PDA

View Full Version : Relativist Increase of Mass at High Speeds

Prosoothus
06-20-02, 08:45 AM
Overdoze, and anyone else who is interested.

For those people that already participated in this discussion in the "Does light have mass" thread, I apoligize for posting this theory again. I just wanted to share C'est Moi's and my idea on a thread that is more appropriate for this type of discussion.

This thread is also for all those people who may be interested in the "relative mass" theory, but who don't want to look for the actual posts on the "Does light have mass" thread.

Here it goes:

Over the years, physicists have found that a particle's acceleration, in a particle accelerator, decreases the faster the particle travels. They have found that in order for the acceleration of the particle to remain constant, the strength of the electric and magnetic fields of the particle accelerator must increase.

As a result of this effect, physicists concluded that the particles acceleration decreases because the mass of the particle increases. This would, in fact, be proof that Einstein's formula for relative mass is correct.

However, C'est Moi, in one of his posts, pointed out that there is a far simpler explanation for the particles decreasing acceleration without taking into consideration ANY increase in mass.

C'est Moi pointed out that the particles decreasing acceleration, at higher speeds, is not the result of increasing mass, but the result of the particles speed aproaching the speed of the force that is pushing it (in the case of particle accelerators: the electric and magnetic fields).

All forces in this universe have three characteristics: The forces strength, it's direction, and it's speed. It has been concluded, many times, that a force can't push an object faster than the speed of the force itself. It has also been concluded that as an object's speed comes closer to the speed of the force that's pushing it, the objects acceleration decreases.

A good example of this fact are rockets. A rocket will only go as fast as the fastest molecules from it's exaust. And as the rocket approaches this speed, it's acceleration will decrease proportionally. When the rocket does reach the speed of it's exaust (if it's possible), it's acceleration becomes 0. This is the case no matter how powerful the rocket engine is.

Unfortunately, physicists chose to ignore this fact when monitoring particles in particle accelerators. They assumed that the speed of the electric and magnetic fields are infinite, so therefore, the only explanation to account for the particles decreasing acceleration would be mass increase.

Howewever, if you take into consideration that the speed of the forces (electric and magnetic fields) in a particle accelerator are not infinite, but are equal to c, then you can understand the decreasing particles acceleration without having to take mass increase into consideration.

Tom

thed
06-20-02, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Prosoothus
[B]All forces in this universe have three characteristics: The forces strength, it's direction, and it's speed.

<b>F</b> = m<b>a</b> = m d<b>p</b>/dt = d<b>v</b><sup>2</sup>/dt<sup>2</sup> where <b>v</b> = a<b>i</b> + b<b>j</b> + c<b>k</b> and s= |<b>v</b>|

A force does not have speed it is the rate of change of speed or direction.

It has been concluded, many times, that a force can't push an object faster than the speed of the force itself. It has also been concluded that as an object's speed comes closer to the speed of the force that's pushing it, the objects acceleration decreases.

In the absence of friction, like in space, <b>a</b> = <b>f</b>/m

That is a constant force produces a constant aceleration and the velocity <b>v</b> can become infinite.

A good example of this fact are rockets. A rocket will only go as fast as the fastest molecules from it's exaust. And as the rocket approaches this speed, it's acceleration will decrease proportionally.

It's more complicated than that. The thrust of the rocket has to exceed gravitational forces. That is, it has to exceed escape velocity. The problem is the fuel is being lost so the force the rocket produces is being lost as well.

That's why the Saturn V final stage is much smaller than it's first stage. Initially you have a lare mass and larger gravitational force. At ten miles up you have less mass and a lower gravitational force.

When the rocket does reach the speed of it's exaust (if it's possible), it's acceleration becomes 0. This is the case no matter how powerful the rocket engine is.

Cite?

Unfortunately, physicists chose to ignore this fact when monitoring particles in particle accelerators.

Unfortunately you don't understand basic Newtonian physics let alone Relativity.

They assumed that the speed of the electric and magnetic fields are infinite, so therefore, the only explanation to account for the particles decreasing acceleration would be mass increase.

Only in your misunderstanding of the issues.

