Question on high speed astrophysics — when an object goes near of the speed of light

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of a black hole attracting a planet and the resulting increase in attraction force and speed of the planet. The conversation also explores the possibility of the planet's velocity reaching the speed of light and the potential consequences, such as an increase in mass and attraction force. However, it is clarified that in reality, the velocity of matter falling into black holes does not reach the speed of light. The conversation also addresses the idea of an explosion occurring due to the infinite kinetic energy of the planet, but it is noted that this is unlikely to occur in nature.
  • #1
John SpaceY
49
4
TL;DR Summary
I have a question linked to high speed in space, when an object goes to a speed near of the speed of light (I am new in this forum).
I take the following example to explain my question : when a « black-hole » is attracting a planet there is a Force which is proportional to the 2 masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the 2 masses. When the planet moves towards the « black-hole » this attraction force increases. And the planet speed will increase : when the speed will be near the speed of light, the planet mass will become infinite and the attraction force will also become infinite. On the one hand the planet speed will continue to increase and on the other hand the speed is limited to the light speed. So what will happen ?

One possibility could be that the planet will create a lot of new particles : these particles will have a non-zero mass and will move to a speed less than the speed of light, in order to decrease the planet energy and decrease also the planet speed. And so the planet speed will be always less than the speed of light.

Could you confirm that this is the right explanation to my question ?

Or is there other explanations ? what it could be in this case ?

I have another possible explanation but I will wait first your answers.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Best regards

John SpaceY
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome John.

John SpaceY said:
... proportional to the 2 masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the 2 masses.
I fixed the above statement.

John SpaceY said:
When the planet moves towards the « black-hole » this attraction force increases. And the planet speed will increase : when the speed will be near the speed of light,
It is not necessary for an object to get anywhere close to the speed of light before falling into a black hole.

That fact should dramatically change how you re-ask this question. (i.e.: do you want to know about falling into a black hole OR do you want to know about relativistic velocities and Lorentz transforms?)

John SpaceY said:
the planet mass will become infinite and the attraction force will also become infinite.
No and no.

John SpaceY said:
On the one hand the planet speed will continue to increase and on the other hand the speed is limited to the light speed. So what will happen ?
Just because the planet's velocity continues to increase does not mean it reaches the speed of light - it simply gets arbitrarily close to the speed of light.

At some time, its velocity is .9c, then after some more time, its velocity is .99c, and some time later its velocity is .999c. Its velocity is always increasing, but it never reaches c.
John SpaceY said:
Could you confirm that this is the right explanation to my question ?
No.

You have enough misconceptions about black holes and relativistic velocity that it would be better for you to read up on the subject a bit, and then come back with specific questions if you still don't understand.

Let's see if we can point you at some good reading material...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes davenn and PeroK
  • #3
Hello
Thank you for your first answers
You are right but what I want to show is that the mass of a "black hole" is very high and so the attraction force on the planet will be very high. And so the planet speed will increase very quickly.
When you arrive to a speed close to the light speed the planet mass will increase and the force will also increase and in the same time the distance is decreasing : as you mentioned the attraction force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the 2 masses and so the force will be very very high.
I have assumed that as the speed continues to increase, the speed will tend towards the light speed and here comes my question : what will happen if the speed will want to continu to increase but cannot because the speed is limited to the light speed ?
 
  • #4
John SpaceY said:
I have assumed that as the speed continues to increase, the speed will tend towards the light speed
Yes. "tends towards"
John SpaceY said:
and here comes my question : what will happen if the speed will want to continu to increase but cannot because the speed is limited to the light speed ?
The speed will continue to increase - it will get closer and closer to c.
For example:
t0: .9c
t1: .99c
t2: .999c
t3: .9999c

In the relativistic realm, speeds don't add simply the way they in the everyday realm.
You need to use the relativistic velocity formula.

