Why matter can't reach the speed of light ?

In summary: The two travelers would agree that their clocks showed the particles reaching their targets at different times, but they would not be able to explain why their watches showed this to be the case.
  • #1
big_bounce
102
3
Hello all .

We know when matter like electron reach near speed of light its mass increase and Limits to Infinity .

Why we can not reach electron to c ?

Because for changing speed at near speed of light :
1 - We need infinite momentum ?
2 - We need infinite energy ?
3 - We need infinity force to give it acceleration ?
4 - If electron wants to reach c , it must change form to a mass-less particle like photon and conversation of charge violate .
or
All of them maybe correct / None / other idea ?

I didn't find any clear academic answer .

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
what do you think and why?
 
  • #3
I think it is more subtle than this. It is the geometry of Minkowski spacetime that prevents v -> c.

Every observer can 'coordinatetize' other observers. This means we can convert their local measurements into numbers corresponding to our local rulers and clocks. This process is governed by the Lorentz tranformation, and the LT can never convert a velocity to c.
 
  • #4
big_bounce said:
Hello all .

We know when matter like electron reach near speed of light its mass increase and Limits to Infinity .

Why we can not reach electron to c ?

Because for changing speed at near speed of light :
1 - We need infinite momentum ?
2 - We need infinite energy ?
3 - We need infinity force to give it acceleration ?
4 - If electron wants to reach c , it must change form to a mass-less particle like photon and conversation of charge violate .
or
All of them maybe correct / None / other idea ?

I didn't find any clear academic answer .

Thanks
Once you understand that light comes from accelerated charges then you would see that your question is like, "Why can't I pull myself up by my own bootstraps?"
 
  • #5
External agent finds that increasing relativistic mass/energy brings diminishing returns and acceleration won't bring the particle to c relative to them.
 
  • #6
phinds said:
what do you think and why?

I think 4 is more acceptable .
Even we have infinite "energy , force, momentum" we can not annihilate a electron and release it's rest mass since this is a blatant violation of charge conservation .
Unless we'll find a mass-less particle with charge or a massive particle travels at c .

Thank you .
 
Last edited:
  • #7
big_bounce said:
I think 4 is more acceptable .
Even we have infinite "energy , force, momentum" we can not annihilate a electron and release it's rest mass since this is a blatant violation of charge conservation .
Unless we'll find a mass-less particle with charge or a massive particle travels at c .

Thank you .

It would be a paradox in any case, if some observers could see the body reach c and others could not.
 
  • #8
Has anyone run an experiment with two particle emitters aimed in opposite directions? Or would the result simply be obvious?

By measuring the time it takes for a particle to travel from the emitter to some target, determining velocity becomes a simple matter of d/t. If another emitter is fired at a similarly placed target in the opposite direction, it's particle's velocities would be calculated the same: d'/t'. If, by design, d' is set equal to d then t'=t assuming the same type of emitter is used.

If the emitters are fired at the same time, how would you explain the velocity of separation between particles moving in opposite directions? The math would be (d+d')/t. If the velocity of the particles in relation to the observer is anything greater than 0.5c, than their velocity of separation would appear to the observer to be >c.
 
  • #9
The "velocity of separation" of two particles, as calculated in the rest frame of the emitters, is not the same sort of thing as the "velocity of one particle with respect to the other", which is more precisely stated as "the velocity of one particle in the rest frame of the other."

The latter is subject to the rule that it cannot be > c; the first is not, i.e. it can be > c, as in the situation you describe.

There is no reference frame in which either particle has a velocity equal to the "velocity of separation" in the emitter's rest frame.
 
  • #10
Then if two observers, each assigned to accompany opposite-moving particles were to take whatever time they need to later measure d+d' (which are equal and traversed in equal t), they would both agree on the distance along with a third observer assigned to the emitters.

But while the emitter observer would have perceived the two travelers reaching their targets simultaneously, each of the travelers would have perceived themselves as beating the other to their respective target.

Is that correct?

Suppose each traveler clocked their journeys with a stopwatch and the met later in the middle to discuss their situation. How would they reconcile the fact that d=d' and t=t', but both observed the other reaching their target in time >t ?
 
