The Ultimate Speed: Light's Potential Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sanchar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Speed
AI Thread Summary
Speculation exists about particles potentially traveling faster than light, which could challenge the principles of special relativity. Some argue that light might not be entirely massless and could possess a very small mass, allowing it to travel close to the ultimate speed. Special relativity establishes a theoretical ultimate speed but does not confirm the existence of particles that can achieve it. The discussion encourages further exploration of these ideas and their implications on established physics. Overall, the conversation centers on the relationship between light's mass and the speed limit set by relativity.
Sanchar
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
There have been a few speculations about particles traveling faster than light in news.
People claim that it may shatter special relativity.

But isn't it possible that light may not be completely mass-less? It could be possible that light may have a very small mass and it may travel at very close to the ultimate speed. Special relativity only predicts the existence of such an ultimate speed. It doesn't predict the existence of any particle moving at such a speed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Understanding the Uniqueness of Retarded Time in Electromagnetism
Replies
12
Views
2K
B Prove the velocity of a moving object is absolute in one IRF?
Replies
22
Views
1K
B Max Speed of Molecules: 1 Electron Stripped?
Replies
9
Views
1K
I Conventionality of the One-Way Speed of Light
Replies
6
Views
437
I Has anyone measured the speed of light in one direction?
Replies
45
Views
6K
I Why do we still say “the speed of light” instead of “c”?
Replies
12
Views
2K
B Time Travel: Can Humans Go Faster Than Ordinary Speed?
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Speed of Light: Spaceship & Gravity Law Impact
Replies
15
Views
2K
Is this description of superluminal speeds correct?
Replies
7
Views
3K
B Could There Be a Cosmic Speed Limit Higher Than the Speed of Light?
Replies
7
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top