A question about breaking the speed of light?

I was thinking the other day and I was wondering, if you were to take the large hadron collider in to space, which accerlerates particles to 99.99999% of the speed of light, and accerlerated the entire thing, would the particles break the speed of light?Red-Ravens

I won't claim to know what I'm talking about here so feel free to correct me, but doesn't an object need to have 0 mass to achieve light speed as far as we know?Tiefster

i think that it would be really hard to do that. maybe, i have no idea about that.iam2green

Isn't it 20 miles in diameter in the ground?

If it was in vacuum in space it could. However, if there are particles floating around while this happens, no matter how fragile, the hadron collider will break because of friction. If you want to test out my hypothesis, slide your arm in the corner of a door, slowly. Doesn't hurt? Do it faster, and see how it feelsBenjamin-T

Ask a physicist.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Benjamin-T"]If it was in vacuum in space it could. However, if there are particles floating around while this happens, no matter how fragile, the hadron collider will break because of friction. If you want to test out my hypothesis, slide your arm in the corner of a door, slowly. Doesn't hurt? Do it faster, and see how it feelsRed-Ravens

It's been a while since I took special relativity in college, but if I recall correctly, anything can only accelerate asymptotically with the speed of light, never exceeding it. The standard Galilean frame of reference transformation is v' = v + u, where v' is the observed speed, v is the speed relative to the frame of reference, and u is the speed of the frame of reference. However, Lorentz overturned this and added the relativistic gamma factor to make the actual transformation v' = gamma (v + u), which is asymptotic with the speed of light.

Non-nerd version: "No."

It's been a while since I took special relativity in college, but if I recall correctly, anything can only accelerate asymptotically with the speed of light, never exceeding it. The standard Galilean frame of reference transformation is v' = v + u, where v' is the observed speed, v is the speed relative to the frame of reference, and u is the speed of the frame of reference. However, Lorentz overturned this and added the relativistic gamma factor to make the actual transformation v' = gamma (v + u), which is asymptotic with the speed of light.

Non-nerd version: "No."

GabuEx

What about a version for us idiots who don't understand the meaning of "no" :lol:

Jk :P

Well according to Einstein's famous E=mc^2 anything with a mass cannot have a velocity faster than the speed of light.carrot-cake

While that conclusion is true, the equation E = mc^2 has nothing to do with that conclusion. :P That equation relates the mass lost in a nuclear reaction with the energy produced by that reaction. It's what explains how you can get such tremendous energy out of nuclear bombs with only a small amount of a substance undergoing nuclear fission.

I was thinking the other day and I was wondering, if you were to take the large hadron collider in to space, which accerlerates particles to 99.99999% of the speed of light, and accerlerated the entire thing, would the particles break the speed of light?Red-Ravens

In a word, no.

This is the same as the age old hypothetical of taking a flashlight onto a spaceship.

Suppose a speceship is flying by you at 80% of the speed of light. As this spceship passes you, you look into the window of the spaceship and see a dude turn on a flashlight.

From HIS perspective, the light coming from the flashlight should be travelling at the speed of light, right? So from YOUR perspective, it seems like the photns coming from the flashlight should travel at the speed of light PLUS whatever speed at which the spaceship is moving.

But...no. That's not what happens. The speed of light is the upper limit. NOTHING with mass can even REACH the speed of light, and NOTHING PERIOD can ever travel throuch space faster than light travels through space in a vacuum.

If you see a spaceship fly by you at a million miles an hour right as a dude stands at a window and shines a flashlight, YOU will observe the EXACT same speed that HE observed. That being c, the speed of light in a vacuum.

So...that's weird, you say. You say "that's impossible. If he's moving fast and I'm adding still, then the light should be moving faster FROM MY PERSPECTIVE."

But nope. You both measure the light from the flashlight as having EXACTLY the same speed. Even though you're standing still and he is moving at a million miles and hour.

This is why movement through space has weird effects such as shortening the passage of time and shortening the length of objects. The one true measure of objectivity is the speed at which light travels through a vacuum. And since things like observed length and observed passage of time can be related to something's speed, ALL other quantities must vary depending on the speed with which they are passing through space. An object's size or mass might be variable depending on your reference frame. How quickly TIME ITSELF passes may be dependant on how fast you are moving. But in ALL relative points of view, the constant C (tghe speed of light in a vacuum) is ALWAYS the same from ALL vantage points.