Howewever, if you take into consideration that the speed of the forces (electric and magnetic fields) in a particle accelerator are not infinite, but are equal to c, then you can understand the decreasing particles acceleration without having to take mass increase into consideration.

No force is thought to travel faster than c. It's already assumed.

The problem, that you can't see, is that the maths say the energy increase of a mass approaches infinity as v -> c. It's an asymptotic limit. FWIW, if c was not the maximum, why do we not see things going fatster than c.

Prosoothus
06-20-02, 10:44 AM
Thed,

I oversimplified my example of a rocket to stress my point. You are correct that there are other things that will influence the rocket's acceleration.

Next time when you're in your bathtub with your rubber ducky :), try blowing air at your floating rubber ducky.

See if you can make the rubber ducky move faster than the air you are blowing at it. Notice how the acceleration of the rubber ducky decreases as its speed aproaches the speed of the air your blowing at it. Does the rubber ducky's acceleration decrease because its mass is increasing??

Tom

overdoze
06-20-02, 03:02 PM
Tom,

It's close, but no cigar yet. ;)

The part you're missing is that when things begin to travel closer to lightspeed they are not only harder to accelerate -- they are also harder to decelerate. IOW, a decelerating force that would have resulted in change of velocity delta-v1 at low speeds would give a delta-v2 < delta-v1 at close to lightspeed.

This has to do with increasing inertial mass (and as I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not convinced that's the same thing as increase in gravitational mass.) This inertial mass increases without bound as a massive object approaches the speed of light. This results, of course, in ever-larger kinetic energy even as the particle posts only minuscule gains in speed. That's how come, for example, electrons can be accelerated in particle accelerators to energies that give them effectively more of a punch than only a slightly slower proton (which is 1000 more massive) -- not that protons can't be accelerated to the same speeds, but just as an example.

Of course, you do have a point concerning diminishing returns from solar sail type propulsion. However, particle accelerators don't use that sort of propulsion but instead create electrostatic or electromagnetic field gradients that more or less continuously pull on the particle -- so if there weren't a limit imposed by the grown of inertial mass, the particle should easily be capable of reaching lightspeed. Think of a playground slide in the gravitational field as the equivalent gradient. If the slide is long enough and there is no resistance, you will "fall" or accelerate down the slide until you reach lightspeed. Which, of course, is not the case because there is friction and air resistance. Well, in case of matter generally, there appears to be a universal "air resistance" of sorts with one major difference that you can't punch through it the way you can punch through the sound barrier -- at least nobody has yet figured a way to do it (the other difference of course being that it's really not like air resistance; it doesn't slow you down, it merely prevents you from speeding up.)

overdoze
06-20-02, 03:10 PM
Ok, my turn. :)

QM (Quantum Mechanics for the non-cognoscenti, whom I can't imagine present on this forum but just in case...;)) depicts field-driven interactions as exchanges of virtual force carrier particles (e.g. virtual photons for electromagnetic interactions.)

Now, since a particle moving very quickly would have its internal information exchange mechanisms slowed down tremendously, the internal structure of that particle would be less responsive to any virtual force carriers that assault it from "the outside" (perhaps it could be visualized as a virtual bottleneck where only a few virtual photons squeeze in to interact with the particle, while the others are excluded due to conjestion and shrugged off by the particle.) This should make the particle both harder to accelerate and harder to decelerate once it's been accelerated.

Ok, granted I haven't really thought this through very deeply. So let's keep the discussion going. :)

edit:

Oh, another thing, probably playing into the same pot. Matter is somewhat more complicated than light (or any simple wave-like traveling disturbance in a field.) It has structure, and components of that structure interact with each other. Those interactions are also lightspeed-limited, and oftentimes must occur in directions at least partially orthogonal to the particle's direction of movement. Therefore, if the particle is to remain a particle and not turn into a lightwave, it physically cannot obtain the speed of light because that would make its effective time flow completely stop as no internal interactions could take place at all. To the outside world, the particle could no longer behave like its old self, since it would no longer be capable of manifesting its old behavior. And once that happens, how do you interact with it to slow it down? Conversely, how do you interact with it in such a way as to create this state to begin with?

