Jacques Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Hi I would like to know if there are proof of the mass increase at speed close c other than the one in the particule accelerator ? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Why is the proof of a particle accelerator not sufficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 Imagine the particule being a sail boat and a wind blowing at c, then there is no way the boat (particule) can go faster than the wind ©. When you put more energy to accelerate the particule and the particule speed doesn't increase in proportion is not because the mass of the particule increase but because the added energy is ineffective. That is why I want to know if there are other proof, because for me this one is not a proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Why is the proof of a particle accelerator not sufficient? I think, though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, that recently there has been some divergence from the mass changes predicted by the theory of relativity, in particle accelerator experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Imagine the particule being a sail boat and a wind blowing at c, then there is no way the boat (particule) can go faster than the wind ©. When you put more energy to accelerate the particule and the particule speed doesn't increase in proportion is not because the mass of the particule increase but because the added energy is ineffective. That is why I want to know if there are other proof, because for me this one is not a proof. What is the wind inside a particle accelerator though? I've been to a 900 MeV one, you have big evacuated tubes, there's no air inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I think, though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, that recently there has been some divergence from the mass changes predicted by the theory of relativity, in particle accelerator experiments. Yes...I think that's true...any confirmation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The wind is blowing at c. Jacques, what do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 Analogy wind == electric field What is pushing on the particule to accelerate it ? An electric field. How fast an electric field propagate ? c Do you understand the analogy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Analogy wind == electric fieldWhat is pushing on the particule to accelerate it ? An electric field. How fast an electric field propagate ? c Do you understand the analogy ? Yes. But you could be more clear about what you mean. I don't believe that the speed of electric field propagation is a frame independent quantity. But if you don't understand me that's ok. But I did understand the analogy just the same. An electric field accelerates a particle, and thats as if someone blows on the particle to accelerate it, but the 'wind' isn't air, the 'wind' is the electric field. It's a good analogy. I'm just not sure what an electric field is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Yes...I think that's true...any confirmation? I hadn't heard of this, it would be interesting if it was true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 I don't believe that the speed of electric field propagation is a frame independent quantity. But if you don't understand me that's ok. Electric force is mediated by photons who are frame independent. My original question was is there other proof for the increase of mass at velocity near the speed of light ? The mass increase is an explaination but the decrease in effectiveness of the electric force may be an other. If there are other proofs of the increase in mass it would solve my questionning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 One issue here is that the "increase in mass" is only valid in the context of using relativistic mass in your formulae, and this isn't the usual interpretation of the equations. One typically uses rest mass, which is invariant. So the whole issue comes down to whether or not the equations of special relativity hold, i.e. is there this nonlinear term we call gamma, and is it correct, and the answer to that is yes. You don't need a particle accelerator to measure that. As far as the effectiveness of the electric field, I think that's the wrong way to look at it. From a work-energy standpoint, there is still lot of energy being transferred, even if the speed doesn't change much. So how is the force being ineffective if the system is transferring energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Usually the gamma factor is applied to the mass but you can apply the inverse of gamma to the force and you will get the same equality. Some observation: the photon who mediate the electric force is redshifted from the point of view of the particule. Redshifted means less energy. That's maybe a way to explain the ineffeciency of the force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now