### A General Discussion on Limit Velocity

**By Ricardo Carezani**

This is in response to a question during a lecture by Carezani and de Hilster at Cal State Sacramento on June 16, 2000

The SR conclusion that its equations show that the light speed is a limit is related to the SR conclusion that inside an accelerator both Kinetic Energy (KE) and mass (m, mo) increase simultaneously. It is important to note that in fact, both KE and mass cannot increase simultaneously because that would violate energy conservation. If an Electron beam has an energy equal to 1 MeV all its energy is carried only as Kinetic Energy. It is calorimetrically measured. There is no increasing energy that is equivalent to an increasing mass. The SR equation for KE is unambiguous: KE increases because v increases – period. There is no increasing energy because mo increase. mo in the equation stays constant while velocity increases.

(1)

The KE doesn’t increase because mo increases. KE increases because v increases.

Consequently the SR argument that for a particle to reach light speed is impossible because the particle’s mass is larger when the velocity is closer to c and that the mass should be infinite at light velocity is simply not true.

The only thing that increases is the KE and this is clearly show by the equation. To separately apply the mass equation makes no sense because mass doesn’t increase or energy conservation is violated.

### Reaching Light Speed

AD and SR differ in the reason that is impossible to reach light speed. The following should help illustrate.

It is common knowledge that the Linear Accelerator at Stanford has 230 Klystrons, each one with exactly the same power. The first Klystron to last imparts the same energy to the Electron. We will suppose that this energy or force is f.

The first Klystron imparts force “f” to the Electron and will provoke a velocity equal to v (through acceleration) thus yielding KE equal to E (see Fig. 1). The second Klystron will impart the same force “f’ to the same Electron and increases the velocity to v1 and its energy to E1.

SR and AD both accept that energy is equivalent to mass and that Energy also has Inertia. This is true given that radiation has what is universally accepted as “radiation pressure” or radiant energy having momentum.

Of course, v1 is smaller than v because E1 is larger than E. That is, the same force “f” will provoke a smaller acceleration when the particle energy’s inertia is larger. The last Klystron will impart only a very small velocity because the electron has a very high level of energy or equivalently, a very large inertia.

### Cyclotron Radiation

The above explanation is not absolutely true because it is also known and experimentally proven that an electron loses some energy as it passes through a Cyclotron. This is known as Cyclotron Radiation and is lost each time that the electron is accelerate. This is another reason – or cause in an of itself – that the extra energy is needed to achieve the same velocity explained above.

Also, in certain experiments where Cyclotron Radiation needs to be maintained for long periods of time, new electrons need to be constantly injected in the electronic beam given that fact that as electrons continuously loose energy, their capacity to emit Cyclotron Radiation diminishes. This is not treated by SR’s supporters when they talk about increasing mass. In reality, Electrons in the beam constantly “loose” mass.

### Mechanism or Machinery

It is important to point out that SR has no new mechanism or machinery to explain increasing velocity. This is because SR uses the so called “billiard ball” model that is equivalent to Newton’s mechanical “collision” model. A Klystron’s energy “pushes” or “hits” an electron which in turn increases its velocity and consequently its KE.

AD proposes a very different mechanism that fully explains increasing energy without mass increment (as described in AD’s Book on page 48, Inside an Accelerator, XVIII).

### Speed Limit

SR’s conclusion proposing c as a limit is not true. Using c in the Lorentz or Carezani coefficient that make up relativity, doesn’t mean that c is a limit. We use c as an historical way remind us that in Maxwell’s time the fastest velocity measured was Light and Electromagnetic Energy.

Something different happens if C > c is used. Let us suppose that C = 27 c.

(2)

Of course to get velocities larger than c is necessary to have a carrier traveling faster than light. AD for the moment proposes gravitons travel at 27 c. Of course this velocity is only a theoretical result. Without experimental or observational values the door is still open to a different value. In one AD faster than light derivation, 10.2 c is found, with a limit velocity equal to 75.22 c. In a Cesium experiment published recently, researchers are talking about 300 times light speed.

### Conclusion

SR’s arguments don’t prove that c is a velocity limit. SR claims c as limit (carrier) and therefore it is impossible to go faster than light since the carrier lacks the capacity to go faster. But if another carrier is used and it is faster than c, it will be possible to get velocities faster than light. Carrier velocity dictates particle velocity, but again, this doesn’t prove also that the “new carrier” (27 c) is itself a velocity limit.

In another words, if we selected c as the carrier maximum velocity, it is impossible to surpass that velocity. This is also inherent in the equation itself. The mathematical expression forces c to be the maximum velocity.

Currently, AD accepts this equation but does not accept the concept. In AD, the concept is perfectly clear: the carrier velocity give the particle maximum velocity but this doesn’t imply that the actual carrier velocity (c), selected by us, is the speed limit.