- #1
henrywang
- 14
- 0
If a a object is falling in a gravity field with infinitly long radius. can it eventually travel faster than the speed of light?
henrywang said:If a a object is falling in a gravity field with infinitly long radius. can it eventually travel faster than the speed of light?
henrywang said:why? please explain.
also, what about a wrap drive?
phinds said:"Why" is not a question that physics answers. "What does it do" and "how does it work" are the kind of questions physics answers. "Why questions" just lead to more "why questions" at which point religious folks say "god" and physicists say "damned if I know".
Warp drives do not exist.
phinds said:"Why" is not a question that physics answers. "What does it do" and "how does it work" are the kind of questions physics answers. "Why questions" just lead to more "why questions" at which point religious folks say "god" and physicists say "damned if I know".
Warp drives do not exist.
ag048744 said:See this video with feynman : He clearly explains the problem with why? :
PeroK said:In Scotland you could say something like "how are you not going?". Which means "why are you not going?"!
PeroK said:I was brought up in Scotland, where "how" is often used instead of "why". I only noticed it when I moved to England. So, for me, "how" and "why" don't have the same linguistic difference that they may for others.
In Scotland you could say something like "how are you not going?". Which means "why are you not going?"!
Or, of course, "how can you not travel faster than light?"!
henrywang said:If a a object is falling in a gravity field with infinitly long radius. can it eventually travel faster than the speed of light?
henrywang said:OK... how does the object do not go beyond the speed of light given that there is infinite lengths for acceleration?
repollo said:Then by that same analogy we can say that the higgs boson is able to travel at the speed of light right?
BTW: Not about the subject in question but I wonder if two higgs boson can actually collide and wonder what would happen? Super fast telecommunications maybe, anyone?
The Higgs boson has nothing to do with this "why?" question.danshawen said:I am in agreement with the first answer; Nothing (energy or matter) can travel faster than the speed of light, period.
But then you asked "Why?" Well, there's a much better answer to that follow-up question, ever since July 4, 2012.
There are two assumptions, and neither has anything to do with exceeding light speed. You don't have to take my word for it - Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity paper is online and you'll find it pretty quickly if you google for "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies".E=mc^2, and that particular derivation by Einstein has only one assumption. It is that the speed of light is invariant and cannot be exceeded by matter or energy.
No. The Higgs mechanism is not a reason for special relativity. It is a reason why particles have mass, but even without mass they could not exceed the speed of light, and this has nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism.danshawen said:But then you asked "Why?" Well, there's a much better answer to that follow-up question, ever since July 4, 2012.
The particles do not "slow down" as they never travel at the speed of light.The Higgs mechanism does this without violating conservation of energy by slowing these particles down (from the speed of light).
The decay to two photons is possible and interesting for the observation, but it is quite rare (~.3%).The Higgs boson also imparts mass to itself, but decays into photons in about 10^-21 seconds in the LHC.
I hope the LHC is not based on a wrong (or at least misleading, if quoted like this) equation! See Nugatory's reply for details.Heck, the LHC couldn't even have been designed without E=mc^2, and that particular derivation by Einstein has only one assumption. It is that the speed of light is invariant and cannot be exceeded by matter or energy.
They could interact and produce other particles, but that process is really unlikely.repollo said:BTW: Not about the subject in question but I wonder if two higgs boson can actually collide and wonder what would happen? Super fast telecommunications maybe, anyone?
What you mean is the Higgs field - this is everywhere. Higgs bosons are rare.repollo said: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
phinds said:No. Nothing travels faster than c. Period.
ExecNight said:On the other hand, galaxies move away from each other faster than c due to expansion of the 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.
I agree that they will red shift into darkness but I have no idea why you think they will "freeze in space time" since they won't.ExecNight said:The updating of the light will cease and the galaxies we now see will freeze in space time and then red shift into darkness.
Agreed, but the point I was addressing had nothing to do with whether or not the information was useful just whether or not it gets here.How that information is useful is beyond me though.
4200 parsecs away is still within our galaxy, where expansion does not happen.phinds said:That is wrong in two regards. First, expansion takes place on a much smaller scale. 4,200 parsecs is more than enough, to say nothing of 4,200 MEGAparsecs. Second, even objects which are 4,200 megaparsecs away from us are sharing light (information) with us right now. In fact, pbjects at the edge of our observable universe are something like 14,000 megaparsecs away and we can still see them.
mfb said:4200 parsecs away is still within our galaxy, where expansion does not happen.
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.
Into darkness, but also into slower evolution (as seen by us) due to the redshift. The effect is very similar to objects falling into black holes (as seen by outside observers), just on a completely different timescale.phinds said:Hm ... I don't follow. How does our view of them freeze? Wouldn't they just fade into darkness with greater and greater redshift?
mfb said:Into darkness, but also into slower evolution (as seen by us) due to the redshift. The effect is very similar to objects falling into black holes (as seen by outside observers), just on a completely different timescale.
henrywang said:If a a object is falling in a gravity field with infinitly long radius. can it eventually travel faster than the speed of light?
According to the theory of general relativity, an object falling in infinite gravity will approach the speed of light but will never exceed it. This is because the speed of light is considered to be the maximum speed in the universe.
Infinite gravity is a hypothetical concept in which the gravitational force is so strong that it becomes infinite. This is often used in thought experiments to explore the limits of physics and the behavior of objects in extreme conditions.
Gravity does not directly affect the speed of light. However, it can affect the path that light takes as it travels through space, causing it to appear to bend or curve.
According to the theory of relativity, it is impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light. This is because as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it further.
The concept of an object breaking the speed of light in infinite gravity is purely hypothetical and not supported by current scientific theories. However, if such a scenario were possible, it would likely result in the object being torn apart by the extreme gravitational forces.