I'm a layman to the extreme so please feel free to show me just how dumb I really am. My math is pathetic but I feel I'm exceptional with just the theory of things. In any case, I present this very basic situation. An atom traveling closer and closer towards the true velocity of light would also increase in mass. Given enough time and speed incremental gain, the atom would appear to be the size of a galaxy or solar system to an outside observer. The theory of the big bang establishes everything radiated outwards from a specific (maybe) point in space. Starting off as simple particles and molecules, they continue their outward expansion even now. Since their path would have no friction or gravity/pulling forces (lack of better terms), they would never slow down. Assuming they generate their own energy, they would speed up into infinity, never reaching the speed of light but getting close enough (to light speed) to gain exponential mass. My point being... wouldn't ordinary atoms look like solar systems (or more) from our vantage point in space? Obviously they would have to be outside of our current system (and speed) in order to appear this way.
It increases in mass, not size. And decreases in length. Only if solar systems were of zero or nearly zero thickness (in the direction of travel) and very small in radius. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wouldn't it have to increase in size if it also increased in mass? Or does the object just become a super heavy(mass) same-sized object? I'm confused. I don't understand. Why would It have to be nearly zero in thickness? Atoms aren't. Why does the direction of travel come into factor? Wouldn't the direction of observation be most important? Why does the size of the radius factor in? I generally assume the radius of molecules around an atom are fairly large... to molecules.
No it doesn't increase in size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity Because, as stated earlier, length (in the direction of travel) decreases (in inverse proportion to the increase in mass). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction Because that's the way it works. Lengths in the direction of travel shorten. Because if you start out with an atom and it doesn't get any larger in radius then even though the mass has increased it'll still be atom-sized in radius. That is to say, nothing like a solar system. Molecules around an atom? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So objects decrease in size the faster they travel but increase in mass? This seems extremely contrary to what I was taught in high school. Not to mention it doesn't really seem logical. My mistake, I meant subatomic particles. My assumption was it doesn't, to itself, but to outside observers viewing it, it would. But the closer you come to it, the more it'll become like its "universally intended" radius.
Yes. That would be why they leave relativity until later in the curriculum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, for the above-mentioned reasons. "Universally intended" radius? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lost me again.
How are solar systems even visible then? Wouldn't their speed give them a nearly two dimensional view? Wouldn't particles accelerated in the LHC simply slice through other particles rather than collide? I'm still under the impression that galaxies are traveling faster every moment, gaining speed and not losing it or maintaining constant. There's a fallacy somewhere here. Relativity. If we traveled near light speed, we wouldn't notice the increase in mass and decrease in length. Or the slowing of the passage of time. However we would seem distorted to outside observers. I was saying the radius changes to all observers except one, itself.
Because solar systems are actually solar systems, not very fast atoms. And no "slicing" because they foreshorten in the direction of travel, NOT at right angles to it. I agree. And so far the "fallacy" seems to be your understanding of the concept. Yes. The radius doesn't change at all. From any perspective. And one other thing: why would an atom (however big) look like a solar system? A) an atom is not actually a series of little balls spinning around each other, that's a simplified explanation. B) even if that were to be the case please take note of the fact that planets vary in size and properties, where as any given electron/ proton/ whatever is identical to any other electron/ proton/ whatever.
Interesting. You're actually wrong, Solar systems are comprised of very fast atoms. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Colliding two particles doesn't require the actual particles to meet head on, by the way. If for instance they were to intersect at right angles, they would do as I previously had mentioned. How nice of you to quote back the definition of "fallacy". Actually, according to length contraction... it does. From all perspectives except one. Quarks and Leptons come in many different varieties. Up to 16 and with many differences that can occur each subset. An atom is a series of little balls spinning around each other. Obviously its building blocks all have unique individual interactions with each other with make it more complex therefore... Alternatively, I can say a Solar System is not just a bunch of little balls spinning around one larger ball.
Fast compared to what? Since you yourself mentioned the LHC then "head on" is a given, no? Plus the fact the the foreshortening is in the direction of travel. No it doesn't because the radius (in the sense we're discussing here) is the side-on aspect, not the fore and aft which has already been discussed. I.e. it's closer to being a circle than a sphere. You miss the point (and quarks are never seen separately anyway). Only in the Bohr model which isn't the reality. But planets aren't probability waves like electrons. Well done on missing the point again.
There's no need for snide remarks. WIS admits that he's not a scientist and that he's limited to what he learned in high school. I went to Caltech (I was once a future scientist, now I'm a former future scientist) and even there they didn't try to teach us relativity until our second year, when we had learned a LOT of physics. Furthermore, the questions that pique WIS's curiosity go well beyond that Caltech-sophomore understanding of the bare basics of the subject. I doubt that any of us could have crafted answers to these questions using only concepts that a precocious high school senior had mastered. I still can't. People have the mistaken impression that relativity is reasonably straightforward and fairly intuitive, and that the only reason it took so long to discover was that we didn't have the instruments to detect the relativistic perturbations of the universe so we weren't looking for it. That's simply not true. Relativity is complex (many individual topics), complicated (intricate relationships and calculations), and counterintuitive (it will never make sense to most people even if they can do the math). WIS needs at least two more years of intensive university-level physics courses (a physics major, not just general science) before he might possibly have the context in which to frame his questions and interpret the answers. Patience is required from everyone.
You're quite right. It's possible that fallacy he claimed exists is in relativity itself, and that he, being spotted it. And yet anything I've said about relativity so far was under discussion in my group of friends at the age of 16. :shrug:
I read a book written by a protege of Einstein who was complaining about many writers confusing "the appearance" of things being considered under concepts of relativity and "the actual condition" of those same things being considered.
On the question of the "universally intended" radius, you have to bear in mind also that particles in the standard model are point particles...they have zero size and no "radius". We often picture them as little billiard balls, but that is not what the math says they are. The present theories allow us to treat them either as strings vibrating in 10 or 11 dimensions (string theory), or more traditionally (and less speculatively) as having a length, width and height of zero. In general though it is correct to say that objects in motion undergo both an increase in mass and a length contraction, as well as time dilation. You should bear in mind that the mass added is the mass of the energy stored within the moving body, a la E=mc^2. The faster it moves the more kinetic energy it has, the more energy it has, the more that energy contributes to its mass, perhaps that will help explain how the mass increases without a size increase: it's because the "extra" mass the particle gains is from the energy it is holding and equal to E/c^2.
There is a nice old book which when I was first learning about relativity helped me get my head around things. It is called "Mr Tompkins in wonderland", and describes a world in which the speed of light is very slow so that relativistic effects are apparent in everyday life. Oooh, I found a webpage which seems to have a lot of it up there: http://boomeria.org/physicslectures/secondsemester/relativity/tompkins.html Not sure if that was the whole thing or not, it is a short story so that might be everything. I also don't remember how accurate it was but I think it was quite good. Might be helpful for you. edit: ok it's not the whole thing, just kind of a summary with extracts of some of the concepts.
