wrong to presume that all matter at the speed of light reaches infinite mass? Why doesn't light also curve space?
It does, But the mass equivalence of light is quite small. The light put out by 1 billion 100w light bulbs in one year only has a mass equivalence of ~35 kg.
- An uneducated curiosity
 
  • #3
Also, as a slight addition to the above, as an object increases in speed, it gains mass-energy or relativistic mass, the rest mass does not change, and it is rest mass, not mass-energy that judges gravitational attraction, so it would do no such thing to Earth's orbit, even if it received energy from somewhere else.
 
  • #4
Vorde said:
Also, as a slight addition to the above, as an object increases in speed, it gains mass-energy or relativistic mass, the rest mass does not change, and it is rest mass, not mass-energy that judges gravitational attraction, so it would do no such thing to Earth's orbit, even if it received energy from somewhere else.

This is false, energy affects gravitation as well as rest mass.
 
  • #5
Really? I'm sorry I wouldn't have posted that if I hadn't heard it before, I'll have to look back to where I heard that, because I would have sworn I was right.

EDIT: You're completely right, however I definitely picked that up from a previous thread here where I was swayed from my previous (correct) viewpoint, so I think someone here taught me wrong! :P
 
  • #6
Good lesson illustrated above...you can't believe everything you read, even here.

Some people get really bent when you disagree with them, tell them they are wrong, but unless it is done someone else may well learn the wrong thing.

While we are on the subject of gravity, mass, energy and PRESSURE all have gravitational effects. And that includes dark energy and dark matter although we currently have little knowledge about just what they are.
 
  • #7
That all makes sense to me except the pressure part, would you mind elaborating?
 
  • #8
Matterwave said:
This is false, energy affects gravitation as well as rest mass.

Gravitational reactions dictates how E works, it's just Sf into TMass and Bmass around a Scatter Matrix of E exchange of any Mass. This is a Presurfistic Event of Natural Occurrence where the (h) can be achieved. The end result is folic in Curve function between two given Masses. The W function into TMass and BMass (L) at h now becomes a Bmass and the Directional Force creates a Tmass (D). The Presurfistic Event is the exchange of E of 2 given Masses.
 
  • #9
Not to be rude, but, what?
 
  • #10
Elaborating on the previous posts you had the right idea and the function could also determine that outcome. I explained the example to you because it isn't One Dimensional anymore on x or y scales. The 2 Masses I was referring to explains you're hypothesis, but you need 2 colliding Masses to achieve this. As I said Lmass has a T and BMass and DMass has the same Masses it's the Presurfistic Event that occurs between the 2 Masses that determines the h exchange. I hope that explains the interjection
 

1. What is the speed of light?

The speed of light, denoted by the symbol c, is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. This is considered to be the maximum speed at which all matter and information can travel in the universe.

2. How was the speed of light first calculated?

The first accurate measurement of the speed of light was done by Danish astronomer Ole Rømer in 1676. He observed the timing of the eclipses of Jupiter's moon, Io, and noticed a discrepancy in the timing when Earth was closer or farther from Jupiter. This led him to calculate the speed of light to be around 220,000 kilometers per second.

3. Can the speed of light be exceeded?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is a fundamental constant and cannot be exceeded by any object with mass. However, there are some theoretical concepts such as wormholes and Alcubierre drives that propose ways of traveling faster than light, but they have not been proven to be possible.

4. What is the connection between the speed of light and infinite mass?

As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc². This means that as an object's velocity increases, its mass also increases, and at the speed of light, an object's mass would theoretically become infinite.

5. Is it possible for an object to have infinite mass?

While the concept of infinite mass may seem counterintuitive, it is a theoretical concept that arises from the mathematical equations in Einstein's theory of relativity. In reality, it is not possible for an object to have infinite mass, as it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
130
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
847
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
64
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
2K
Back
Top