- #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?
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.marmstrong941 said:Would it hurt to look?
marmstrong941 said:is anyone looking for what might be the effect of something going into or coming out of the speed of light?
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.
Not if the elephants and clowns don't exist.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.
It was slower than the speed of light, that is all that matters in the context of this thread.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.
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.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.
They are not actively looking for it, but they would clearly notice it.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.
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 theorymarmstrong941 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?marmstrong941 said:We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?
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.Wes Tausend said:A clear connection between Relativity and Quantum theory is still elusive.
We can in many cases, if the sources are weak an effective theory is sufficient.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.
Ibix said: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.Wes Tausend said: said:A clear connection between Relativity and Quantum theory is still elusive.
We do still have some trouble with quantum field theory and general relativity - we can't handle non-classical sources of gravity, for instance.
Puzzling.Wes Tausend said:How should we describe the state of the present relationship between the two theories?
marmstrong941 said:We can't even get neer that speed yet so we don't know that yet. Would it hurt to look?
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...
The speed of light is a universal constant that is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.
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.
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.
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.
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.