1578335721367.png


What you will find using this formula is that no two velocities, when added together, will ever result in a velocity greater than c.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/velocity-addition

Say your planet takes one month to accelerate to .9c.
After one more month, its new velocity will not be 1.8c,
it will be (if you put it in the formula) (.9c+.9c=) .9945c.

and after another month it will be (.9945c+.9c=) .9997c.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Yes yes it is clear : the speed continue to increase and goes closer and closer to c (never higher than c) : but in the same time the planet kinetic energy tends towards infinity (because the planet mass will tend towards infinity) and in this case normally we should see an explosion : and we don't see it
So my question is what is reducing the planet kinetic energy in the condition where its speed is continue to increase because the attraction force will continu to increase?
 
  • #6
John SpaceY said:
...the planet kinetic energy tends towards infinity (because the planet mass will tend towards infinity)
Again, matter falling into black holes does not tend to be moving at a velocity "infinitely" close to c, so the above tends not to occur.
John SpaceY said:
... normally we should see an explosion : and we don't see it...
Where do you expect to see this explosion? And what makes you think we don't see it?
 
  • #7
The explosion, for me, should come, because the kinetic planet energy will become infinite and in nature when we are in the presence of a big quantity of energy, it often finish by an explosion...
You are right : it is difficult to see the explosion if it is very far in space.
I can take another example for this point : there is a particle accelerator in the CERN in Geneva and they accelerate particles near the speed of light : in 2011 there was the OPERA experiment where they say they reach a speed higher than c but in 2013 they explained that this was a mistake in the measure. But they succeeded to reach a speed very close to the light speed : the particle was a Neutrinos with a mass (very low but not zero) : and so the particle kinetic energy should be very high. And they don't see any explosion in this experiment.
And so I have the same question here : where goes this high energy ? maybe transformed into new particles ? this is where I want to have some answers... it is not easy to explain (sorry for this).
 
  • #8
John SpaceY said:
The explosion, for me, should come, because the kinetic planet energy will become infinite and in nature when
Not infinite.
Large, yes.

Black holes are generally surrounded by mass that emits a lot of energy. But no, not infinite.
John SpaceY said:
we are in the presence of a big quantity of energy, it often finish by an explosion...
Not an explosion - radiation. Black holes tend to shine in X-ray. That's how we spot them tens of thousands of light years away.
 
  • #9
John SpaceY said:
Summary:: I have a question linked to high speed in space, when an object goes to a speed near of the speed of light (I am new in this forum).

I take the following example to explain my question : when a « black-hole » is attracting a planet there is a Force which is proportional to the 2 masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the 2 masses. When the planet moves towards the « black-hole » this attraction force increases. And the planet speed will increase : when the speed will be near the speed of light, the planet mass will become infinite and the attraction force will also become infinite. On the one hand the planet speed will continue to increase and on the other hand the speed is limited to the light speed. So what will happen ?

You are assuming that "relativistic" mass equates to gravitational mass. This is not the case. We have a FAQ on this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-and-why-it-is-not-used-much-comments.826906/

In this scenario, nothing special happens. The planet reaches the event horizon of the black hole in a finite proper time. The speed of the planet relative to the black hole does not come close to the speed of light.

The planet may be pulled apart by tidal gravity before it reaches the event horizon, depending on the size of the black hole. In any case, it falls into the hole and - according to GR - is destroyed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #10
Thank you PeroK for these information.
What about also my question in my post #7 (the Neutrinos at high speed : what happens because we see no explosion here ?)
 
  • #11
John SpaceY said:
Thank you PeroK for these information.
What about also my question in my post #7 (the Neutrinos at high speed : what happens because we see no explosion here ?)

Kinetic energy is frame dependent. A neutrino moving at near the speed of light relative to you is just an ordinary neutrino in its own rest frame. It has no reason to explode.

Relative to the particles at CERN, the Earth is moving at near the speed of light. But, the Earth is not going to explode either.

The first postulate of special relativity is that all (inertial) motion is relative. There is in fact no such thing as (absolutely) moving at the speed of light. There is only motion relative to other objects.
 
