Particles accelerators can reach 99,99% of speed of light

[Owner No.12526826]

a particle can reach 99,99% of speed of light in a particle accelerator

why can't it surpass this speed even when there is a force forcing the particle to accelerate?

there must be an opposing force to it

what's the nature of this opposing force?

[Anonymous No.12526923]

>>12526826
because the quantum foam/planck field/ 11th dimensions gravity is interacting with it which is was all bosons and fermions are theorized to generated from.

[Anonymous No.12528003]

>>12526826
there is no opposing force, it's just that F=ma doesn't hold close to the speed of light
the relativistic form of the equation, which does hold at relativistic speeds is
[eqn]
f^\mu = \frac{dp^\mu}{d\tau}
[/eqn]
where [math]f^\mu[/math] is the four-force exerted on the particle by, for example an electric field, and [math]p^\mu[/math] the particle's four-momentum.
This equation makes F=ma hold at speeds small compared to the speed of light, but close to the speed of light adding energy to a particle simply makes it asymptotically approach c and increases its mass.

[Anonymous No.12528212]

>>12526826
we're not allowed to

[Anonymous No.12528306]

>>12528003
tl;dr is: learn special relativity kids

[Anonymous No.12528489]

>>12528306
"Special relativity for kids"
Sounds the perfect present for christmas to any child.

[Anonymous No.12528621]

>>12528212
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.12528730]

>>12526923
quantum foam was proven not to exist decades ago.

>>12528003
>increases its mass.
Nope. Fermilab proved that mass doesn't increase with acceleration.

[Anonymous No.12528740]

>>12526826
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezU-zfjm7ew

This video will explain the entire concept in both an in-depth and superficially intuitive way.

[Anonymous No.12529770]

>>12528730
The distinction is that mass increases with speed rather than acceleration.

[Anonymous No.12529895]

>>12526826
C (the universal constant, what is popularity referred to as the speed of light) is really just moving one Planck length (the smallest possible unit of distance) over one Planck time (the smallest possible unit of time). So the best way to think of C is that it's the fastest possible speed anything can travel through both time and space.

Really though any object with mass (no matter how small) can ever actually travel at C because any mass, no matter how small, requires a non-zero acceleration to move through space time. Basically, you would need literally infinite energy to accelerate anything with mass to C. A particle accelerator can get a particle to 99.999~% of C but every additional bit of energy it applies to a mass will only add another factor of .9 or whatever to it.

In mathematical terms basically, any object whose mass is non zero requires an infinite amount of energy to reach C velocity.

[Anonymous No.12529927]

>>12528730
>quantum foam was proven not to exist decades ago.
that's not true. generators pull electricity from the quantum foam. you should know better then what they tell you or what you read based on lab results.

[Anonymous No.12530985]

>>12529895
>C (the universal constant, what is popularity referred to as the speed of light) is really just moving one Planck length (the smallest possible unit of distance) over one Planck time (the smallest possible unit of time). So the best way to think of C is that it's the fastest possible speed anything can travel through both time and space.
Are the definitions of both Planck length and Planck time not derived from C? And the definitions of both Planck length and Planck time not from one another? I never understood this. What came first to form the definitions of these? I assume some experimentation with C, but what specifically?

[Anonymous No.12531320]

>>12528489
It's how Santa makes it to every house in one night