Exceed speed of light: always exceeded speed of light?

In summary, the conversation discusses the philosophical implications of the recent discovery of "faster than speed of light" neutrinos. It is suggested that if this is indeed true, all observers in any inertial frame of reference would measure these neutrinos to be faster than the speed of light. However, it is also noted that there is no room for superluminal velocities in Special Relativity, and attempts to change the Lorentz transformations to accommodate FTL velocities have proven unsuccessful. Additionally, it is mentioned that it takes infinite energy to accelerate a sub-luminal particle to the speed of light, and the same applies for slowing down a superluminal particle. The conversation also touches on the possibility of time travel and the violation
  • #1
Trinitiet
23
0
Hi,

Now we have the "faster than speed of light" neutrinos, I was wondering the next philosophical question:

If we presume it is indeed correct they are faster than speed of light, would all observers of these neutrinos, no matter in what inertial frame of reference they are in, measure these neutrinos faster than the speed of light? Or does an inertial frame exist where in the speed of these neutrino's are indeed slower than the speed of light?

Thanks

Trinitiet
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If a particle is superluminal in one Lorentz frame, it is superluminal in all Lorentz frames.
 
  • #3
Trinitiet said:
Hi,

Now we have the "faster than speed of light" neutrinos

We do not have FTL neutrinos. What we have is a very meticulously done experiment that pretty much everyone, particularly the people who did the experiment, believes has a measurement error in it but the error has not yet been found.
 
  • #4
phinds said:
We do not have FTL neutrinos. What we have is a very meticulously done experiment that pretty much everyone, particularly the people who did the experiment, believes has a measurement error in it but the error has not yet been found.

Sorry, that's what I meant ;) But I was just considering the case IF it were true :p
 
  • #5
clem said:
If a particle is superluminal in one Lorentz frame, it is superluminal in all Lorentz frames.

Thank you, what is the basis for this statement? I tried to use the normal special relativity Lorentz transformaties for velocities, but I seem to get imaginary velocities.
 
  • #6
Trinitiet said:
clem said:
If a particle is superluminal in one Lorentz frame, it is superluminal in all Lorentz frames.
Thank you, what is the basis for this statement? I tried to use the normal special relativity Lorentz transformaties for velocities, but I seem to get imaginary velocities.
You are correct, there is no room for superluminal velocities in Special Relativity so there is no room for your philosophical question in Special Relativity.
 
  • #7
ghwellsjr said:
You are correct, there is no room for superluminal velocities in Special Relativity so there is no room for your philosophical question in Special Relativity.

Is this a possible solution to superluminal neutrinos?

Landau and Lifchitz formulated the two postulates of special relativity as the following:
1/ All laws of physics should be the same in every inertial frame
2/ There's a maximal propagation speed for physical interactions

The second postulate does not talk about the speed of light, it just says there is a maximal speed. If we change all Lorentz transformations formulas and change every c from the speed of light to a new c, the speed of superluminal neutrinos; we can get superluminal speeds but all equations remain the same, just the value of c is changed.
 
  • #8
Trinitiet said:
If we change all Lorentz transformations formulas and change every c from the speed of light to a new c, the speed of superluminal neutrinos; we can get superluminal speeds but all equations remain the same, just the value of c is changed.
Do we know speed of neutrinos is invariant in all reference frames?
 
  • #9
Snip3r said:
Do we know speed of neutrinos is invariant in all reference frames?

Sorry indeed, that was quite a stupid proposal of mine :blushing:
 
  • #10
Apologies for resurrecting this, but I just had to post when I saw this in the "similar threads" on another post I just made.

Trinitiet said:
Thank you, what is the basis for this statement? I tried to use the normal special relativity Lorentz transformaties for velocities, but I seem to get imaginary velocities.

ghwellsjr said:
You are correct, there is no room for superluminal velocities in Special Relativity so there is no room for your philosophical question in Special Relativity.

Actually, I think you made a mistake. There is no way to get imaginary velocities, as there are no square roots in the normal lorentz transformation for velocity, u' = (u-v) / (1- uv/c^2)

You get imaginary results if you try to go to a FTL reference frame, but you should get normal (though always FTL, sometimes negative) results if you transform a FTL velocity from one sub-lightspeed frame to another. Except in the special case where you get division by zero, which is the reference frame where that FTL speed seems infinite.

An example for exactly this kind of "FTL velocity" is looking at the intersection point of a gilloutine's two edges. With a small angle between the edges and a large (but still far under c) falling velocity this intersection point is traveling faster than light. And in some moving reference frames it will appear traveling in the other direction, or in one frame it will even seem like the edges are parallel and touch simultaneously everywhere.
 
  • #11
Sure, you can plug a FTL velocity into the velocity addition formula and get a FTL result but that is why Einstein stipulated in his 1905 paper, section 5, that the velocities you plug in cannot be FTL. But you can't get to a FTL velocity unless at least one of them is already FTL. Even if you add c and c, you still get just c.

And as to your gilloutine example, nothing is traveling FTL. Do a search of "scissors" for lots of discussion about this subject, such as, Superluminal.
 
  • #12
Trinitiet said:
...
If we presume it is indeed correct they are faster than speed of light, would all observers of these neutrinos, no matter in what inertial frame of reference they are in, measure these neutrinos faster than the speed of light? Or does an inertial frame exist where in the speed of these neutrino's are indeed slower than the speed of light?

It has already been correctly stated that if a particle is super-luminal in one reference frame then it is super-luminal in all reference frames. What you might not know is that while it requires infinite energy to accelerate a sub-luminal particle to the speed of light, it takes infinite energy to slow a superluminal particle to the speed of light. The speed of light is a barrier in both directions.

Also, as a side note, if a particle is super-luminal in one reference frame then it is possible to find other reference frames where the particle goes backwards in time and causality is violated.
 

1. Can objects actually exceed the speed of light?

No, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is the maximum speed at which any object can travel in the universe. It is a fundamental constant and cannot be surpassed.

2. Why is it not possible to exceed the speed of light?

The speed of light is a fundamental limit because as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases infinitely and it would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. This is not possible for any object in the universe.

3. Has anyone ever broken the speed of light?

No, there has been no scientific evidence or experiments that have shown an object exceeding the speed of light. The closest we have come is with subatomic particles, but even then they do not actually exceed the speed of light.

4. What would happen if an object did exceed the speed of light?

If an object were able to exceed the speed of light, it would violate the laws of physics and cause a ripple effect throughout the entire universe. This is because it would require infinite energy and have infinite mass, which is not possible.

5. Is there any way to travel faster than the speed of light?

Currently, there is no known way to travel faster than the speed of light. The concept of wormholes and faster-than-light travel is still purely theoretical and has not been proven to be possible. However, scientists continue to study and explore these ideas in hopes of one day finding a way to travel faster than the speed of light.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
602
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Back
Top