B Why does it require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light?

  • #51
Mass doesn’t increase with speed.Edit-

Why does this even exist?

##M(v) = \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}##

It has “normal” mass in the formula. What is the value of it other than an irrational need to keep momentum as ##p=Mv##?

Or was there some additional motivation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
mucker said:
I wasn't trying to imply I am beyond knowing the math. I think you have interpreted this as some sort of arrogance on my part. I didn't give any context to that statement so I can see why you may take it that way. The reason I started out with that statement is because I won't understand the math. So where I was coming from is that I would prefer it if we kept the math out of the answers as I simply won't "get it".

Let me give an analogy of what I mean. When you are answering questions you can give a "high level" overview without going into the details, this is what I was asking for (if possible). As an example of what I mean - let's say I am programmer and you are not IT literate at all and ask me what my program does. I can explain to you what it does and go into detail without showing you the code (aka math formulas). Even if the program is complicated (like SR) I can explain how it works along the lines of "x does this etc, just trust me). You can still understand (maybe that is a strong word in this context, maybe "make sense of" is better way to put it) the program (SR or GR) and "get it", but to prove it I'd need to show you the code (maths) and YOU would need to understand the programming language (understand the equations) to verify it. What I am essentially saying is that right now I don't need the verification part (as I can't grasp it yet), I will just trust what you say as true, so adding the math only complicates it more without any benefit at this point. I understand that to fully grasp SR and GR I need to understand the math - but right now none of it will make any sense, but talking in plain English will...

I just wanted to clear that up in case I came across as some arrogant fool that thinks they don’t need to lower themself to the math.
Except you started out with some basic math. Your example is just using an "F=ma" equation.

And that equation is incorrect at high velocities. Your general question seems to me to be in effect ... since F=ma, why can't you just accelerate to light speed?

The answer is that F=ma is only an accurate approximation for lower speeds.

I might be missing your question, but that is how I read it.
 
  • Like
Likes LBoy
  • #53
Thank you all for your answers. So one thing I'd just like to clarify (as everyone keeps saying) is that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate? Or is this a question of it depends on who is observing? As in, to me moving at the same speed (or even accelerating) my mass is the same as it always has been; but to another observer my mass is increasing proportionately to the rate at which I am accelerating, from their reference frame?
 
  • #54
mucker said:
Thank you all for your answers. So one thing I'd just like to clarify (as everyone keeps saying) is that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate? Or is this a question of it depends on who is observing? As in, to me moving at the same speed (or even accelerating) my mass is the same as it always has been; but to another observer my mass is increasing proportionately to the rate at which I am accelerating, from their reference frame?
Historically there have been two different definitions of mass, relativistic mass which depended on velocity and was observer-dependent, and invariant mass (or rest mass) which is the same for all observers and does not vary with velocity.

Nowadays almost all professional relativists use only invariant mass, and therefore just call it "mass".

For more details, see our FAQ: What is relativistic mass and why it is not used much?
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and jbriggs444
  • #55
mucker said:
that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate?
Momentum of moving body is
p=m\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}v
You take it
p=[m\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}]v
mass increase with velocity and Newton physics formula p=Mv keep standing.
But we now know we should take it
p=m[\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}v]=mu
mass remain constant and p=mu holds instead of good old days p=mv formula.

You may perceive mathematical merit of the new way. In your way both mass and velocity changes according to velocity. It complicates the calculation. But in the new way only u changes with velocity keeping m a constant number. We can focus on u only in calculation.

For an example
v=2.4\times 10^8 m/s < c
corresponds
u=4.0\times 10^8 m/s > c
v has upper limit of c but u has no upper limit so it can explain infinite momentum with constant mass,

As for energy
E=m\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}c^2=[m\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}]c^2
You take mass changes and Einstein's wisdom of E=Mc^2 stands. But we should take it
E=m\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}c^2=\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}
with constant m and above explained p including constant m within. Formula E=mc^2 stands only for p=0 or the body is at rest. This is an exact reading of E=mc^2 formula.