  • #12
PeroK said:
The speed of the planet relative to the black hole does not come close to the speed of light.
This statement does not seem sensible to me. In what sense can a planet approaching a black hole meaningfully be said to have a hole-relative speed at all?

Surely, its speed at the time of horizon-crossing is relative to a coordinate system. One cannot use a coordinate system (e.g. Scharzchild coordinates) with a singularity at the event horizon. Nor can one use a speed relative to the horizon (an outgoing null surface). A speed relative to the central singularity is right out -- that's not even part of the manifold.

Or am I missing the point badly?
 
  • #13
jbriggs444 said:
This statement does not seem sensible to me. In what sense can a planet approaching a black hole meaningfully be said to have a hole-relative speed at all?

You're right. It's better not to talk about the speed of the planet relative to the black hole at all.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #14
John SpaceY said:
Thank you PeroK for these information.
What about also my question in my post #7 (the Neutrinos at high speed : what happens because we see no explosion here ?)
John, there is no explosion.

A black hole does not have a surface that anything - including neutrinos - can impact.

Particles fall (free fall) through the event horizon - right to the singularity at the centre. And - once they cross the event horizon - they won't be emitting any radiation outside the black hole.
 
  • #15
John SpaceY said:
But they succeeded to reach a speed very close to the light speed : the particle was a Neutrinos with a mass (very low but not zero) : and so the particle kinetic energy should be very high.
Very high compared to their rest energy. Very small in macroscopic terms. Each neutrino had a typical energy of just a few nanojoule. You would need hundreds of millions of them to have enough energy to lift an apple by 1 meter (if you could use them in that way). The few neutrinos that interacted with matter in OPERA produced showers of secondary particles in the detector - that's how the detector could find them.
 
  • #16
Thank you all for the information
I still have a question : there is some particle accelerators in the world and their objective is to increase the speed of particles and create collision at high energy with other particles. I understand that speed is relative but in these particle accelerators the particles speed is very high (the Chinese are making a very powerful particle accelerator to reach to light speed, as I have understood).
So if we take the hypothesis that we succeed to have non zero mass-articles that have a very high speed (near the light speed), these particles should have a very high energy. And here is my question : what happen here if we want to continue to increase the particle speed ? the energy will continu to increase and there is no explosion : so where is going the energy ? I suppose that this energy is transformed into new particles but is there an experiment that has proven this ? if this is true I can understand what is happening : the new non zero mass particle created and moving to a very high speed (less than c) will have a high energy and will reduce the huge energy of the accelerated particles and so this will reduce their speed and their energy : is this hypothesis right ?
How the accelerated particles could reach a very high speed is not my question : I just take 2 examples (the black hole and the CERN OPERA experiment to try to have examples of high speed particles) to have very high speed particles and my question arrive after : when we have these high speed particles, what will happen (see before) if we continu to accelerate them?
Is the creation of new particles the right explanation to decrease the speed because it is limited to c or is there another explanation ? is another theory possible to imagine in order to decrease the initial particle speed if we want to continue to increase its speed ?
Thank you in advance for your answers
 
  • #17
John SpaceY said:
Thank you all for the information
I still have a question : there is some particle accelerators in the world and their objective is to increase the speed of particles and create collision at high energy with other particles. I understand that speed is relative but in these particle accelerators the particles speed is very high (the Chinese are making a very powerful particle accelerator to reach to light speed, as I have understood).
So if we take the hypothesis that we succeed to have non zero mass-articles that have a very high speed (near the light speed), these particles should have a very high energy. And here is my question : what happen here if we want to continue to increase the particle speed ? the energy will continu to increase and there is no explosion : so where is going the energy ? I suppose that this energy is transformed into new particles but is there an experiment that has proven this ? if this is true I can understand what is happening : the new non zero mass particle created and moving to a very high speed (less than c) will have a high energy and will reduce the huge energy of the accelerated particles and so this will reduce their speed and their energy : is this hypothesis right ?
How the accelerated particles could reach a very high speed is not my question : I just take 2 examples (the black hole and the CERN OPERA experiment to try to have examples of high speed particles) to have very high speed particles and my question arrive after : when we have these high speed particles, what will happen (see before) if we continu to accelerate them?
Is the creation of new particles the right explanation to decrease the speed because it is limited to c or is there another explanation ? is another theory possible to imagine in order to decrease the initial particle speed if we want to continue to increase its speed ?
Thank you in advance for your answers

