Relativistic mass increase

[Bart]

Are there any hard evidence that the relativistic mass of the rocket (or particles) increases with its speed ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Are there any hard evidence that the relativistic mass of the rocket (or particles) increases with its speed ?

 

Particle accelerators work.

[Bart]

 

Particle accelerators work.

 

 

According to my understanding, limited speed of particles in accelerators has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Here applies the ordinary law of physics: " cart can not move faster than a horse that pulls the cart", and the horse in the accelerator is the electromagnetic field with a speed of its own c.

[swansont]

According to my understanding, limited speed of particles in accelerators has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Here applies the ordinary law of physics: " cart can not move faster than a horse that pulls the cart", and the horse in the accelerator is the electromagnetic field with a speed of its own c.

The limited speed is one prediction of relativity, and you can't send a high-energy beam around a ring and have it hit hit its target if relativity is wrong. Your designed confinement forces and/or systems that boost the energy are dependent on it being right.

[Janus]

According to my understanding, limited speed of particles in accelerators has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Here applies the ordinary law of physics: " cart can not move faster than a horse that pulls the cart", and the horse in the accelerator is the electromagnetic field with a speed of its own c.

 

Your understanding is wrong.

 

But there is another example that does not rely on the inability to accelerate particles up to c.

 

It is cyclotrons. They work by accelerating charged particles through a constant magnetic field. The magnetic field causes the particles to follow a circular path. At a certain point of the path charged plates give the particles a boost The charging of these plates has to be timed properly for this to work.

 

As the speed of the particle increases so does the radius of its path. The beauty of the system is that, at sub-relativistic speeds, the time it takes for a particle to complete one circuit around the cyclotron is independent of the radius of the path the particle follows. This means that as the particle accelerates, it moves out to a larger radius path and takes the same time on each pass to come back to the charged plates. This allows you to set a fixed frequency to the charged plates so that they give the boost at the right time.

 

However, at relativistic speeds, the increase in relativistic mass causes the radius/speed ratio to change. As the particle accelerates, the increase in relativistic mass causes it to make a larger circular path than it would otherwise, thus the time it takes to make a complete circuit is no longer constant, but gets longer and longer. The particles get out of sync with the timed signal to the charged plates and you've reached the limit of the cyclotron's abilities.

 

Note that this has nothing to do with the charged plates inability to accelerate the particles any further. This is illustrated by the next generation of accelerator, the synchrocyclotron. The synchrocyclotron adjusts for the changing particle mass by changing the frequency of the charged plate signals as the particle accelerates (or slowly changing the magnetic field). This keeps the charged plates and accelerated particles in sync, allowing for much higher accelerator velocities.

 

 

If it weren't for the increase in relativistic mass, a cyclotron would not have the limited capability it does.

[uncool]

According to my understanding, limited speed of particles in accelerators has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Here applies the ordinary law of physics: " cart can not move faster than a horse that pulls the cart", and the horse in the accelerator is the electromagnetic field with a speed of its own c.

There are two reasons why this is wrong:

 

1) Only changes in the electromagnetic field travel at c; you could have a field that is constantly speeding the particles up.

 

2) It actually is possible to pull a faster object with a slower object. You just have to be creative in doing it.

=Uncool-

[DrRocket]

2) It actually is possible to pull a faster object with a slower object. You just have to be creative in doing it.

=Uncool-

 

See "gravitational slingshot", and for overkill Gary Flandro's "grand tour of the planets".

[Bart]

Your understanding is wrong.

 

But there is another example that does not rely on the inability to accelerate particles up to c.

 

It is cyclotrons. They work by accelerating charged particles through a constant magnetic field. The magnetic field causes the particles to follow a circular path. At a certain point of the path charged plates give the particles a boost The charging of these plates has to be timed properly for this to work.

 

As the speed of the particle increases so does the radius of its path. The beauty of the system is that, at sub-relativistic speeds, the time it takes for a particle to complete one circuit around the cyclotron is independent of the radius of the path the particle follows. This means that as the particle accelerates, it moves out to a larger radius path and takes the same time on each pass to come back to the charged plates. This allows you to set a fixed frequency to the charged plates so that they give the boost at the right time.

 

However, at relativistic speeds, the increase in relativistic mass causes the radius/speed ratio to change. As the particle accelerates, the increase in relativistic mass causes it to make a larger circular path than it would otherwise, thus the time it takes to make a complete circuit is no longer constant, but gets longer and longer. The particles get out of sync with the timed signal to the charged plates and you've reached the limit of the cyclotron's abilities.

