Is Energy Transmitted Faster than Light through Electro-Weak Fields?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tickle_monste
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Faster than light Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the transmission of energy through electro-weak and strong fields, particularly whether it occurs faster than the speed of light. Participants explore theoretical implications, the nature of fundamental forces, and interpretations of Fermat's principle or theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if energy can be transmitted faster than light through electro-weak and strong fields, suggesting that such transmission is necessary for particle existence.
  • Another participant asserts that energy cannot be transmitted faster than light, referencing the constraints of gauge bosons within the standard model.
  • A different participant explains that while photons (massless) travel at the speed of light, W and Z bosons (massive) propagate slower, indicating a speed limit for energy transmission.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of Fermat's theorem, with one participant expressing uncertainty about whether they meant Fermat's principle or theorem and how it relates to their argument.
  • One participant reflects on their intuition regarding light's behavior within particles, questioning whether light could travel faster inside a particle or if its behavior is merely circumstantial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the possibility of energy transmission faster than light, with some asserting it is impossible while others propose theoretical scenarios that suggest otherwise. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of Fermat's theorem or principle in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of Fermat's theorem versus principle, and there are unresolved questions about the nature of light's speed within particles versus in a vacuum.

tickle_monste
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
I understand that in our universe, the speed of light represents a limit which objects of mass cannot reach. I also understand that at sufficiently high energies, the electromagnetic force becomes unified with the weak force to make the electro-weak force.

Now my question is, is energy transmitted faster than light through an electro-weak field? What about a strong field? Etc. etc. It seems to me that energy would be transmitted faster through these fields, and that if it didn't, particles would not be able to exist (my extended interpretation of Fermat's Theorem). If this were the case, I would presume there would be serious implications regarding the time-evolution of the universe from the Big Bang.

No detail goes unappreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tickle_monste said:
I Now my question is, is energy transmitted faster than light through an electro-weak field? What about a strong field? Etc. etc.

No and no. Etc. etc.

tickle_monste said:
It seems to me that energy would be transmitted faster through these fields, and that if it didn't, particles would not be able to exist (my extended interpretation of Fermat's Theorem).

Which theorem? And is this in the peer-reviewed literature anywhere?
 
Within the standard model, all the fundamental forces are mediated by gauge bosons, massive or otherwise, which are constrained to travel <= the speed of light.

e.g. the exchange of photons between electrons leads to their mutual electromagnetic replusion. Clearly the force transfer occurs at the speed of light.
 
It is good to remember that the universe has a maximum speed limit for motion in inertial frames, and light moves at this speed because photons are massless. For the stong force, the gluons are massless, and so they move at the maximum speed, so we could call it the "speed of glue." The 'weak field' , on the other hand, is made of W and Z particles which do have mass, and anything with mass propogates slower than the speed of light (glue).

Now my question is, is energy transmitted faster than light through an electro-weak field? What about a strong field? Etc. etc.

Absolutely not, no, never.

It seems to me that energy would be transmitted faster through these fields, and that if it didn't, particles would not be able to exist (my extended interpretation of Fermat's Theorem).

If you phrase it in terms of a question, "can I use Fermat's principle..." (you do mean principle instead of theorem, right?) then maybe the PF moderators will let you discuss that 'extension' (I would read it) but if you say that your own intuition has led you to a faster-than-light conclusion then no will take that seriously.
 
Thank you, confinement, and everybody else, all these answers helped a lot. I'm not sure whether I mean Fermat's principle or Fermat's theorem, because I learned about it in a Calc II text. They called it Fermat's theorem, and it says, "Light will always take the path over which it can travel the most distance in the least time." Which would be a straight line in a vacuum. It was 100% my own intuition that led me to my "extension" of Fermat's theorem. I do not expect it to be taken seriously, I'm looking for enlightenment on where I'm thinking wrong.

If light would always travel the greatest distance in the least time, then it seems that if it were to enter a particle, then the speed of light within the particle must be greater than in the vacuum. I first tried to explain the absorption of light by a particle by collisions of light with particles, where in that specific instant of time, the light would have to choose the path that enters the particle, and the particle remains stable because it would take a longer time to exit the particle than to remain within.

Basically my first way of thinking about it is that light simply can just travel faster within the particle, and the second way says that it's just circumstantial that the light is staying within the particle. Is either of these ways of thinking correct? From what I've gathered so far, my first way is wrong. I'm just here to ask questions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
17K