Hacker News Reader

Comment by badosu | Hacker News Reader

No hadron can achieve the speed of light. See:

Ek=mc^2/√(1−(v/c)^2)−mc^2

For v<<c you have significant discrepancies on the energy required to accelerate to a specific speed with regard to mass. I.E. Newton: Ek=(mv^2)/2

As v->c it does not matter as much, the lorentz factor is much more significant, the mass operates just as a base multiplier and sum factor.

As v->c, x->0 where Ek~1/x, i.e. tending to infinity with a division by zero when v=c.

In conclusion, the speed is the relevant factor instead of mass when near speed of light, regardless of the object being an electron or the mount Everest.

Of course, assuming the equation holds ;-)

View on HN

Another perspective is that the object's effective mass is going exponential as v->c. I mean, that's why we say "rest mass", right?

Since E=mc^2 -> m=E/c^2.

For a moving object you could then m=(Er+Ek)/c^2, which creates the impression that the mass is variable (as the term Ek is zero when at rest and increasing with velocity), giving rise to the terms 'rest mass' and 'relativistic mass' respectively for the rest energy and total energy equations.

This interpretation is somewhat outdated but the terminology rest mass maintains its legacy. One could refer to it as the `(proper |invariant |intrinsic )?mass` instead.

The variable mass issue is then 'solved' by 'refactoring' the equation to use momentum where mass is coupled with velocity, over which the complexity of the lorentz factor is engulfed.

So how does 'invisible' kinetic energy (say, that of a ball traveling on the planet) change its mass?

If we cancelled out that movement (relative to the Milky Way), does the mass change?

Is how much do the various relative movements affect our mass, and would it be possible to pull tem apart? (Solar System, Relative to galactic center, other galaxies, etc)

I am not sure, I am not a physicist.

What I understand is that the contemporary conception is that the mass does not change.

I just presented the argument for a notion of rest mass and relative mass.

Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com