The energy of a particle is given by: $$E = \gamma mc^2$$ where $$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1- v^2/c^2}}$$

You can see from this equation that the energy of a particle can increase indefinitely without its speed exceeding ##c##. As ##v \rightarrow c##, ##E \rightarrow \infty##.

This is a fundamental difference between relativity and classical physics. In classical physics, the energy of a particle was proportional to ##v^2## (##E = \frac 1 2 m v^2##). If you keep putting energy into a particle its speed would increase without limit. But, under the laws of special relativity, if you keep putting energy into a particle its speed never exceeds ##c##. All the energy is still there. It doesn't have to go anywhere. It's all wrapped up in ##E = \gamma m c^2##.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Thank you PeroK,
I agree that the speed never exceeds c if I keep putting energy into a particle.
All the energy is still there : OK for this but this energy will be very high if the speed tends to c.
In your equation m will tend to infinity (because mass increase when the speed increase in the relativistic area) and the coefficient also will tend to infinity when v tends to c.
And so I don't understand the end of your last sentence "it doesn't have to go anywhere"
is it possible to have a particle with an infinite energy without any huge explosion or things last this ?
Is there nothing that will tend to decrease this energy when we would like to increase it ? like the creation of new particles or things like this ?
 
  • #19
John SpaceY said:
In your equation m will tend to infinity (because mass increase when the speed increase in the relativistic area)

As already been said in post #9 this is not true. Mass is constant.

John SpaceY said:
is it possible to have a particle with an infinite energy

And that also was said already - there is no infinite energy anywhere. We have large energy, not infinite.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #20
John SpaceY said:
Thank you PeroK,
I agree that the speed never exceeds c if I keep putting energy into a particle.
All the energy is still there : OK for this but this energy will be very high if the speed tends to c.
In your equation m will tend to infinity (because mass increase when the speed increase in the relativistic area) and the coefficient also will tend to infinity when v tends to c.
And so I don't understand the end of your last sentence "it doesn't have to go anywhere"
is it possible to have a particle with an infinite energy without any huge explosion or things last this ?
Is there nothing that will tend to decrease this energy when we would like to increase it ? like the creation of new particles or things like this ?

There is no "infinite" energy here. There is only finite energy. Any particle only has a finite energy at any point in time. In theory, that energy can be as large as you like, but it's always finite. In any case, any practical means of accelerating a particle reaches its limit. There will be a maximum energy for any particular particle accelerator. So, it makes no sense to take about "inifinite" energy. CERN only has a finite amount of energy at its disposal. Where would CERN get "infinite" energy from?

The point you continue to miss is that energy is frame dependent. None of these particles at CERN is fundamentally changed by speed. In a sense, acceleration achieves nothing. Certainly not any physical change to a particle.

If two particles collide at high relative speed, that is something.

I get the feeling you may not believe this because you've read a popular science book by Professor X, who emphasises that mass increases with speed. And, this leads to the idea that the particle undergoes some physical change, knows its moving fast and starts to feel the need to dispose of some of its excess energy: like someone going on a diet after the Christmas binge!

This is all popular science myth.

The only question I cannot answer is why popular science writers insist on talking about mass increasing with speed.

In any case, it leads you astray and when you ask for an answer on a "academic" science forum, we have to unpick this myth to explain SR to you in any reliable scientific terms.

I'll link to the page I did before in case you missed it the first time:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-and-why-it-is-not-used-much-comments.826906/

In short: a particle at CERN, traveling at ##0.999c## is physically no different from a particle at rest. You better believe it!
 
