Register to reply

Theory of Relativity?

by .euphoria
Tags: relativity, theory
Share this thread:
.euphoria
#1
Oct24-10, 02:16 PM
P: 6
Okay, now I know something like this may seem improbable.
But what would happen if Einstein's theory of E=mc2 was wrong?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Climate change increases risk of crop slowdown in next 20 years
Researcher part of team studying ways to better predict intensity of hurricanes
New molecule puts scientists a step closer to understanding hydrogen storage
Fredrik
#2
Oct24-10, 02:33 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,233
Theories aren't classified as "right" or "wrong". They're all wrong, but some are less wrong than others, in the sense that they make better predictions about results of experiments. We already know that this particular theory makes fantastically accurate predictions, so I don't see how to make sense of the question.
.euphoria
#3
Oct24-10, 11:08 PM
P: 6
Okay, Lets say we could accelerate towards c without our mass becoming infinite. Would this have implications on the lawsof physics as we know it?

FunkyDwarf
#4
Oct24-10, 11:12 PM
P: 479
Theory of Relativity?

Yes, **** would break, badly.
Pengwuino
#5
Oct24-10, 11:15 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by .euphoria View Post
Okay, Lets say we could accelerate towards c without our mass becoming infinite. Would this have implications on the laws of physics as we know it?
To be more accurate, you would want to talk about accelerating beyond c such that the energy wouldn't have to become infinite. If you were able to smoothly cross the barrier from slower than the speed of light to greater, it would be pretty bad. One problem is that you can derive the implications of special relativity using such unbelievably basic starting points, violating it would mean those basic ideas are wrong. The homogeneity and isotropy of space-time would be out the window or require modifications.... but if there were such things as preferred directions, what does that mean?
.euphoria
#6
Oct24-10, 11:25 PM
P: 6
So basically, Pretty much everything we know about the laws of physics would be compromised and have to be re-thought?

Also one question still remains, What would happen to the concept of time if one could pass light speed? Would time dilation still happen at speeds greater than c or is it limited to below light speeds?
Fredrik
#7
Oct25-10, 04:12 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,233
Quote Quote by .euphoria View Post
But what would happen if Einstein's theory of E=mc2 was wrong?
This is like asking what would happen if we discover that we've been wrong all this time to think that stuff we drop fall towards the ground, and that they actually just float at a constant distance from the ground.

Quote Quote by .euphoria View Post
Okay, Lets say we could accelerate towards c without our mass becoming infinite. Would this have implications on the lawsof physics as we know it?
OK, it makes sense to ask what would it would mean if special relativity makes bad predictions about massive objects that have been accelerated to speeds extremely close to c. It would mean that both special and general relativity would have to be replaced by more accurate theories (but we already know that they need to be replaced, because SR can't handle gravity and GR can't handle quantum effects).


Quote Quote by .euphoria View Post
What would happen to the concept of time if one could pass light speed? Would time dilation still happen at speeds greater than c or is it limited to below light speeds?
If relativity didn't say what it says, it wouldn't be relativity, would it? Are you asking us to use another theory to answer the question? Which theory would you like us to use?
pallidin
#8
Oct25-10, 05:12 AM
P: 2,292
That the speed of light is some immutable barrier seems intuitively ridiculous.
c is very SLOW.

I think that the potential of "instantaneous" should be considered as a viable concept.

"Frame-dragging" anyone? c changes in that warped space-time local environment.
arkajad
#9
Oct25-10, 05:36 AM
P: 1,412
Quote Quote by .euphoria View Post
But what would happen if Einstein's theory of E=mc2 was wrong?
But is it true? For photons, for instance, m=0, but E>0.
Hyperspace2
#10
Oct25-10, 06:19 AM
P: 86
Quote Quote by arkajad View Post
But is it true? For photons, for instance, m=0, but E>0.
energy of light is due to its frequency
E= h*f

E= h*c/L
h=plancks constant, c=speed of light
f = frequency = c/L, L=wavelength
E= h*(C/L)
Equating it to eeinsteins mass
mc^2= h*(c/L)
m= h/(c*L)
Hence it is like apparent mass. Yes photon has mass and it depends upon wavelength.
arkajad
#11
Oct25-10, 06:32 AM
P: 1,412
Quote Quote by Hyperspace2 View Post
Yes photon has mass and it depends upon wavelength.
A mass moving with the velocity of light?
ZapperZ
#12
Oct25-10, 07:39 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
OK, let's not change this thread into issues about photon mass. This has been sufficiently addressed in many threads, and in our FAQ in the General Physics forum (read it!). So cease this line of discussion right now.

Zz.
arkajad
#13
Oct25-10, 08:26 AM
P: 1,412
Wasn't E=mc^2 sufficiently addressed in many threads?
ZapperZ
#14
Oct25-10, 08:31 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
Quote Quote by arkajad View Post
Wasn't E=mc^2 sufficiently addressed in many threads?
Yes, but at least, that is relevant to the OP's question. Discussing about photon mass isn't, especially when it is getting into the validity of the idea of "relativistic" mass. Read the OP's question again.

And taking about the OP's question, I think this thread is rather moot. We can do an infinite amount of speculation on what if such-and-such is wrong. I see very little informational or educational value out of something like this. I can see research-front scientists asking such questions due to plausible reasons, but I don't see how someone who are just looking into such a thing would gain anything of any value.

Zz.
arkajad
#15
Oct25-10, 08:37 AM
P: 1,412
I agree, but I thought wouldn't it be better to replace the potentially misleading, unless taken in a proper context, E=mc^2 formula with a rigorous and clear

ZapperZ
#16
Oct25-10, 08:45 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
Quote Quote by arkajad View Post
I agree, but I thought wouldn't it be better to replace the potentially misleading, unless taken in a proper context, E=mc^2 formula with a rigorous and clear

Don't confuse what the OP asked with the mistake that Hyperspace2 made. We don't know yet if the OP either knows about the full equation, or if the question is really specific that to the mass-energy relation. Often, threads like this are made worse by responses that assume way too much and cover too broad of an area.

Zz.
arkajad
#17
Oct25-10, 08:56 AM
P: 1,412
Quote Quote by ZapperZ View Post
Often, threads like this are made worse by responses that assume way too much and cover too broad of an area.

Zz.
Often they get worse, but sometimes they get better. If we do not know what the OP knows, why not to point him out in a good direction? It will not make any harm, will it?
Hyperspace2
#18
Oct25-10, 10:42 AM
P: 86
Quote Quote by arkajad View Post
A mass moving with the velocity of light?
Evidences

eeinstein says mass and energy are equivalent.
Light is deflected by gravity. etc etc


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Special theory theory oe relativity Special & General Relativity 1
Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory Special & General Relativity 7
General relativity Theory, spacetime and string theory question.. Please Help Introductory Physics Homework 2
Theory of Relativity Special & General Relativity 10
Relativity theory Calculus & Beyond Homework 2