![_80461814_photonrace[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/Y2v6p0S.gif "_80461814_photonrace[1].gif")
Can particles without a speed limit exist ?
>>8193688
Let's define particle mememesfriend as having 0 information. Wow, no speed limit.
>>8193707
wouldn't the inexistence of mass be enough ?
dunno lol
>>8194983
neutrinos and photons don't weight anything yet they move at c.
>>8193688
But more importantly, can cars without a road speed limit drive?
>>8195000
Neutrinos have mass and don't move at c
tachyon particles
>>8195071
Protons do.
>>8195079
Inverse tachyons, run through a magnetic phase coil, while being bombarded with anionic radiation, can travel both backwards and forwards in time, while not actually moving.
>>8195124
No, protons are even heavier.
Photons do, though.
>>8195130
what the fuck are you talking about
>>8195177
I thought it was pretty universal that most Scientists are Trekkies? I mean Stephen Hawking is a great fan, and he even starred as himself there.
>>8195215
what the fuck more are you talking about ?
I meant the tachyons travelling backwards in time thingy.
>>8195230
It's a well known fact that one of the interpretation of QM allows for particles from to future to affect the ones in the past. It's called Retrocausality.
>>8195241
> QM interpretations
Oh ok. I thought there was an evidence or something.
>>8195251
It's Star Trek technobabble m8, as in Sci-Fi.*sigh*
>>8195254
I dont watch childrens shows sorry.
>>8195263
You're probably too young to have watched it anyways
>>8195274
but anyway is there any factual basis that tachyons do spooky things or is it just scifi fuelling bullshit ?
>>8195278
Tachyons were referred to as theoretical particles being able to travel FTL which would enable them to travel backward in time. Though this would lead to violation of causality, and the law of physics as we currently know them say this is impossible.
>>8195288
What reason would they have to believe Tachyons would have such spooky properties ?
>>8195294
It was proposed by a physicist in the 60ies, thought he kinda made a mistake in his reasoning. Yet, it has caught on as wild fire in the popular culture, sci-fi, etc., regardless of the fact that our best scientific theories say it's impossible, and our best experiments at CERN, for example, haven't been able to found them.
>>8193688
>speed limit
Speed does not exist. Only relativity exists.
>>8195301
dayum. I guess we're stuck with being slaves of the current laws of physics.
>>8195314
Yep, which is the reason why I turn to Sci-Fi. It's fun to just imagine, from time to time, physical law being different it's consequences.
>>8195687
Why?
>>8195749
test
>>8193688
Speed is a social construct.
>>8195749
Coz tachyons. Why isn't anything able to surpass the speed of light ? What gives these particles mass ?
>>8193688
>negative mass
or maybe just ask your mom because she has infinite mass
>>8195776
BOOM SHAKALAKA
>>8195776
Infinity is a social construct.
>>8195776
>negative mass
nice meme
>>8195801
Memes are social constructs.
>>8195804
Social construct is a social construct
>>8195804
all science is a social construct
>>8195749
Me too thanks
>>8195288
>this would lead to violation of causality, and the law of physics as we currently know them say this is impossible.
Quite the opposite. The current laws predict causal violations and that it's a bit odd that we've not been able to observe them yet.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf
>>8193688
my BBC when it fucks your wife.
>>8195966
Stop promoting your shitty paper. Pretty much every scientists agrees that you can't violate causality
>>8196002
this. nothing can exceed the speed of light, or go back in time
>>8196002
>Pretty much every scientists agrees that you can't violate causality
[citation needed]
>>8196007
I shouldn't have to do your work for you, it's a well know fact in the scientific community.
Just go watch some Black Science guy vids if you don't have access to a real scientist.
>>8196011
>it's a well know fact in the scientific community.
lol no it's not.
It's just an assumption you made.
The speed of information implies there is some sort of causality, not the other way around moran.
As far as I know, no.
>>8196015
>The speed of information implies there is some sort of causality
Meaning you can't violate it, since nothing can travel faster than light. How was I wrong exactly?