  • #21
Thank you weirdoguy for your answer,
If there is large energy you could have an explosion : not necessary to have an infinite energy
If there is something that tends to increase the speed v and as this speed cannot exceed c where goes this high energy ? because if the mass is supposed constant, if the speed c increase in the equation the coefficient increase and so the energy increase (and if the speed v tends to c the coefficient tends to infinity and so the energy could tend to infinity)
 
  • #22
PeroK said:
There is no "infinite" energy here. There is only finite energy. Any particle only has a finite energy at any point in time. In theory, that energy can be as large as you like, but it's always finite. In any case, any practical means of accelerating a particle reaches its limit. There will be a maximum energy for any particular particle accelerator. So, it makes no sense to take about "inifinite" energy. CERN only has a finite amount of energy at its disposal. Where would CERN get "infinite" energy from?

The point you continue to miss is that energy is frame dependent. None of these particles at CERN is fundamentally changed by speed. In a sense, acceleration achieves nothing. Certainly not any physical change to a particle.

If two particles collide at high relative speed, that is something.

I get the feeling you may not believe this because you've read a popular science book by Professor X, who emphasises that mass increases with speed. And, this leads to the idea that the particle undergoes some physical change, knows its moving fast and starts to feel the need to dispose of some of its excess energy: like someone going on a diet after the Christmas binge!

This is all popular science myth.

The only question I cannot answer is why popular science writers insist on talking about mass increasing with speed.

In any case, it leads you astray and when you ask for an answer on a "academic" science forum, we have to unpick this myth to explain SR to you in any reliable scientific terms.

I'll link to the page I did before in case you missed it the first time:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-and-why-it-is-not-used-much-comments.826906/

In short: a particle at CERN, traveling at ##0.999c## is physically no different from a particle at rest. You better believe it!
 
  • #23
John SpaceY said:
If there is large energy you could have an explosion : not necessary to have an infinite energy

And where are you getting this from?
 
  • #24
weirdoguy said:
And where are you getting this from?

Here's my guess. We have ##E = \frac 1 2 m v^2##. If mass is constant and ##v < c##, then the maximum energy is ##\frac 1 2 mc^2## and any extra energy must be dissipated in an explosion of addition particles.
 
  • Like
Likes John SpaceY
  • #25
It is a question : if the energy is high is there a possibility or a risk to have an explosion ?
As I don't understand what could limit the energy I just ask myself what could happen with this high energy ?
 
  • #26
John SpaceY said:
It is a question : if the energy is high is there a possibility or a risk to have an explosion ?
As I don't understand what could limit the energy I just ask myself what could happen with this high energy ?

Nothing. Energy is frame dependent. In the rest frame of the particle itself it has zero kinetic energy and it's CERN that is moving very fast. As far as the particle is concerned it is CERN that should explode!
 
  • #27
For me the mass is increasing when the the speed increase : M = Betta * m in the relativistic theory and Betta increase when v increase (Betta tends to infinity when v tends to c).
And I think my error comes from this equation if the mass I am considering when moving is not m.
But when a particle of mass m is moving, what mass I can consider in the equation ?
 
  • Sad
Likes PeroK
  • #28
If CERN should explode it is the risk that I fear
"Here's my guess. We have E=1/2mv2. If mass is constant and v<c, then the maximum energy is 1/2mc2 and any extra energy must be dissipated in an explosion of addition particles." : do you mean explosion of addition particles or creation of addition particles ? if it is creation I agree and this is the answer I try to have to my question ...
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK, Motore and weirdoguy
  • #29
John SpaceY said:
For me the mass is increasing when the the speed increase : M = Betta * m in the relativistic theory and Betta increase when v increase (Betta tends to infinity when v tends to c).
This is not correct.

Beta (##\beta##), not betta, is a shorthand for ##\frac{v}{c}##. It approaches one when v tends to c.

