Faster-than-Light Travel is Impossible (Revised 2nd Edition)
303 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32517949]Weeping Jesus on the cross, people.
[highlight]The next person who posts in here to point out the recent CERN neutrino findings is getting banned.[/highlight][/QUOTE]
You're gonna ban people for being [i]on topic?[/i]
... isn't that the opposite of what you're supposed to do?
[QUOTE=Yahnich;32523491]HEY GUYS THIS REALLY DUBIOUS EXPERIMENT HAPPENED THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY SHAKE THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE.
am i doing it wrong.
On topic, I still blame neutrino oscillation because of wibbley wobbley quantum bullshit[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the thing is CERN isn't run by a bunch of incompetent idiots and they've gone out of their way to get more specialists in and have everyone check their work - this isn't some shoddy experiment like the whole cold fusion fiasco back in the 80s.
Sure, given our current theories it probably IS wrong, but who knows: maybe our equations and theories need ANOTHER correction factor. I mean, e = mc^2 is a perfect approximation for the energy of an object at, realistically, any speed you're gonna encounter in real life, but it becomes a bad approximation for exceedingly high velocities - that's when we need to introduce the Lorentz factor.
If this neutrino experiment turns out NOT to be flawed then perhaps when other certain criteria are met there's a second correction factor that we'll need sticking into relativistic equations which will cancel out the Lorentz factor and get rid of that ugly little imaginary number in the denominator of the equation.
They are going to run to additional tests to confirm the findings. I don't know the details, but i think it will be done in different facilities.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32537362]They are going to run to additional tests to confirm the findings. I don't know the details, but i think it will be done in different facilities.[/QUOTE]
The other two facilities aren't available for another 2 years or so.
Took 3 years before they published these papers. Can wait another 5 years for a result that's groundbreaking but not that useful.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;32518682]that's funny, i thought photons were particles[/QUOTE]
they travel at the speed of light (when in a vaccum), not faster.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;32538697]they travel at the speed of light (when in a vaccum), not faster.[/QUOTE]
but tachyons are particles too
[editline]29th September 2011[/editline]
hypothetically
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32539192]but tachyons are particles too
[editline]29th September 2011[/editline]
hypothetically[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but photons never go past the speed of light (unless you count how they wave, but it doesn't send information).
The folding of space as travel is not TOTALLY impossible, since space can expand faster than light
ITT: people run before they know how to walk
[I](not saying that I can run)[/I]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32517949]Weeping Jesus on the cross, people.
[highlight]The next person who posts in here to point out the recent CERN neutrino findings is getting banned.[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Why? I don't see the problem.
Anyway... To the OP:
The speed of light is a dimensional quantity, so it can't be measured. Measurable quantities are "dimensionless", mind you.
So I can't measure the mass of e.g. a bag of rice?
I don't see why you couldn't...
Considering that the speed of light in a vacuum is also a dimensionless physical constant, it cannot be measured.
The speed of light is not dimensionless, it has dimension m/s, that's why it's called the speed of fucking light...
Well, yes and no.
Physical constants sometimes can take dimensional characteristics, like how the speed of light is explained dimensionally through length/time. But, the fine-structure constant classifies the fundamental properties of the speed of light as dimensionless.
Is that like viewing our reality as a four-dimensional vector space (if it's that at all) were the underlying field is just the (dimensionless) real numbers?
[QUOTE=Vadrigos;33160898]The folding of space as travel is not TOTALLY impossible, since space can expand faster than light[/QUOTE]
The latter one does not imply the first one though, yet both statements are true.
[editline]9th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Number-41;33191093]The speed of light is not dimensionless, it has dimension m/s, that's why it's called the speed of fucking light...[/QUOTE]
It all depends on the system of measures you are in.
It is more convenient for especially theoretical physicists to define [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?c=\hbar=k_{\mathrm{B}}=G=1[/img]. In this system of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units]natural units[/url], formulas become a lot of easier to handle.
E.g. the Schrödinger equation of a particle under constant gravitation
[img]http://puu.sh/8mYR[/img]
becomes
[img]http://puu.sh/8mYU[/img].
All constants are gone and solving this equation is now possible with less writing or caring about constants. You can even transform the solution back to the one with constants though.
The outcome is, quantities like the electric field or charge have to be transformed from the SI units (or any other system) accordingly before you can insert them into the equations. But that's not a problem.
What's the fine structure constant? The constant as it is commonly used in Schrodingers equation etc. (equal to 1)? Also why isn't the right lid E*(wave function)
From it's own "perspective", is light moving infinitely fast?
[QUOTE=Yahnich;32523491]HEY GUYS THIS REALLY DUBIOUS EXPERIMENT HAPPENED THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY SHAKE THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE.
[/QUOTE]
YES
BECAUSE SCIENCE SHOULD HOLD ON TO TRADITIONAL THEORIES INSTEAD OF CRITICALLY EVALUATING ANY POSSIBLE NEW EVIDENCE
[QUOTE=Mingebox;33197527]From it's own "perspective", is light moving infinitely fast?[/QUOTE]
From it's own perspective light is everywhere in the universe at once.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.