 

Note that this has nothing to do with the charged plates inability to accelerate the particles any further. This is illustrated by the next generation of accelerator, the synchrocyclotron. The synchrocyclotron adjusts for the changing particle mass by changing the frequency of the charged plate signals as the particle accelerates (or slowly changing the magnetic field). This keeps the charged plates and accelerated particles in sync, allowing for much higher accelerator velocities.

 

 

If it weren't for the increase in relativistic mass, a cyclotron would not have the limited capability it does.

 

The laws of physics prove, that if the speed (v) of the accelerated particles is closer to the speed © of the driving force, the energy transferred from the drive system to the accelerated particle is getting smaller. With the speed of the particles (v) approaching the speed of the driving force ©, the transferred energy tends to zero, and it is not depending on the size of the driving power.

 

 

So I can not understand, how you can exceed this speed in any system, breaking the basic laws of physics?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Bart

[DrRocket]

 

So I can not understand,....

 

yep

[Bart]

There are two reasons why this is wrong:

 

1) Only changes in the electromagnetic field travel at c; you could have a field that is constantly speeding the particles up.

 

 

 

2) It actually is possible to pull a faster object with a slower object. You just have to be creative in doing it.

=Uncool-

 

 

1. Moving particle with electric charge, itself constitutes a change in the electromagnetic field.

 

 

 

2. "Gravitational slingshot" is not a proof of the crossing by a spacecraft the speed limit for waves of the gravitational field, which accelerates the spacecraft.

 

Can you give another example for that?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Bart

[Janus]

The laws of physics prove, that if the speed (v) of the accelerated particles is closer to the speed © of the driving force, the energy transferred from the drive system to the accelerated particle is getting smaller. With the speed of the particles (v) approaching the speed of the driving force ©, the transferred energy tends to zero, and it is not depending on the size of the driving power.

 

The problem is that you are thinking about the way the energy is transfered in the wrong way. Here's a rough analogy:

 

You have a stream of water pushing a ping pong ball. You're arguing that the water can't make the ball move faster than it itself is. However, this is not how we accelerate particles.

 

Instead, think of putting the ping pong ball at the bottom of a vertical column of water. The ball will rise due to the buoyancy of the water. The force propelling it upward is from the water pushing in on it. As it rises, it finds more water already waiting for it to push it higher. This is like the electromagnetic field of the accelerator already being there fro the particle. It is not like the situation with the water stream is pushing from behind.

 

 

Besides we know that it isn't a matter of the accelerator transferring less and less and less energy to the particle as it approaches light speed, because we can measure the KE of the particle after it leaves the accelerator and smashes into the target.

[Bart]

The problem is that you are thinking about the way the energy is transfered in the wrong way. Here's a rough analogy:

 

You have a stream of water pushing a ping pong ball. You're arguing that the water can't make the ball move faster than it itself is. However, this is not how we accelerate particles.

 

Instead, think of putting the ping pong ball at the bottom of a vertical column of water. The ball will rise due to the buoyancy of the water. The force propelling it upward is from the water pushing in on it. As it rises, it finds more water already waiting for it to push it higher. This is like the electromagnetic field of the accelerator already being there fro the particle. It is not like the situation with the water stream is pushing from behind.

 

 

Besides we know that it isn't a matter of the accelerator transferring less and less and less energy to the particle as it approaches light speed, because we can measure the KE of the particle after it leaves the accelerator and smashes into the target.

 

Janus, thank you very much for your interesting explanations.

 

But I still have doubts:

The electromagnetic field in the accelerators does not work on the mass of the accelerated proton, but only on its electric charge, which itself creates a moving change in the electromagnetic field of the accelerators.

 

And we know that changes in the electromagnetic field have limited speed of c.

 

Therefore, as I understand it is not possible to propelling proton faster than c, and it is not due to increase in mass of a proton.

[swansont]

Therefore, as I understand it is not possible to propelling proton faster than c, and it is not due to increase in mass of a proton.

 

How can you conclude this, given that the relativistic mass does increase and tend to infinity?

 

 

The electromagnetic field in the accelerators does not work on the mass of the accelerated proton, but only on its electric charge, which itself creates a moving change in the electromagnetic field of the accelerators.

 

And we know that changes in the electromagnetic field have limited speed of c.

 

The phase velocity of an EM field is not limited to c.

[Bart]

For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue:

 

How can you conclude this, given that the relativistic mass does increase and tend to infinity?

 

 

 

The phase velocity of an EM field is not limited to c.

 

 

For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue:

 

 

 

The basic hard evidence for the alleged increase in relativistic mass of particles (protons) in accelerators, is the fact that, despite the biggest increase of power of the electromagnetic field, accelerating these particles, the speed of the particles can not achieve the speed of light.

