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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the misconception that reaching the speed of light requires only incremental energy increases, while in reality, special relativity dictates that as an object approaches light speed, its mass increases, necessitating infinite energy. The concept of relative speed complicates the understanding of acceleration and mass, as speed is relative to different frames of reference, particularly when considering the constant speed of light. Participants emphasize the importance of studying special relativity systematically to grasp these concepts accurately. The conversation also touches on the challenges of learning the mathematics behind relativity, which is essential for a deeper understanding. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the statement about needing infinite energy to reach light speed is rooted in the fundamental principles of relativity, not merely a misunderstanding of speed.
  • #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
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
386
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K