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

In summary: The expansion of space itself does not have a speed. It is a change in the metric of space. The speed of light is the limit on how fast you can cross the space. It is not a limit on how fast space can move.Thanks for the help!In summary, particles with mass cannot reach the speed of light as it would require infinite energy, and the Higgs boson cannot directly interact with photons. The electromagnetic force is transmitted through the exchange of photons. The expansion of space does not have a speed and the speed of light is the limit for crossing space.
  • #1
Astro-Anouar
21
0
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 really faster than light that mean it travel to the past so ... how ?!
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Astro-Anouar said:
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 really 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.
 
  • #3
Astro-Anouar said:
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]
 
  • #4
jtbell said:
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 !
 
  • #5
Astro-Anouar said:
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.
 
  • #6
mfb said:
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 ?
 
  • #7
Astro-Anouar said:
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.

Astro-Anouar said:
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:
  • #8
Higgs Boson said:
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 ?
 
  • #9
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?
 
  • #10
Boy@n said:
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.
 
  • #11
Astro-Anouar said:
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.


Boy@n said:
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.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
mfb said:
Boy@n said:
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 :
Nugatory said:
Yes, as a result of expanding spacetime it's perfectly possible for sufficiently distant stars to be doing something that could be kinda sort of 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:
  • #14
Boy@n said:
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.
 
  • #15
phinds said:
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... Langauge is not always logical, is it.
 
  • #16
Well, those are all attempts to put mathematics in english words, and that is not always easy. Langauge 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.
 
  • #17
Boy@n said:
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... Langauge 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.
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • #19
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?
 
  • #20
Boy@n said:
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.
 
  • #21
Nugatory said:
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?

Nugatory said:
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'.
 
  • #22
Boy@n said:
Hmm, are you saying that expansion of space-time isn't phsically real?

Of course he's not saying that. Google "metric expansion".
 
  • #23
Nugatory said:
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
 
  • #24
phinds said:
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?
 
  • #25
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.
 
  • #26
Boy@n said:
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?

Only if the observer is ignorant of physics. Objects at the farthest reaches of the observable universe are receding from us at about 3c. It would take a pretty total ignorance of physics for someone to conclude from this that they are moving rather than receding.
 
  • #27
phinds said:
Only if the observer is ignorant of physics. Objects at the farthest reaches of the observable universe are receding from us at about 3c. It would take a pretty total ignorance of physics for someone to conclude from this that they are moving rather than receding.
Of course... Though, I was speaking generally.
 
  • #28
Boy@n said:
Of course... Though, I was speaking generally.

So for you "speaking generally" means speaking in very imprecise language in a way that doesn't have any meaning in physics.
 
  • #29
phinds said:
So for you "speaking generally" means speaking in very imprecise language in a way that doesn't have any meaning in physics.
If we didn't have all the data as we (luckily) have today (as Krauss says, in distant future spacetime will expand to the point when humans on Earth will be able to observe just our own galaxy and none other, thus thinking that our Milky Way is our whole observable Universe) then (I go on with my thinking) if it would happen that a star from edge of our galaxy (in appearance) starts to going away from us at faster than light speed, will people of future be able to know what is it happening? That the star is actually not moving at all, but just receding away at FTL due to spacetime expanding or will they be just puzzled and will think it moves FTL?

So, I was generally speaking because I want to have a broader picture on this phenomenon and how humans understand it.

I will stop posting questions and thoughts if what I write is perceived as meaningless.

And thanks to all who can be so patient with me :-)
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Our local group will stay together - the milky way together with Andromeda and some smaller galaxies. Stars at the edge of our galaxy will always stay there, unless they are ejected for reasons not connected to expansion (orbital mechanics, collision with Andromeda, supernovae, ...).

They might be able to observe expansion based on a few stars that were ejected from the local group.
 
  • #31
mfb said:
Our local group will stay together - the milky way together with Andromeda and some smaller galaxies. Stars at the edge of our galaxy will always stay there, unless they are ejected for reasons not connected to expansion (orbital mechanics, collision with Andromeda, supernovae, ...).

They might be able to observe expansion based on a few stars that were ejected from the local group.
Seems sensible, thanks.
 
  • #32
Boy@n said:
If we didn't have all the data as we (luckily) have today (as Krauss says, in distant future spacetime will expand to the point when humans on Earth will be able to observe just our own galaxy and none other, thus thinking that our Milky Way is our whole observable Universe) then (I go on with my thinking) if it would happen that a star from edge of our galaxy (in appearance) starts to going away from us at faster than light speed, will people of future be able to know what is it happening? That the star is actually not moving at all, but just receding away at FTL due to spacetime expanding or will they be just puzzled and will think it moves FTL?

So, I was generally speaking because I want to have a broader picture on this phenomenon and how humans understand it.

I will stop posting questions and thoughts if what I write is perceived as meaningless.

And thanks to all who can be so patient with me :-)

That's a very interesting thought that you have had, and is one that has been discussed before by other physicists. The main thought that I remember from the other discussions is this: In the past, people thought that we were at the center of the universe and that our solar system (later our galaxy) was the entirety of the universe. They were far more wrong than they could imagine, but they DID to some extent base their thought on what observations they could make. In the far future, people will believe that our galaxy is the entirety of the universe and they will be more wrong than they could imagine, but they WILL be basing their thought on what observations they can make and they will be RIGHT as far as their observations are concerned.

That last bit requires the assumption that people have lost science history and are not aware of expansion and its results, but the combination of points of view (being the same but for vastly different reasons) is an interesting way of looking at things.

EDIT: by the way, this business of folks in the past being wrong and folks in the future being wrong (but for different reasons) has led to a number of statements about how interesting it is that we happen to live in an age when we have overcome the ignorance of the past and have not yet had to succumb to the lack of observational data of the future, and thus we live in interesting times for cosmologists --- times that are unique in that way.

Personally, I'm less enthralled by that observation than some folks seem to be and here's why: The period that we live in, based on that single criteria, is going to last for MANY multiples of what is now the age of the universe and even more multiple of the age of the human race. I think those observations are mainly being made simply because we are, historically speaking, just this very minute coming out of the age of ignorance of cosmology. If people are still around in a billion years they will not be significantly further into this age than we are now, but I doubt if that thought will occur to them.
 
Last edited:

1. How is it possible for neutrinos to travel faster than light?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe. However, recent experiments have shown that neutrinos may be able to exceed this limit. This is still a topic of ongoing research and scientists are trying to understand the mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

2. What evidence supports the claim that neutrinos are faster than light?

In 2011, the OPERA experiment at CERN observed that neutrinos traveled from Geneva, Switzerland to Gran Sasso, Italy faster than the speed of light. This result was later found to be due to a faulty measurement, but other experiments such as MINOS and ICARUS have also observed similar results. However, these results have not been replicated consistently and are still being investigated.

3. Does this mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong?

No, Einstein's theory of relativity has been extensively tested and has been proven to be accurate in many experiments. The observation of faster-than-light neutrinos is a potential anomaly that is still being studied and does not necessarily contradict the theory.

4. How can neutrinos travel faster than light if they have mass?

It was previously believed that neutrinos were massless particles, which would explain how they could travel at the speed of light. However, recent experiments have shown that neutrinos do have a small amount of mass. This raises questions about how they can still travel faster than light, and scientists are working to understand this phenomenon.

5. What are the implications of faster-than-light neutrinos?

If neutrinos are indeed able to travel faster than light, it would have major implications for our understanding of physics and the universe. It could potentially lead to a revision of Einstein's theory of relativity and open up new possibilities for space travel and communication. However, until these results are consistently replicated and fully understood, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
17K
Back
Top