So now increasing momentum and energy with velocity are interpreted not by increasing mass but increasing u, a new type of velocity which replace old v.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #56
Layperson's question: Is it true that an object with mass can never travel as fast as an object that has no mass? If true, does this fact answer the question?
 
  • #57
Chris S said:
Layperson's question: Is it true that an object with mass can never travel as fast as an object that has no mass? If true, does this fact answer the question?
It is a fact, yes. But the question I see asked in the original post was "why does this argument that we can incrementally accelerate an object faster than the speed of light fail?"

Simply asserting that the argument reaches a false conclusion is unsatisfying. @mucker was already aware of that.
 
  • #58
Are we all not moving at the speed of light relative to a photon or a neutrino?
 
  • Wow
Likes Delta2
  • #59
RandyD123 said:
Are we all not moving at the speed of light relative to a photon or a neutrino?
No. There is no such thing as “relative to a photon”, and we are not moving at c relative to a neutrino.
 
  • #60
Dale said:
There is no such thing as “relative to a photon”
Why not? A photon has constant velocity why can't we assign an inertial frame to it?
 
  • Wow
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore, PeroK and anuttarasammyak
  • #61
Delta2 said:
Why not? A photon has constant velocity why can't we assign an inertial frame to it?
Because any reference frame (tetrad) by definition has one timelike and three spacelike vectors, and so none of their integral curves can form a lightlike worldline. Furthermore, light travels at c in all inertial frames (tetrads and coordinates) so it cannot be at rest in one.
 
  • Informative
Likes Grasshopper
  • #63
Dale said:
Because any reference frame (tetrad) by definition has one timelike and three spacelike vectors, and so none of their integral curves can form a lightlike worldline. Furthermore, light travels at c in all inertial frames (tetrads and coordinates) so it cannot be at rest in one.
What do you mean by "their integral curves" and a "lightlike wordline"? The worldline of a photon?
 
  • #64
All the IFRs share the light cone. In photon rest frame, if there is, the light cone should shrink to a point there. I think it is serious change of spacetime structure from IFR.
 
  • #65
Delta2 said:
What do you mean by "their integral curves" and a "lightlike wordline"? The worldline of a photon?
If @Dale's explanation is too complicated (and it might be for a B-level thread), please read the FAQ article I linked to, which is much simpler.
 
  • #66
anuttarasammyak said:
In photon rest frame, if there is, the light cone should shrink to a point there.
This is incorrect as an explanation of why there cannot be a rest frame for a photon. The correct simple explanation is in the FAQ article I linked to. More complicated explanations are probably beyond the scope of a B-level thread.
 
  • #67
Delta2 said:
What do you mean by "their integral curves" and a "lightlike wordline"? The worldline of a photon?
A lightlike worldline is the worldline of a classical flash of light. A photon doesn’t actually have a worldline or even a position. I wish people would not use the word “photon” outside of actual discussions of QM photons
 
  • Like
Likes Motore, weirdoguy and Delta2
  • #68
Dale said:
I wish people would not use the word “photon” outside of actual discussions of QM photons
I agree with this (and I would note that the FAQ article I linked to earlier probably needs its title and some of its text edited to address this).
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #69
mucker said:
So one thing I'd just like to clarify (as everyone keeps saying) is that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate? Or is this a question of it depends on who is observing? As in, to me moving at the same speed (or even accelerating) my mass is the same as it always has been; but to another observer my mass is increasing proportionately to the rate at which I am accelerating, from their reference frame?
"Relativistic mass" has largely been abandoned because it's not a particularly useful concept.
mucker said:
"And that 5 amount of Newtons increases my speed by 10mph, so I'm now I'm going at 20mph. At this point I stop the rockets and i continue indefinitely at 20mph. So I now apply another 5 Newtons to reach 30mph, and so on until I reach the speed of light. This does not require an infinite amount of energy."
Repeated additions of energy do cause repeated increases in momentum ... but relativity teaches us that this does NOT mean repeated additions to velocity. That's the mistake you're making. You cannot reach c, and saying that "infinite energy" will get you there is meaningless. (Converting the entire mass of the universe to propulsive energy still won't get you - or even a single electron - to c.)
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #70
mucker said:
So one thing I'd just like to clarify (as everyone keeps saying) is that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate?
As DrGreg says, there are two just about plausible generalisations of Newtonian "mass" to relativistic physics, relativistic mass and invariant (aka rest) mass. The relativistic mass of something moving with respect to you increases, the invariant mass does not.

