Radiation energy of a moving particle

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of mass-energy conservation in the context of relativity, specifically addressing why massive objects cannot reach the speed of light while massless particles can. Participants, including HallsofIvy and lethe, emphasize that mass and energy are interconnected, leading to the conclusion that the laws of physics dictate that infinite energy is required to accelerate massive objects to light speed. The conversation also critiques the use of relativistic mass, advocating for a focus on invariant mass and momentum instead.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concepts of mass-energy equivalence
  • Knowledge of Lorentz transformations
  • Basic principles of kinetic energy and force
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Lorentz invariant mass in particle physics
  • Explore the mathematical derivation of relativistic effects on mass and energy
  • Investigate the concept of invariant mass in quantum field theory
  • Learn about the implications of special relativity on high-energy particle collisions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the principles of relativity and mass-energy conservation.

  • #61


Originally posted by Jwprox
If only we could explain the whole of physics using monkeys and bananas.

You can quote me on that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by raptor5618
I read this thread with a great deal of amazement. To think that someone would ask a question, get an answer and then say that's not it stupid is just a bad joke. Ok maybe the answer did not seem right but they did not counter it with reasons for feeling they were wrong and in some cases just saying why which is very much like a child. A discussion does not include ridicule or personal insults. To ask for help and receive it only to personally put down the person trying to help shows that this person is totally without class.

I have to agree with you. I read this article with complete shock. There were so many people in this article who tried to help answer Tenzin's question. He, however, rejected the help because it was not in the right format. Others tried and were shot down as well, even though they meant good intentions. These people were taking time out of their day to try to explain concepts, and they should at least deserve at least some respect. When I don't understand something, I accept all the help I can get, whether it be mathematical or philisophical-ish concepts. Its kind of a shame when these discussions turn into flame wars.
 
  • #63
Tenzin on renormalization:

Originally posted by tenzin

Don't worry your level of math does not impress me. I know more than I have let on. I learned QED renormalization in about 15 minutes of reading a book I just picked up off the shelf.

Tenzin on why the speed of light is invariant:

Originally posted by tenzin
Lethe had nothing to do with my thinking. I have been considering this for over 10 years.

i especially liked how it takes him 15 minutes to learn renormalization (which is a pretty hard subject!), but after 10 years of thought, he still can't grasp special relativity (which is not very hard!)

but yeah, i agree with your sentiments. i was quite shocked when i spent time on what i thought were informative and helpful comments, only to be insulted and accused of ignorance.

just imagine, this guy is a teacher!
 
  • #64
Originally posted by tenzin

The electron is a particle. It is not a wave because something can not be both.

Well I was diffracting some electrons the other day and when I turned up the accelerating Potential , the diffraction increased... How do particles do that then?

An electron may perhaps not 'be both' but that doesn't mean it must be a particle either!
 
  • #65
I found the following particularly amusing, in re: learning renormalization:

Any person who inderstands the probability of coin flips can understand QED.

Apparently he didn't catch the fact that renormalization really has nothing to do with probability, showing a bit of confusion with the notion of probabilitic dynamics (basic quantum mechanics) and convergent Feynman integrals...

Also, anyone who claims to be an excellent teacher -- and in the same breath calls their audience stupid -- is really demonstrating their true colors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K