The True Nature of Approaching Light Speed (c)

[Luminal]

Now, I've read many times that as you approach closer and closer to c, that you must increase the energy infinitely to increase your speed a relatively trivial amount.

 

Have people fully realized the implications of that statement?

 

At 99.99999% c, increasing 1 mph would require an inconceivable amount of energy.

 

That indicates that an infinite amount of energy could be stored within an object spinning or traveling in a straight line and approaching the speed of light.

 

Does GR actually mean that infinite energy can be stored within a finite object?

[timo]

The common view is that this additional mile per hour is unattainable because of the "inconceivable amount of energy" required. As long as v<c (which is the constraint for massive objects), the energy is always finite => no infinite energies.

[geoguy]

Remember: e=mc2

 

Mass can be converted to energy but the amount of mass is not infinite. Photons that travel at light speed have no mass. Anything with mass may be accelerating but not to the speed of light.

 

"At 99.99999% c, increasing 1 mph would require an inconceivable amount of energy."

 

No, it is quite conceivable and the answer is 'infinite' and thus not doable.

 

Your question is an interesting one. However, it is one of 'what if' but the 'what if' isn't a reflection of reality.

 

Ignorance may be bliss so I don't know if we should thank Einstein or not for General Relativity as it makes much of reality a bummer.

[timo]

Remember: e=mc2

Only if m := e/c²

[Luminal]

The common view is that this additional mile per hour is unattainable because of the "inconceivable amount of energy" required. As long as v<c (which is the constraint for massive objects), the energy is always finite => no infinite energies.

 

Not an actual "infinite" amount of energy, as say a spacial dimension is infinite, but the potential to store infinitely increasing amount of energy. There is no "ceiling".

 

The energy required to spin a ball at 99.9[insert 10 more digits here, because I suck I scientific notation]% would rival that of an entire galaxy. Add another 10-15 digits, and it soon rivals that of the entire Universe.

 

Now, the real question, is there a cut-off point for when it says "screw it" and just becomes pure energy?

 

Remember, this isn't a matter of e=mc², only. When I spin a ball, it has the energy stored within its nucleus as well as the tiny amount contained in its kinetic spinning.

 

Hopefully, I made a little more sense this time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What would be the point of storing the entire galaxy's energy in a spinning disc? It would make life in the galaxy a tad boring.

[theCPE]

Not an actual "infinite" amount of energy, as say a spacial dimension is infinite, but the potential to store infinitely increasing amount of energy. There is no "ceiling".

 

There is a ceiling.... the ceiling being what is physically POSSIBLE.

 

I think someone else mentioned that 'what if' != possible.

 

And of course your talking about storing energy in a fast moving massive body....well energy is required to make that massive body fast moving to begin with, which means to store it you have to extract it from elsewhere to begin with.

 

Eh, I'm pretty sure that Relativity doesn't suggest infinite energy capabilities.......

 

BTW what spacial dimension are we talking about that is infinite?

[DZane]

Until we actually obtain the speed of 99.9% of c i believe we will never know the true anwser. Just as people said the sound barrier could not be broken its just a matter of finding the right way to do it.

[theCPE]

The problem with that logic is that sooner or later there is an actual LIMIT to what is physically possible.

 

Maybe we can't truly say that c is the speed limit of the universe, but sooner or later there is/are limitations to our physical world.

[geoguy]

Until we actually obtain the speed of 99.9% of c i believe we will never know the true anwser. Just as people said the sound barrier could not be broken its just a matter of finding the right way to do it.

 

???

 

what do you mean. Who said the sound barrier couldn't be broken? Not physicists grounded in science. Perhaps those ill-informed and not aware of very basic properties of matter and energy.

 

Until we actually obtain the speed of 99.9% of c i believe we will never know the true anwser. Just as people said the sound barrier could not be broken its just a matter of finding the right way to do it.

 

???

 

what do you mean. Who said the sound barrier couldn't be broken? Not physicists grounded in science. Perhaps those ill-informed and not aware of very basic properties of matter and energy. Several aeronautic engineers for some time developed technology to exceed the sound barrier.

[imp]

???

 

what do you mean. Who said the sound barrier couldn't be broken? Not physicists grounded in science. Perhaps those ill-informed and not aware of very basic properties of matter and energy. Several aeronautic engineers for some time developed technology to exceed the sound barrier.

 

 

Firearms have propelled objects at speeds often several times that of sound, for a very long time, well in advance of a flying machine.

 

(Ask me about guns!!) imp

[swansont]

Until we actually obtain the speed of 99.9% of c i believe we will never know the true anwser. Just as people said the sound barrier could not be broken its just a matter of finding the right way to do it.

 

This is done routinely in particle accelerators.

 

"When the electron reaches the end of the linac, its speed is 0.99999999995c where gamma equals 100,000."

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

 

This isn't an engineering problem, as with supersonic flight.

[Luminal]

There is a ceiling.... the ceiling being what is physically POSSIBLE.

 

I think someone else mentioned that 'what if' != possible.

 

And of course your talking about storing energy in a fast moving massive body....well energy is required to make that massive body fast moving to begin with, which means to store it you have to extract it from elsewhere to begin with.

 

Eh, I'm pretty sure that Relativity doesn't suggest infinite energy capabilities.......

 

BTW what spacial dimension are we talking about that is infinite?

 

You state there is a limit, yet you do not provide one. And of course one must supply the energy to increase the speed of an object. Who said otherwise?

 

The only energy constraint is the physical strength of the body moving at those speeds. However, moving in a vacuum (i.e. space) in a straight line (as opposed to spinning) removes those problems.

 

Do not forget that time dilation preserves the energy-storing object. Increase the object's speed to .99c in a given sector of space, and in a few years if the energy needs to be extracted, slow down the object to .98c and put the energy into another form for ready use, such as chemical or EM energy. Very little time would have passed for the kintetic object.

 

This is based off very simple properties of Generaly Relativity. I'm more than open to criticism if my understanding of GR is mistaken.

[insane_alien]

here is the limit for velocity of a massive particle, take the lightest particle we know of (neutrino) and put the estimated mass energy of the universe into it as kinetic energy. that'll give you a speed limit.