  • #11
The simplest explanation I have seen about why you can't get to light speed is that in any local observational frame [ where you are] light always passes you by at c, no matter your speed. Another way to say this is that all inertial observers measure light locally at c. So how could you ever 'catch up'??

This perspective, like that of Mentz's Lorentz based answer, is unfortunately not based on any first principles...like many things, electron mass and charge for example, or the four fundamental forces, or the statistics of quantum mechanics, we have to use observations as we have no first principles. Sure we have lots of math, but why this math when there is a lot of other math that doesn't work in this universe?
 
  • #12
RealityQuest said:
Suppose each traveler clocked their journeys with a stopwatch and then met later in the middle to discuss their situation. How would they reconcile the fact that d=d' and t=t', but both observed the other reaching their target in time >t ?

That bit about meeting in the middle changes the problem into something completely different, as the only way that can happen is for at least one of the two to accelerate or otherwise change his speed. The simple time dilation equation doesn't apply in this case (you'll notice that it is written for v being constant); instead we have the well-known "twin paradox" (google it, or look for explanations from the mentors and science advisers here).

In all of the cases where the two observers eventually reunite, it is possible for the two observers to measure different amounts of time on their journeys so that their clocks (and the grayness of their hair) disagree at the reunion. Which one will be more aged and by how much will depends on the exact details of their journeys, but it can be calculated using either observer's reference frame, or that of some unrelated third observer and the answer will come out the same.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
A better way to frame the experiment that doesn't require hypothetical observers...

Place the two emitters 2d apart aimed directly at each other so that their particles are on a collision course at a central target. If the emitters accelerate the particles to 0.8c, their approaching speed would be 1.6c to an observer on the ground. How would one explain that the relative approach velocity of the particles to each other is <= c ? The measurable distance from which they started was closed in the same time they each closed the distance to the target. Their collision at the target would seem to prove that it was simultaneous for all observers.
 
  • #14
Further, since the particles are traveling at high velocity, less time would have passed for them than for the observer on the ground, yielding a smaller denominator with an equal numerator. So it would seem, from the particles' perspectives, the velocity at which they are approaching each other should be significantly higher than 1.6c. Same distance in less time.

Obviously I'm wrong, but I don't know where I get off track logically.
 
  • #15
Why can't matter reach c? Because the rules governing how the universe works prevents it from occurring. This has several consequences, such as the aforementioned laws that we know and use. None of them answer 'Why' it can't happen, they only tell us what to expect when we move objects around at high velocities.


RealityQuest said:
Their collision at the target would seem to prove that it was simultaneous for all observers.

The collision would not be simultaneous to all observers.

RealityQuest said:
Further, since the particles are traveling at high velocity, less time would have passed for them than for the observer on the ground, yielding a smaller denominator with an equal numerator. So it would seem, from the particles' perspectives, the velocity at which they are approaching each other should be significantly higher than 1.6c. Same distance in less time.

Obviously I'm wrong, but I don't know where I get off track logically.

Length contraction. Each particle travels less distance, from their own perspective, since length contraction affects how they view space as well. From one particles perspective, the distance between the center target and the other particle, as well as the distance between both of them and itself, is less than the center target would measure.
 
  • #16
big_bounce said:
Hello all .

We know when matter like electron reach near speed of light its mass increase and Limits to Infinity .

Why we can not reach electron to c ?

Because for changing speed at near speed of light :
1 - We need infinite momentum ?
2 - We need infinite energy ?
3 - We need infinity force to give it acceleration ?
4 - If electron wants to reach c , it must change form to a mass-less particle like photon and conversation of charge violate .
or
All of them maybe correct / None / other idea ?

I didn't find any clear academic answer .

Thanks

It was explained to me, quite a while back, as such:

From: OmCheeto
If an electron were accelerated to the speed of light, according to einstein, it's mass would be infinite, it would suck up the whole universe, and we would all be dead.
(this is nonsense...moderator)

From: OmCheeto
To: moderator/s

Are you inplying that einsteins equations are wrong or incomplete? How is my infinite mass theory incorrect?