>>8196016
burden of proof, etc., etc.
>>8196019
Because it's an assumption, not a law.
We're already seeing violations in HE physics
>>8196007
David Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th edition, p. 446:
"Although the advanced potentials are entirely consistent with Maxwell's equations, they violate the most sacred tenet in all of physics: the principle of causality. They suggest that the potentials now depend on what the charge and current distribution will be at some time in the future - the effect, in other words, precedes the cause. Although the advanced potentials are of some theoretical interest, they have no physical significance."
>>8196025
It's not an assumption. It's a law. And no, there have been no observed violations of causality. The cause always precedes the effect.
>>8196027
> tenant
> science isn't a religion
if you say so
>>8196029
> having to spoonfeed this hard
> muh light cones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Quantum_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
>>8196030
Nowhere in that post did I see a word "tenant". Who are you quoting?
>>8196030
If you see the sun rising every day, you can write a law saying that the sun rises every day. Until we observe a phenomena being caused by something in the future, causality is a law.
>>8196032
Did you read any of those links you are posting? Nowhere does it say it violates causality.
>>8196032
Do you even understand those links?
Yes, quantum entanglement is a thing, but no information can be transmitted with it.
It remains a fact that no information can be carried faster than c.
>>8196035
>>8196036
> they violate the most sacred tenet in all of physics
tenet
sorry autocorrect
>>8196036
eww. do you even math?
It's still an assumption, same as Newton determinancy and mass equivalence.
>>8196039
> 2016
> not knowing what a light cone is
I think I'm done here
>>8196041
Guess you skipped over the first one?
I don't blame you, it kinda refutes your whole point that "no scientist questions causality"
>>8196046
>Guess you skipped over the first one?
The first one is a Star Trek particle. Are you quoting Sci-Fi as evidence?
>>8196046
What's your point? I don't understand.
>>8196057
Are you still spouting Sci-Fi concepts? Does all your knowledge stem from Popsci?
>>8196066
> can't even list his assumptions
> thinks he's a scientist
kek. do you think lightcones are pop-sci too?
>>8196057
Tachyons and negative mass have never been observed. Fuck off, brainlet.
>>8196079
Lightcones are basically refuting all you're saying. Not exactly sure why you refer to them.
>>8196083
God, they told me the scientism was infesting this board, but I didn't believe it.
You think that science is truth? That /current/ science is true?
>>8193707
>0 information
Literally meaningless popsci garbage.
>>8196092
>they told me the scientism was infesting this board
Not sure who told you that cause the way I see it, it's infested with retards.
No.
If the particle has mass, it always travels at speeds less than the speed of light.
If the particle does not have mass, it always travels at exactly the speed of light.
So either way, all particles necessarily travel with speeds at most equal to the speed of light.
>>8196083
Not too long ago exoplanets have never been observed.
>>8196117
>An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet that orbits a star other than the Sun. As of 2 July 2016, 3,443 exoplanets in 2,571 planetary systems and 586 multiple planetary systems have been confirmed since 1988.
Not sure what you're on about.
>>8196121
>Not too long ago
read that part again
>>8196131
Still fail to see your point
>>8196133
Don't worry about it. A few weeks from now, when you're in the shower thinking of who you'll bring to junior prom. It'll hit you.
>>8196178
Saying a one-liner while posting le lenny face is not making your point. Once you're out of grade school, you might be able to express your ideas in clear English.
>>8196041
Something is being transferred in entanglement. Even if we can't make use of it as a signal, that doesn't negate the fact that there is some kind of mechanism causing superluminal phenomenon.
>>8196635
No.. Two balls, red, blue, bags, don't see which is in which, transported to 1 kilolightfaggots away, open one and see it is 1. Red -> the other is?
2.Blue ->the other is?
No ftl.
>>8193707
Contrary to other boards, the first post on /sci/ is usually the worst.
