- #1
Aarav
- 3
- 2
Photons do not have mass, so why stop at 299700 km/s??
Aarav said:Photons do not have mass, so why stop at 299700 km/s??
Yeah, a bit mathematical: all right and none answers the question!Ibix said:Heh - three answers, three completely different approaches...
They all answer bits of it. I have no idea how long a complete answer would be...fresh_42 said:Yeah, a bit mathematical: all right and none answers the question!
itfitmewelltoo said:All physics theory has a point at which no further explanation can be had.
Orodruin said:Describing "why" is not the aim of physics as an empirical science.
True but that does not in any way invalidate the post to which you responded.Outhouse said:No advancements would ever be made without the curiosity to explain what no one has as of yet.
No. In modern terminology, mass refers to the invariant mass, which doesn't increase. You are referring to the relativistic mass, which is basically a confusing name for energy. This does tend to infinity as the velocity of a massive object approaches c, but a massive object cannot reach or exceed c.Fig Neutron said:Everyone please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how my tenth grade physics book explained it. If something went faster than the speed of light it would have a negative length and an infinite mass. This was probably simplified significantly but it made sense to me.
Aarav said:Photons do not have mass, so why stop at 299700 km/s??
Outhouse said:No advancements would ever be made without the curiosity to explain what no one has as of yet.
That is a very unfortunate explanation. It is true that if you plug a speed greater than ##c## into some of the equations of special relativity you will get an impossible (not negative, but something worse - the square root of a negative number) length and mass (actually energy, but that's a longer digression). However, those equations are derived from assumptions that are equivalent to saying that no object can go faster than light so they cannot describe something moving faster than light; the absurd result is just telling you that you're trying to use the equations under conditions where they don't apply.Fig Neutron said:Everyone please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how my tenth grade physics book explained it. If something went faster than the speed of light it would have a negative length and an infinite mass. This was probably simplified significantly but it made sense to me.
bhobba said:But what if nature does not oblige and it is a fundamental law not derivable from other laws or logically equivalent laws?
Outhouse said:and we cannot even define the fabric of space properly.
phinds said:True but that does not in any way invalidate the post to which you responded.
Nugatory said:That is a very unfortunate explanation.
Outhouse said:and we cannot even define the fabric of space properly.
I'm not aware of ANYTHING that "completes" our understanding of the nature in the universe but science extends our understanding of parts of it. I have no idea what you mean by "or are we trying to advance the theory's?"Outhouse said:Do all physics theory's complete our understanding of the nature in the universe? or are we trying to advance the theory's?
This is not really correct. See https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/classical-physics-is-wrong-fallacy/Outhouse said:many things we have had certainty on, have been overturned with new discoveries.
However, here you're making the hidden assumption, that information transmission is limited by ##c## whereas light is not. This is a circular reasoning and thus no proof: If light was faster than ##c## and we can see only as fast as ##c## then this is a contradiction.Helios said:The OP's question is answered by supposing it is true and then showing a contradiction. If light could travel faster than c, we could build a scope to see things happen earlier than when one could have otherwise seen them.
With this kind of reason you can prove everything, even the opposite.So we could make a prophecy scope, and this is a supernatural device, good for Harry Potter, but not a physics discourse.
Ibix said:We see using light.
LitleBang said:A clock on the moon runs faster than than a clock on earth.
LitleBang said:A clock on the moon runs faster than than a clock on earth.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light (c) is a fundamental constant and the maximum speed at which any object can travel in the universe. This is because as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass and energy increase infinitely, making it impossible to accelerate any further.
No, there is no known way to make light travel faster than c. Some theories propose the existence of particles called tachyons that can travel faster than light, but these have not been proven to exist and would violate the laws of physics as we know them.
The speed of light is considered a universal speed limit because it is the same in all reference frames, meaning that no matter how fast an observer is moving, they will always measure the speed of light to be c. This is a fundamental principle of relativity and has been confirmed by numerous experiments.
No, according to our current understanding of physics, nothing can travel faster than light. Even if an object were to somehow reach the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any further. This is why the speed of light is considered the ultimate speed limit in the universe.
The speed of light plays a crucial role in the relationship between time and space. According to relativity, the faster an object moves, the slower time passes for it. This is known as time dilation. Additionally, the concept of length contraction states that objects moving at high speeds appear to be shorter in the direction of motion. These effects are only noticeable at speeds approaching the speed of light, highlighting the significance of c in our understanding of the universe.