From: mephisto
Einstein said that as you accelerate a massive body up to c the required energy tends to infinity, right? Well this is just the limit of the sequence as speed tends to c, which need not actually be the value at c itself if the energy-speed curve is not continuous there. No physical theory tells you the energy of a massive body moving at c, I think, so you are strictly speculating the E-speed curve is smooth. Your theory is not rubbish its just unproven. I don't know whether QFT says anything about this (technical remark - does the propagator for a massive particle vanish over null intervals? - I don't think so due to pair production, unless all the contributions cancel due to some symmetry)

The original question actually was;

From: Taimur Usman Why must the rest mass of photon be zero? ( By rest mass, we mean that at rest the mass of the photons is zero)

I've reworded my original question to match your question.

The final comment by one of the moderators was;

From: munu
If photons have a small rest mass, they can no longer move at the speed we call "c". I know its confusing that in this situation "c" can no longer be described as the "velocity of light", but the situation is completely consistent and satisfactory, and is open to various experimental tests, which yield the limit of about 10-20 eV for the photon mass.

The way I interpret this now is:

"c" is defined as the "invariable speed" of something that is massless, that fits Einsteins equations. Whether or not such a beast really exists, remains to be measured. See also FTL Neutrino discussions. :tongue2:

(ref)

-----------------------
ok to delete and infract, as I have a bit of the flu going on right now, and need some rest.
 
  • #17
RealityQuest said:
Further, since the particles are traveling at high velocity, less time would have passed for them than for the observer on the ground, yielding a smaller denominator with an equal numerator. So it would seem, from the particles' perspectives, the velocity at which they are approaching each other should be significantly higher than 1.6c. Same distance in less time.

Obviously I'm wrong, but I don't know where I get off track logically.

the logic might be okay but your axioms are wrong.

velocities and lengths do not add linearly along the line of motion. the velocity addition mathematics is different than just [itex] u+v [/itex]. i think it's

[tex] \frac{u+v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}} [/tex]
 
  • #18
rbj said:
the logic might be okay but your axioms are wrong.

velocities and lengths do not add linearly along the line of motion. the velocity addition mathematics is different than just [itex] u+v [/itex]. i think it's

[tex] \frac{u+v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}} [/tex]

That is correct. There are two things worth pointing out here:
1) If u and v are both small compared to the speed of light, this formula yields an answer which is very close to u+v. For example, if two cars traveling at 30 meters/sec relative to the ground pass each in opposite directions, their closing speed won't be 60 meters/sec, it will be 59.9999... meters per second, out to about 12 decimal places or so. This is far smaller than we can measure, which is why we've never noticed that u+v is not exactly right.
2) If either u or v is equal to c, the result comes out to c. That's why people moving at different speeds relative to each other will both get c for the speed of a light signal relative to themselves.
 
  • #19
big_bounce said:
Hello all .

We know when matter like electron reach near speed of light its mass increase and Limits to Infinity .

Why we can not reach electron to c ?

Because for changing speed at near speed of light :
1 - We need infinite momentum ?
2 - We need infinite energy ?
3 - We need infinity force to give it acceleration ?
4 - If electron wants to reach c , it must change form to a mass-less particle like photon and conversation of charge violate .
or
All of them maybe correct / None / other idea ?

I didn't find any clear academic answer .

Thanks

Simply put, it's the properties of spacetime which determines how the reltivistic mass of a particle, it's energy and it's momentum change with speed v. As v -> c, E -> infinity, mrel -> infinity and p -> infinity. However there is nothing that says that a particle can't be created traveling faster than the speed of light other than the problem of being able to use it to cause a paradox. Such a class of particles are called tachyons.
 
  • #20
Drakkith said:
The collision would not be simultaneous to all observers.

By "all" I was referring to the two colliding particles and the target. How are those three not experiencing the collision at precisely the same time? And how is such simultaneity possible given the c speed limit?

Drakkith said:
Length contraction. Each particle travels less distance, from their own perspective, since length contraction affects how they view space as well. From one particles perspective, the distance between the center target and the other particle, as well as the distance between both of them and itself, is less than the center target would measure.

