The discussion centers on the misconception that neutrinos can travel faster than light, which has been debunked as an experimental error. Participants clarify that according to the principles of special relativity, no particle with mass can reach or exceed the speed of light, which is approximately 300,000 km/s. The Higgs boson and its interaction with photons are also discussed, emphasizing that photons are massless and that the Higgs field does not directly interact with them. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the fundamental laws of physics and the implications of spacetime expansion.
PREREQUISITESPhysics students, researchers in particle physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental laws governing the universe and the nature of light and mass.
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 ?!
Astro-Anouar said:If I reach the speed of light
and if I travel faster then light
I read that the Neutrino is faster then photon
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]
It is not a hypothesis. You are asking for predictions of a theory for something impossible in that theory.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 !
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.
Astro-Anouar said:Why Particles which have mass can't reach the speed of Light ?
Astro-Anouar said:and Why Higgs Boson (Higgs Field) can't reacts with Photon ?
Thank You !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?
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?
That is an experimental observation. Physics cannot answer "why" the laws of nature are like that on a fundamental level.Astro-Anouar said:Why Particles which have mass can't reach the speed of Light ?
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.and Why Higgs Boson (Higgs Field) can't reacts with Photon ?
I don't think this is a useful description. It is not a real motion at all. The distance increases.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 ;)
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...mfb said:I don't think this is a useful description. It is not a real motion at all. The distance increases.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 ;)
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"
Boy@n said:So, at that time it was OK to say what I said, and now it is wrong?
I see the difference now, thanks for correcting me (I am not English, sorry).phinds said:You are now saying TRAVEL faster than light. This is wrong. It RECEDES faster than light.
Same here.(I am not English, sorry)
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... language is not always logical, is it.
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.Boy@n said:So, is it impossible that expansion of spacetime could somehow act/push on the objects and move them?
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.Isn't the dark energy actually quantum fluctuations having effect on objects when considering cosmic scales?
Hmm, are you saying that expansion of space-time isn't phsically real?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.
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'.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.
Boy@n said:Hmm, are you saying that expansion of space-time isn't phsically real?
I still don't know where I picked that up, but after some searching I got this: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.
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?phinds said:Of course he's not saying that. Google "metric expansion".
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?
Of course... Though, I was speaking generally.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.
Boy@n said:Of course... Though, I was speaking generally.
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?phinds said:So for you "speaking generally" means speaking in very imprecise language in a way that doesn't have any meaning in physics.