# Mass accelerator to light speed - how much energy is required?

#### Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
17,293
I knew my ignore list was itching for a new entry. That makes 15. I'll let @nsaspook carry my water on this one. Over to you sir.

#### Kermit2

Joined Feb 5, 2010
4,162
Of course the length of length stays the same and the passage of time remains consistent for anyone experiencing acceleration (or in a gravity well)
It is called relativity because it is all relative to what an OUTSIDER would observe.
If you travel close to the speed of light time passes slower for you
(This experiment has been done several times and conforms to the theory exactly), but YOU can't tell it goes slower. It is only slower RELATIVE to the time rate of the outside observer. For you nothing changes.

#### Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
17,293
Of course the length of length stays the same and the passage of time remains consistent for anyone experiencing acceleration (or in a gravity well)
It is called relativity because it is all relative to what an OUTSIDER would observe.
If you travel close to the speed of light time passes slower for you
(This experiment has been done several times and conforms to the theory exactly), but YOU can't tell it goes slower. It is only slower RELATIVE to the time rate of the outside observer. For you nothing changes.
There was a young fellow named Fisk
Whose fencing was exceedingly brisk.
So rapid his action,
The Fitzgerald Contraction
Soon shortened his rapier to a disk.

That is one of only three clean limericks that I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

#### marcf

Joined Dec 29, 2014
260
If you accelerate at the rate of 32 ft/sec/sec, would you not achieve a velocity of the speed of light in a little less than a year?

After you you achieve infinite mass and time goes to 0, what next?

I read that the latest time standard is accurate to 1 second / 15 Billion years. Seems that this 'standard' would depend upon where in 3 axis it was. It would not be a standard usable to an outside observer.

I guess this discussion also points out why they do not give Nobel Prizes in Math. Just because something is provable mathematically, does not necessarily mean it has any place in a discussion of what phenomena conforms to the laws of physics.

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
28,203
If you accelerate at the rate of 32 ft/sec/sec, would you not achieve a velocity of the speed of light in a little less than a year?
Not quite.
To an outside observer, you would get closer and closer to the speed of light but never quite get there. It would get to 0.9999---- of light speed but never to 1.
To an observer on the ship, the universe would seem to be continually contracting, due to the slowing of time for everything on board the ship.

#### WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
Since velocity is relative, how does it work out when two particles with mass are traveling in opposite directions at .5c relative a 3rd party observer? Relaive the observer each particle is going .5c, but relative each other the particles should be traveling at c. But do the particles not see their velocity relative each other as c due to their own shift in time, which is also relative each other?
The problem with your reasoning is that you want to apply what is observed in one frame directly to what would be observed in another frame, which is how we would do it in Newtonian physics. To see this more obviously, use 0.9c instead of 0.5c. Now you would have to claim that the particles see their relative velocities as 1.8c, which we know is not possible in relativistic physics.

#### WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
That is so lame. The length of length does not change. The rate of time does not change.

The frequency of a dipole changes in a electric field gradient or a magnetic field gradient. All of your machines and all of your measuring tools use dipoles.

A gravity gradient can change the frequency of a dipole also. Accelerating a "mass" can change dipole frequency. In other words.....just changing direction, can change dipole frequency.

There is no mystery or magic here. Time and length do not change. Nature is very firm.
Then please explain, in a mathematically rigorous way, at least one of the hundreds of experimentally observed phenomena that relativistic physics has not only explained, but has predicted and subsequently been verified.

#### BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
4,048
There once was a lady named bright,
who could travel faster than light.
In a relative way,
she left one day,
returning the previous night.

Bob

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
28,203
There once was a lady named bright,
who could travel faster than light.
In a relative way,
she left one day,
returning the previous night.
I remember it with the third and fourth lines in the reverse order.

#### BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
Have you ever seen a "beta" particle in a cloud chamber? Does anybody think that, that is a wave function?

Modern science denies and ignores mass. They do this by mathy equating mass to energy. Then they convolute energy. You can use energy to measure mass...........but mass is stationary momentum.

What does an electron look like? Is it just a fuzzy area wave function? That was a speck of something in that chamber. What was it?

Was it a quantum state that made that track thru a sea of matter? Did it carry or possess and conserve information?
Can hawking account for all his data? Nature does not need nor use information. Information is a man made concept. And nothing more.

Nature is force and reaction to it. It's simple and elegant. And science can't see it.

An atom is a series dipole circuit. Larger atoms have series and parallel dipole circuits. These circuits are effected by and interact with the environment. These circuits are self powered, but can accept, store and transfer power to other circuits.

I know it's hard for you to believe, but the components that make these circuits have characteristics that are not effected by the environment. If you were to use this for a clock reference.....you would see that time is constant.

Time is constant everywhere. That's why everything works the same way everywhere.

If time can be varied........why don't we see various light speeds?

Time dilation is truly crackpot science. Get an accurate clock.

#### WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
Have you ever seen a "beta" particle in a cloud chamber? Does anybody think that, that is a wave function?

Modern science denies and ignores mass. They do this by mathy equating mass to energy. Then they convolute energy. You can use energy to measure mass...........but mass is stationary momentum.