Except any measuring device would be contracted as well, so... wouldn't the distance still measure out the same for all three?

rbj said:
the logic might be okay but your axioms are wrong.

velocities and lengths do not add linearly along the line of motion. the velocity addition mathematics is different than just [itex] u+v [/itex]. i think it's

[tex] \frac{u+v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}} [/tex]

How would the above formula apply to each observer--the one on the ground and the two in the passing cars? Their calculations for u and v would be slightly different. The cars' time would be measurably smaller (with a 13-decimal-point precision stopwatch). How would the shrinkage of d be determined since all the mile markers would have shrunk as well?

I need some help understanding how length contraction really works. I'm picturing the particles in a supercollider spinning around thousands of time a second at a foreword velocity near c. To them the universe is contracting and re-expanding along their ever-changing vector. It would seem clear that the universe isn't ACTUALLY contracting and re-expanding--that that feature of relativity is more a mathematical necessity than the physical reality.

It reminds me of i. We know the sqr(-1) is undefined so we assign it a designation and hope to cancel it out in the rest of the formula. With length contraction, it allows the formulas of relativity to work so we just accept it. I have no doubt the math works out perfectly. Has anyone devised a way to verify it empirically?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity.
 
  • #21
For examples of applying this "relativistic velocity addition" formula, and a calculator, see here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/%E2%80%8Chbase/relativ/einvel2.html#c1 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Thanks for the link! Very cool.

However, I already trust the math implicitly to produce exactly what the math is designed to produce. Furthermore I trust that, to the degree the math is verifiably linked to the physical, it has descriptive and predictive value in the physical domain.

I wish there was a way to verify (or debunk) length contraction physically and not just mathematically. It seems far-fetched and acceptance of it would seem to demand a fairly high burden of proof.
 
  • #23
RealityQuest said:
By "all" I was referring to the two colliding particles and the target. How are those three not experiencing the collision at precisely the same time? And how is such simultaneity possible given the c speed limit?

Then you need to be clear. Of course the collision would be simultaneous to the two particles and the target if all three collide at the same time. I don't understand your confusion.

Except any measuring device would be contracted as well, so... wouldn't the distance still measure out the same for all three?

No. To each particle its own measuring device is not length contracted. It will measure a shorter distance.
 
  • #24
RealityQuest said:
I wish there was a way to verify (or debunk) length contraction physically and not just mathematically. It seems far-fetched and acceptance of it would seem to demand a fairly high burden of proof.
Are you familiar with muon decay observations?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html
 
  • #25
RealityQuest said:
I wish there was a way to verify (or debunk) length contraction physically and not just mathematically. It seems far-fetched and acceptance of it would seem to demand a fairly high burden of proof.

If you haven't already found the link in the "experimental basis" FAQ at the top of this forum, it's a good read.

It's also worth considering whether any alternative theory would not appear just as far-fetched. Any candidate theory must be consistent with: Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics (discovered in 1861 and confirmed by a century and a half of electrical engineering in every aspect of our life - the disagreement between them and classical mechanics is the problem that relativity solves); the negative results of Michelson-Morley experiments; and must explain all the other measurements (muon lifetime is particularly compelling) at least as well as relativity does. That's a a tall order; special relativity is the simplest and least far-fetched of the possible theories so far, and it is very unlikely that something better has escaped our attention in the 150 years between Maxwell and now.
 
  • #26
Drakkith said:
Then you need to be clear. Of course the collision would be simultaneous to the two particles and the target if all three collide at the same time. I don't understand your confusion.

My apologies for not being clear. My confusion was in how such simultaneity could be possible when the target is "approaching" at 0.8c for each particle, but the particles cannot be approaching at each other at 1.6c. I'm still struggling with how to conceptualize length contraction working in practical terms.

Also, I'm not clear on why the contraction of d isn't counteracted (somewhat ?) by t dilation in the calculation of v-- v=d/t. If both the numerator and denominator are decreasing proportionally, the result will be the same. Are you suggesting length contraction occurs at some factor greater than time dilation?

Drakkith said:
To each particle its own measuring device is not length contracted. It will measure a shorter distance.

Exactly how is this assertion justified? The entire universe contracts, but an imaginary measuring device remains conveniently calibrated to "normal" dimensions?

russ_watters said:
Are you familiar with muon decay observations?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

I believe I have heard of this, although this site is very helpful in explaining it. Time dilation seems fairly straightforward to me. Things speed up and slow down all the time. I'll have to study it some to see if it triggers a eureka moment for me on length contraction.
 