Moreover, any internal structures of the particle (e.g. component quarks or whatever the smallest building block turns out to be) are ultimately "frozen" light themselves (according to mc^2=E) which could turn out to be some sort of a standing wave or a whirlpool or some such, so it could be they can't reach lightspeed even individually, much less as an interacting group, without being converted to light in the first place.

Prosoothus
06-20-02, 03:27 PM
Overdoze,

The part you're missing is that when things begin to travel closer to lightspeed they are not only harder to accelerate -- they are also harder to decelerate.

I'm not claiming that kinetic energy does not exist, I'm just claiming that it's independent of mass. A particle may be hard to deccelarate because of its kinetic energy, not because of it's increased mass.

Of course, you do have a point concerning diminishing returns fromm rocket-type propulsion. However, particle accelerators don't use that sort of propulsion but instead create electrostatic or electromagnetic field gradients that more or less continuously pull on the particle -- so if there weren't a limit imposed by the grown of inertial mass, the particle should easily be capable of reaching lightspeed.

We don't know how electric and magnetic fields work. Some people say that the forces that these fields create are due to the exchange of virtual photons. In the case of the "virtual photon" model, the force on the moving particle decreases because it is

1) Harder for the virtual photons to "catch up" with the particles, therefore, fewer virtual photons impact the moving particles than if the particles were at rest.

or

2) Less of the virtual photons momentums are transferred to the particle since the virtual photons aren't forced to stop, they only have to slow down to the speed of the particle.

Even if you take into consideration that electric or magnetic attraction is the result of collapsing space, even this would occur at a maximum speed of c.

so if there weren't a limit imposed by the grown of inertial mass, the particle should easily be capable of reaching lightspeed. Which, of course, is not the case.

I see your point here. But if both 1 AND 2 (as I stated above) occured at the same time, this could also explain why it's so hard for the particle to reach c.

Tom

overdoze
06-20-02, 03:35 PM
Tom,

I see we are largely in agreement, then.

Just one little thing: your conception of virtual photons having to "catch up" doesn't sit well with me since they would have no problem when the particle ploughs right into them as opposed to the way it is supposed to happen. I'm inclined to think that the problem lies more with the nature of interaction than anything else. Other than that, Cheers!

thed
06-20-02, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Prosoothus
Thed,

Notice how the acceleration of the rubber ducky decreases as its speed aproaches the speed of the air your blowing at it.

Too many complicating factors to use that as a valid example. The duck experiences friction in water, the water is turbulent and few people can sustain a steady force for a meaningful time, they run out of breath. Plus the duck is travelling perpendicular to the force of gravity, unlike a rocket, so it does not experience gravity as an retardation. Thirdly, the streamlining of the duck has a greater affect than anything. Think of a catamaran vs. a roll on, roll off ferry under sail power.

You are showing further evidence of your lack of understanding, try again.

overdoze
06-20-02, 04:02 PM
Hey thed,

Here's a site to match your deep insights: http://www.duckplanet.com/

Lighten up, dude. :rolleyes: It was just an analogy, and if you can't get what he was trying to say, I pity you.

thed
06-20-02, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by overdoze
Hey thed,

Here's a site to match your deep insights: http://www.duckplanet.com/

Lighten up, dude. :rolleyes: It was just an analogy, and if you can't get what he was trying to say, I pity you.

I do get what Tom was saying. The problem is that some unwitting traveller might come along and think, hey, that's a smart idea and no ones said anything against it. So it must have some merit.

I've tried to stay off Tom for a few months, you do have the right to free speech after all. But I've seen James R, Crisp and others repeatedly try to get ideas across. Tom, deliberately, twists what is being said to get attention and drag the conversation along a bit more. It's about some one pointed out the obvious.

Prosoothus
06-20-02, 05:27 PM
Thed,

I've tried to stay off Tom for a few months, you do have the right to free speech after all. But I've seen James R, Crisp and others repeatedly try to get ideas across. Tom, deliberately, twists what is being said to get attention and drag the conversation along a bit more.

Don't flatter yourself. If I wanted attention I know of better places to get it besides from you guys at sciforums.