 

 

In my understanding, the reasons of that constraints in accelerators are other, and they do not depend on the particle mass.

 

These constraints are the following two laws of physics:

 

 

1. As the speed of accelerated particle (v), approaches to the speed of the propulsion system ©,which accelerates this particle, the amount of energy transferred from the propulsion system to the particle is decreasing, and is getting smaller and smaller with the decreasing of the difference between these speeds. Transfer of energy decreases to zero when the difference of the speeds tends to zero. This can be easily proved by a calculation.

 

Hence it is well known in accelerators, that if the speed of the proton is getting closer to c, then for a further increase of its speed , it must be used disproportionately more and more power of the propulsion, and that at smaller and smaller effects.

 

 

 

2. Any change or distorsion of the electromagnetic field can not travel faster than the speed of light.

 

Acceleration of the proton takes place not by the interaction of electromagnetic fields on the mass of the proton, but on its electric charge. Thus, the proton motion in an electromagnetic field of the accelerator is connected with the movement of its electric charge , which is the same the movement of an electromagnetic distorsion in this field.

 

 

On the above limitations of the particle speed, does not affect the size of power of the propulsion system, or the mass of this particle.

 

 

So the claim that the motion of particles in accelerators is the proof of the relativistic increase in mass, is not justified.

 

 

 

 

 

Phase velocity of an EM field is not limited to c.

 

The phase velocity does not transfer any energy.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Bart

[swansont]

For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue:

 

 

 

The basic hard evidence for the alleged increase in relativistic mass of particles (protons) in accelerators, is the fact that, despite the biggest increase of power of the electromagnetic field, accelerating these particles, the speed of the particles can not achieve the speed of light.

 

No, that's not the basic or only evidence. It is part of the picture, though.

 

In my understanding, the reasons of that constraints in accelerators are other, and they do not depend on the particle mass.

 

No, the constraints on making an accelerator work does depend on the relativistic corrections, i.e. relativistic mass.

 

 

These constraints are the following two laws of physics:

 

 

1. As the speed of accelerated particle (v), approaches to the speed of the propulsion system ©,which accelerates this particle, the amount of energy transferred from the propulsion system to the particle is decreasing, and is getting smaller and smaller with the decreasing of the difference between these speeds. Transfer of energy decreases to zero when the difference of the speeds tends to zero. This can be easily proved by a calculation.

 

Hence it is well known in accelerators, that if the speed of the proton is getting closer to c, then for a further increase of its speed , it must be used disproportionately more and more power of the propulsion, and that at smaller and smaller effects.

 

The trajectory of the particle and the confining forces necessary to make the particle travel on that trajectory depend on the relativistic mass. If the relativistic correction was not present, the particle would have a different trajectory and the accelerator would not work. IOW, this bit of evidence is not dependent on energy transfer.

 

Also, the purported limit on the difference in the speeds ignores the possibility that the force is that of attraction, where the arithmetic difference in speeds does not tend to zero — it increases in magnitude. It also ignores that the speed of light is still c in the frame of the particle.

 

 

2. Any change or distorsion of the electromagnetic field can not travel faster than the speed of light.

 

This is not true. I can distort the field in two regions simultaneously in remote regions such that d/t is infinite. As I stated before, it's not even true within a wave packet, despite your objection that it does not transfer energy. But this is all beside the point, since it's not related to the issue.

[Bart]

No, that's not the basic or only evidence. It is part of the picture, though.

 

 

 

No, the constraints on making an accelerator work does depend on the relativistic corrections, i.e. relativistic mass.

 

 

 

 

The trajectory of the particle and the confining forces necessary to make the particle travel on that trajectory depend on the relativistic mass. If the relativistic correction was not present, the particle would have a different trajectory and the accelerator would not work. IOW, this bit of evidence is not dependent on energy transfer.

 

Also, the purported limit on the difference in the speeds ignores the possibility that the force is that of attraction, where the arithmetic difference in speeds does not tend to zero — it increases in magnitude. It also ignores that the speed of light is still c in the frame of the particle.

 

 

This is not true. I can distort the field in two regions simultaneously in remote regions such that d/t is infinite. As I stated before, it's not even true within a wave packet, despite your objection that it does not transfer energy. But this is all beside the point, since it's not related to the issue.

 

 

 

I do not understand your words, does this mean that in your opinion it is possible to convey signals (distortion) in the electromagnetic field, with any speed greater than c?

