|
On September 23 2011 07:34 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +
Right on. Although I don't think entanglement is at play here, it is one such example where you can point to an object leaving an origin, and passing through a destination at a time thats less than what the speed of c can allow (implying movement greater than c), and be wrong.
Well, if this happen to be true, it is very likely that entanglement is not concerned, for the reasons you explained (they don't move instantly, but just a little bit faster). It could be a characteristic of low mass particles, or just of neutrinos, idk, I'm not (already) a physicist.
Being a physicist doesn't give you all the answers ^_^
|
stupid noob question: assuming this is true, HOW can this affect the fundamental laws of physics?  i want to learn
|
On September 23 2011 07:34 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +
Right on. Although I don't think entanglement is at play here, it is one such example where you can point to an object leaving an origin, and passing through a destination at a time thats less than what the speed of c can allow (implying movement greater than c), and be wrong.
Well, if this happen to be true, it is very likely that entanglement is not concerned, for the reasons you explained (they don't move instantly, but just a little bit faster). It could be a characteristic of low mass particles, or just of neutrinos, idk, I'm not (already) a physicist.
Day9 posted this image on his twitter that pretty much sums up my experience with physics.
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922after.gif)
Shit just keeps making less and less sense as we push into it.
|
Being a physicist doesn't give you all the answers ^_^
Nope, just an infinitely small part of them, but in can (sometimes) be barley enough.
|
On September 23 2011 07:40 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:34 rubio91 wrote:
Right on. Although I don't think entanglement is at play here, it is one such example where you can point to an object leaving an origin, and passing through a destination at a time thats less than what the speed of c can allow (implying movement greater than c), and be wrong.
Well, if this happen to be true, it is very likely that entanglement is not concerned, for the reasons you explained (they don't move instantly, but just a little bit faster). It could be a characteristic of low mass particles, or just of neutrinos, idk, I'm not (already) a physicist. Day9 posted this image on his twitter that pretty much sums up my experience with physics. Shit just keeps making less and less sense as we push into it.
haha, that image is the aftercomic to this one:
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922.gif)
For a while I was wondering why they can't just set up Cerenkov radiation detectors to try and verify this, then I remembered what the NEU in neutrino means.... lol
Anyway, this seems very interesting
|
On September 23 2011 07:42 rubio91 wrote:Nope, just an infinitely small part of them, but in can (sometimes) be barley enough.
I'd say though that being a physicist is less about knowing the answers than knowing the right questions to ask. 
|
On September 23 2011 06:57 VikingKong wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:56 B00ts wrote:On September 23 2011 06:54 yarkO wrote:
While this is.. interesting? I guess? Einstein's theory says nothing can pass you faster than the speed of light ('c'), however we already know that galaxies are moving away from us faster than 'c', or at least they appear to be.
Relativity what a bitch you can be. Is this true? No. Until now, nothing with mass has been observed to move faster than c, in any frame of reference. So many people that don't understand relativity in this thread.
He's actually refering to the phenomenon of cosmological inflation, where space itself can expand "faster" than velocities through it. In his case the two galaxys are stationary to one another and the space itself is simply expanding between them.
For instance, it commonly postulated the early moments of the big bang the universe expanded several orders of mangnitude greater than c.
But I digress, the real practical issue is whether information can travel faster than c.
|
Thanks for the further clarification. Quite the mind-bending stuff to think about :D
|
On September 23 2011 07:39 icystorage wrote:stupid noob question: assuming this is true, HOW can this affect the fundamental laws of physics? i want to learn
Well, it depends on if the neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in air, or the speed of light in a vacuum. (The speed of light in air is slightly less than in a vacuum)
Classical relativity states that mass increases such as M = M(stationary) * gamma, where gamma is a term called the Lorentz factor.
The Lorentz factor is equal to the square root of 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)--it can be shown that as the velocity (v) approaches the speed of light (c), the Lorentz factor explodes infinitely.
Thus, it would take infinite energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, and accelerating an object past the speed of light is simply inconceivable.