The fact is that you have science textbooks so far up your ars that no matter what proof anyone provides, you can't accept it if it contradicts your textbooks.

Remember that time that you concluded that photons do have gravitational and inertial mass, but you couldn't except the fact they have mass because your dear textbook said otherwise.

The problem with you is that to you relativity is a religion and Einstein is your God. The reason that science is so behind in understanding particle physics is because of people like you that fall in love with false theories.

I truly hope that one day you begin to think for yourself, and to question the theories you hold so dearly. When that day comes, only then will you be a true scientist.

Tom

overdoze
06-20-02, 05:59 PM
Some thoughts I've been nursing...

Light speed is the limit, so in order for any particle, virtual or not, to affect a traveling photon's trajectory it would have to interact with the photon in a direction orthogonal to the photon's motion -- bringing the speed of information flow along the axis of that interaction above the speed limit (simple triangle arithmetics.)

So one of two conclusions follows (if there are other possibilities, they don't occur to me right now):
<ol>
<li>Speed of light is slower in presence of gravity (because some of it is sapped by light's interaction with gravitons) -- even in otherwise empty vaccuum</li>
<li>Light is not bent by gravity due to virtual particles interacting with photons, but due to the fact that the photons are waves and somehow the density of the field through which the wave propagates is affected by matter (not too surprising, as matter is merely "concentrated" energy anyway, so why can't it affect the density of the field nearby.) IOW, what we have is analogous to refraction (with the major difference being that all wavelengths are "refracted" equally.)</li>
</ol>

Thinking about what would distinguish the two alternatives experimentally, I'm stumped. They both seem to predict a slowdown of time in gravitational fields (as observed by someone far away), as well as reddening of any light emitted out of the gravitational well.

Though aesthetically (and in terms of the number of concepts involved), I find the second alternative much more pleasing. However, it's unclear whether the density of the field should be reduced or increased by matter; which effect would slow light down depends on how the lightwaves are propagated by the field to begin with (or maybe the modification is not even in terms of density but, for example, elasticity or some other such feature.) I also like the second alternative because it "unifies" EM and gravity by, in essense, getting rid of a separate gravitational field. With this scheme, there are tantalizing possibilities of somehow modifying this property of the field in direction opposite from gravity, in effect creating antigravity, or perhaps modifying the field locally to increase the propagation velocity of light (of possible relevance to "FTL" drives.)

Ok, I know: no hard math, and lots of wishy-washy hand-waving. But as far as I can see, this is precisely what Einstein's warped spacetime looks like: a) slowdown of time (in my picture, due to slower light), b) "stretching" of space (due to curved trajectories of light; the curvature is directly related to slowdown, and is a result of local gradient in the field property of interest, e.g. density).

James R
06-20-02, 11:40 PM
Tom,

<i>All forces in this universe have three characteristics: The forces strength, it's direction, and it's speed.</i>

No. A force is a vector quantity with only magnitude and direction. Speed is a different, scalar quantity unrelated to force.

<i>A good example of this fact are rockets. A rocket will only go as fast as the fastest molecules from it's exaust.</i>

That is false. Rockets can accelerate to much higher speeds than their exhaust speed. See any first year physics text for a derivation of the rocket equations.

<i>Unfortunately, physicists chose to ignore this fact when monitoring particles in particle accelerators.</i>

Time to get into the real world, Tom.

<i>They assumed that the speed of the electric and magnetic fields are infinite...</i>

Wrong again. See Maxwell's equations.

*yawn*

thed
06-21-02, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Prosoothus
[B]Thed,

Don't flatter yourself. If I wanted attention I know of better places to get it besides from you guys at sciforums.

So why do you keep coming back?

The fact is that you have science textbooks so far up your ars that no matter what proof anyone provides, you can't accept it if it contradicts your textbooks.

The standard repsonse of the kook. It don't work by the way. Dark matter and other observations are not predicted by any extant theory. Yet I fully except the fact.

Remember that time that you concluded that photons do have gravitational and inertial mass, but you couldn't except the fact they have mass because your dear textbook said otherwise.

That was a misunderstanding based on terminology. I've had that argument before and will again.

The problem with you is that to you relativity is a religion and Einstein is your God.