Relativistic mass turns into a mess. As anuttarasamyak says, it makes Einstein's momentum formula look the same as Newton's. But making your better theory look like your poorer one is kinda backwards. And you find you end up having to define two more quantities, longitudinal relativistic mass and transverse relativistic mass, to pull a similar trick with ##F=ma##, and now we've got three different definitions of mass for different applications and we're getting into silly territory. Invariant mass has none of these problems, fits better into a modern understanding of relativity which is all about invariants, and fits well with general relativity where the basis of the definition of relativistic mass is rather dubious.

Most professionals now never use relativistic mass at all, and if they say "mass" they mean invariant mass. And a physicist by the name of Lev Okun, @levokun, made a serious push in the 90s/2000s to get relativistic mass stamped out of physics teaching altogether because it led to such confusion.

Popsci has never quite caught on to this and will still talk about mass increasing with speed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes James Demers, Dale and PeroK
  • #71
Delta2 said:
Why not? A photon has constant velocity why can't we assign an inertial frame to it?
The second postulate says that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. A rest frame for light is, therefore, a contradiction in relativity - light cannot be doing ##c## and be at rest at the same time.
 
  • Like
Likes James Demers, Nugatory and PeroK
  • #72
You can NOT learn physics without equations. There are tons of constructive answers in this thread!
 
  • Like
Likes goganesyan and weirdoguy
  • #73
mucker said:
Thank you all for your answers. So one thing I'd just like to clarify (as everyone keeps saying) is that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate? Or is this a question of it depends on who is observing? As in, to me moving at the same speed (or even accelerating) my mass is the same as it always has been; but to another observer my mass is increasing proportionately to the rate at which I am accelerating, from their reference frame?
Does the velocity of the object whose relativistic mass we are talking about change?

If the velocity changes, then the relativistic mass changes.
If the velocity does not change, then the relativistic mass does not change.

(I mean the old relativistic mass that does not exist in modern physics )
 
  • #74
goganesyan said:
Have you considered that our observable 3 dimensions are actually 6 and the vector you talk about may not be what one thinks?

ps: mathematically don’t we know there are 10-11 dimensions? I’m just hoping one of you gurus put this in mathematical terms
Ok, now finally I must give the mathematical description, no matter whether you want it or not.

You start with four-vector components ##(x^{\mu})=(ct,\vec{x})## for time and space (the spacetime four-vector). The motion of a particle is described as a world line in this four-dimensional vector space. For massive particles this world line must be time-like, and thus you can choose proper time as the world-line parameter. This is the time measured by an ideal clock co-moving with the particle. It is defined by
$$\mathrm{d} \tau=\sqrt{\mathrm{d} t^2-\mathrm{d} \vec{x}^2/c^2}.$$
It is thus related to the coordinate time wrt. the inertial frame used to do the calulation by
$$\frac{\mathrm{d} \tau}{\mathrm{d} t}=\sqrt{1-(\mathrm{d}_t \vec{x})^2/c^2}=\sqrt{1-\vec{v}^2/c^2}=1/\gamma.$$
In order to have a covariant description one defines a four-vector
$$p^{\mu}=m \mathrm{d}_{\tau} x^{\mu}.$$
Since ##x^{\mu}## is a four-vector and ##\mathrm{\tau}## is a scalar, ##m## necessarily is a scalar too in order to have ##p^{\mu}## as a four-vector.

Expressing ##p^{\mu}## in terms of coordinate-time derivatives gives
$$(p^{\mu})=m \gamma \begin{pmatrix}c \\ \vec{v} \end{pmatrix}.$$
In an inertial frame, where ##|\vec{v}| \ll c## you have ##\gamma=1+\vec{v}^2/(2 c^2)+\mathcal{O}(v^4/c^4)## and thus
$$(p^{\mu}) \simeq \begin{pmatrix} m c +m v^2/(2 c)+\cdots \\ m \vec{v} + \cdots \end{pmatrix}.$$
This shows that
$$p^0=m c + E_{\text{kin}}/c,$$
and ##\vec{p}## takes the same form as in Newtonian physics with ##m## the usual mass known from Newtonian physics.

The relativistic connection between energy and momentum, where energy is defined such that it includes the socalled rest energy ##E_0=m c^2##, thus is
$$E=m \gamma c^2=\frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}, \quad \vec{p}=m \gamma \vec{v}=\frac{m \vec{v}}{1-v^2/c^2}.$$
This shows that necessarily ##|v|<c## and to reach the limit ##v \rightarrow c## you need an infinite amount of energy.

There are no 6 dimensions nor 10-11 dimensions in standard relativistic theory. Also Minkowski space is a real 4D vector space. One should avoid textbooks using the ancient ##\mathrm{i} c t## convention, because it is quite confusing and also cannot be extended to noninertial reference frames in SR, let alone to GR, where you work with arbitrary spacetime coordinates anyway.

You find some introduction to special relativity in my (still unfinished) manuscript

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

There you also find, how to covariantly formulate classical electrodynamics.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #75
I deleted several non-constructive posts and replies to them.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and PeroK
  • #76
mucker said:
Thank you all for your answers. So one thing I'd just like to clarify (as everyone keeps saying) is that - your mass does not increase as you accelerate? Or is this a question of it depends on who is observing? As in, to me moving at the same speed (or even accelerating) my mass is the same as it always has been; but to another observer my mass is increasing proportionately to the rate at which I am accelerating, from their reference frame?
The way I look at it: Physicists at the time invented a new definition of mass that was velocity dependent so that they could hold on to the p = mv form for momentum. All it really is is the relativistic momentum equation divided by v.
 
  • #77
RandyD123 said:
Are we all not moving at the speed of light relative to a photon or a neutrino?
It was discovered several years ago that neutrinos have a small nonzero mass, thus they do not travel at speed ##c##.
 
  • #78
mucker said:
to another observer my mass is increasing proportionately to the rate at which I am accelerating, from their reference frame?
No. Also, your description is by far not as precise as it would be, if it had been formulated as an equation. You mean the "relativistic mass":
## m_R = m_0\frac {1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}##
As others have already proposed, it is not good to use the "relativistic mass", because it is redundant to energy and therefore needless. Better call it ##\frac{E}{c^2}##.

Then you see also directly the answer to your question in the O.P. As ##v## approaches ##c##, the energy increases without bound.

In classical mechanics, mass is the quantity of matter. In SR, a quantity of matter does not exist. It is the energy of an object, that is inertial. It includes all kinds of energy, for example thermal energy. If you stand on a bathroom-scale, then you measure your energy content.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #79
Sagittarius A-Star said:
If you stand on a bathroom-scale, then you measure your energy content.
That's measuring a force, surely.
 
  • #80
PeroK said:
That's measuring a force, surely.
The tension in the spring?
 
  • #81
PeroK said:
That's measuring a force, surely.
On the display of the scale stands normally the unit ##kg##, but is could be also ##Ws##.
##F = \frac{E}{c^2} \cdot 9.81 m/s^2##
 
  • #82
PeroK said:
That's measuring a force, surely.
No, it's measuring mass. When precision is required, those scales are calibrated for the location in which their use is intended.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes jbriggs444, Dale and PeroK
  • #83
We should probably shy away from turning this thread into a further argument about what scales measure.