Gamma (##\gamma##) is a shorthand for ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}##. It goes to infinity as v tends to c.

mass does not increase with speed increase. m = m in relativistic theory.

Momentum and Energy do increase with the speed increase. ##p=\gamma mv## and ##E=\gamma mc^2##.

Kinetic energy (total energy minus rest energy) is ##E=(\gamma - 1)mc^2##. It turns out that for low speeds, this is approximately ##E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #30
For me in relativistic theory M = Gamma * m (sorry for my mistake, I have written Beta but I was thinking to your term Gamma). So it is strange to me to see that M = m in relativistic theory ?
I don't understand where I make the mistake ? when a mass is moving at high speed, Einstein second equation explain that the mass increase, because Gamma is increasing : but what mass is it ?
 
  • #31
John SpaceY said:
For me in relativistic theory M = Gamma * m (sorry for my mistake, I have written Beta but I was thinking to your term Gamma). So it is strange to me to see that M = m in relativistic theory ?
I don't understand where I make the mistake ? when a mass is moving at high speed, Einstein second equation explain that the mass increase, because Gamma is increasing : but what mass is it ?
Did you read the link provided by @PeroK in response #9 above?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-and-why-it-is-not-used-much-comments.826906/
 
  • #32
No sorry
Probably I will find the answer to my mistake in this link
I will read it and I will come back later
Thank you very much for your help
 
  • Sad
Likes PeroK
  • #33
John SpaceY said:
I don't understand where I make the mistake ?

Your mistake is not reading other responses and repeating false statements as if they were not debunked here at least twice...
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, davenn and phinds
  • #34
John SpaceY said:
Summary:: I have a question linked to high speed in space, when an object goes to a speed near of the speed of light (I am new in this forum).

I take the following example to explain my question : when a « black-hole » is attracting a planet there is a Force which is proportional to the 2 masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the 2 masses. When the planet moves towards the « black-hole » this attraction force increases.

I haven't read the rest of the responses to this thread, but the notion of gravity you describe is Newtonian gravity, not the GR notion of gravity.

As such, you should not expect the notion of gravity you describe (Newtonian gravity) to work in the cases of black holes, which require GR and not Newtonian theory.

And the planet speed will increase : when the speed will be near the speed of light, the planet mass will become infinite and the attraction force will also become infinite. On the one hand the planet speed will continue to increase and on the other hand the speed is limited to the light speed. So what will happen ?

One possibility could be that the planet will create a lot of new particles : these particles will have a non-zero mass and will move to a speed less than the speed of light, in order to decrease the planet energy and decrease also the planet speed. And so the planet speed will be always less than the speed of light.

Could you confirm that this is the right explanation to my question ?

No. I'm pretty sure it's wrong.

Or is there other explanations ? what it could be in this case ?

An explanation in the spirit of GR is that the planet essentially follows a geodesic. To be precise, we are actually saying the planet is a test particle.

We do not need any "forces" to use this explanation. There are only geodesics. The relative velocity of the planet following this geoodesic relative to any stationary, hovering observer that actually exists is always less than "c" as the planet falls into the hole.

Hovering observers do not exist at or inside the event horizon of the black hole, however. Anything that is capable of "observing" at or inside the black hole simply cannot be stationary. It must fall into the black hole.

Note that we must compare the velocity of the infalling planet to an observer located where the planet is. THe reasons for this are rather technical. I'll quote from an article by Baez:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html

In special relativity, we cannot talk about absolute velocities, but only relative velocities. For example, we cannot sensibly ask if a particle is at rest, only whether it is at rest relative to another. The reason is that in this theory, velocities are described as vectors in 4-dimensional spacetime. Switching to a different inertial coordinate system can change which way these vectors point relative to our coordinate axes, but not whether two of them point the same way.