Also the standard repsonse of a kook.

Einstein is no more right or wrong than I am. It just so happens that his ideas appear to match reality better than most. If some one proves him wrong I'll accept the new theory.

I think you'll find I can accept new ideas a lot more than you can. Else you'd stop wasting your time trying to disprove 90 year old theories.

The reason that science is so behind in understanding particle physics is because of people like you that fall in love with false theories.

Huh? What do you know of Particle Physics? The standard model is a description of observation. Simply waving away accepted theories based on thousands of hours of experiments and replacin them with a wild idea dreamt up one afternoon will not advance anything.

I truly hope that one day you begin to think for yourself, and to question the theories you hold so dearly. When that day comes, only then will you be a true scientist.

Funny, most of the objections you have about Relativity I had 20 years ago when I learned this stuff. I also worked out for myself why they are invalid objections and moved on. More than you can do obviously.

I don't slavishly and foolishly bang my head against the same tired old objections that others have raised and been shown to be wrong. You are the one who needs to be open minded and not hang on to out dated concepts disproven last century.

Prosoothus
06-21-02, 06:00 AM
James R,

"All forces in this universe have three characteristics: The forces strength, it's direction, and it's speed. "

No. A force is a vector quantity with only magnitude and direction. Speed is a different, scalar quantity unrelated to force.

You're wrong. For every force there has to be some kind of matter to transmit it. Whether the matter is water, air, virtual or electromagnetic photons, all these forms of matter have a speed at which they travel.

If you read my post about the Thed's rubber ducky you will find that the speed of the force in that example is equal to the speed of the (hot) air coming from Thed's mouth. If the rubber ducky is moving faster than the air coming from Thed's mouth, how are the molecules of air supposed to "catch up" with the rubber ducky to push it???

Tom

Prosoothus
06-21-02, 07:01 AM
Overdoze,

That's an interesting theory you have.

When I was trying to comprehend attractive forces, like in gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields, I couldn't find a way to explain it using the exchange of particles(virtual photons).

Therefore, I completely removed virtul photons from my theory. My theory goes something like this:

Vaccum (empty space) consists of the least dense form of matter. These "quants" of space can contain two forms of matter: gravitational and electric.

For example, in a large mass, the paricles of space close to the mass have the most amount of gravitational matter, while the ones farther away have less.

When two large masses come close together, the space particles (or fields) of the two masses come in contact with each other. For some reason, particles of space with more "quants" of gravitational matter are more stable than particles of space with less "quants" of gravitational matter. For this reason, the two neighboring particles of space, one from each of the masses, with lower gravitational "quantas" combine to form one particle of space with a higher, and more stable, quantum number.

The above effect, occuring billions of times a second, is actually causing the space between the two masses to collapse (consolidate). As a result, these two masses move towards each other.

The repulsive force (in electric fields) could be explained in the exact opposite way.

If this model is correct, the problem would be finding the "magic numbers" (the number of "quants" a particle of space must have in order for it to be stable (or more stable)) that apply to both gravitational and electric fields. For example, the "magic number" for gravitational fields would be large (because same poles attract each other), while for electric fields, it would be 0 (because opposite poles attract).

This model can be used to unite all long-distance forces. And unlike Einstein's curved-space theory, it isn't an exclusive theory.

Tom

overdoze
06-22-02, 12:10 AM
Tom,

Let me just convince you that you're wrong about rockets. The part you're missing, is that the fuel is travelling together with the rocket, and when it's combusted its original velocity prior to combustion is equal to the rocket's velocity. Then it vastly expands and is shot out the back of the rocket, with the rocket being pushed forward by that action (the final velocity of the combustion products is given by their expulsion velocity relative to the rocket, minus their precursors' -- and the rocket's -- velocity prior to combustion.) Your analogy of the rubber ducky is closer to a sail concept, where the source of the impulse must first catch up to the craft before it can rebound from it and add to its velocity. So, for example, you couldn't have a supersonic yacht.

As for your creative synthesis/annihilation of space, I'll just say that's the strangest notion I've ever heard. I'll think about it some more, but right now it just sounds too weird to me. :bugeye: