Register to reply 
Nature's Limit 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jan2104, 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? 


#2
Jan2104, 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? 


#3
Jan2204, 05:03 AM

P: 265

[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? 


#4
Jan2204, 06:50 AM

PF Gold
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. 


#5
Jan2204, 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. 


#6
Jan2204, 10:16 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 660

This is for the QHO (quantum harmonic oscillator). 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? 


#7
Jan2304, 01:39 AM

P: 265

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 zeropoint 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. 


#8
Jan2304, 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]? 


#9
Jan3004, 06:53 AM

P: 174




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 