>>8197320
It's better to slowly build it up, than starting of explosively and losing steam almost instantaneously
>>8197312
Only if you believe that the uncertainty in unobserved systems is purely epistemic. Stop pretending your personal interpretation is consensus science
>>8193688
im just a lowly undergrad, so take this with a grain of salt, but general relativity essentially disallows it. photons only move at c because they have no mass. And being massless is more or less the requirement to move that fast thanks to gravitation, so going faster isn't even really well defined if you look at space like this.
again all super hand wavey, but as I understand it there is a good amount of physical theory that suggests that tachyons shouldn't exist
>>8197681
>photons have no mass
That's technically not true.
>>8197681
too small to be observed is the same as nothing for all practical purposes in science
but sure. *technically* the photon could have a mass of less than ~1E-18 eV/c^2
you realize this is about the numerical precision to which we've falsified the aether right?
>>8197687
how much mass does the photon have anyway
>>8197687
They have no rest mass, which is the most meaningful kind of mass.
>>8193688
The measurement of mass is extremely relative, just like speed, therefore FTL is obviously a given. Humans have not yet discovered that, but they will in a few months.
>>8197774
>in a few months
elaborate
>>8197783
I was kidding lol.
>>8197787
stop lying time traveller
>>8193688
No speed limit means they instantly move from one place to the other
In which case we could not detect them, and for all we know they could exist
>>8193707
I was thinking about this.
Photons have no mass but they do have energy.
Can there be a particle with no energy?
Would this particle have no information?
>>8198683
>Can there be a particle with no energy?
Existence requires energy, as far as I understand. A particle is a wavelet in a field with some threshold of energy.
to what extent are mass and energy the same thing, or at least interchangeable
obviously mass can be annihilated to create an equivalent amount of energy
to what extent can energy be used to generate mass
i heard about some higgs boson interactions that imparted mass onto other particles that should otherwise have been massless, and the mass was originally stored in the higgs field as energy
is this some old popscience bullshit or is there merit to it
>>8196083
What about the Higgs boson?
:)))))))))))))))))))))))
>>8198814
What about it?
>>8198814
Higgs boson isn't a tachyon
Higgs boson does not have negative mass either
you fucking spinelet
get out
>bump for the fact that from a photon's point of view you travel with infinite speed.
>>8193688
If there is a gravity particle, yes.
>>8199407
gravity travels at c
>>8199543
>Your mom travels at c.
>>8198721
>obviously mass can be annihilated to create an equivalent amount of energy
>meme level understanding of mc^2
>>8199551
My cock was pounding your mum at c, last night.
>>8199554
Sorry you don't have basic knowledge of gravity brah.
>>8199557
You're mum didn't seem to care.
>>8199562
>you're mum
>you are mum
That's what I get for arguing with monkeys :(
>>8199543
no, it's instant
>>8199584
nooooope.
>>8199583
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
>>8199589
Elaborate, noob.
>>8199597
>In classical theories of gravitation, the changes in a gravitational field propagate. A change in the distribution of energy and momentum of matter results in subsequent alteration, at a distance, of the gravitational field which it produces. In a more physically correct sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which is the same speed as the speed of light (c).
Meaning that, for example, if the Sun just suddenly disappeared, the Earth would still continue it's orbit for 8 minutes(that's how long it takes for light to reach us) until it start drifting into the expanse unknown.
>>8199584
No.
The only thing faster than light is the rate of expansion of the universe when the distance from the observer is at least 4 billion parsecs.
>>8199597
>>8199607
>The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space.[2] This makes it the only speed which does not depend either on the motion of an observer or a source of light and/or gravity. Thus, the speed of "light" is also the speed of gravitational waves and any other massless particle. Such particles include the gluon (carrier of the strong force), the photons that make up light, and the theoretical gravitons which make up the associated field particles of gravity (however a theory of the graviton requires a theory of quantum gravity).
Also another quote. Basically everything travels at c. It's not referred to as universal speed limit without a reason
>>8199610
I think you mean gravitational waves.
>>8199627
yes...?
>>8199633
if gravitons can travel through different dimentions doesn't this include time as well? idk
>>8199609
Fast as a description of the magnitude of the scalar of speed of an object defined as it's distance devided by time? Expansion of the universe has no such property. If you were to redefine speed to include non-objects, there are a lot more "things" faster than causality.
