Can We Confirm Concepts in Physics with CS Background?

  • Thread starter robert135
  • Start date
In summary: And it's not just a theoretical possibility that particles can move faster than light through a medium, it's an everyday occurrence in particle accelerators where particles routinely travel through media (such as gas) at speeds much greater than the speed of light in that medium.In summary, the conversation covers various topics related to physics and its principles, including the speed of light, time dilation, gravity, and the relationship between inertia and mass. It addresses some common misconceptions and clarifies certain concepts, such as the fact that particles can travel faster than the speed of light in a medium. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity and fascinating nature of physics.
  • #1
robert135
23
0
My background is in CS, not physics, but I dabble a bit.

I am hoping to confirm a few things I have read and think that I understand. I am hoping these are easy questions. I will try to make them yes or no questions.

1) If one travels close to the speed of light, then time slows down?

2) Einstein predicted that gravity is just a distortion of spacetime?

3) The inertia of an object is related to its mass?

4) The speed of light through an object is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

5) We have successfully accelerated particles damn near the speed of light? If so how close?

6) We have accelerated particles faster than the slower speed of light through objects?


Thanks, I am looking many of these up as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
robert135 said:
My background is in CS, not physics, but I dabble a bit.

I am hoping to confirm a few things I have read and think that I understand. I am hoping these are easy questions. I will try to make them yes or no questions.

1) If one travels close to the speed of light, then time slows down?

This is not true, but would be appear to be the case from the intertial frame you're accelerating away from. In other words, you would seem to redshift to them, but from your perspective, they would appear to "speed up"

robert135 said:
2) Einstein predicted that gravity is just a distortion of spacetime?

I don't know what he predicted exactly, but the Stress-Energy Tensor describes gravity as a result of momentum, shear (stress), and density. In that sense, spacetime is what energy passes through, and the passage of that energy deforms spacetime from its initial configuration.

robert135 said:
3) The inertia of an object is related to its mass?

Well, yes, one is a measurement of the other.

robert135 said:
4) The speed of light through an object is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?
Yes. The speed of light in vacuum is the upper limit of the speed of light, but not the ONLY speed it travels at in a given medium.

robert135 said:
5) We have successfully accelerated particles damn near the speed of light? If so how close?

Within a fractional percentage of c in that medium: around 99.99% at the ALICE accelerator. It should be noted that is a little deceptive however. The energies at which particles, atoms, etc collide is a better measure. That's why you hear talk of "GeV or TeV" and not "99.89 or 99.99999 %" outside of the media.

robert135 said:
6) We have accelerated particles faster than the slower speed of light through objects?

That would be impossible. You can change properties of a medium (other than vacuum) by doping it or other means, but the speed of light in a given homogeneous medium is the RULE. As for what happens when light "brakes" between mediums... do some reading on Čerenkov Radiation for an example.


robert135 said:
Thanks, I am looking many of these up as well.

Good questions, all of them are very good quetions.
 
  • #3
robert135 said:
6) We have accelerated particles faster than the slower speed of light through objects?

Yes, if I understood your question correctly.
Light is slower in media (water, glass) (about 0.7c)
So particles can travel faster then 0.7c in glass. Of course, they travel slower then c.
In such cases particles emit Cherenkov's radiation.
 
  • #4
5) We have successfully accelerated particles damn near the speed of light? If so how close?
At the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lep" , 99.999,999,998,793 %.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Frame Dragger said:
This is not true, but would be appear to be the case from the intertial frame you're accelerating away from. In other words, you would seem to redshift to them, but from your perspective, they would appear to "speed up"
I think you've got it wrong here, both of you would reciprocally observe the other one to slow down by the same factor if you were moving apart at constant speed (and both of you would see the other redshifted by the same factor)--it sounds like you're saying here that it's not reciprocal, that they see you slow down but you see them speed up? If so that's not correct, all relativistic effects must be reciprocal between different inertial observers or else the first postulate of relativity (saying the laws of physics work exactly the same in all inertial frames) would be violated...
Frame Dragger said:
That would be impossible. You can change properties of a medium (other than vacuum) by doping it or other means, but the speed of light in a given homogeneous medium is the RULE. As for what happens when light "brakes" between mediums... do some reading on Čerenkov Radiation for an example.
Not true, particles can travel through a medium faster than the speed of light in that medium (and light itself only appears slowed down because it's repeatedly being absorbed and reemitted, between absorption events it's traveling at the same speed it does in a vacuum--see ZapperZ's post #4 on the Physics Forum FAQ). Cherenkov radiation is a direct result of a particle traveling through a medium faster than light travels through that medium (see here for example), it's akin to the "sonic boom" that results when an object flies through air faster than the speed of sound.
 

1. What is the purpose of confirming what I have read?

The purpose of confirming what you have read is to ensure accuracy and understanding. By verifying the information you have read, you can avoid spreading false information and make sure you have a clear understanding of the topic.

2. How do I confirm what I have read?

There are a few ways to confirm what you have read. One method is to fact-check the information using reliable sources. You can also discuss the information with others to get different perspectives and gain a deeper understanding.

3. Why is it important to confirm what I have read?

Confirming what you have read is important because it allows you to distinguish between accurate and false information. This is especially crucial in today's digital age where misinformation can quickly spread and have negative consequences.

4. What are some red flags to look out for when confirming what I have read?

Some red flags to look out for when confirming what you have read are biased or unreliable sources, lack of evidence or sources, and sensational or emotionally charged language. It is important to critically evaluate the information and its source before accepting it as truth.

5. Can I trust everything I read online?

No, you should not trust everything you read online. It is important to fact-check and confirm the information from reliable sources before accepting it as true. Additionally, be wary of clickbait titles and sensationalized information, as these are often designed to grab attention rather than provide accurate information.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
325
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
833
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
98
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
790
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
501
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
4K
Back
Top