Find the "Oh-My-God Particle" - 1516 x Speed of Light Explained

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around the "Oh-My-God Particle," which is noted for traveling at 1516 times the speed of light (c). According to the referenced article, this particle could reach the center of the Milky Way in approximately 21 years as perceived by those on board, contrasting sharply with the fictional speeds of Star Trek starships. Participants express frustration over the comparison, highlighting the neglect of relativistic effects in the fictional context while emphasizing their importance in real physics. The conversation reveals a critical examination of how science fiction influences public understanding of relativistic travel.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity and time dilation
  • Familiarity with the concept of light speed (c)
  • Knowledge of the Milky Way's dimensions (approximately 24,900 light-years to the center)
  • Awareness of science fiction references, particularly Star Trek's warp speeds
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of time dilation in special relativity
  • Study the physics behind particles traveling at relativistic speeds
  • Explore the differences between real physics and science fiction representations
  • Investigate the historical context and significance of the "Oh-My-God Particle"
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, science fiction enthusiasts, educators, and anyone interested in the intersection of real-world physics and fictional narratives.

1MileCrash
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
41
SOMEONE linked to this article on a recent thread, and I've looked high and low for it but I can't find it..

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html/

"At a velocity of 1516 c, traveling to the centre of the galaxy would take, as perceived by the life forms on board, a little more than 21 years."

I know they're making a comparison to sci-fi (which really grinds my hears but I won't go into that) but WHAT are they talking about?

At 1516 times the speed of light, the trip takes 21 years?? How did they perform that calculation? I'm so annoyed that this is in an actual science article.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1MileCrash said:
SOMEONE linked to this article on a recent thread, and I've looked high and low for it but I can't find it..

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html/

"At a velocity of 1516 c, traveling to the centre of the galaxy would take, as perceived by the life forms on board, a little more than 21 years."

I know they're making a comparison to sci-fi (which really grinds my hears but I won't go into that) but WHAT are they talking about?

At 1516 times the speed of light, the trip takes 21 years?? How did they perform that calculation? I'm so annoyed that this is in an actual science article.

Could it be that what was intended was .1516 ? Seems like an oddly precise number in any event. Maybe that's some round number of zillions of miles per hour or km/sec or something.
I'm too lazy to do the math.
 
phinds said:
Could it be that what was intended was .1516 ?

No,

"It is interesting to observe that a real particle, in our universe, subject to all the laws of physics we understand, is a rather better interstellar voyager than the best fielded in the 24th century by the United Federation of Planets. Their much-vaunted Galaxy Class starships are capable of speeds slightly in excess of Warp Factor 9, an apparent velocity of 1516 cochranes (or 1516 times the speed of light).[4] At a velocity of 1516 c, traveling to the centre of the galaxy would take, as perceived by the life forms on board, a little more than 21 years. By contrast, an observer on board the Oh-My-God particle would arrive at the nucleus of the Milky Way, according to his clock, just about 3 seconds after leaving Starbase Terra. That's more than 9,700,000 times faster than the starship. In the time the starship spends vacuum-whooshing and rumbling its way to the nearby star Aldebaran, the particle could travel to the edge of the visible universe."

:confused:
 
Note the use of "according to his clock" so time dilation comes into effect.

According to the article the 1516c figure refers to star trek (I think?) spaceship drives, and using wikipedia (d=24,900 ± 1,000 ly to centre of milky way) and obviously neglecting all relativistic effects I get a figure of 16.5y which is pretty close.
 
Zorba said:
Note the use of "according to his clock" so time dilation comes into effect.

According to the article the 1516c figure refers to star trek (I think?) spaceship drives, and using wikipedia (d=24,900 ± 1,000 ly to centre of milky way) and obviously neglecting all relativistic effects I get a figure of 16.5y which is pretty close.

So they are comparing the speed of the oh-my-god particle taking into account relativistic effects to the speed of a fictional spaceship without taking into account relativistic effects?

Whoever decided to throw that paragraph in there needs a swift kick in the jaw.
 
1MileCrash said:
So they are comparing the speed of the oh-my-god particle taking into account relativistic effects to the speed of a fictional spaceship without taking into account relativistic effects?

Whoever decided to throw that paragraph in there needs a swift kick in the jaw.

Seems like they are saying "In the fictional Star Trek TV show a ship could get to the centre of the galaxy in X time as measured by both the ship's crew and an individual who stayed at departure. IRL a near C object could get to the centre of the galaxy in <X time according to the object but 1000s of X as measured by an individual who stayed at departure"

Stupid way of discussing relativity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
16K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K