 

 

Deformation of the proton trajectories with increasing of its speed, may also be associated with the helical shape of its path and a necessary compensation of the increasing centrifugal force of the proton, in the helix, which requires a significant additional energy.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Bart

[Janus]

For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue:

 

 

 

 

For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue:

 

 

 

The basic hard evidence for the alleged increase in relativistic mass of particles (protons) in accelerators, is the fact that, despite the biggest increase of power of the electromagnetic field, accelerating these particles, the speed of the particles can not achieve the speed of light.

 

 

In my understanding, the reasons of that constraints in accelerators are other, and they do not depend on the particle mass.

 

These constraints are the following two laws of physics:

 

 

1. As the speed of accelerated particle (v), approaches to the speed of the propulsion system ©,which accelerates this particle, the amount of energy transferred from the propulsion system to the particle is decreasing, and is getting smaller and smaller with the decreasing of the difference between these speeds. Transfer of energy decreases to zero when the difference of the speeds tends to zero. This can be easily proved by a calculation.

 

Hence it is well known in accelerators, that if the speed of the proton is getting closer to c, then for a further increase of its speed , it must be used disproportionately more and more power of the propulsion, and that at smaller and smaller effects.

 

 

 

2. Any change or distorsion of the electromagnetic field can not travel faster than the speed of light.

 

Acceleration of the proton takes place not by the interaction of electromagnetic fields on the mass of the proton, but on its electric charge. Thus, the proton motion in an electromagnetic field of the accelerator is connected with the movement of its electric charge , which is the same the movement of an electromagnetic distorsion in this field.

 

 

On the above limitations of the particle speed, does not affect the size of power of the propulsion system, or the mass of this particle.

 

 

So the claim that the motion of particles in accelerators is the proof of the relativistic increase in mass, is not justified.

 

It doesn't matter what "your understanding" is when it is in conflict with actual experimental results.

 

To repeat what I said earlier. We can measure the kinetic energy of particles after they leave the accelerator.

 

If, as you claim, the inability of the accelerator was due to decreasing efficiency of energy transfer from accelerator to particle then the kinetic energy of the particle upon leaving the accelerator must be found by E= mv²/2. This means that the greatest amount of kinetic energy a proton could have upon leaving would be 470 mev ( by setting v=c). However, the RHIC has created protons, which after leaving the accelerator, have a KE of ~250 Gev (over 531 times the max KE possible by your claim.)

 

 

In addition, the amount of energy the accelerator consumes is related to the load it is placed under (the amount of energy is is transferring to the particle). Since the energy consumption of the RHIC corresponds to the KE of the proton leaving the RHIC, The RHIC is transferring that energy to the proton.

 

IOW, The accelerator expends X energy accelerating the particle, the particle has X measurable energy after leaving the accelerator. Thus the accelerator transferred X energy to the particle. Since X is many times greater than the maximum KE the particle could have had without undergoing an increase of relativistic mass, and matches what is predicted for a particle traveling at that speed with relativistic mass, the forced conclusion is that the particle undergoes an increase of relativistic mass.

 

Continuing to argue that your view is correct in the face of real experimental evidence to the contrary is the path to crankdom.

[swansont]

I do not understand your words, does this mean that in your opinion it is possible to convey signals (distortion) in the electromagnetic field, with any speed greater than c?

 

No, but I'm saying it's irrelevant to my objection. If relativity were wrong or not used in the design of an accelerator, the particles wouldn't hit the target.

[Bart]

It doesn't matter what "your understanding" is when it is in conflict with actual experimental results.

 

To repeat what I said earlier. We can measure the kinetic energy of particles after they leave the accelerator.

 

If, as you claim, the inability of the accelerator was due to decreasing efficiency of energy transfer from accelerator to particle then the kinetic energy of the particle upon leaving the accelerator must be found by E= mv²/2. This means that the greatest amount of kinetic energy a proton could have upon leaving would be 470 mev ( by setting v=c). However, the RHIC has created protons, which after leaving the accelerator, have a KE of ~250 Gev (over 531 times the max KE possible by your claim.)

 

 

In addition, the amount of energy the accelerator consumes is related to the load it is placed under (the amount of energy is is transferring to the particle). Since the energy consumption of the RHIC corresponds to the KE of the proton leaving the RHIC, The RHIC is transferring that energy to the proton.

 

IOW, The accelerator expends X energy accelerating the particle, the particle has X measurable energy after leaving the accelerator. Thus the accelerator transferred X energy to the particle. Since X is many times greater than the maximum KE the particle could have had without undergoing an increase of relativistic mass, and matches what is predicted for a particle traveling at that speed with relativistic mass, the forced conclusion is that the particle undergoes an increase of relativistic mass.

 

Continuing to argue that your view is correct in the face of real experimental evidence to the contrary is the path to crankdom.

 

 

Sirs, I thank all of you for the interesting discussion.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Bart