ByQsmain
Hi,
I'd like to find out how Einstein came to this conclusion. I understand the principle of relativity at a basic level and that, from a relativistic perspective, nothing is faster than light particles in a vacuum, but how did Einstein derive this conclusion?
I would be happy to have various links and pages where I can read up on things.
LG
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...According to the nutritional table, a Big Mac has the calorific value 2062 kJ. How high must a person (m = 78 kg) theoretically rise in order to "work off" this amount of energy again? 206200J=78kg•9.81m/s^2•h |:78kg :9.81m/s^2 I got a rounded figure of 269.48m, is that right?
Hello friends, I need a good explanation for this topic. I know it from batteries: when they are connected in series the voltage is added, and when they are connected in parallel the current is added. However, is it the same with AC sources? If I connect two transformers in parallel, does the current capacity…
Many years ago, I had cannabis plants. After harvesting, I hung the buds upside down at approximately 19°C (66°F) according to standard recommendations and let them dry for a few days. The result was mold growing between the buds. So I bought a vacuum pump and a massive boiler. This allows me to create a…
Would it be theoretically possible?
Is sunrise/sunset a vibration in the physical sense?
According to Robert Habeck, wind turbines with a capacity of 10 gigawatts per year are to be built. https://m.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/klima-nachhaltigkeit/robert-habeck-ist-unzufrieden-mit-dem-oekostrom-ausbau-18558906.html That’s 2,000 state-of-the-art onshore wind turbines with a capacity of 5 megawatts each – “ permanently installed ”. A year has approximately 250 working days. This means that from now on, eight wind turbines must be…
The so-called speed of light is the speed at which reality propagates. Nothing that has rest mass* can reach this speed, and only because photons do not have rest mass, they have this speed, therefore the name.
The name also comes from the fact that one thought earlier that the light needs a medium in which electromagnetic waves spread (like sound waves in air), the so-called ether. The question of what this aether was spatially defined led to the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was actually expected to measure different speeds of light in different directions at the speed of the Earth by the aether. Surprise: no difference, so no ether (unless it would happen to be stuck to the earth). This not only shows that there is no ether, but that this speed is a natural constant that is the same in all inertial systems and therefore cannot be overhauled, because if you try to overtake the beam of a flashlight by car, it is as fast as relative to the flashlight relative to the car.
Only here is the special relativity theory, which depicts quite simple mathematics (Lorentz transformations), which has the effect on times and lengths (and also the kinetic energy*) in moving systems.
*) Kinetic energy of objects with rest mass contains a term of Lorentz transformation such as times and lengths. If a vehicle is accelerated to the vicinity of the speed of light, an increasing proportion of the supplied energy goes to less and less speed increase and lets the vehicle always appear carrier for the external observer – the speed of light is never reached.
In 1887, physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted an experiment to demonstrate the calming ether or to measure the speed of the ether relative to the earth.
The "ether" was a hypothetical absolute reference system to which any speeds could be related. In the MM experiment, one has now tried to measure the speed of light in different directions. Since the Earth would have moved, different speeds would have been expected depending on whether the light beam was emitted in the direction of motion of the Earth or opposite. Surprisingly, it was found that the speed of light was the same in any case.
In order to explain this, Einstein came to the special relativity theory, from which it also follows that the speed of light is the maximum speed.
Only a guess, but perhaps he led it over the theory of relativity, which for an accelerating particle also slows down the time, which would then have the consequence of the speed of light that it stands for a practically silent. If it went even faster then you had to travel back in time, which is not going.
the special relativity theory has always been in classical electrodynamics since Maxwell. it only took until one had been persuaded to accept that the theory of electromagnetism is actually exactly as correct and does not have to be changed (such as in various ether models), which then leads directly to the Lorentz transformation (which already existed before Einstein) and to the special relativity theory. at that time, it was not just that out of which nothing fell from heaven, but in principle everything was there.
Here’s the short version, I couldn’t summarize as soon as possible.
https://youtu.be/e-O6osmiyaQ?t=21
According to the special theory of relativity, the mass of an object depends on its speed. It gets bigger, the faster the object moves. However, our everyday experience teaches us that the heavier an object, the more energy must be used to accelerate it.
Let’s assume we’ve accelerated our plane to 75 percent of the speed of light. Then its moving mass already corresponds to 1.5 times its mass at rest. If it moves at 99 percent of the speed of light, it is already 7 times. The more we approach the speed of light, the more dramatic is the increase and the energy demand for further acceleration. In the limit of the speed of light, the moving mass becomes formally infinite. There is accordingly an infinite amount of energy required to achieve this speed. In this sense, it is impossible to accelerate an object with mass to exactly speed of light.
Apparently, with objects such as aircraft, we do not approach the speeds close to the speed of light. How does it look in the little one? The current speed record for solid particles is 99.88 percent of the speed of light. This was produced at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland, where protons, i.e. the cores of hydrogen atoms, are accelerated and brought to collision. The moving mass of the protons corresponds approximately to 4250 times its quiescent mass.
And what about massless particles? Like photons, which would be practically light, but only pure theoretical, if you have a massless particle, why can’t you speed it up to overlight speed? And what about negative mass?
You don’t have to speed up massless parts because they are already on the move with c. If they were mass, you could never reach 100% c. But massless particles have, as the name says, no rest mass – and if you multiply something with 0, no matter how big the other factor is, only 0 comes out
The answer to this is very clear by the findings of the theory of relativity: the speed of light is the highest speed because lightinfinityis fast. All massless quantum are on the move at an infinite speed. But the lou is that it doesn’t look that way.
Speed tells you how much distance you can travel in what time. From the point of view of a photon no time passes. The photon does not exist in time. At the moment it is created somewhere, zack, “sees” the entire route in a moment of exactly 0 seconds. There is no time for objects with speed of light. You return any “long” distances instantly. This is also not difficult, which for such particles simultaneously shrinks the entire universe to the distance 0.
It’s a complex issue.
I’m never getting out of the basics despite physics LK…
Wish you more luck, in the other answers you have the links.
It should be a contradiction: rumors and fake news should spread faster than light.