why does a particles mass approach infinity near light speed?
471151
another one of einstein's equations is as follows:\nrelative mass = original mass divided by the square-root of "1-(velocity squared/speed of light squared)"\n\nyou can better picture the equation by going here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy#Relativistic_mass\n\nexplained:\nas the object's velocity squared approached the same value of the speed of light squared, the phrase "v2-c2" would approach '1'. causing the entire bottom mathematical phrase to approach '0' because 1-1=0 :) \nas the bottom phrase approaches '0' the relative mass becomes almost infinite because anything divided by something so close to zero would experience a massive increase in value. example: 1/.01=100.  as .01 becomes smaller (approaches zero), the '100'(our hypothetical relative mass) goes -way- up (approaches infinity). \n\nremember that mathematics does not allow division by zero therefore anything having mass cannot attain the speed of light. because the energy required to accelerate near-infinite mass would itself be near infinite.
995142
You are surrounded by zero rest mass particles. They are called photons and they transmit the light from the screen to your eye. They transmit the electrostatic force that holds the atoms in your body together. They carry momentum but have no mass if at rest - in fact, they cannot exist at rest (though their phase velociy can be slowed to be near at rest).\n\nAny suitably modern and suitably advanced book on physics in any store in any country will give you the details, and the experimental verification that led to the conclusions. Try Eisberg and Resnick or Resnick and Halliday.\n\nZero rest mass particles are also affected by gravity, and this has also been measured using the mossbauer effect.\n\nThe zero rest mass particles in nature are those that carry the interactions between quarks and leptons.\n\nContrary to what is said elsewhere here, a charged particle cannot have zero mass because charge is a property of quarks, all of which have mass.\n\nSee ref below for more.
799784
In theory, yes.  Because the light particles that were traveling slower than you would have been slower.  Very good question.  However, speeding past the speed of light would mean the fundamentals of E = Mc^2, would cease to make sense.
915960
According to Einstein's relativity, for matter (..mass) to move AT the speed of light would require infinite energy to gain that speed, and the mass would increase to infinity, both things being impossible.
687262
Light doesn't accelerate to that speed, it just propogates at that speed period.  Besides, F = ma says you need a mass to have an acceleration, and light, or photons, have zero mass.
459968
Since photons according to relativity interpretation are massless ,they cannot exist as a mass. \n\nSince photons is a mathematical invention which no one really knows what it is.\nHence cannot follow gravity laws.\nFor an entity to follow the laws of gravity ,Be Einstein's or Newton's , it must exist as a mass structure.\n\nYou question is very logical. It contradicts the reasoning that if a mass made up of atoms and when we apply power to make it move at the speed of light ,it will soak mass just like a sponge from its surrounding. Since mass is Energy according to relativity it will soak all the energy around it. \nSince as you say,    E=M *gamma *C^2  is infinite ,it makes sense that Energy would have to come from an infinite source.\n\nThey say mass increases with velocity.This has to.\n magically come from the inside of the atoms or is it a rain of mass that comes from the outside.The atoms become very massive, and at the same time shrink in dimension it the direction of motion only as they approach the speed of light.\n\nThese interpretation of Relativity are very difficult to make real sense out of it.\n\nThat brings to question is the theory of relativity misinterpreted  by scientists?. They did not understand it then,and I have my doubts about the present.Let alone really Understanding What Energy exactly represents!
711259
I have always been a fan of this discussion. I propose that ANYTHING can travel faster than the speed of light (SOL). I also believe that was the driving force behind Einstein's assumptions. When we start talking about time slowing down as we approach SOL, we are talking about time RELATIVE to something else...If two people are together on a SOL spacecraft, then the time they experience is the same as if they were standing still. \n\nBefore I ramble on too much, What stops light from going any faster? If we had a theoretical spacecraft that could travel at 1/2 SOL, and we shot a laser off the front of it, how fast would the light be travelling? To the observers on the SOL-craft, the light would be travelling at absolute SOL, but to someone standing next to the craft when the laser was activated, would the light NOT be travelling at 1.5 SOL?
37917
this is somewhat similar to a question I answered realative to time travel. The short answer is no, there was never a time, nor will there ever be a time when matter (massive fermions) travel faster than light (massless bosons). This is because massive objects need energy to accelerate and regaurdless of how much energy was released in the big bang, it could not have been infinite, and that is what is required to move a massive particle faster than light. Light speed is not a derived measurement, it is a fundemental constant that is the same in all reference frames. Here's the cool exception though.....and this is how a theoretical warp drive would work..... the actual expansion of space itself might have been faster than light. There has never been a limit imposed on the speed at which space expands although because gravity is a result of the deformation of space and gravitons are the theoretical force carrier, it has been assumed that the expansion of space would occur only as fast as gravitons can travel....which is most likely light speed. One of the many postulates asserted by string theory is that gravitons may not be bound to our spatial demensions, that they might radiate through extra demensions (which would account for gravity's lack of strenght compared to the other forces). If this is the case that the gravitons travel through other demensions it is quite possible that within a given reference time, a graviton could pop into a superior demension and back into our at some other point and essentially beat light to some defined location.\n\nI know thats a little confusing.....but its fun to think about.
