Is anyone looking for this: reaching speed of light

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of something going into or coming out of the speed of light and the potential effects of such events. However, it is noted that this is not possible according to current laws of physics. Some experiments are mentioned that are looking for particles moving at high velocities, but still below the speed of light. The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit is also mentioned, which predicts that particles moving faster than the speed of light would interact with background radiation and create new particles. However, this is a theoretical prediction and has not been observed in experiments. The conversation concludes by discussing the limitations of current detectors and the unlikely possibility of finding particles moving faster than the speed of light.
  • #1
marmstrong941
24
0
is anyone looking for what might be the effect of something going into or coming out of the speed of light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What do you mean by "going into" or "coming out of"?
 
  • #3
well what would or could be the effect of something going pass or coming down from faster then light speed
 
  • #4
There is no physical theory where this would be possible. "What do laws of physics predict if we violate these laws" is not a meaningful question.
 
  • #5
We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?
 
  • #6
We have accelerated electrons to 99.999999999% the speed of light and protons to 99.9999991% (the digits are counted).
And it doesn't even matter, because "nothing can reach the speed of light according to our theories of physics" is a theoretical prediction: It is strictly impossible with the known laws of physics. You cannot make a prediction using these laws.
marmstrong941 said:
Would it hurt to look?
To look for what? There is no predictions how such a hypothetical process could look like because we don't have a theory that could describe that.
 
  • #7
marmstrong941 said:
is anyone looking for what might be the effect of something going into or coming out of the speed of light?

This wikipedia article might address your question. High velocity particles interact with background radiation and create new particles.

A few people are looking around:
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #8
Note that all these experiments are only looking for things slower than light (or looking for light). Something like 99.999999999999% maybe, but slower.
 
  • #9
I have a question. From what I understand, after the Big Bang, The Higgs field was one of the last ones to settle. Doesn’t this mean that the first elementary particles traveled at exactly c until the Higgs settled? What happened at that phase transition to particles that already existed. Is it an instant transition from one state to another or is there some in between?
 
  • #10
mfb said:
Note that all these experiments are only looking for things slower than light (or looking for light). Something like 99.999999999999% maybe, but slower.

They found the OMG particle. That was a lorentz factor of 3.2 x 1011 so they must not be limited to things with lorentz factor below107.

If I understood the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit then anything going faster[particle has more energy] than the limit kicks off new particles when it runs into the cosmic microwave background. The visible light in the our neighborhood would have higher energy collisions. I expect at higher velocity the GZK would reiterate[not sure]. If so, particles created by the collisions would also be moving fast enough to also collide with background radiation and create more particles. Even if a detector could filter out everything with a lorentz factor over 107 it could still detect a source.

The police probably are not looking for an elephant with a band of clowns playing trumpets. A patrol car is capable of observing an elephant, clowns, or trumpeters. So they stand a good chance of noticing if they are in that neighborhood at the time.
 
  • #11
stefan r said:
The police probably are not looking for an elephant with a band of clowns playing trumpets. A patrol car is capable of observing an elephant, clowns, or trumpeters. So they stand a good chance of noticing if they are in that neighborhood at the time.
Not if the elephants and clowns don't exist.
 
  • #12
stefan r said:
They found the OMG particle. That was a lorentz factor of 3.2 x 1011 so they must not be limited to things with lorentz factor below107.
It was slower than the speed of light, that is all that matters in the context of this thread.
If I understood the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit then anything going faster[particle has more energy] than the limit kicks off new particles when it runs into the cosmic microwave background. The visible light in the our neighborhood would have higher energy collisions. I expect at higher velocity the GZK would reiterate[not sure]. If so, particles created by the collisions would also be moving fast enough to also collide with background radiation and create more particles. Even if a detector could filter out everything with a lorentz factor over 107 it could still detect a source.
That is a purely theoretical consideration. Things with energies collisions with the CMB produce secondary particles above the GZK cutoff are not expected to be produced, and even if they are produced they wouldn't travel over any relevant cosmic distances.
The police probably are not looking for an elephant with a band of clowns playing trumpets. A patrol car is capable of observing an elephant, clowns, or trumpeters. So they stand a good chance of noticing if they are in that neighborhood at the time.
They are not actively looking for it, but they would clearly notice it.
Our detectors don't have upper limits for the detection. We know particles above GZK are extremely rare because would see all these particles (if they hit the detectors).

Nothing in your post was discussing the original question.
 
