Particles with mass can only approach the speed of light. Particles with no mass can go no slower than the speed of light.
The velocity of a particle is given by the equation:
v = c * ( 1 - ( m0/mr )^2 )^0.5
Where v is the velocity, c is the speed of light, m0 is the rest mass, and mr is the relativistic mass.
The Stanford Linear Accelerator can accelerate electrons to energy levels of 51 GeV. Since the rest mass of an electron is 510 keV, the equation above yields a velocity of 299,792,457.985 meters per second or 99.999999995% of the speed of light.
2006-09-20 08:45:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Deep Thought 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, no particle can be accelerated to exceed that speed. The problem is that, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the mass of a particle moving at the speed of light is infinite, so you would need infinite energy to accelerate the particle over that speed.
2006-09-20 15:50:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by carpocrates 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
A particle traveling slower than the speed of light cannot be accelerated to exceed the speed of light. However, this does not mean that no particles can travel faster than the speed of light. According to some interpretations of quantum theory, some particles always travel faster than llight and go backwards in time. This does not conflict with Eistein's theory of relativity, which does not preclude faster than light particles (it only precludes accelerating a slower than light particle with mass past the speed of light; it also precludes slowing a faster than light particle with mass below the speed of light).
2006-09-20 18:02:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jack D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fastest speed to date is very near the speed of light, but of course less than the speed of light. And these particles were pushed enough to have gone far faster than light if Einstein had been wrong.
2006-09-20 16:22:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
nope they cannot. The faster the go, the more their mass increases, and therefore the more energy they required to be accelerated further.
in large particle accelerators, particles are typically accelerated to 99.99... (easily to anywhere between the 6th and the 10th decimal) percent of the speed of light. At that kind of speed (say 10 decimals) the particles will have a mass 707'000 times higher than their rest mass.
If you went to 15 decimals, the mass would be 22 million times higher.
Hope this helps a bit
2006-09-20 15:53:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by AntoineBachmann 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Particles cannot exceed the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM (186,000mi/sec) Particles can exceed the speed of light in some mediums. Certain radioactive decay from spent nuclear fuel produces Cerenkov radiation (a blue grow) in water.
See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
2006-09-20 15:54:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by curious george 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
HA HA!!! WHAT FOOLS!!!
There are particles that naturally travel beyond the speed of light; such as neutrinos, pions and kaons. There may be many more to discover!
The fastest speed to date is 2-3 times the speed of light.
2006-09-20 18:17:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ammy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
no particle (with mass) can be accelerated to beyond the speed of light - not to say they can't travel at the speed of light but not be accelerated.
Einsteins theory states that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle to that of the speed of light.
2006-09-20 15:51:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by smartypantsmbcanada 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
While I agree with good old Al, theories are never completely proven. Take Newtons Laws, once infailable, now all but obsolete when it comes to quantum mechanics. We may just not have the right technology or the right aproach to find an example of disproving the theory.
2006-09-20 15:56:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by pito16places 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Einstein Suggests that light travels in a elipse at its unitary speed.
He also suggests that light can be bent under certain circumstances. black holes?. Therefore the presumption may be made that light canIf these two presumptions are true then "cut corners" .
2006-09-20 16:23:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by COLIN E 1
·
0⤊
0⤋