Re: a relative question


If it were flat out not the case, we would have seen that a long, long
time ago. Particle accelerators from the time of the first cyclotron
over 60 years ago have measured this increase in energy, and it is in
complete agreement with the expression you wrote above. In fact, if it
were not the case, then modern accelerators would not and could not
work at all, since that dependence is built directly into the design.


I'm not disputing the experience of the acceleration (well, not much),
but the experience of the collision. Before realising the "reply to
author" button e-mailed people directly, I asked a couple of
respondants whether there is experimental evidence that the energy
released in the collision ever exceeds m(of the accelerated
object)c^2.

This is the second place where you have an error. There is no innate
rate of "ability to express energy". For example, if there is a two-
particle collision, there is no slowing of the transfer of momentum
and energy from one particle to the other observed. Your assumption
that there should be, because the "clock" in the moving particle is
slowed down, is erroneous, and in fact it is counter to the principle
of relativity itself.

No, my assumption is that during the deceleration the "clock" would be
slowed down. We would not notice this as observers but it would (if I
were right) show up in very high speed collisions. My assertion is
that such a collision will never yield energy beyond the mass of the
two colliding objects times c^2.

.

Loading