# Neutrino is faster then photon (light) so how can be this possible?

If I reach the speed of light which is 300 00 km/s the time will stop! and if I travel faster then light i'll travel to the past (Please Correct me if I'm wrong) I read that the Neutrino is faster then photon (light) so how can be this possible ?! Because if it is realy faster than light that mean it travel to the past so .... how ?!

phinds
Gold Member
If I reach the speed of light which is 300 00 km/s the time will stop! and if I travel faster then light i'll travel to the past (Please Correct me if I'm wrong) I read that the Neutrino is faster then photon (light) so how can be this possible ?! Because if it is realy faster than light that mean it travel to the past so .... how ?!

1) You cannot travel as fast as light
2) You cannot travel faster than light
3) the FTL neutrino report was an experimental error
4) NOTHING travels faster than light and only massless objects can travel as fast a as light.

jtbell
Mentor
If I reach the speed of light

You can't, sorry.

and if I travel faster then light

You can't, sorry.

I read that the Neutrino is faster then photon

No, it's not, as far as we know. There was a report more than a year ago of experimental results that seemed to indicate (if they were correct) that neutrinos could travel faster than light, but this turned out to be due to experimental error.

[phinds can type faster than I can]

You can't, sorry.

You can't, sorry.

No, it's not, as far as we know. There was a report more than a year ago of experimental results that seemed to indicate (if they were correct) that neutrinos could travel faster than light, but this turned out to be due to experimental error.

[phinds can type faster than I can]

I know particules can't Reach the speed of light but it's just a hypothesis any Way thank you very much !!!!

mfb
Mentor
I know particules can't Reach the speed of light but it's just a hypothesis any Way thank you very much !!!!
It is not a hypothesis. You are asking for predictions of a theory for something impossible in that theory.
If there would be some reasonable theory where you could be faster than light, you could ask for implications in that theory - but not for predictions of special relativity.

It is not a hypothesis. You are asking for predictions of a theory for something impossible in that theory.
If there would be some reasonable theory where you could be faster than light, you could ask for implications in that theory - but not for predictions of special relativity.

Why Particles which have mass can't reach the speed of Light ? and Why Higgs Boson (Higgs Field) can't reacts with Photon ?

Why Particles which have mass can't reach the speed of Light ?

Hmmmm ... okay, I'll try.

Because in order for a particle with invariant mass to accelerate to the speed of light it would have to have limitless (infinite) energy. A particle's mass is relevant to its energy and therefore it is impossible for it to have limitless (infinite) energy. If you add more mass in an effort add more energy then you run into this little problem with inertial mass and also its, :::: cringe :::: here it comes ... relativistic mass.

and Why Higgs Boson (Higgs Field) can't reacts with Photon ?

I am not sure that I understand your question. The Higgs boson particle and the so-called Higgs Field are two entirely different "things" for lack of a better way of putting it to you. And would you happen to be referring to "protons" rather than "photons?" A proton is a subatomic particle, a photon is electromagnetic radiation energy. Yes, a photon may be described as a "particle of light" but it is actually energy. Does this help you?

Last edited:
Hmmmm ... okay, I'll try.

Because in order for a particle with invariant mass to accelerate to the speed of light it would have to have limitless (infinite) energy. A particle's mass is relevant to its energy and therefore it is impossible for it to have limitless (infinite) energy. If you add more mass in an effort add more energy then you run into this little problem with inertial mass and also its, :::: cringe :::: here it comes ... relativistic mass.

I am not sure that I understand your question. The Higgs boson particle and the so-called Higgs Field are two entirely different "things" for lack of a better way of putting it to you. And would you happen to be referring to "protons" rather than "photons?" A proton is a subatomic particle, a photon is electromagnetic radiation energy. Yes, a photon may be described as a "particle of light" but it is actually energy. Does this help you?
Thank You !!!!

When I asked "Why Higgs Boson (Higgs Field) can't reacts with Photon ?" I mean Why photons are massless ?

I went on googling to find the answer to my last question, and got this:

"The electromagnetic force is transmitted between object by the exchange of photons."

Is this true?

mathman
I went on googling to find the answer to my last question, and got this:

"The electromagnetic force is transmitted between object by the exchange of photons."

Is this true?

Yes.

mfb
Mentor
Why Particles which have mass can't reach the speed of Light ?
That is an experimental observation. Physics cannot answer "why" the laws of nature are like that on a fundamental level.

and Why Higgs Boson (Higgs Field) can't reacts with Photon ?
That is an experimental observation. The Higgs boson can indirectly couple to photons, however - this happens in the decay of a Higgs boson to two photons, with intermediate particles in between.

Everything can travel faster than the speed of light if it is "riding the wave" of expanding spacetime, which itself is expanding faster than the speed of light ;)
I don't think this is a useful description. It is not a real motion at all. The distance increases.