  • #27
RealityQuest said:
Time dilation seems fairly straightforward to me. Things speed up and slow down all the time. I'll have to study it some to see if it triggers a eureka moment for me on length contraction.

Time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same coin - you can't have one without the other. The muon decay experiment makes this most clear.

If we use a frame in which the muons are at rest and the Earth's atmosphere is moving towards them, we think in terms of undilated muons living their normal undilated lifetime as they travel through a length-contracted atmosphere. If we use a frame in which the Earth and its atmosphere is at rest and the muons are moving, we think in terms of time-dilated muons living longer so they can travel through the uncontracted atmosphere. Both descriptions are equally valid.
 
  • #28
RealityQuest said:
How would one explain that the relative approach velocity of the particles to each other is <= c ?

As seen by whom? An observer at rest with the target might very well simply add the velocities, as long as he doesn't make the mistake of thinking that this v which is >c would be measured of any particular particle by any particular observer. If you were traveling with one particle, then as it hits the other particle, you would decide that the other particle was moving <c, and this is intimately related to the fact that for let's say a spaceship moving with the particle coming toward you, you would measure light paths and decide that a clock at the back of that spaceship is set a bit later than a clock at the front.

RealityQuest said:
Further, since the particles are traveling at high velocity, less time would have passed for them than for the observer on the ground, yielding a smaller denominator with an equal numerator. So it would seem, from the particles' perspectives, the velocity at which they are approaching each other should be significantly higher than 1.6c. Same distance in less time.

Obviously I'm wrong, but I don't know where I get off track logically.

The 2 ships traveling with the different particles as they approach the collision site have very different reckoning of which events are simultaneous. Each ship calculates as best he can that the clock at the back of the other's ship to be set later than the front. "hey the clock at the back of your ship is set later than the front. NO, YOUR ship is like that but mine is synched just fine." Something fishy there, which should assist each observer in understanding something of why they seem to be approaching each other <c.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
RealityQuest said:
My apologies for not being clear. My confusion was in how such simultaneity could be possible when the target is "approaching" at 0.8c for each particle, but the particles cannot be approaching at each other at 1.6c. I'm still struggling with how to conceptualize length contraction working in practical terms.

See below.

Also, I'm not clear on why the contraction of d isn't counteracted (somewhat ?) by t dilation in the calculation of v-- v=d/t. If both the numerator and denominator are decreasing proportionally, the result will be the same. Are you suggesting length contraction occurs at some factor greater than time dilation?

Consider observer A, who is traveling at 99.5% c towards observer B. Time dilation will cause his clock to tick 10 times slower than observer B, who is measuring him at that velocity. Let's say that observer B is 300,000 km from another observer, C, who is stationary with respect to B and directly in the path of A, meaning A will pass by B and then C.

From A's perspective, if we did not have length contraction, it would seem to take 0.1 seconds to travel 300,000 km's, the distance from B to C. But that's 10 times faster than light! So how can we resolve this? The answer lies in length contraction. It exactly equals time dilation and causes observer A to measure the distance between B and C as 10 times less. So A doesn't travel 300,000 km's in 0.1 seconds, he travels 30,000 km's. No violation of c.

Exactly how is this assertion justified? The entire universe contracts, but an imaginary measuring device remains conveniently calibrated to "normal" dimensions?

Pretty much, yes. It means that each observer's measuring device is not length contracted according to that observer, it is space that is length contracted instead.
 
  • #30
I'm still struggling with how to conceptualize length contraction working in practical terms.

You seem to 'mis-under-estimate' nature...??

SHE fools us all the time...
WE, however, cannot fool nature!
'You have to accept nature as she is, absurd'...Richard Feynman'Conceptualaize' is immaterial and not in HER vocabulary !
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same coin - you can't have one without the other.

This is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of special relativity to me...
other than the fixed speed of light of course...

Space and time morph into each other...change places...if one changes so does the other.

All we need is some 'rational' explanation!
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I think the biggest problem people have with that is that because we are humans, it is difficult for us to travel fast enough for relativity to matter. We can do it in an airplane and verify with an accurate clock that it works, but we can't measure the distance the airplane traveled accurately enough to see the length contraction.