It's been a while since I took special relativity in college, but if I recall correctly, anything can only accelerate asymptotically with the speed of light, never exceeding it. The standard Galilean frame of reference transformation is v' = v + u, where v' is the observed speed, v is the speed relative to the frame of reference, and u is the speed of the frame of reference. However, Lorentz overturned this and added the relativistic gamma factor to make the actual transformation v' = gamma (v + u), which is asymptotic with the speed of light.

Non-nerd version: "No."

If it was in vacuum in space it could.Benjamin-T

No it couldn't. The speed at which light travels through a vacuum is the same REGARDLESS of one's perspective or state of motion. Length can be relative, TIME can be relative, but the speed of light travelling through a vaccum is ALWAYS the same for EVERYONE, REGARDLESS of their state of motion or anything else.

And again, if the speed of light travelling through space in a total vacuum HAS to have THE SAME VALUE for ALL observers, then that makes anything related to speed a variable. Passage of time is related to speed and distance is related to speed. Hence why things like your size and how fast you age vary depending on how fast you move.

And yes, this has been experimentally verified.

It's been a while since I took special relativity in college, but if I recall correctly, anything can only accelerate asymptotically with the speed of light, never exceeding it. The standard Galilean frame of reference transformation is v' = v + u, where v' is the observed speed, v is the speed relative to the frame of reference, and u is the speed of the frame of reference. However, Lorentz overturned this and added the relativistic gamma factor to make the actual transformation v' = gamma (v + u), which is asymptotic with the speed of light.

Non-nerd version: "No."

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It's been a while since I took special relativity in college, but if I recall correctly, anything can only accelerate asymptotically with the speed of light, never exceeding it. The standard Galilean frame of reference transformation is v' = v + u, where v' is the observed speed, v is the speed relative to the frame of reference, and u is the speed of the frame of reference. However, Lorentz overturned this and added the relativistic gamma factor to make the actual transformation v' = gamma (v + u), which is asymptotic with the speed of light.

Non-nerd version: "No."

chessmaster1989

What about a version for us idiots who don't understand the meaning of "no" :lol:

Jk :P

Let me just say that Albert Goddamn Einstein actually wrote a book for laymen who want to understand Relativity. It does have some math in there. It's divided into two sections. One for special relativity and one for general relativity. I think that the General Relativity half odf the book is more difficult, but here we are talking about Special Relativity. And special relativity is the aspect that we need to consider here, since we are not dealing with acceleration.

Just read the damn book. It's a book by freaking EINSTEIN explaining relativity. And yeah, it has some math, but it shouldn';t be that hard for people in high school. He tries to make it simple and easy-to-understand for the layman, and he's assuming that the people reading the book are not mathematically or scientifically inclined.

If you want to understand relativity in a layman's sense, READ THIS BOOK. You might find it BORING and you might find it UNENTERTAINING. But it's fairly easy to understand, is designed for people who are not skilled at science and math, and is one of the best sources for understanding Relativity. And as a bonus, it's written by goddamn Einstein. If you are a layman and want to learn more about Einstein's theories, where better to go than a book that Einstein wrote for laymen who want to better understand his theories?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It's been a while since I took special relativity in college, but if I recall correctly, anything can only accelerate asymptotically with the speed of light, never exceeding it. The standard Galilean frame of reference transformation is v' = v + u, where v' is the observed speed, v is the speed relative to the frame of reference, and u is the speed of the frame of reference. However, Lorentz overturned this and added the relativistic gamma factor to make the actual transformation v' = gamma (v + u), which is asymptotic with the speed of light.

Non-nerd version: "No."

MrGeezer

What about a version for us idiots who don't understand the meaning of "no" :lol:

Jk :P

Let me just say that Albert Goddamn Einstein actually wrote a book for laymen who want to understand Relativity. It does have some math in there. It's divided into two sections. One for special relativity and one for general relativity. I think that the General Relativity half odf the book is more difficult, but here we are talking about Special Relativity. And special relativity is the aspect that we need to consider here, since we are not dealing with acceleration.

Just read the damn book. It's a book by freaking EINSTEIN explaining relativity. And yeah, it has some math, but it shouldn';t be that hard for people in high school. He tries to make it simple and easy-to-understand for the layman, and he's assuming that the people reading the book are not mathematically or scientifically inclined.

If you want to understand relativity in a layman's sense, READ THIS BOOK. You might find it BORING and you might find it UNENTERTAINING. But it's fairly easy to understand, is designed for people who are not skilled at science and math, and is one of the best sources for understanding Relativity. And as a bonus, it's written by goddamn Einstein. If you are a layman and want to learn more about Einstein's theories, where better to go than a book that Einstein wrote for laymen who want to better understand his theories?

I'm a math/econ major:| (not officially declared, but that's what I'm going to be).