http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...er-than-light/2011/09/22/gIQAkxBOoK_blog.html For anyone who doesn't really understand the meaning of this, I'll explain. Obviously things aren't supposed to even move at the speed of light. What things exactly? Anything with mass. There's even been an experiment done based off of this and what's happened when particles move near the speed of light is that their mass actually starts to increase but not their speed. The consequences of this are pretty amazing actually. It means we may just maybe one day achieve superluminal speeds. Maybe. This is pretty sad for me since I just covered a bunch of stuff about this in a quantum mechanics course. Still, this doesn't mean Relativity(General and Special) is wrong, it's just possible that their could be some exceptions with this. Hm. I'm hoping that their isn't some mistake in these scientists' calculations but if there is, then Einstein would probably be happy...I think.
In terms of special relativity, if the universe would bend reality just to make sure that light can not beat light in a race, I'm not willing to believe that anything with mass is going to be even faster than light. If anything, the particles would probably just create a shortcut in distance. Sorry for the analogy: Light is the leader of the track team. No one can beat him and he is proud of it. On this track (composed of Space and Time), he covers every meter of the race and wins honestly. Neutrino is the new guy on the track. In real life, the particle is extremely small. Small enough for one to pass through you every twelve(?) seconds and not affect you. Neutrino, unlike Light, doesn't cover all of the track. Instead of covering every meter of Space and Time, he compresses it so that he only has 150 meters every lap instead of the true 400 meters. Oh wormhole theory~ How you mess with logic. In my opinion, the article should say that the particles travel faster than light, but cover a larger distance in less time.
So, basically, you're saying is that we have particles in our body that will someday make us go fast. Am I understanding that correctly?
Maybe one day if we can find out how to get those particles to make wormholes big enough to be usable whenever we want. Hopefully we can just get teleportation to become stable. I'm just waiting for the day where my Amazon packages are delivered quicker than a modern pizza.
That might be possible, but the people doing the experiments here are smarter than both of us in terms of Relativity. These physicists know what they're doing moreso than we do. They already know about time dilation and the whole "length is not constant" problem associated with such high speeds. There are some things that go faster than light though none of the things that comes to mind has mass, namely the expansion of the universe. It's been awhile since I've looked at exactly what protons, electrons, and neutrons are made up of but essentially yes. Neutrinos have mass. We have mass. Neutrinos in this experiment have been allegedly been said to move faster than light. So it's possible, if this experiment has no fatal errors in it, that one day we could find some way to go faster than light. There just has to be some new explanation for it.
I remember reading a year ago about things called Tachyons that move faster than light or something too, so I'm not going awe at this, though I may be just remembering wrong. Gotta start reading about the subject more, even I doubt I'll ever experience things that take advantage stuff like this it's fantastic to see how it works. Edit: Wikipedia'd it, Tachyons are merely hypothetical, my bad >_<
Is anyone else just waiting for the day teleportation becomes mainstream so that you can say "Beam me up, Scotty" and faster food delivery or is that just me?
Given what I' ve read on teleportation I' m not holding my breath (I' m not holding my breath about light-speed human travel either). BTW, does anyone know if the new "Dark Matters" series is worth watching ? Or is it just Ghost Hunters-like half-baked bogus TV "science" ?
Machina, protons and neutrons are made out of quarks. And lets give a physics explanation. It doesn't affect Einsteins theory of relativity. The theory is still valid, as long as the particle moves slower than c (speed of light) E = mc^2 Energy = matter times the speed of light squared. Einstein did have a theory about how time behaves depending on the speed you are moving at. The theory (equation) is t = t0/(sqrt)1-v/c^2 (your time = time passed outside you, divided by (your velocity (speed) divided by speed of light sqared) You measure your speed in percentage(decimal) of speed of light, because the speed is so high. This has been proven in an experiment before; They had a watch (not necessarily a watch, but at least an item with which you measure time), put it on a supersonic jet, and flew constantly for quite a time. Time had moved slower for the watch than for the people outside of the "system" (physics term) What is cool about this is that if v exceeds the speed of c, you will end up with a negative as a denominator, which means that technically you should be able to travel back in time. Unfortunately, this doesn't work, though, because you can't do the square root of a negative number, however it is a fun thought. Physics. YAY!
That's rather obvious. I just don't remember which ones. And what you just pointed out is mathematics. Not physics. Also, to be specific the E=MC^2 is the internal energy contained within mass to be rough about it. I'm really not sure why you put up this equation since I and SparksOfLogic have already mentioned it. Just speaking about Relativity means we're referring to those kinds of equations. Also, you're rather wrong about the whole "negative number in the denominator" thing. It's a complex number, it's not innately negative. If you use this along with the time dilation equation you'd end up with complex time which doesn't exactly exist(though give it a hundred years and physicists will say otherwise You're missing a few equations since there's more than time to consider here. There's length and mass too at the very least.
If I recall right, A proton is composed of two Up quarks and one Down quark. The neutrons are one Up and two Down. (I mean that theory of relativity is physics) And as far as the theory, yeah, I know there are several other factors that play a part, but as far as my "time travel" rant goes, that's the formula that says that its possible, yet impossible. And of course, there is more complexity to it, but its a basic, very basic explanation that barely scratches the surface. And the reason I posted the formula was to show what I was talking about, if people have no clue whatsoever, which I believe many people here don't have. And in 100 years, I believe we will be able to do things we never even imagined possible. I'm quite excited to see what we've discovered by 2050 (assuming I live that long)
. . . "Superluminal speeds" . . . Space travel. I had to got there (sorry if someone else already did) If we could achieve speeds that exceed that of light then we could travel further into space than even thought possible. Sorry but this sounds like something write out of a star wars script (Hyperdrive) I mean the thought of being able to travel that fast is mind boggling. There is a planet scientists have found (way out there) that seems to have everything needed to survive. Of course no one thought it possible to get there before . . . until now. Hopefully we see some advances in this technology/science in the near future (like before I die) I think if I knew we made it off this rock and began spreading out into the universe I could die happy.
You can't just say because that because of one formula, something can't happen. Einstein himself said that E=mc^2 was incorrect. While it is a good generalization of physics, the rules of matter and non-matter change whenever you take things to extremes. Take time for example. If you increase your speed to something that is close to that of light (and please disregard the fast that all the particles in your body would be shredded up and jet out), then the appearance of time for you and the appearance of time to regular people would be completely different. You would see time happening a lot slower in the within the space that you are traveling in while the time outside of it would appear to be rushing by. Most modern physics equations are just theorems and they can still be proven wrong. Our fault as humans is that we take things for granted and build off of generalizations. We don't even know if Higgs particles exist and we are already building parts of string theory from it.
Well this is quite fascinating, I always heard though (most likely not true as I was told it when I was younger) that if you travel so fast you go back in time, I don't know how relevant this could be, I'm not a huge physics person. I do think that being able to go faster than the speed of light would be interesting as journeys would be so much quicker- you wouldn't waste so much time migrating to work and things, it also means we could actualyl go to other planets within lifetimes.
More than simply a mistake in the scientists observations, I would rather hear it from them than a news organization or two. As Einstein would say... Show me. I think we should also take quantum physics, from what I know of it, into account and consider this from other directions. Something may appear to be acting a certain way if measured with the right device under the right circumstances, and not with a different device under the same circumstances. How do you tell which is more accurate? Is light a particle or a wave or both, and is a cap on speed really possible? Either way...
