Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 272
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: what is the fastest possible thing?

  1. #1 what is the fastest possible thing? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    Wether it is electrons or protoms or photons how fast can they go without breaking some law out there.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    a cheetah taking a piss at 70 mph?

    fastest pissible human: Usain Bolt taking a piss at the 40m mark of the 100m sprint.

    fastest pissible human (again): skydiver taking a piss at 100 mph in free fall


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    .....no where near close lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    a cheetah taking a piss at 70 mph?

    fastest pissible human: Usain Bolt taking a piss at the 40m mark of the 100m sprint.

    fastest pissible human (again): skydiver taking a piss at 100 mph in free fall
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law saying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror


    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    What are your qualifications that make you "sure" of this?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Nothing can travel faster than light. You can give it mre and more energy and it will just get closer and closer to the speed of light - but never reach it.

    EDIT: note that I wrote this after misreading the previous comment as "proton" not photon. Obviously, photons always travel at one speed.
    Last edited by Strange; May 10th, 2014 at 07:39 AM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Nothing can travel faster than light. You can give it mre and more energy and it will just get closer and closer to the speed of light - but never reach it.
    a photon is already traveling at speed c. more energy just increases the frequency of the EMR.

    bottom line: a photon travels at speed c -- all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    But is there a scientific explanation for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    .....no where near close lol
    i hate having to explain jokes . . . i was poking a little fun at your misspelling of the word 'possible' in your thread title.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Nothing can travel faster than light. You can give it mre and more energy and it will just get closer and closer to the speed of light - but never reach it.
    a photon is already traveling at speed c. more energy just increases the frequency of the EMR.

    bottom line: a photon travels at speed c -- all the time.
    You are right. I misread that as proton.

    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light
    This is because velocities do not add linearly (as they appear to at low speeds): Einstein velocity addition
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    But is there a scientific explanation for this?
    Einstein's Relativity -- 1905. Maxwell's equations in about 1880, i think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    .....no where near close lol
    i hate having to explain jokes . . . i was poking a little fun at your misspelling of the word 'possible' in your thread title.
    notice the lol at the end suggesting I got it.......lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    I dont believe einsteins equation tells us the fastest possible thing I think it shows that to an observer light Is the fastest possible thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law saying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    As something approaches the speed of light energy starts to show up as increased mass instead of as increased velocity. The increase in frequency for electromagnetic waves is another form of the increased energy showing up in a different way than an increase in velocity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    I dont believe einsteins equation tells us the fastest possible thing I think it shows that to an observer light Is the fastest possible thing.
    you can look up (internet search) and find what the fastest speed has been attained by particles in a particle accelerator. probably something like 0.999999996 c (just guessing).

    tip: look up results at the Large Hadron Collider LHC).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
    Last edited by Chucknorium; May 9th, 2014 at 05:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law saying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    As something approaches the speed of light energy starts to show up as increased mass instead of as increased velocity. The increase in frequency for electromagnetic waves is another form of the increased energy showing up in a different way than an increase in velocity.
    So in order to speed something past the speed of light you would have to prevent a gain in mass which I would geuss is impossible also the increase in mass would rewuire more energy canceling each other out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You are right. I misread that as proton.
    sorry, i responded so quickly (knee jerk) that i didn't notice it was you. i know that you know these things -- better than I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So in order to speed something past the speed of light you would have to prevent a gain in mass which I would geuss is impossible also the increase in mass would rewuire more energy canceling each other out.
    it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel even a proton up to the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    LHC: How fast do these protons go?

    i was pretty close with my guess.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    69
    Thanks for the explanation dan hunter, cleared up a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Uneducated people are always "pretty sure".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    the bottom line answer to 'what is the fastest possible thing?' is . . .

    whatever new particle accelerator has pushed a particle the fastest, then that particle is the fastest thing that we know of . . . today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy:

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law saying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    As something approaches the speed of light energy starts to show up as increased mass instead of as increased velocity. The increase in frequency for electromagnetic waves is another form of the increased energy showing up in a different way than an increase in velocity.
    I'm completely new here, but I have one slight issue with this, technically, while the object's energy and momentum increase, its mass remains constant. This is formalized by Einstein's equations: E=gamma*m, p = gamma*m*v (setting c=1, of course; gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-v^2)). Thus, we can see that the mass of an object remains constant, while its energy and momentum increase with speed. Mass is defined to be constant for objects, this is what makes it a useful quantity.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy:

