Is there a possibility of particles faster than light?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the possibility of particles that could travel faster than light, specifically questioning the basis for considering photons as the fastest particles. Participants explore the implications of such particles on the theory of relativity and the nature of invariant speed.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why photons are considered the fastest particles and propose that there could be particles that travel slightly faster than photons.
  • There is a request for clarification on which specific relativity arguments are being referenced in relation to faster-than-light particles.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the derivation of special relativity and suggests outlining it to understand its applicability to particles faster than light.
  • Another participant notes that derivations of relativity start with the assumption of an invariant speed, which would be contradicted by the existence of faster-than-light particles.
  • Questions are raised about the reasons photons are assigned an invariant velocity, with a mention of their massless nature as a contributing factor.
  • It is suggested that if photons were found to have rest mass, they would be expected to travel slower than the speed of light.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of light speed and the implications of potentially faster particles. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the topic.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about invariant speed and the definitions of massless particles. The derivations of relativity and their applicability to hypothetical faster-than-light particles are not fully explored.

Gerenuk
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
5
Why do we take photons as the reference and say they are the fastest?

Could anyone prove that there isn't a particle that is slightly faster than photons?

For example one could probable redo all the relativity argument with that faster particle (gravitons or anything)? Then light would only be second in speed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gerenuk said:
redo all the relativity argument

Which "relativity argument" are you referring to?
 
jtbell said:
Which "relativity argument" are you referring to?
I'm not sure about the correct derivation of spec.rel.

Maybe someone can first outline the derivation and then say why it wouldn't work for particles other/faster than light.
 
Those "derivations" don't start with the fastest speed. They start with the existence of an invariant speed, i.e. a speed that's measured to be the same by all inertial observers. If there's a particle that moves faster than the invariant speed, its speed wouldn't be invariant.
 
That's not the answer to my question.

Why in particular are photons supposed to have this invariant velocity?
 
Why in particular are photons supposed to have this invariant velocity?
Photons are supposed to have no rest mass, and it can be shown that massless particles must travel at the invariant velocity.
If someday they find that photons have restmass, they'd be supposed to be a bit slower than c. But there are http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/2007/listings/s000.pdf" on the photon mass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah OK. Thanks for the reference.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K