Strange faster than light question

[growse]

Originally posted by Stiff_Cookie
Yea but Daz, What sort of technology did Einstien have when he made this theory? Now look at what we have now, then think of what we will have in 50 years. or 100 years, or 1000 years etc etc

It's got nowt to do with technology. Theorising about the universe requires a pencil and some paper. Its the technology that tests the theory out. A lot of what Einstein said was correct for the data that he had, because he didn't have particle accelerators at that time. He did what any good scientist did and that was take the data which he had and fit a theory to it. Just because someone else came along 30 years later with a newly invented piece of technology that showed that he was wrong is hardly his fault is it. The fact that 80 years on and many of his theories still stand up in modern experiments is what makes him a great scientist. The same can be said of Newton, J.J. Thompson, Lorenz etc.

Also, no-one proved anything. People merely suggested that it might be possible and used arguments to back them up, but then they're later shown to be wrong. Science is just a big argument, with no-one proving anything.

Saying that it's been theorised that we can break the speed of light some time in the future is a bit like saying that in the future we will have the ability to make stable He2 molecules (bond helium to itself). We can't. You don't get He2 because of the way the orbitals work. You won't be able to get it stable no matter what fancy bells and whistles you have because the theory (which so far has been demonstrated to be largely correct) says that you can't. Even if the theory is wrong, the total lack of evidence to show that helium forms a dimer points the fact that maybe it can't be done in a stable way.

Morat, can you name one thing that was "proven" impossible and then "disproven"?

 

[iam]

There's a thread for this sorta thing and it contains this very same question

/2bl00 merge with other thread?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Originally posted by Morat
It was also proven that the Human body would be crushed if it travelled over 60 mph.

Then later it was proven that Travelling at the speed of sound was impossible.

That was down to technological limitations. At the time, no one had travelled at 60mph, so thought it was a damn fast speed*.

Travelling at supersonic speeds has problems technically due to the huge turbulance just before you go faster than sound. Many of the first trst planes had their wings torn off, hence engineers thought it was impossible to build a plane to do it. Turned out they just didn't build it correctly.

Travelling faster than light and faster than sound are 2 compltely different things. Sound isn't a thing in itself, its just what we perceive from things moving. Light is an entity in and of itself. Faster than sound is simply a "can be build it strong enough to not be torn apart". Faster than light is "can be break the laws of physics".

Stiff, like Growse says, technology doesn't come into it. Like me saying "I can't jump over a building", its a physical impossibility for me to do that unaided. When Einstein and other come up with these theories, they do it such that they only look how space or the particles themselves can behave. All technology would do is make these particles behave in a certain way. If you look at all the ways the particles/space can behave then you cover every possible thing technology could do it them, hence ruling out certain things.

*I don't understand why someone would say "a human would be crushed moving a 60mph". That doesn't make any sense. Its the acceleration that would crush a person. I can move at 99% the speed of light, provided I accelerate slowly enough so not to overwhelm my body. An acceleration of 1g from a car is nothing we can't handle (we are build to survive 3g comfortably I think) so anyone who knows Newtons Second Law can show you can get to 60mph without any discomfort at all. I think you are wrong in your initial statement then.

 

[Morat]

The speed of light is exactly that a speed.

The confusion arrives when people assume that time travels at the speed of light, which to be honest is somewhat comical.

Some subatomic particles travel faster than light, they don't use limitless energy to achieve it. Which directly contradicts most theories.

The problem atm is we still have a very limited understanding of how the universe operates. Thjere are some questions that may never be answered.

 

[Morat]

The human being crushed at 60mph is not my incorrect statement, it is the incorrect statement of scientists at the time.

Correct them, not me, but I believe most of them are dead now.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Originally posted by Morat
The human being crushed at 60mph is not my incorrect statement, it is the incorrect statement of scientists at the time.

Correct them, not me, but I believe most of them are dead now.

Anyone saying that past Newtons time obviously wasn't a proper scientist then, and just talking jibberish.

Originally posted by Morat
Some subatomic particles travel faster than light, they don't use limitless energy to achieve it. Which directly contradicts most theories.