850332
Light does not consist of proton, it consists of photons which are quantum of electromagnetic radiation, photons have their own antiparticle. Antiparticle is a particle that has the same mass of another particle but its other properties are opposite which result in cancelling the opposite properties. The net result is the production of radiant energy which is light (not according to me, but according to quantum theory). So no question of mass.\n\nAnd light has very high but not infinity velocity, then how would the mass (do not say weight, both are different) be infinite (even if we consider what you say to be true)\n\nProtons are not insignificant, they make up about half the mass of an atom (under normal conditions)
124418
Particles entering earths atmosphere have velocities close to speed of light but not faster, theory of relativity states that particles that have mass can not travel faster than light, only particles with no mass can travel the speed of light and higher(see question about tachyons in Physics). True nature of black holes is still a mystery for scientist, but one thing for sure is that maximum speed of particle entering it is the speed of light, but time and space are distorted in black hole so it looks like it has a different speed. You should first understand Einstein general relativity to understand black holes.
3887
It is impossible to actually go at the speed of light because in the formula for time dialation (That's right Velocity distorts time. The faster you go, the slower time goes for you. This effect is negligable unless you are going very close to the speed of light.) if v(velocity) were equal to c(the speed of light) you would have a zero in the denomonator.\nthe formula is:\nt'=t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)\n\nwhere t' is the time that has passed from a stationary observer, t is the time that has passed for you, sqrt means square root and ^2 means squared. As you can notice, when v is small, since c^2 is so huge, you get a miniscule decimal, and 1 minus that number is basically as small as 1.0000000000001 or something, and so time is not really affected. As v gets larger(it can never be the speed of light, then the denomonator would be zero) that fraction becomes closer to 1, so when you subtract it from one, the denomonator gets smaller and smaller, meaning t gets smaller(in order for t' to remain constant) this means that time actuall slows down for the object moving at such velocities. This formula is correct, it is part of Einstein's theory of relativity, and I have had to derive it myself from ordinary mechanics formulas. \n\nAlong with time, length contracts and mass expands by the same factor.  If you were to go close to the speed of light, your mass would increase and length would decrease. This means that the density of your body would increase more and more as you went faster and faster, and your blood eventually wouldn't be able to flow anymore and your cells would die of oxygen starvation.  Not that it really matters, because to even begin witnessing this effect, you would have to be going at least 90 or 95% or so the speed of light.  \n\nNow to answer your question in that is it actually physically possible to get close... considering they have particle accelerators stories high and miles long requiring tremendous amounts of energy in order to even get tiny protons and neutrons to move at such speeds, it doesn't seem like they're anywhere near accelerating something big anytime soon.  F=ma, meaning in order to get something that weighs one gram, like a paperclip to accelerate to the same degree as they do the protons, you would need about 2x10^24 times the force.  That notation just means a 2 with 24 zeros after it.  The reason for this is that that is how much more mass a paperclip has then a proton.  An actual human isn't going to get anywhere close for a very long time.
1048247
There may be objects (tachyons) that move faster than light, up to perhaps infinite speeds.\nHowever, nothing already slower than light can accelerate to or beyond the speed of light.
855043
It's all theory, we don't know if (something) can exceed the speed of light. I would argue that time would be void at that moment, but again it's my theory. Interesting thought though.
1127724
As you approach the speed of light your relativic mass approaches infinity (according to einstein's theory e=mc^2) and your acceleration approaches 0.  since your mass would be infinite it would require an infinite amount of energy.  We have no way of obtaining an infinite amount of energy and since  nothing but light can go the speed of light, nothing can go faster.  (you have to go the speed of light first in order to go faster than it)
827091
Hi. I think it deals more with the interaction of radiation with particles (or a particle) than with speed. At any non-relativistic speed (less than .1 'c' say) the wavelength would not be infinite or unbounded. Just my opinion.
34913
It is not possible for any particle that has mass to travel faster than the speed of light. The reason has a lot to do with relativity. Because the faster you go, the slower time passes for you. So if you are at 80% of the speed of light, and launch a projectile in front of you at light speed, because of your slow passage through time, it will still appear to you to travel at light. Everything is relative, and because of that, certain constants like the speed of light never change.\n\nAlso, a particle with mass would achieve infinite weight at light speed. Since you can't obviously exceed infinite weight, you can't exceed light.\n\nThe ideas behind things like "warp speed" don't propose actually traveling faster than light. What they propose is taking shortcuts through space, kind of like skipping a stone across the surface of the water. Even "warp speed" is subject to the laws of relativity.
332055
You know it is harder to pull a wagon loaded than empty and a lighter wagon is easyer to pull than a heaver one. What happens as the particle gets less mass with the same push. How fast does a particle go with no mass?? Infinity would be silly so they go at speed of light.\nYour spaceship must be less than the speed of light and when you run it is not simple addition as Newtonian Mechanics,..