/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5435706]

"nothing can go faster than light"
is that because we've never experienced anything that has? your because light cant/hasnt been accelerated past c

[Carl No.5435707]

ITT: OP never heard of neutrinos

[Anonymous No.5435718]

>>5435706
dat AS physics

[Anonymous No.5435721]

>>5435718

You're not actually taught this at AS or A2. Closest thing is the so called "relativistic effects"

but to answer OP, Cherenkov Radiation.

[Anonymous No.5435749]

>>5435721
>op asks past C
>retard replies Cherenkov Radiation
>does not realise CR does not accelerate past C in vacuum

[Anonymous No.5435750]

>babby's first relativity

[Anonymous No.5435761]

>>5435749

Do you see the word vacuum in OPs post?

neither do i.

[Anonymous No.5435774]

>>5435761
c is lights speed in vacuum.

if you wanted lights speed in water or something, you'd write 0.75c or whatever it is in it's current condition.

Please go back to high school.

[Anonymous No.5435782]

nothing can travel faster than photons because photons have rest mass of zero. No massive particle can possibly travel faster than a massless particle.

then again, i've only done AS physics. so i'm probably making some hugely misinformed statement

[Anonymous No.5435833]

>>5435782

Well photons are assumed to have a rest mass of 0, there is still a chance that they may have some mass, but its less than <span class="math">1×10^{−18} \frac{eV}{c^2}[/spoiler]. If this turns out to be true c would still be the speed of gravitational waves and relativity would still hold true.

other than that you're pretty much spot on. though you should have said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, because photons does have different phase velocities and has been slowed down all the way to 17<span class="math">ms^{-1}[/spoiler].

[Anonymous No.5435850]

>>5435833
> 1×10−18

How did you arrive at that upper limit?

[Anonymous No.5435877]

op here, also wouldnt photons accelerate towards a gravity well?

[Anonymous No.5435886]

>>5435877
Nope their speed is absolute. But they would increase in energy, resulting in a blue-shift.

[Anonymous No.5435891]

>>5435877
also, light bends around black holes so dont deny that it doesnt have an attractable mass

[Anonymous No.5435899]

>>5435850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

[Anonymous No.5435902]

>>5435891
If photons have energy, and if mass-equivalence is anything to go by, I'm sure photons have 'effective' mass

[Anonymous No.5435904]

>>5435891

Space itself is curved, the photons are going on a straight path through this curved space.

[Anonymous No.5435907]

>>5435902

They have momentum.

<div class="math"> E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 </div>

[Anonymous No.5435908]

I don't think we can go faster than light, but we can probably go smarter.

Also, The Flash can travel at 1.3 trillion times c. But The Flash doesn't give a rat's ass about physics.

[Anonymous No.5435917]

>>5435908

Actually we can, there's some people doing experiments on it right now and they are due to publish their findings quite soon i believe.

there was a previous method as well, but it would require the mass energy of jupiter or some shit, hopefully this new stuff with be a bit more efficient.

[Anonymous No.5435940]

Probability moves faster than the speed of light.
>nb4 NO IT DOESN'T
Yes it does, you can prove this in literally five seconds with a grid, and a few points on the grid.

[Anonymous No.5435943]

>>5435940
I don't even into your statement.
I wasn't aware "probability" was anything other than a mathematical construct.
Explain pl0x.

Your five-second grid proof would be appreciated.

[Anonymous No.5435977]

No. Speed of light is a fundamental constant of our particular universe. If M-Theory can be proved then it is likely in other universes we can go faster. This would be a good way to achieve the same goal as FTL. We tunnel into another universe where maybe E=mc^2 isn't true; where c is much higher and hence we get more energy out of our fuel. Then we tunnel back to our universe.

[Anonymous No.5435990]

>>5435940
>implying time

[Anonymous No.5435991]

>>5435706
See I think if we're able to break the sound barrier which used to be deemed impossible, we could do the same thing with the "light barrier". If you're able to create a means of traveling the speed of light, then add more power. Hypothetically you'd have to be traveling past the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.5435993]

This is one of the worst /sci/ threads I've seen in a while that started with a legitimate science question.

No, it's not just because we haven't seen anything go faster. It's a fundamental aspect of reality that speeds faster than c have no meaning. In special relativity (which is experimentally confirmed in all sorts of ways), the speed of light is essentially "infinitely fast."

[Anonymous No.5436003]

>>5435991

No. just no.

at a certain point the energy increase will just be "converted" to mass.

[Anonymous No.5436009]

by conventional means, no, light speed is the limiting speed for information transfer in our universe.
the way to overcome this limitation is wormholes, milllions and millions of them for each cell being transported.

[Anonymous No.5436011]

The world is full of particles
A particle that has no mass will travel at c because it doesn't interact with a higgs boson
Particles with mass will always travel below c

So as far as we know, nothing can travel past c

[Anonymous No.5436015]

>>5436011

>because it doesn't interact with a higgs boson

oh my fucking god, GET OUT OF /SCI/, NOW!!!!

[Anonymous No.5436025]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw

Here's why using high-school geometry.

[Anonymous No.5436082]

Dark matter, antimatter, anyone?