Name one, and "tachyon" doesn't count since its only a very dodgy theory. And I mean the speed of light in a vacuum, not in any other medium like water.

 

[Fusion]

Originally posted by Morat
Some subatomic particles travel faster than light, they don't use limitless energy to achieve it. Which directly contradicts most theories.

Go on...

 

[Morat]

" Name one, and "tachyon" doesn't count since its only a very dodgy theory. And I mean the speed of light in a vacuum, not in any other medium like water."

So is Einsteins special theory of relativity

Thats the comedy version of his theory.

 

[Fusion]

Originally posted by Morat
blah

We're waiting for you to reveal these subatomic particles that travel beyond light speeds

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Originally posted by Morat
So is Einsteins special theory of relativity

Thats the comedy version of his theory.

I've done a course in Special Relavity and it certiainly isn't "dodgy". Its also stood for 100 years, being tested hundreds of times a day. Tachyon theory is "dodgy" on the grounds its not even a complte theory, its just an idea, no one has seen a tachyon or other phenomona that could relate to tachyons.

You stated "some subatomic particles travel faster than light". I want you to back that up. Its all well and good walking into a discussion making claims like most of us here have, difference is we've provided tested experiments and data to bnack us up. I could claim I can fly like superman, but without any proof I doubt anyone is going to beleive me. Got any links? Any articles from reputable science journals? If not, then don't go around saying "its a lie" or "its a joke" please. I'm happy to have a discussion about it if oyu provide links, if not, be quiet

 

[Morat]

How easy it is to sit back and say to the other person to prove, why not prove first it isn't possible?

Intellectual debate (or merely trolling) does not require hard proof.

How can you provide hard evidence of theoretical physics?

I could easily quote from a number of sources, I was just illustrating how ludicrous most theoretical physics is, for every theory you will find many other ones that directly contradict it.

Most people simply pick one that suits them, and stick by it.

There is NO hard evidence either way to say faster than light travel is neither possible nor impossible.

All there is are theories, and yes I am well aware that your next response will be the ever so exciting standard response of "well, they have stood for decades, or hundreds of years" which is why discussion on this sort of topic is merely a free exchange of viewpoints from our own limited understanding.

If there is someone with a doctorate in this field, I will be eager to listen and stand corrected, however someone with a GCSE in physics, and access to google is not particularly worth discussing this subject with.

And no, I am not a well respected Theoretical physicist with letters after my name, but then im fairly certain that no-one who replied on here is.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
I've done a course in Special Relavity and it certiainly isn't "dodgy". Its also stood for 100 years, being tested hundreds of times a day. Tachyon theory is "dodgy" on the grounds its not even a complte theory, its just an idea, no one has seen a tachyon or other phenomona that could relate to tachyons.

You stated "some subatomic particles travel faster than light". I want you to back that up. Its all well and good walking into a discussion making claims like most of us here have, difference is we've provided tested experiments and data to bnack us up. I could claim I can fly like superman, but without any proof I doubt anyone is going to beleive me. Got any links? Any articles from reputable science journals? If not, then don't go around saying "its a lie" or "its a joke" please. I'm happy to have a discussion about it if oyu provide links, if not, be quiet

From what little Physics I have done isnt it also true that no one has seen or detected a neutrino? The particle that is released when a Neutron decays into a Proton electron and Neutrino? Because the electron is expelled at difference velocities but the mass is the same, obviously, then there is an energy defect. So physicts invent a particle to explain this energy defect. A particle which from what I understand cant be detected or seen, but exists.

Well thats what I picked up from physics lessons

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Originally posted by Morat
There is NO hard evidence either way to say faster than light travel is neither possible nor impossible.

If there is someone with a doctorate in this field, I will be eager to listen and stand corrected, however someone with a GCSE in physics, and access to google is not particularly worth discussing this subject with.

And no, I am not a well respected Theoretical physicists with letters after my name, but then im fairly certain that no-one who replied on here is.

There is a hell of a lot of evidence that it isn't possible, along with theory. But no evidence it is possible, and backed up by little or no theory which is discounted by most of the "Theoretical physicist with letters after their name". You say you can post links, please do.