I don't fully understand them, but I've heard Tachyons only travel faster then light and to decelerate takes an infinite amount of energy. They have not been experimentally confirmed but are discussed among groups of physicists. If anyone has any explanation or questions please let me know.

Everything can travel faster than the speed of light if it is "riding the wave" of expanding spacetime, which itself is expanding faster than the speed of light ;)
I don't think this is a useful description. It is not a real motion at all. The distance increases.
The distance between two objects (e.g. stars) can increase without any motion? So, two objects go appart and nothing at all moves?

I apologize to ZapperZ, that he had to delete my statement... But I have to ask...

On post: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4354834&postcount=16 I got this reply from Nugatory (Science Advisor) for alike statement :
Yes, as a result of expanding spacetime it's perfectly possible for sufficiently distant stars to be doing something that could be kinda sorta described as "moving away faster than the speed of light"

So, at that time it was OK to say what I said, and now it is wrong? (And not just wrong, but so wrong that it deserves to be deleted?)

Last edited:
phinds
Gold Member
So, at that time it was OK to say what I said, and now it is wrong?

You are now saying TRAVEL faster than light. This is wrong. It RECEDES faster than light.

You are now saying TRAVEL faster than light. This is wrong. It RECEDES faster than light.
I see the difference now, thanks for correcting me (I am not English, sorry).

I checked the dictionary: RECEDES means "to move back or away", and to my mind, something moving, is travelling... Language is not always logical, is it.

mfb
Mentor
Well, those are all attempts to put mathematics in english words, and that is not always easy. Language was made for things on earth, where you don't have to deal with expanding space and other non-intuitive stuff.
(I am not English, sorry)
Same here.

sophiecentaur
Gold Member
2020 Award
I see the difference now, thanks for correcting me (I am not English, sorry).

I checked the dictionary: RECEDES means "to move back or away", and to my mind, something moving, is travelling... Language is not always logical, is it.

The recession is due to the expansion of the space in between and not due to the objects travelling faster than c through the space. Does that help?
Dictionary definitions are not always too helpful for a specialist field like Physics. Just consider the word 'Particle' for instance.

That isn't motion, it is just the metric changing. the three velocity has not reached superluminal speeds.
It seems that almost half of the threads in this section are about the speed of light and its many implications.

So, is it impossible that expansion of spacetime could somehow act/push on the objects and move them?

Isn't the dark energy actually quantum fluctuations having effect on objects when considering cosmic scales?

Nugatory
Mentor
So, is it impossible that expansion of spacetime could somehow act/push on the objects and move them?
Yes, it is impossible. The "expansion of space-time" is a mathematical description of how things behave, and a mathematical description doesn't push things around.
Isn't the dark energy actually quantum fluctuations having effect on objects when considering cosmic scales?
Do you have a credible source (like a peer-reviewed paper, not just some pop-sci speculation) to suggest that there might be a connection between "quantum fluctuations" and "dark energy"? If not, you're just spouting buzzwords.

Yes, it is impossible. The "expansion of space-time" is a mathematical description of how things behave, and a mathematical description doesn't push things around.
Hmm, are you saying that expansion of space-time isn't phsically real?

Do you have a credible source (like a peer-reviewed paper, not just some pop-sci speculation) to suggest that there might be a connection between "quantum fluctuations" and "dark energy"? If not, you're just spouting buzzwords.
I am not sure where I picked that up, I am checking Krauss book 'Universe from nothing', if I find it there I'll post quotes from book, if it's not there I will apologize for 'spouting buzzwords'.

phinds
Gold Member
Hmm, are you saying that expansion of space-time isn't phsically real?

Of course he's not saying that. Google "metric expansion".

Do you have a credible source (like a peer-reviewed paper, not just some pop-sci speculation) to suggest that there might be a connection between "quantum fluctuations" and "dark energy"? If not, you're just spouting buzzwords.
I still don't know where I picked that up, but after some searching I got this:

Early dark energy from zero-point quantum fluctuations
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3797

Zero-point quantum fluctuations and dark energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1782

Could dark energy be measured in the lab?
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406504
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2004/jun/29/could-dark-energy-be-studied-in-the-lab

Of course he's not saying that. Google "metric expansion".
OK, nothing is being moved or pushed, but the distance between objects does change, so, relatively speaking, the effect to the observer on the one side is same as if the other object moved, right?

Danger
Gold Member
Okay, now... I haven't clicked any of the preceding links, but I'm going to procede as if they don't include what I'm about to say.
It is easiest for me, as a non-scientist, to think of the galactic recession as ink dots on an expanding balloon or raisins in a baking muffin. The ink does not move in relation to the rubber, and the raisins do not move in relation to the dough. The rubber and the dough just get bigger in between them.