Particle Acceleration: 99.99% Light Speed & Mass

AI Thread Summary
Particles can be accelerated to 99.99% of the speed of light, leading to an increase in their relativistic mass. At this speed, a particle's mass does increase significantly, but it does not reach infinite mass, as only massless particles can travel at light speed. The discussion highlights the misconception that such particles would have mass comparable to that of Earth; instead, their mass increase is substantial but not infinite. The concept of relativistic mass is debated, with some suggesting a focus on four-vectors for a clearer understanding of relativity. Overall, while the mass of a particle at near-light speed is considerable, it does not pose a threat to planetary orbits.
Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Particle accelerator?

I've read that we have accelerated small particles to 99.99% the speed of light.

Now, if I understand this correctly, a particles mass increases as its speed increases.

Also, if an object "having mass" was moving at the speed of light, it would have infinite mass, and therefore would require infinite energy to accelerate it to the speed of light, and since infinite energy does not exist, this is why anything having mass cannot reach light speed.

So my question is, how much more massive is small particle when it is moving at 99.99% light speed?

It seems like if it was so close to actual light speed, its mass would be huge, perhaps as much as the Earth's, and accelerating an object that close to light speed could knock the planet right out of orbit or something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems to be a good idea (and is increasingly more popular) to just ignore the idea of relativistic mass altogether. You may want to find a book that describes relativity in terms of 4 vectors, such as Griffiths E&M (ch. 12 I believe).
 
Holocene said:
if it was so close to actual light speed, its mass would be huge, perhaps as much as the Earth's
Assume the particle was a proton. Come back once you've done the (trivial) maths and compared the numbers.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top