Idea of increased mass at relativistic speeds

[daniel_i_l]

The real problem with dilation is that no real experiments have been done. We know how single particles behave, but if large objects carry their own inertial frame they may simply ignore relativity completely. The physics of large objects at relativistic speeds is basically completely unknown.

Of course there have been experiments done! Such as the experiment with the atomic clocks - one in a plane and one on the ground.

If Einstein is truly correct then Quantum entanglement cannot exist

No information can be sent with QE.

A very interesting thing happens if you make c infinite - relativity becomes linear - Newtonian!

How exactly do you do that?

 

[Longstreet]

Also, the GPS (global positioning system) has to compensate for time differences caused by both it's velocity and gravitational field differences between it and the surface of the Earth in calculating position so accuratly.

The c boundary is not so much that things become imaginary, but to even get an imaginary number you have to go through infinity. Even in quantum mechanics particles could never penetrate such a boundary. You would have to have infinite uncertainty in the energy and momentum of the particle, which means you could never detect it.

 

[pmb_phy]

No information can be sent with QE.

That may not be true. There has been theoretical research in this area and published in journals such as American Journal of Physics. References provided upon request.

Pete

 

[Longstreet]

Is it that no information can be sent, or that it can't be sent faster than light? I'd be interested to learn more about that because one might argue that in seperating two entagled particles to such a distance where the speed of light becomes significant, you still have to carry the particle (ie the information) less than c and so nothing is really violated.

 

[pmb_phy]

Is it that no information can be sent, or that it can't be sent faster than light? I'd be interested to learn more about that because one might argue that in seperating two entagled particles to such a distance where the speed of light becomes significant, you still have to carry the particle (ie the information) less than c and so nothing is really violated.

If a signal can travel faster than the speed of light then you can devise a situation where causality is violated.

Pete

 

[sequence]

That may not be true. There has been theoretical research in this area and published in journals such as American Journal of Physics. References provided upon request.
Pete

provide them.

 

[pmb_phy]

References:
Faster than Light?, Chiao et al, Scientific American, Aug. 1993

Can EPR-correlations be used for the transmission of superluminal signals?, P. Mittlestaedt, Ann. Phys., 7, 1998, 711-715

Superluminal signal velocity, G. Nimtz, Ann. Phys., 7, 1998, 618-624

Bell's theorem: Does quantum mechanics contradict relativity?, L.E. Ballentine, Am. J. Phys., 55(8), Aug. 1987

Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Particles, G. Fienberg, Physical Review, Volume 159, No. 5, July 25, 1987 (this is the paper which postulated the posibility of tachyons)

Pete

 

[Intuitive]

If We have two Atoms.

1. Atom A. is a Hydrogen Atom at rest.
2. Atom B. is a Hydrogen Atom traveling at half the speed of light or 93,141 miles a second.

Question is, How big is Atom B. compared to Atom A. Exactly?

What are their size differences?

 

[pmb_phy]

If We have two Atoms.
1. Atom A. is a Hydrogen Atom at rest.
2. Atom B. is a Hydrogen Atom traveling at Light speed.
Question is, How big is Atom B. compared to Atom A. Exactly?
What are their size differences?

Nothing can travel at the speed of light so please rephrase your question. Thanks.

Pete

 

[jtbell]

What is it with physicists? This almost religious conviction that Mr Einstein must MUST be right. In reality relativity is a pretty fragile beast,

Not every single prediction of relativity has been tested, for example I don't know of any observations of length contraction (which would be rather difficult in practice). However, practically all tests so far have supported predictions of relativity, and the few that apparently don't, have problems:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

[pmb_phy]

Not every single prediction of relativity has been tested, for example I don't know of any observations of length contraction (which would be rather difficult in practice). However, practically all tests so far have supported predictions of relativity, and the few that apparently don't, have problems:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Predictions of the results of experiments which were derived from the concept of length contraction can readily be tested in the laboratory and they concern current carrying wires. See

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htm

and scroll down to where it says "Charged Density on a Moving Wire."

Pete

 

[JCCol]

If We have two Atoms.
1. Atom A. is a Hydrogen Atom at rest.
2. Atom B. is a Hydrogen Atom traveling at Light speed.
Question is, How big is Atom B. compared to Atom A. Exactly?
What are their size differences?

I will take it that you mean almost the speed of light such as 99.995% the speed of light because the faster you approach light the more and more energy you add to go faster but this energy just goes to the mass so you never get to the speed exactly.

I can't give you the exact equation but you can look on this site if you want for the equation:

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

 

[jtbell]

Predictions of the results of experiments which were derived from the concept of length contraction can readily be tested in the laboratory and they concern current carrying wires.

Yes, of course. I was referring to "direct" observations of length contraction, similar to our direct observations of time dilation. Most relativity skeptics probably wouldn't be satisfied with indirect observations.

 

[pmb_phy]

Yes, of course. I was referring to "direct" observations of length contraction, similar to our direct observations of time dilation. Most relativity skeptics probably wouldn't be satisfied with indirect observations.

Correction. Most relativity skeptics can't be satisfied, period.

Pete