Register to reply

Nature's Limit

by Hyperreality
Tags: limit, nature
Share this thread:
Hyperreality
#1
Jan21-04, 01:44 PM
P: 203
We all know the speed of light has a absolute value in vacuum measured by all observers from various reference frames and itis the fastest speed in the universe.

My question here is, if there is a limitation on how fast matter would travel, is there also a limitation on how slow matter would travel? And are there limitations to all physical quantities such as the smallest particles or heaviest particles?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists discuss quantum pigeonhole principle
First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives
The first supercomputer simulations of 'spin?orbit' forces between neutrons and protons in an atomic nucleus
mathman
#2
Jan21-04, 08:53 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 6,037
Since the speed of material particles is relative, it is hard to answer your first question. In other words two things moving at the same velocity are moving at 0 speed relative to each other.

Smallest particles question is probably answered by electron neutrinoes. The only things smaller are zero mass things - photons, gluons, and gravitons.

Heaviest is a different question. Do you mean fundamental particles (top quark is heaviest), or are you asking about anything - like the entire universe?
suyver
#3
Jan22-04, 05:03 AM
suyver's Avatar
P: 265
Originally posted by mathman
Since the speed of material particles is relative, it is hard to answer your first question. In other words two things moving at the same velocity are moving at 0 speed relative to each other.
Well, that's not really true. Quantum mechanically, there is always the zero-point motion...

[tex]E_n=\hbar\omega(n+\frac12)[/tex]

To me, that would constitute the 'minimal' velocity. So, near 0 K when two particles move at the same speed, this will result in a minimal velocity difference. Wouldn't you agree?

arivero
#4
Jan22-04, 06:50 AM
PF Gold
arivero's Avatar
P: 2,892
Nature's Limit

On other hand, we know that the measure in the space of quantum trajectories concentrates in the continous but no differentiable ones.

So the maximum velocity given by relativity is c, and the minimum velocity given by quantum mechanics is, err.. , infinity.

Actually I believe the same calculation for relativistic quantum mechanics (an approximate, non existent theory) is intended to give c instead of infinity, so no inconsistency here.

In any case, what happens is that forward and backward randomness compensate, and you get a decent finite averaged velocity in the direction you expected to go.
selfAdjoint
#5
Jan22-04, 08:09 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
relativistic quantum mechanics (an approximate, non existent theory)

Approximate, yes. Non existence (or existence) has not been shown.
jeff
#6
Jan22-04, 10:16 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 660
Originally posted by suyver
Well, that's not really true. Quantum mechanically, there is always the zero-point motion...
[tex]E_n=\hbar\omega(n+\frac12)[/tex]

This is for the QHO (quantum harmonic oscillator).

Originally posted by suyver
To me, that would constitute the 'minimal' velocity.
You should review how the spectrum of the momentum operator for a QHO is obtained.

In the classical case of a mass on the end of a spring, when all the energy is potential energy, the speed of the mass is zero. How does this carry over to the QHO?
suyver
#7
Jan23-04, 01:39 AM
suyver's Avatar
P: 265
Originally posted by jeff
[tex]E_n=\hbar\omega(n+\frac12)[/tex]

This is for the QHO (quantum harmonic oscillator).
Yes, I know. I only used this as a simple example that nearly everybody has seen before: even at the lowest energy, the QHO is not without movement. The zero-point motion is always there. To me, this constitutes in some sense the 'minimal' velocity obtainable. However, the arguments put forward by other replies in this thread made me reconsider (see below).


In the classical case of a mass on the end of a spring, when all the energy is potential energy, the speed of the mass is zero. How does this carry over to the QHO?
Not easily...

In the case of classical mechanics, I agree fully that the 'minimal' velocity obtainable is equal to 0. However, quantum mechanically this is not so simple... As stated in earlier replies, the speed associated with this zero-point motion is either [itex]\infty[/itex] or c, depending on weather you are using the classical or the relativistic version of QM. Now that I thought about it, I think that this is most probably not a usefull definition of the 'minimal' velocity obtainable. So, I'd say that the 'minimal' velocity obtainable from a quantum point of view is just ill defined (as is time in general in classical QM). That leaves me only with the definition from classical (relativistic) mechanics: the 'minimal' velocity obtainable is equal to 0.
Hyperreality
#8
Jan23-04, 04:07 PM
P: 203
Excuse my ignorance, but can anyone please explain to me what QHO and what is the meaning of the equation
[tex]E_n=\hbar\omega(n+\frac12)[/tex]?
8LPF16
#9
Jan30-04, 06:53 AM
P: 174
Hyperreality,

GO HERE:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntum/hosc.html

LPF


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Nature's past experiment on global warming? Earth 0
Nature's 2 billon year old Nuclear reactor Nuclear Engineering 9
Nature's Balance Biology 1
Why is the limit 2025? a simple plug and chug limit! gone wrong! Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
Nature's Fiber Computing & Technology 3