Massive objects traveling near the speed of light

pete5383
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone, I have a question that might be pretty obvious to everyone else, but I just want to be clear. Relativity says that nothing that has mass can travel at the speed of light because it will take an infinite amount of energy for it to accelerate to that. I think I get that...but I do have a question. If an object with mass is accelerating in a medium with an index of refraction greater than 1, is the speed of light in that medium the upper limit for how fast a massive object can travel?

For example, in a vacuum, the speed of light is about 3e8 m/s (right..?), so a massive object has to travel less than that. But in a medium that has an index of refraction of 2, making the speed of light 1.5e8 m/s, is the massive object now limited to traveling 1.5e8 m/s?

So, I guess what I'm trying to ask, is a massive object's velocity limited by c, or by the speed of light in the medium it's traveling through?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey everyone, I have a question that might be pretty obvious to everyone else, but I just want to be clear. Relativity says that nothing that has mass can travel at the speed of light because it will take an infinite amount of energy for it to accelerate to that. I think I get that...but I do have a question. If an object with mass is accelerating in a medium with an index of refraction greater than 1, is the speed of light in that medium the upper limit for how fast a massive object can travel?

The short answer is that the limit is 'c', and has nothing to do with the speed of light in the medium.

The longer answer would point out that there is actually no need to invoke dynamics (forces) or "relativistic mass" to explain why obects cannot exceed 'c'. It is a consequence of how velocities add, a purely kinematical issue that doesn't need any dynamical concepts (i.e. mass).
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Back
Top