One thing is fairly clear. If you are standing on the scale then we need not concern ourselves with whether it is measuring relativistic or invariant mass (or local g times either). The two sorts of mass coincide for objects with zero total momentum.
 
  • Like
Likes Sagittarius A-Star, Ibix and PeroK
  • #84
jbriggs444 said:
One thing is fairly clear. If you are standing on the scale then we need not concern ourselves with whether it is measuring relativistic or invariant mass (or local g times either). The two sorts of mass coincide for objects with zero total momentum.
Yes. And if you are moving with constant horizontal velocity ##v## on the scale while the measurement, then is measures transversal mass energy ##E=\gamma E_0##.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes LBoy, weirdoguy, jbriggs444 and 1 other person
  • #85
Sagittarius A-Star said:
Yes. And if you are moving with constant horizontal velocity ##v## on the scale while the measurement, then is measures transversal mass energy ##E=\gamma E_0##.
No, a scale isn't designed to accurately measure anything that is in motion relative to it (especially if the speed is relativistic).
 
  • #86
DrGreg said:
No, a scale isn't designed to accurately measure anything that is in motion relative to it (especially if the speed is relativistic).
To expand on this a bit, apply the equivalence principle and consider a rocket accelerating in flat spacetime. Inside you have a light strong frictionless horizontal rail suspended from a spring, and a small body of mass ##m## moving with (as measured in this frame) constant velocity along the rail. How much force would the spring exert in equilibrium? Since the spring's force is perpendicular to the direction of motion the answer is ##\gamma ma##, where ##a## is the "acceleration due to gravity".

So I think we can agree that the spring would extend the same for a mass ##m## doing ##v## and a stationary mass with a (rest) mass that happened to be ##\gamma m##. But we can (and, experience suggests we will) argue about whether that means that you are measuring a relativistic mass of ##\gamma m##, or that a spring balance is an inappropriate tool to measure the mass of a body in motion. I tend towards the latter view.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes LBoy and Sagittarius A-Star
  • #87
Ibix said:
or that a spring balance is an inappropriate tool to measure the mass of a body in motion. I tend towards the latter view.
I know an example of a scale, that is designed to measure something that is in motion relative to it: In Germany, near Leverkusen, in front of a 50 years old bridge over the river Rhine, https://www.strassen.nrw.de/de/projekte/autobahnausbau-bei-leverkusen/abschnitt-1/lkw-sperranlage.html. All cars have to drive over it with maximum 40 km/h to check, that each car does not have a greater mass than 3500 kg. But I assume that they neglect the gamma-factor, although they measure also the speed.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Dale and DaveC426913
  • #88
Sagittarius A-Star said:
...I assume, that they neglect the gamma-factor...
:oldbiggrin:
 
  • #89
DaveC426913 said:
:oldbiggrin:
I fear that the bridge will break, if the cars drive with relativistic speed over it (because of the high gamma-factor).
 
  • #90
Sagittarius A-Star said:
I fear that the bridge will break, if the cars drive with relativistic speed over it (because of the high gamma-factor).
You realize that the tires of a car driving at a paltry 8 kilometers per second will put zero stress on the bridge, right?
 
  • #91
jbriggs444 said:
You realize that the tires of a car driving at a paltry 8 kilometers per second will put zero stress on the bridge, right?
With "relativistic speed" I meant significantly faster than 100 km/h, for example 120 km/h.
 
  • Haha
Likes MikeWhitfield
  • #92
Sagittarius A-Star said:
With "relativistic speed" I meant significantly faster than 100 km/h, for example 120 km/h.
By 8 km/s, I am referring to orbital velocity. Relativistic velocities would be some twenty to thirty thousand times faster still. I seriously doubt that you have to worry about the relativistic gamma associated with 120 km/h.
 