In general relativity, we cannot even talk about relative velocities, except for two particles at the same point of spacetime -- that is, at the same place at the same instant. The reason is that in general relativity, we take very seriously the notion that a vector is a little arrow sitting at a particular point in spacetime. To compare vectors at different points of spacetime, we must carry one over to the other. The process of carrying a vector along a path without turning or stretching it is called `parallel transport'. When spacetime is curved, the result of parallel transport from one point to another depends on the path taken! In fact, this is the very definition of what it means for spacetime to be curved. Thus it is ambiguous to ask whether two particles have the same velocity vector unless they are at the same point of spacetime.
 
  • #35
John SpaceY said:
If CERN should explode it is the risk that I fear

CERN is not going to explode. Energy is frame dependent, as others have already commented, so you can't just use "energy" without qualification as a criterion for when something will explode, since exploding is not frame-dependent; it either happens or it doesn't, and you can't change whether it happens by changing frames. So a correct analysis should just pick the most convenient frame and do the analysis there. Then you can translate that analysis into other frames to see how the result ("explode" or "not explode") stays the same.

To see whether CERN might explode, it's most convenient to analyze things in CERN's rest frame. In that frame, the energies involved are miniscule compared to the energy it would take to make CERN explode. So CERN won't explode.

In the rest frame of a particle moving at very high speed inside the CERN accelerator, CERN has a very high energy, but if CERN's detector hits the particle it keeps on moving at almost exactly the same speed, because it's so much bigger than the particle that it just picks up the particle and keeps on going. So CERN won't explode; it will just keep moving at very, very high speed in this frame. (The particle changes speed drastically in this frame--it goes from rest to a very, very high speed. But the energy involved in the particle changing speed that much is miniscule--it's the same as the energy involved in stopping the particle in the CERN rest frame, which, as above, is miniscule.)
 
  • Like
Likes John SpaceY
<h2>1. How does an object's speed affect its appearance in high speed astrophysics?</h2><p>As an object approaches the speed of light, it experiences time dilation, meaning time appears to pass more slowly for the object. This can cause the object to appear elongated or distorted to an outside observer.</p><h2>2. What happens to an object's mass as it reaches high speeds in astrophysics?</h2><p>According to Einstein's theory of relativity, an object's mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. This is known as mass-energy equivalence and is represented by the famous equation E=mc^2.</p><h2>3. How does high speed affect the behavior of light in astrophysics?</h2><p>As an object approaches the speed of light, its velocity relative to light also increases. This can cause light to appear to bend or curve around the object, known as gravitational lensing.</p><h2>4. Can an object actually reach the speed of light in astrophysics?</h2><p>According to the laws of physics, an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light. As it approaches the speed of light, its energy and mass increase, making it more difficult to accelerate further.</p><h2>5. How does high speed astrophysics impact our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>Studying the behavior of objects at high speeds in astrophysics has allowed scientists to better understand the fundamental laws of physics, including relativity and gravity. It has also helped us gain insights into the behavior of objects in extreme environments, such as black holes and supernovas.</p>

1. How does an object's speed affect its appearance in high speed astrophysics?

As an object approaches the speed of light, it experiences time dilation, meaning time appears to pass more slowly for the object. This can cause the object to appear elongated or distorted to an outside observer.

2. What happens to an object's mass as it reaches high speeds in astrophysics?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, an object's mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. This is known as mass-energy equivalence and is represented by the famous equation E=mc^2.

3. How does high speed affect the behavior of light in astrophysics?

As an object approaches the speed of light, its velocity relative to light also increases. This can cause light to appear to bend or curve around the object, known as gravitational lensing.

4. Can an object actually reach the speed of light in astrophysics?

According to the laws of physics, an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light. As it approaches the speed of light, its energy and mass increase, making it more difficult to accelerate further.

5. How does high speed astrophysics impact our understanding of the universe?

Studying the behavior of objects at high speeds in astrophysics has allowed scientists to better understand the fundamental laws of physics, including relativity and gravity. It has also helped us gain insights into the behavior of objects in extreme environments, such as black holes and supernovas.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
130
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
991
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
686
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
779
Back
Top