What does an electron look like? Is it just a fuzzy area wave function? That was a speck of something in that chamber. What was it?

Was it a quantum state that made that track thru a sea of matter? Did it carry or possess and conserve information?
Can hawking account for all his data? Nature does not need nor use information. Information is a man made concept. And nothing more.

Nature is force and reaction to it. It's simple and elegant. And science can't see it.

An atom is a series dipole circuit. Larger atoms have series and parallel dipole circuits. These circuits are effected by and interact with the environment. These circuits are self powered, but can accept, store and transfer power to other circuits.

I know it's hard for you to believe, but the components that make these circuits have characteristics that are not effected by the environment. If you were to use this for a clock reference.....you would see that time is constant.

Time is constant everywhere. That's why everything works the same way everywhere.

If time can be varied........why don't we see various light speeds?

Time dilation is truly crackpot science. Get an accurate clock.
More babble. Time dilation has been measured many times. The GPS - and many other systems -- only attain the accuracy they do because relativistic effects are taken into account.

Your babble doesn't even rise to the level of being qualitatively relevant. Until you can quantitatively explain the hundreds of things that are quantitatively explained by relativity, your babble will continue to be irrelevant.

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
28,203
Time dilation is truly crackpot science.
There is a crackpot in this discussion but it's not the science.

You do know that they have to compensate for the relativistic time change of the on-board clock frequency due to the orbital speed of the GPS satellites in space(?).

#### BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
Take a seat in a very fast car. Now put your hands in your lap and twiddle your thumbs. Have the driver accelerate to 100 mph in 4 sec.

Did your twiddle rate stay constant? Did the acceleration force interfere with your twiddle rate....or did the rate of time change?

You can feel acceleration. Dipoles feel it too. If you are preforming a function (such as a clock)..........the acceleration will effect that function. You don't need to accelerate either. Just position in a gradient can effect dipoles.

The disagreement between your clocks is normal. It is neither a mystery nor magic.

If you use an electron for a clock...........all those problems go away. Even if the electron changes energy level.....you still have the constant universal time rate.

And that rate can not be changed.

#### WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
Take a seat in a very fast car. Now put your hands in your lap and twiddle your thumbs. Have the driver accelerate to 100 mph in 4 sec.

Did your twiddle rate stay constant? Did the acceleration force interfere with your twiddle rate....or did the rate of time change?

You can feel acceleration. Dipoles feel it too. If you are preforming a function (such as a clock)..........the acceleration will effect that function. You don't need to accelerate either. Just position in a gradient can effect dipoles.

The disagreement between your clocks is normal. It is neither a mystery nor magic.

If you use an electron for a clock...........all those problems go away. Even if the electron changes energy level.....you still have the constant universal time rate.

And that rate can not be changed.
Don't just spout it and claim that it is so because you want it to be so.

Prove it by showing that your claims quantitatively explain the hundreds of things that relativity explains and that were not explainable prior to that.

What part of that do you not comprehend?

Heck, start of with just ONE of those things. Your choice.

#### GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
The time is not the only thing that changes near light speed.

Everything grows shorter in the direction of travel. The rocket ship which was 100 feet long on earth would be much shorter near light speed, but an astronaut could measure it in flight and would not discern any changes because the measuring instruments would have contracted by the same amount.
Eventhough everyone on earth will see the astronaut's rocket shrink, at least he gets to think it is still full sized.

#### EM Fields

Joined Jun 8, 2016
583
Our clocks are based on dipole or atomic vibrations. This is a terrible idea.
And yet an uncertainty of one second in 30 million years is relatively easy to obtain.

If we used the frequency of an electron for a clock, we could keep perfect synced time everywhere.
OK, but what's the frequency of an electron?

Then you would see time (and length) does not change. All electrons in the universe have a common time.
So say you, but what is that common time?

Interestingly, if we look at Doppler shifts in remote systems, it seems the colors emitted by the decaying electrons seem to change if they're measured, here, with local rods and clocks.

#### jwestm

Joined Nov 27, 2019
1
225 terrawatts to move 1lb to near speed of light.

As a yard stick Hoover Dam only generates about 4.5 terrawatts per year. Not an insurmountable problem but the issues becomes either storage while still maintaining weight or projection of power via beam etc or the third option and trying to impart 225 terra watts of power on a 1 lb object in an instant with out destroying it ie an explosion of some sort.

#### WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
Your numbers are meaningless. The unit of terrawatts is a unit of power, not energy.

You also don't define what "near" speed of light means, let along what reference frame it is being measured in.

Saying that Hoover Dam generates 4.5 terrawatts per year is like saying that your car's engine produces 200 horsepower per month. It's completely meaningless.

Before resurrecting a thread that died a natural death nearly three years ago, please at least take the time to get your numbers straight.

#### Janis59

Joined Aug 21, 2017
1,357
How You are intended to give this energy to those mass. I know only one way to do it, if the mass is molecular ions beam in a vacuum and You use the different ion accelerators techniques. Un to the 100 keV it is rather easy task, up to 10 MeV it is already more complicated but state of the art like CERN comes to the region You may read Yourself how far, and even that is not near enough to the eternal speed.