- I read mass increase is proven everyday in accelerators
In an accelerator when you're pushing/pulling a charged particle with a field that travels at the speed of light why should we expect to the particle to exceed the speed of light.
I completely disagree with this statement.We know a lot about how it behaves but don't know what it really is.
We didn’t in his day. Our current theory, QED, was developed later and is a complete description of all known EM phenomena. It has also correctly predicted many phenomena that were not observed until after the theory was developed.I remember einstein even said we don't truly understand the electron.
In science that is the purpose of performing experiments. We test our theories against experimental observations in order to make sure that the equations do in fact correctly represent reality. As far as I know there is no known EM experimental observation which indicates that reality is inconsistent with QED.I'm curious of the reality behind the equations.
An accelerator can't accelerate electrons to exceed the speed of light. In fact it can't accelerate them to reach the speed of light. The SR equations governing this have been confirmed thousands of times in accelerators.break the speed barrier with electrons in an accelerator
See post 4. I don’t think there is any meaning to this claim. If I could accurately predict your behavior in every circumstance and interaction would you also claim I don’t know who you are?my gut feeling is we still don't understand what the electron is while we do understand how it behaves
If the principle of relativity is correct then there are only two possibilities locally: Galilean relativity and special relativity. It is a simple matter to determine which is the case. Even if you use a DC field, so there is no issue of propagation, we find that the acceleration of an electron follows the prediction of special relativity and not Galilean relativity.The why of the speed limit being the speed of light in the universe bothers me. When someone tells me something is, I ask why.
I feel like I am repeating myself a lot here (post 2). This idea is about a century out of date. Saying it nowadays is kind of a gaffe.I just wonder if we've gotten it wrong in saying that it's because the mass of the particle becomes infinite
In physics, understanding how something behaves is to understand it. There is no distinction between the two. Nature also does not care about what your gut feeling is.but my gut feeling is we still don't understand what the electron is while we do understand how it behaves
Again, this description is a century out of date.I just wonder if we've gotten it wrong in saying that it's because the mass of the particle becomes infinite.
As @Dale has already noted, the concept of "relativistic mass" is long out of date. So this claim is not so much wrong as irrelevant; nobody views things that way any more, so you don't need to worry about whether it's right or wrong.I just wonder if we've gotten it wrong in saying that it's because the mass of the particle becomes infinite.
"Apparent mass" is just vague ordinary language; it doesn't mean anything. The physics is what it is regardless of what ordinary language words you want to use to describe it.I don't believe it really becomes infinite but rather that it's apparent mass becomes infinite.
What is "truly understanding"?I remember einstein even said we don't truly understand the electron.
Imagine chasing after a light beam trying to catch it. No matter how fast you travel, it recedes from you at speed ##c##. Thus you can never catch it. That is, you can never reach a speed of ##c##.. I guess my real gripe is the speed of light being the speed limit.