Scientists would be forced to redefine the way they look at the universe in a variety of fundamental ways.
|
I'd say though that being a physicist is less about knowing the answers than knowing the right questions to ask. I pretty much agree with that, but questions come because you want answers.
|
On September 23 2011 07:47 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:39 icystorage wrote:stupid noob question: assuming this is true, HOW can this affect the fundamental laws of physics? i want to learn Well, it depends on if the neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in air, or the speed of light in a vacuum. (The speed of light in air is slightly less than in a vacuum) Classical relativity states that mass increases such as M = M(stationary) * gamma, where gamma is a term called the Lorentz factor. The Lorentz factor is equal to the square root of 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)--it can be shown that as the velocity (v) approaches the speed of light (c), the Lorentz factor explodes infinitely. Thus, it would take infinite energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, and accelerating an object past the speed of light is simply inconceivable. Scientists would be forced to redefine the way they look at the universe in a variety of fundamental ways.
hmm let me get this straight, so as v approaches c or is equal to c, it becomes 1/(1-1) which is 1/0 which is "infinite". but having something faster than c just changes all that? thank you for answering my question
|
Neutrino's is a shady buisness but still a game changing discovery. Or a mistake and waste of time 
|
[QUOTE Maybe i misunderstood your thought, so explain me what do you think about this: If you see 2 trains moving 1 against each other at something like 0.9c (c= light speed)m what is the speed of 1 train, seen by the other one?[/QUOTE]
0.9945c
I don't if you have learned about relativity however but at speeds nearing the speed of light classical mechanics no longer work (ie you cant just add the speeds to get the relative speed).
|
On September 23 2011 07:43 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:40 Medrea wrote:On September 23 2011 07:34 rubio91 wrote:
Right on. Although I don't think entanglement is at play here, it is one such example where you can point to an object leaving an origin, and passing through a destination at a time thats less than what the speed of c can allow (implying movement greater than c), and be wrong.
Well, if this happen to be true, it is very likely that entanglement is not concerned, for the reasons you explained (they don't move instantly, but just a little bit faster). It could be a characteristic of low mass particles, or just of neutrinos, idk, I'm not (already) a physicist. Day9 posted this image on his twitter that pretty much sums up my experience with physics. + Show Spoiler +Shit just keeps making less and less sense as we push into it. haha, that image is the aftercomic to this one: + Show Spoiler +For a while I was wondering why they can't just set up Cerenkov radiation detectors to try and verify this, then I remembered what the NEU in neutrino means.... lol Anyway, this seems very interesting
That comic is actually kind of funny. It has layers to it. The woman speaking assumes we have perfect knowledge of gravity, thats how a lot of people think of gravity as well. Its there, its obvious, and very tangible.
The guy in the lab, who knows that gravity ACTUALLY MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, is ironically offended.
|
so many misleading posts in this thread. My advice; don't believe anything from netizens of this thread !
Of course not all posts are like that, but still, if you actually want to know something, read proper releases
|
On September 23 2011 07:39 icystorage wrote:stupid noob question: assuming this is true, HOW can this affect the fundamental laws of physics? i want to learn
Moving faster than light means you can signal backwards in time (relativity).
Source: physics degree
I don't believe this until it gets peer reviewed.
|
Science is one of my favorite topics but as people said, even the basic physics stuff can get very complicated so please keep that in mind when reading the comments in this thread.
|
+ Show Spoiler +hmm let me get this straight, so as v approaches c or is equal to c, it becomes 1/(1-1) which is 1/0 which is "infinite". but having something faster than c just changes all that? thank you for answering my question
If something travels faster than c, it must be accelerated to a speed faster than c, thus requiring infinite energy according to that law (which is not possible). So either the formula or the measurements are wrong. (this is a very simplified view of the question)
|
On September 23 2011 07:56 rubio91 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +hmm let me get this straight, so as v approaches c or is equal to c, it becomes 1/(1-1) which is 1/0 which is "infinite". but having something faster than c just changes all that? thank you for answering my question If something travels faster than c, it must be accelerated to a speed faster than c, thus requiring infinite energy according to that law (which is not possible). So either the formula or the measurements are wrong. (this is a very simplified view of the question)
Well the formula doesn't even apply to photons.
|
So anyone actually, actually, understand what all this means...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