  • #93
jbriggs444 said:
I seriously doubt that you have to worry about the relativistic gamma associated with 120 km/h.
But in front of the bridge, the mass of the cars was only checked at 40 km/h. Maybe, that additional gamma is enough :cool:
 
  • #94
jbriggs444 said:
By 8 km/s, I am referring to orbital velocity.
I wanted to discuss this in the context of SR, according to the thread topic. So I assume a (local) homogeneous gravitational field.
 
  • #95
In relativity,
I associate tangents with velocities
…. but not like this.

I’m lost how this relates to the OP question about infinite energy to reach the speed of light.
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory and Delta2
  • #96
Sagittarius A-Star said:
I know an example of a scale, that is designed to measure something that is in motion relative to it: In Germany, near Leverkusen, in front of a 50 years old bridge over the river Rhine, https://www.strassen.nrw.de/de/projekte/autobahnausbau-bei-leverkusen/abschnitt-1/lkw-sperranlage.html. All cars have to drive over it with maximum 40 km/h to check, that each car does not have a greater mass than 3500 kg. But I assume that they neglect the gamma-factor, although they measure also the speed.
The reason for the speed limit has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It has to do with the fact that the scale cannot accurately measure the weight of an object moving over it at faster tham 40 km/h because of things like vibration. (Possibly also because of the finite length of the scale, to ensure both that only one car at a time is on it, and that the full length of the car is on it for long enough to make a weight measurement.)

The downward proper acceleration of an object on the surface of a planet like the Earth is independent of tangential velocity, at least for any tangential velocity for which the object remains at the same altitude above the planet for an appreciable length of time. This is a simple consequence of the equivalence principle. So scales don't measure relativistic mass anyway, they measure invariant mass, and therefore your example is off topic anyway.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #97
The difficulty with "relativistic mass" is that it varies with reference frame: as you fly past at some hefty % of c, the fork in your hand may have a relativistic mass of a thousand kilos, in the eyes of a stationary observer. Yet you have no problem eating your pie with it, in your reference frame.
The relativistic mass of the fork has no physical meaning to the stationary observer, unless of course he gets in the way of it. What works just as well in the equations, without creating such apparent paradoxes, is to consider not the relativistic "mass" of the fork, but it's relativistic kinetic energy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #98
Ibix said:
So I think we can agree that the spring would extend the same for a mass ##m## doing ##v## and a stationary mass with a (rest) mass that happened to be ##\gamma m##. But we can (and, experience suggests we will) argue about whether that means that you are measuring a relativistic mass of ##\gamma m##, or that a spring balance is an inappropriate tool to measure the mass of a body in motion. I tend towards the latter view.
All the issues disappear if you accept the obvious: a scale is fundamentally measuring a force. The measurement of mass is inferred from the force.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, Ibix and Sagittarius A-Star
  • #99
Ibix said:
To expand on this a bit, apply the equivalence principle and consider a rocket accelerating in flat spacetime. Inside you have a light strong frictionless horizontal rail suspended from a spring, and a small body of mass ##m## moving with (as measured in this frame) constant velocity along the rail. How much force would the spring exert in equilibrium? Since the spring's force is perpendicular to the direction of motion the answer is ##\gamma ma##, where ##a## is the "acceleration due to gravity".

So I think we can agree that the spring would extend the same for a mass ##m## doing ##v## and a stationary mass with a (rest) mass that happened to be ##\gamma m##. But we can (and, experience suggests we will) argue about whether that means that you are measuring a relativistic mass of ##\gamma m##, or that a spring balance is an inappropriate tool to measure the mass of a body in motion. I tend towards the latter view.
Spring balance and mathematical calculations agree about what the force is. But spring balance is wrong tool for measuring the force. :rolleyes:

Oh, it was mass that was measured. Well OK then.

The moving object resisted its change of velocity by an extra large force. So how about if we say that moving objects have extra inertia?
 
  • #100
That's correct. Within general relativity inertia and gravity are the same and the sources of the gravitational field are all kinds of energy, momentum, and stress.
 
Back
Top