We aren't picking ones we like, we are "picking" the ones that are used by 99% of the Physics community.

Pj_uk, who posted in the other thread on Physics has just finished a Physics Degree. Growse is a second year Natural Scientist. I'm a First Year Mathematician. no one of us have "letters after our name" but we are heading there and know more than "someone with a GCSE in physics, and access to google". I'm taking the quantum/relativity modules next year because I've read about that kind of thing (in books, not the net!) and am interested in learning the maths, not just the verbal overview.

I'm sure I could corner a Trinity Colleg, Cambridge Quantum Mechanics professor and ask his opinion if you want me to......

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Originally posted by Stiff_Cookie
From what little Physics I have done isnt it also true that no one has seen or detected a neutrino? The particle that is released when a Neutron decays into a Proton electron and Neutrino? Because the electron is expelled at difference velocities but the mass is the same, obviously, then there is an energy defect. So physicts invent a particle to explain this energy defect. A particle which from what I understand cant be detected or seen, but exists.

Neutrinos have been seen, you just need a terribly sensitive detector. There is one in Japan and another in the US. They have 100,000 tons of water in a huge sphere, in pitch black. It surrounded by light detectors. By detecting flashes of light it can see when a particle has interacted with the water. There are a few things that mean you can work out what the particle was, and about 10 tmes a year they get a positive neutrino test.

You are irhgt about the electron's velocity being incorrect, thats how Pauli first came up with the idea of the neutrino.

 

[Morat]

I'm sure it would enlighten us all

If you could corner one with a contrary viewpoint so as to gain an unbiased objective viewpoint it would also be handy

 

[Fusion]

Originally posted by Morat
I'm sure it would enlighten us all

If you could corner one with a contrary viewpoint so as to gain an unbiased objective viewpoint it would also be handy

Is that so you can hear what you want to hear? I can't see what you expect them to say on the matter, and you still haven't mentioned these particles that travel above light speed

 

[growse]

Originally posted by Morat
I'm sure it would enlighten us all

If you could corner one with a contrary viewpoint so as to gain an unbiased objective viewpoint it would also be handy

You would be hard pushed to find any respected physicist who will entertain the notion of a massive (has mass) particle being able to travel at the speed of light. Anywhere. As Alpha said, a lot of us here are either in the middle of or have done degrees which involve a lot of theory about this stuff.

Intellectual debate involves the use of reason and logic based on given experimental data and there seems to be an alarming lack of this for the arguments you seem to be putting forward.

Faster than light speed particles which have mass please.....

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

Originally posted by growse
You would be hard pushed to find any respected physicist who will entertain the notion of a massive (has mass) particle being able to travel at the speed of light. Anywhere. As Alpha said, a lot of us here are either in the middle of or have done degrees which involve a lot of theory about this stuff.

Intellectual debate involves the use of reason and logic based on given experimental data and there seems to be an alarming lack of this for the arguments you seem to be putting forward.

Faster than light speed particles which have mass please.....

It one takes once for a theory to be wrong. Just because it hasnt been shown to be wrong yet doesnt mean it wont be.

 

[Dave M]

Going back to the original post - no it isn't travelling faster than light.

If you nudge the pole it will move how far you nudge it, a few inches, miles, whatever, down the pole will also move as far as you nudge it.

As each part only moves as far as you nudge it, and assuming you don't nudge at the speed of light, nothing has travelled at any great speed and certainly not any great distance.

 

[daz]

Originally posted by Stiff_Cookie
It one takes once for a theory to be wrong. Just because it hasnt been shown to be wrong yet doesnt mean it wont be.

When things (something with mass) accelerates towards the speed of light, they gain mass, THIS IS PROVEN. As they get closer to the speed of light, their mass increases exponentionally THIS IS PROVEN. Eventually, it gets to the point where there is not enough energy to accelerate the particle any further. This point is some fraction of C. Whether this is C/100 or C/2 or even 99% of C, either way there's two hopes of something with mass being accelerated to the speed of light:

1) some magic mass reducing effect (slim fast?)
2) bob hope