Particles traveling faster than light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of particles potentially traveling faster than the speed of light, exploring theoretical implications, constraints from special relativity, and speculative ideas about such particles. The scope includes theoretical physics, conceptual exploration, and speculative reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the possibility of particles traveling faster than light, suggesting a minimum speed just above light speed and a maximum just below double light speed.
  • Another participant asserts that the speed limit for objects in space is well-established, explaining that as objects approach light speed, they require increasingly infinite energy to accelerate further, thus making faster-than-light travel impossible for massive objects.
  • A different viewpoint mentions that particles can exceed light speed when light is slowed down, referencing Cerenkov radiation.
  • One participant introduces the idea of particles with imaginary mass potentially traveling faster than light, although they express skepticism about backward time travel.
  • Another participant discusses the theoretical possibility of particles that always travel faster than light, emphasizing that while such particles have not been observed, the mathematics could allow for their existence.
  • Several participants inquire about the implications of massless particles and their speed, with one stating that massless particles must travel at exactly the speed of light, referencing special relativity.
  • Another participant speculates about the existence of unknown particles that could travel faster than light without the need for acceleration beyond light speed.
  • One participant clarifies that the relationship between massless particles and light speed is not strictly a consequence of special relativity, introducing the concept of tachyons, which are hypothetical particles that could travel faster than light without violating energy conservation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the possibility of faster-than-light travel, with some asserting established limits based on special relativity while others propose theoretical scenarios that challenge these limits. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on mathematical derivations that are not fully detailed in the discussion. The implications of causality and the nature of hypothetical particles like tachyons are also mentioned but not thoroughly explored.

Rasine
Messages
208
Reaction score
0
i'm new to this forum and the physics world. please don't laugh if inqure about subjects that seem ignorant to you.

what does eveyone think about particles travling faster than light, inwhich the minimum speed is just above the speed of light and the maximum is just below double the speed of light?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Well well, I don't know if you are referring to some reasearch in particular but the lightspeed limit for objects traveling in space is really something quite solid. See, as objects gain speed, they gain energy and therefore mass. And of course you need more energy to push a styrofoam ball than a metal ball, so the faster you object goes, the more energy you need to make it accelerate . By the time you reach 99.999999...% of the speed of light, you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your object some more so... not gona happen. The particles who do travel at light speed can do so because they have no mass, like photons ! ALWAYS be extremely doubtfull of any physics that claims to have figured out faster-than-light-travel. Their are however some theory about attaning that by acting upon the fabric of space itself but so far we don't even know if that's even possible, let alone how...
If you just discovered yourself an interest with physics,let me suggest a few good reads:
Stephen Hawking ( astrophysic ) :
- A brief history of time ( mildly outdated but still good for the basics )
- The Universe in a Nutshell ( their is a beautifull deluxe set with both books illustrated)
Gary Zukav ( quantum physics )
- The dancing Wu Li Master
Brian Greene ( Superstring theory )
- The Elegant Universe ( make sure you get some background before tackilng this one )


Hippy :smile:
 
Last edited:
Well there are particles that go faster than light, when light is being slowed down.

I want my PC to give off Cerenkov Radiation. hmmmmmmm blue glow ^_^
 
Well, if a particle had imaginary mass and traveled backward in time it could go faster than the speed of light. I have no problem with imaginary mass, but traveling backwards in time is a no no (at least to me).
 
Mean-Hippy, you are right in saying that to get something to speed up from < c you would need infinite energy for anything with mass. It is also true that anything without mass (i.e a photon) cannot travel faster than c. However, what if the particle was already traveling at > c? The maths is quite clear about getting something traveling below c to accelerate to a speed > c, but the maths also works for particles which always travel > c.

I'm not saying that such particles exist - I've never seen one! I'm just saying that 'theoretically' it is possible.
 
why can't anything without mass travel faster than c?
 
Nenad said:
why can't anything without mass travel faster than c?
It's a consequence of special relativity - if a particle has a mass of 0, it must be traveling at exactly the speed of light.

Edit: Sorry for not giving a more detailed answer, but it follows from a mathematical derivation (not too complex), which I do not remember.
 
what if there are particles out there that we don't have any knowledge of because of the fact that they travle faster than c? what if they always have been, thus not needing to run into the impossibility of accelerating past c?
 
alpha_wolf said:
It's a consequence of special relativity - if a particle has a mass of 0, it must be traveling at exactly the speed of light.

Edit: Sorry for not giving a more detailed answer, but it follows from a mathematical derivation (not too complex), which I do not remember.
It's not really a consequence of SR per se. It can be shown using SR that if a particle moves at speeds >c then there is a problem with causality. Tachyon's (defined as particles for which v > c) don't violate energy conservation if v > c.

Pete
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K