  • #13
marmstrong941 said:
We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?
We can get very near that speed, so we know that quite well, and what we have found when we looked is that the results match the theory
 
Last edited:
  • #14
marmstrong941 said:
We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?
It seems to follow pretty logically that if light moves at the same speed for all inertial observers (something that is experimentally verified), that there is no way any inertial observer could ever reach the speed of light. For if the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers, the no matter how fast you move, light will still move away from you at the speed of light. How, then, could you ever hope to catch a beam of light?
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357
  • #15
Probably the closet science has ever come to seriously investigating the hint of such phenomena comes from Quantum Theory. It is called Entanglement and Einstein naturally found it abhorrent. It would seem to mean that his Relativities are incomplete which digs right down to the validation roots of the postulates of SR (Special Relativity). The Entanglement Wikipedia article is an interesting read. Here are a few out-of-context wiki excerpts:

  • The counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics about strongly correlated systems were first discussed by Albert Einstein in 1935, in a joint paper with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. In this study, the three formulated the EPR paradox, a thought experiment that attempted to show that quantum mechanical theory was incomplete.
  • Following the EPR paper, Erwin Schrödinger wrote a letter to Einstein in German in which he used the word Verschränkung (translated by himself as entanglement) "to describe the correlations between two particles that interact and then separate, as in the EPR experiment."
  • Like Einstein, Schrödinger was dissatisfied with the concept of entanglement, because it seemed to violate the speed limit on the transmission of information implicit in the theory of relativity. Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung" or "spooky action at a distance."
A clear connection between Relativity and Quantum theory is still elusive. It is common to think only in the context of one or the other. I believe work on entanglement is still ongoing as is Relativity. Barring a solid Theory of Everything suddenly cropping up, apparently no theory is ever really complete.

Wes
 
  • #16
Wes Tausend said:
A clear connection between Relativity and Quantum theory is still elusive.
I don't believe this is correct - or at least is somewhat misleading. Certainly quantum mechanics as developed by Schrodinger was non-relativistic, but quantum field theory is fully compatible with special relativity. It assumes Minkowski spacetime as a background.

We do still have some trouble with quantum field theory and general relativity - we can't handle non-classical sources of gravity, for instance.
 
  • Like
Likes Tio Barnabe
  • #17
There are local interpretations of quantum mechanics, and entanglement doesn’t allow superluminal information transfer in any interpretation.

Quantum field theory requires special relativity - it is not “just compatible”, it is necessary.
Ibix said:
We do still have some trouble with quantum field theory and general relativity - we can't handle non-classical sources of gravity, for instance.
We can in many cases, if the sources are weak an effective theory is sufficient.
 
  • #18
Ibix said:
Wes Tausend said: said:
A clear connection between Relativity and Quantum theory is still elusive.
I don't believe this is correct - or at least is somewhat misleading. Certainly quantum mechanics as developed by Schrodinger was non-relativistic, but quantum field theory is fully compatible with special relativity. It assumes Minkowski spacetime as a background.

We do still have some trouble with quantum field theory and general relativity - we can't handle non-classical sources of gravity, for instance.

Upon reflection, I agree with you about my statement. It was poor wording on my account. What I meant was, "A final connection between Relativity and Quantum theory is still elusive". While this may not be entirely correct either, it is intended as reference to the hope of a solid T.o.E. bringing the ultimate clarity.

How should we describe the state of the present relationship between the two theories?

Thanks,
Wes
 
  • #19
Wes Tausend said:
How should we describe the state of the present relationship between the two theories?
Puzzling.
 
  • #20
marmstrong941 said:
We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?

Of course it would be a good idea to look. People have been doing that for over 100 years, ever since the vacuum pump was invented in the late 1800's researchers have evacuated containers and sent particles hurling through them at speeds approaching the speed of light.

For example, an electron can reach 99% of the speed of light when you transfer some energy to it. So all you have to do is increase that energy by 1% or so and you're there, right? Well, no. You can increase that energy making it millions or even trillions of times greater and all that happens is the speed increases by less than that 1%.

The containers used now are miles long, the largest being a circular tunnel with a circumference of 50 miles. Engineers, scientists, and technicians every minute of every day at locations all around the world routinely accelerate particles to near light speed. All of this has been well understood for about 100 years and it's now a fact of modern life.
 
  • #21
marmstrong941 said:
We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?
Mister T said:
... People have been doing that for over 100 years, ever since the vacuum pump was invented in the late 1800's researchers have evacuated containers and sent particles hurling through them at speeds approaching the speed of light...

None of the researchers have been hurled through the containers at speeds approaching c. Some people were placed in vacuum chambers at Dachau in 1944. NASA decompressed a technician in 1965. Lots of chickens, dogs, and chimps have experienced this experiment.

Apollo 10 reached 11,000 m/s. 3.7 x 10-5c
 
  • #22
Particles, not people.
 
  • Like
Likes Mister T

What is the speed of light?

The speed of light is a universal constant that is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

Why is reaching the speed of light important?

Reaching the speed of light is important because it is the fastest speed at which energy, information, and matter can travel. It is also a fundamental concept in the theory of relativity and has significant implications for space travel and communication.

Has anyone ever reached the speed of light?

No, it is currently impossible for any object with mass to reach the speed of light. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate an object to the speed of light.

Why is it difficult to reach the speed of light?

The closer an object gets to the speed of light, the more energy is required to accelerate it further. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, making it more difficult to increase its speed. This makes it virtually impossible for anything with mass to reach the speed of light.

What are some proposed methods for reaching the speed of light?

Some proposed methods for reaching the speed of light include using powerful propulsion systems, such as nuclear or antimatter engines, and utilizing the principles of relativity to manipulate space and time. However, these methods are still theoretical and have not been proven to be feasible.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
311
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
78
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Back
Top