I’m going to say something controversial…
You can’t accelerate a massive object to the velocity of a massless particle.
There, I said it and I’m not ashamed. 😎
There, I said it and I’m not ashamed. 😎
36-40, T
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
UndeadSona · F
View 3 more replies »
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@UndeadSona Things don’t turn into plasma just from going fast. You could turn something into plasma by dumping energy into it fast enough but that’s not directly related to just accelerating it. You would just do it slow enough, but never actually reach the speed of light
UndeadSona · F
@PalteseMalconFunch I would think at some point the heat from both friction and waste heat in this machine going that fast and attempting to reach the speed of light would turn it to plasma no? Especially if we're assuming you can just pour energy into it forever.
tenente · 100+, M
@UndeadSona LHC goes burrrr
what stops it from turning into plasma and just becoming an idk ball of energy that breaks apart
pride49 · 31-35, M
@PalteseMalconFunch idk anymore happy hannukah or whatever
SomeMichGuy · M
SomeMichGuy · M
@PalteseMalconFunch YES.
I encourage ppl ALL the time to just go ahead and look at...ANYthing which others have thought, because almost EVERYone can understand ANY thought which ANYone else has thought...given enough time (because you might have a very different background, are new to an area of thought, etc.).
Introductory material about special relativity fits nicely into this category.
The 1905 paper WAS published almost 120 yrs ago--we've had a LOT of thinking and discussion about it since then. In fact, it's likely to have been one of the MOST discussed, dissected, considered parts of physics in that 119 years.
So we KNOW how to talk about it, think about it, etc. It's a lot easier now than it was when Einstein wrote about the electrodynamics of moving bodies way back then.
I encourage ppl ALL the time to just go ahead and look at...ANYthing which others have thought, because almost EVERYone can understand ANY thought which ANYone else has thought...given enough time (because you might have a very different background, are new to an area of thought, etc.).
Introductory material about special relativity fits nicely into this category.
The 1905 paper WAS published almost 120 yrs ago--we've had a LOT of thinking and discussion about it since then. In fact, it's likely to have been one of the MOST discussed, dissected, considered parts of physics in that 119 years.
So we KNOW how to talk about it, think about it, etc. It's a lot easier now than it was when Einstein wrote about the electrodynamics of moving bodies way back then.
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@SomeMichGuy Yea absolutely. Relativity is one of if not the most corroborated scientific theories in history. It would be good for everyone if we learned not just that fact but all of the “why’s” involved.
SomeMichGuy · M
@PalteseMalconFunch YES.
And it explains
• why the Lorentz transformation is right and needed;
• why electromagnetism already obeys special relativity (whereas classical mechanics only obeys Galilean relativity);
• a consistent way of looking at "still charges in inertial reference frame S," which only have an electrostatic field, become a current in a different IRF S' moving with a uniform velocity
v = v\hat{v}
with respect to S;
• the anomalous muon count at the Earth's surface;
• a new conserved quantity, mass-energy;
• the significance of binding energy...
To your point about proof:
SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) wouldn't work unless the spacing of the klystrons were not determined by special relativity.
And it explains
• why the Lorentz transformation is right and needed;
• why electromagnetism already obeys special relativity (whereas classical mechanics only obeys Galilean relativity);
• a consistent way of looking at "still charges in inertial reference frame S," which only have an electrostatic field, become a current in a different IRF S' moving with a uniform velocity
v = v\hat{v}
with respect to S;
• the anomalous muon count at the Earth's surface;
• a new conserved quantity, mass-energy;
• the significance of binding energy...
To your point about proof:
SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) wouldn't work unless the spacing of the klystrons were not determined by special relativity.
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@tenente And the outcome is about as much energy as a mosquito flapping its wings.
We should do way way more of that
We should do way way more of that