Consider a laser that fires photons at a detector screen of an arbitrarily large height and width located an arbitrarily large distance d away from the laser. While the photons are traveling into the detector, change the angle of the laser at a difference theta with a rate of change s. The photons will now be detected at points located at length l away from where the photons were detected originally at a rate of s. Dividing l from s gives a "speed" much greater than causality for the circle of light on the detector.
>>8199658
No.
Gravitational waves are just coherent states of gravitons.
>>8199662
Thanks.
>>8199665
Not sure if you're OP, if you are, you sure are persistent in find this magical superluminal partical. If you put you energy and determination into solving actual math/physics problems, instead of this pointless quest, the world would be a much better place.
>>8193688
I define something whose theoretical existence depends on being unobservable in every way as being nonexistent.
If you want causality and relativity to station intact a particle with no speed limit must be unobservable.
>Inb4 non-local particles cant exist in your definition. Non-locality doesn't break causality as it is impossible to extract information from its non-local properties
>>8199660
I meant divide l BY s, where l is the base of the isosceles triangle with sides of length d with opposite angle theta.
>>8199678
Dividing by 0 is undefined, not infinite.
>>8199687
If you travel at the speed of light you will experience no time at all, you won't be bypassing objects with 300K km/s.
>>8199705
Objects with invariant mass cannot travel with speed c.
From the reference frame of a photon, it wouldn't be "bypassing" anything. All lengths are contracted to 0 in the direction of "motion". There is no distance traveled as "obseved" by the photon, neither is there a change in time as "observed" by the photon.
The concept of speed cannot be defined from the photons frame of reference.
>>8199660
But you know the increasing distance between, for example, two galaxies. And you know how long it takes. Now, add all the increased distances from your point of view, and divide them by time. And than you have an expansion of space (distance per time) which is larger than c for very far away places.
>>8199723
Because there would have to be a distance. I understand. Thank you for your time.
>>8193688
yes, and they would still move at c because that's how the universe works
>>8199552
well then what the fuck is it that happens in nuclear reactions and antimatter reactions that I never learned about
>>8193688
They've already been established, it's called a Tachyon, would have taken you 2 seconds to google it.
They follow the laws of physics because they simply exist faster than light
>>8199815
The physicist that first proposed Tachyons made a mistake, and they are both impossible under special relativity, and have never been experimentally discovered.
>>8199744
Do you mean that an increase in space within a certain time is not an object? but if, what is it then?
>>8199845
Sorry for the late reply and an oversimplified explanation, but a complete description would probably require several lectures because I'm not as good with words as some of my peers.
The best way to put it I can think of is that "objects" are the nonzero vectors within a field (leptons, quarks, etc.) and in a looser sense their composites (such as baryonic matter) and specific collections of their composites.
Due to the curvature and evolution of space-time, only specific combinations of certain types of measurements with distance and time can be used to arrive at the classical interpretation of speed.
Let's say you want to calculate the proper speed at which a distant galaxy is moving away from you. If you prefer to use static coordinates, you must use the geodesic (to account for the curvature), "co-moving" distance (to account for the expansion) between two points, and the "co-moving" time (to account for differences in proper time).
The co-moving distance is the integral, from the time of emission of observed photons to the present time, of the speed of light in a vacuum over the scale factor (rate of expansion) with respect to time.
The co-moving time is the elapsed time since the big bang according to the clocks of the co-moving objects (in their inertial frame).
This forms a complete coordinate system from where you can derive the proper speed of an object (always less than c).
>>8199824
Tachyons are still considered to be an existing particle that travels faster than light
>>8200654
> Tachyons are hypothesized to be a particle that travels faster than light
ftfy :^)
>>8200658
Tachyons are real. If you disagree you're a tachyon hater.
>>8200671
>current year
>imaginary mass shaming
>>8200407
thanks
>>8200654
They're entirely hypothetical
>>8201025
just like your dick
>>8193688
Only in Germany
