Register to reply 
Beat the speed of light 
Share this thread: 
#19
May1114, 02:58 AM

P: 13

thanks guys!



#20
May1114, 03:50 AM

P: 13

Awesome, btw i missunderstood the concept of the higgs boson then, since i understood it did not had a mass since is all around the universe dispersed. Probably completely wrong... lol anyhow thanks



#21
May1114, 06:40 AM

Mentor
P: 3,939




#22
May1114, 08:43 AM

Mentor
P: 12,053

I have absolutely no idea how you could think this would have any relation to telecommunications. 


#23
May1114, 12:43 PM

P: 13

Thanks for the info, I got to the idea of telecommunications with the misleaded(?) idea that higgs bosons can travel faster than light and that the higgs field has different potential depending on the higgs boson quantitative energies imparting on the higgs field. And by now im not sure if Im talking about bosons or whales... Anyhow thanks for the clarification, is difficult to keep up with stuff I cant practice, since right now I dont have the money to make a LHC on my moms basement. ;)
And yes i was confusing the higgs field with the bosons. 


#24
May1114, 09:54 PM

P: 35

Understanding from relativity is that if something has mass, not only can it not travel faster than c, but it must travel at less than c (i.e. cannot even travel at c). Neutrinos qualify as having mass. However, all recent experiments (since the FTL neutrino imbroglio) seem to report that speed of neutrinos are 'consistent with c', not less than c. They are not able to establish that the speed is less than c. What is the current interpretation of this result? There may be an underlying assumption that perhaps neutrinos travel very, very close to c but not at c (as GR would require). However, given the level of accuracy of current experiments, and given that so many have been conducted independently, why is the statement still being made 'consistent with c within the margin of error' rather than 'very close to but just short of c within the margin of error'? 


#25
May1214, 03:18 PM

Mentor
P: 12,053

The expected difference between neutrino speeds and the speed of light is extremely tiny  several orders of magnitude below the experimental uncertainties of all current and even all planned experiments. "Consistent with c" and "consistent with the predicted speed slightly below c" are the same.



#26
May1314, 09:52 AM

P: 72

On the other hand, galaxies move away from each other faster than c due to expansion of the universe.
While the Dark Energy increases this expansion rate, billions of years from now, if not now there would even be matter moving away from us not only above c but with an acceleration rate over c.. But this is quite a different situation. As in, an object can not move next to another object with a speed faster than c. The inflation is taking affect only when the two objects is away from each other. Around 4,200 megaparsecs away. And that is quite away from each other. Enough that they can't share any information in any form anyway. 


#27
May1314, 10:27 AM

PF Gold
P: 6,497




#28
May1314, 12:01 PM

P: 72

It's true we do receive light from such galaxies. Yet, the information is still of its past self that haven't crossed the c threshold for us yet.
The updating of the light will cease and the galaxies we now see will freeze in space time and then red shift into darkness. In the end it will be a lonely place in this universe as the expansion rate increases, as every object will redshift to darkness except close objects. Anyway, i don't know what OP was trying to get at, but there are objects in this universe when you take reference point as earth they accelerate away from that point faster than c. How that information is useful is beyond me though. 


#29
May1314, 12:16 PM

PF Gold
P: 6,497




#30
May1314, 01:07 PM

Mentor
P: 12,053

We can see objects 4,200 Mpc away, but only in a state how they looked like several billion years ago. The border where we will never be able to see their current state is somewhere at this distance. They don't freeze in spacetime, but our view on them will freeze. 


#31
May1314, 01:49 PM

PF Gold
P: 6,497




#32
May1314, 02:09 PM

P: 72

I would expect them to freeze and redshift into darkness because;
Well for conservation of information i would expect them to act like an object falling into the black holes event horizon. Otherwise, that would raise many questions. Like Stephen Hawking did back then 


#33
May1314, 02:14 PM

Mentor
P: 12,053




#34
May1314, 04:26 PM

PF Gold
P: 6,497




#35
May1514, 02:53 PM

P: 193

[tex]v=c(1\frac{r_s}{r}) \sqrt{\frac{r_s}{r}}[/tex] for [itex]r>r_s[/itex] where [itex]r_s[/itex] is the Schwarzschild radius of the "attracting" gravitational mass and [itex]r[/itex] is the radial Schwarzschild coordinate. So, [itex]v<c[/itex] for all [itex]r>r_s[/itex]. If the test probe is dropped from [itex]r_0[/itex] the formula becomes: [tex]v=c(1\frac{r_s}{r}) \sqrt{\frac{r_s}{r}\frac{r_s}{r_0}}[/tex] for [itex]r_0>r>r_s[/itex] For light, the coordinate speed is: [tex]v=c(1\frac{r_s}{r})[/tex] 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Gravity speed (I know it's been beat to death, apologies in advance)  Cosmology  4  
Idea for light speed or possibly faster than light speed travel?  Quantum Physics  1  
Beat Frequencies & Light  General Physics  3  
Beat Frequency/Truck Speed!  Introductory Physics Homework  1  
Fast enough clocks to beat the speed of light  General Math  8 