As a result, we have to use examples where we have to put ourselves in the reference frame of other objects (like muons) that experience the contraction.
 
  • #33
big_bounce said:
Why we can not reach electron to c ?
I would say "because an electron has mass". By virtue of having mass an electron must also have more energy than momentum (in units where c=1). Things which travel faster than c have more momentum than energy and things which travel at c have the same amount of momentum and energy.

But all of the reasons you gave are also valid.
 
  • #34
Naty1 said:
This is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of special relativity to me...
other than the fixed speed of light of course...

Space and time morph into each other...change places...if one changes so does the other.

All we need is some 'rational' explanation!
There is no 'rational' explanation of the type you want. The impossibility of accelerating a mass to sol is not a property of the mass itself but of spacetime. The morphing you speak of is a good hint that it is spacetime that changes, not the bodies in question.

Most of the posts in this thread are in denial and are stalled for pre-relativistic intuitive reasons.
 
  • #35
Mentz114 said:
There is no 'rational' explanation of the type you want. The impossibility of accelerating a mass to sol is not a property of the mass itself but of spacetime. The morphing you speak of is a good hint that it is spacetime that changes, not the bodies in question.

Most of the posts in this thread are in denial and are stalled for pre-relativistic intuitive reasons.

I would be the first to admit I am stalled for pre-relativistic intuitive reasons. My 'denial' is I don't know how to take a meaning leap, honestly stating that I see how the faster I run, the more the universe contracts in that direction (however slightly).
 
<h2>1. Why can't anything travel faster than the speed of light?</h2><p>The speed of light, denoted by "c", is considered to be the maximum speed at which energy, information, and matter can travel in the universe. This is due to the fundamental laws of physics, specifically Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases infinitely and it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it further. Thus, it is physically impossible for anything to surpass the speed of light.</p><h2>2. Can anything ever reach the speed of light?</h2><p>No, according to our current understanding of physics, nothing with mass can ever reach the speed of light. However, particles with no mass, such as photons, can travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Even if an object were to somehow reach 99.9% of the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to that speed.</p><h2>3. What happens if an object were to reach the speed of light?</h2><p>As mentioned before, an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light. However, if it were to somehow reach that speed, it would experience infinite mass and time dilation. This means that time would slow down for the object, and it would become infinitely heavy, making it impossible to accelerate any further.</p><h2>4. Is the speed of light a constant?</h2><p>Yes, the speed of light is considered to be a constant in our universe. It is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. This means that no matter who measures the speed of light, it will always be the same value. This is a fundamental principle in physics and has been confirmed through numerous experiments and observations.</p><h2>5. Could the speed of light ever change?</h2><p>Based on our current understanding of physics, the speed of light is considered to be a universal constant and is not expected to change. However, there are some theories, such as string theory, that suggest the speed of light may have been different in the early stages of the universe. This is still a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists.</p>

1. Why can't anything travel faster than the speed of light?

The speed of light, denoted by "c", is considered to be the maximum speed at which energy, information, and matter can travel in the universe. This is due to the fundamental laws of physics, specifically Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases infinitely and it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it further. Thus, it is physically impossible for anything to surpass the speed of light.

2. Can anything ever reach the speed of light?

No, according to our current understanding of physics, nothing with mass can ever reach the speed of light. However, particles with no mass, such as photons, can travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Even if an object were to somehow reach 99.9% of the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to that speed.

3. What happens if an object were to reach the speed of light?

As mentioned before, an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light. However, if it were to somehow reach that speed, it would experience infinite mass and time dilation. This means that time would slow down for the object, and it would become infinitely heavy, making it impossible to accelerate any further.

4. Is the speed of light a constant?

Yes, the speed of light is considered to be a constant in our universe. It is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. This means that no matter who measures the speed of light, it will always be the same value. This is a fundamental principle in physics and has been confirmed through numerous experiments and observations.

5. Could the speed of light ever change?

Based on our current understanding of physics, the speed of light is considered to be a universal constant and is not expected to change. However, there are some theories, such as string theory, that suggest the speed of light may have been different in the early stages of the universe. This is still a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists.

Similar threads

Replies
130
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
786
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
Back
Top