|
On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right)
+1
no one in real science uses miles lol
(not that I'm in real science)
so it would be 299,792,458 Metres per second
or
1 Planck 
|
I'm not a excellent physicist but still have a decent knowledge about physics.What bugs me about this is if this would end up to be true,how come when a supernova happens(and CERN basically emulates a similar environment),what we detect first is the light particles and not neutrinos which,according to this,would come several years before before to our detectors(based on the distance).
Was gonna add this. If neutrinos from the supernova traveled at the same speed of the CERN neutrinos, they would have arrived here 4 YEARS before the photons, BUT the type of neutrino used by CERN is different in this case. Maybe that matters, maybe not.
|
On September 24 2011 02:56 Carson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right) +1 no one in real science uses miles lol (not that I'm in real science) so it would be 299,792,458 Metres per second or 1 Planck
I have no idea where the miles per second figure came from. In high school physics and beyond we are on metric here. Miles we only use for our roads and cars afaik.
|
On September 24 2011 02:56 Carson wrote:no one in real science uses miles lol (not that I'm in real science) so it would be 299,792,458 Metres per second or 1 Planck
It's not 1 "Plank" (which is not a unit in itself btw), but 1 if you are using Planck units for simplification in your calculations. c is one Planck length per Planck time.
|
On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons.
Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference.
If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles.
|
On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right)
What? Seconds don't exist in the Imperial system?
|
On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles.
Photons can travel much slower than c when not in a vacuum.
|
I was holding judgement until I read the paper, but now I can say it: woah, this is huge!!
|
On September 24 2011 03:04 Soot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:56 Carson wrote:no one in real science uses miles lol (not that I'm in real science) so it would be 299,792,458 Metres per second or 1 Planck It's not 1 "Plank" (which is not a unit in itself btw), but 1 if you are using Planck units for simplification in your calculations. c is one Planck length per Planck time.
Also know as God given Units
|
Hyrule19144 Posts
On September 24 2011 03:19 scorch- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right) What? Seconds don't exist in the Imperial system?
Seconds do, miles don't.
|
On September 24 2011 03:30 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:19 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right) What? Seconds don't exist in the Imperial system? Seconds do, miles don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units
1 Mile is 8 furlongs or 1760 yards or 5280 feet.
|
On September 24 2011 03:30 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:19 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right) What? Seconds don't exist in the Imperial system? Seconds do, miles don't.
I think theres been a huge cock up here somewhere along the line, as 186,000,252 mps is clearly not correct for either metres per second or miles per second.
On another note, miles are an imperial unit, however imperial are not international units.
|
On September 24 2011 03:38 shammythefox wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:30 tofucake wrote:On September 24 2011 03:19 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right) What? Seconds don't exist in the Imperial system? Seconds do, miles don't. I think theres been a huge cock up here somewhere along the line, as 186,000,252 mps is clearly not correct for either metres per second or miles per second.
I think he meant to type 186,252 mps, which is close to the actual 186,282 mps.
|
"What Einstein actually said was that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at the speed of light or faster."
-prot in "K-PAX"
|
i think they were using the starcraft 2 in-game clock. nothing to see here, just a bunch of scientists playing sc2 on their job
|
|
|
|
|
On September 24 2011 03:41 Cthulu wrote:
"What Einstein actually said was that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at the speed of light or faster."
-prot in "K-PAX"
However relativity in itself doesn't exclude zero acceleration particles from being infinitely massive at C.
|
On September 24 2011 03:19 scorch- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right) What? Seconds don't exist in the Imperial system?
No. They use Mississippi.
One Mississippi = 1.1s
Two Mississippi = 2.2s
Three Mississippi = 3.5s
You need tables for the rest. It's not a linear scale.
|
Thank you for this insightful and thought-provoking comment on the state of measurement standards in the current global sociopolitical atmosphere.
On a related note, did anyone actually watch the press conference today, and if so was there anything interesting they had to say that wasn't already reported?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a.asset.soup.io/asset/2352/9802_b82f_500.jpeg)