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law saying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    As something approaches the speed of light energy starts to show up as increased mass instead of as increased velocity. The increase in frequency for electromagnetic waves is another form of the increased energy showing up in a different way than an increase in velocity.
    I'm completely new here, but I have one slight issue with this, technically, while the object's energy and momentum increase, its mass remains constant. This is formalized by Einstein's equations: E=gamma*m, p = gamma*m*v (setting c=1, of course; gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-v^2)). Thus, we can see that the mass of an object remains constant, while its energy and momentum increase with speed. Mass is defined to be constant for objects, this is what makes it a useful quantity.
    Thanks, that's rather a good point. I remember very little about relativity and I have always thought mass increases with energy input, but I do see what you mean about these equations (and also I see Markus has given his imprimatur to your post). But tell me, how do these equations deal with the net loss of mass we observe in nuclear fission, for example? Does that not indicate a real change of mass as a function of energy change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    ...…or unravels?…...
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?

    No.

    The photons always travel at the speed of light. If something could add velocities or take away velocities from light, Einsteins thought experiment in which a moving observer travels at lightspeed, the question was could he still see his reflection: Indeed, lightspeed was invariant. The speed of c then, is invariant in all moving frames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Wether it is electrons or protoms or photons how fast can they go without breaking some law out there.


    If it makes any difference, things can go faster than light and not break any rules. These are called Tachyons and there are analogue tachyons, such as electrons in superconductors will move at speeds faster than light giving off a blue glow called Cherenkov radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    These are called Tachyons
    Except there is no evidence they exist (and good theoretical reasons why they can't).

    and there are analogue tachyons, such as electrons in superconductors will move at speeds faster than light giving off a blue glow called Cherenkov radiation.
    Just to be clear: they go faster than the the speed of light in that medium.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    These are called Tachyons
    Except there is no evidence they exist (and good theoretical reasons why they can't).

    and there are analogue tachyons, such as electrons in superconductors will move at speeds faster than light giving off a blue glow called Cherenkov radiation.
    Just to be clear: they go faster than the the speed of light in that medium.

    ''Good theoretical reasons...'' Can you explain some of these to us? I know tachyon theory very well and the largest problem is detecting them.

    And I think analogue tachyons/electrons qualify as the fastest objects moving, no one specified whether it had to be a vacuum medium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    You don't seem to be biting so I will explain the current ''objections.''

    One group says it violates physics. This is the uneducated group who think that faster than light always implies violating physics in some way.

    One objection is a Lorentz invariance breakdown so that the speed of light is no longer ''universal.'' Some say this cannot happen because nature doesn't violate Lorentz invariance. Well actually, neutrino's as an example break Lorentz invariance through their oscillations so we now know that breaking this invariance is fundamentally possible. This may mean there could be an underlying field which may have existed or may still exist in which tachyons are naturally part of the universe. Some string theories cannot even think without them.

    As I said, if tachyons do exist, the problem will be trying to detect them. Cherenkov radiation is a problem in the sense a tachyon should give up energy, this is why a neutrino cannot move at speed faster than light, it will always give up energy as it approaches it. For a tachyon, its different. They have infinite amounts of energy at the speed of light (their lowest speed).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    ''Good theoretical reasons...'' Can you explain some of these to us? I know tachyon theory very well and the largest problem is detecting them.
    I think it introduces problems with conservation of energy. Which isn't insurmountable, if we actually found evidence of them, of course.

    And I think analogue tachyons/electrons qualify as the fastest objects moving, no one specified whether it had to be a vacuum medium.
    Well, they are not the fastest things moving, because other things can move faster.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Well actually, neutrino's as an example break Lorentz invariance through their oscillations so we now know that breaking this invariance is fundamentally possible.
    You say that as if it were a fact. It is proposed as a hypothetical model.

    Lorentz invariance has been tested to ridiculous levels of accuracy, so it seems pretty well established.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Well actually, neutrino's as an example break Lorentz invariance through their oscillations so we now know that breaking this invariance is fundamentally possible.
    You say that as if it were a fact. It is proposed as a hypothetical model.

    It remains an open issue but it is largely accepted this is what is happening.

    Just like all science, none of us can be 100%. You can never prove a theory as such. But it seems like the only theory which makes sense, mathematically-speaking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Tachyons violate important things like causality. With faster-than-light communication, it would be possible to make complementary events happen in the wrong order (like observing a message being received before observing it sent) or creating paradoxes (like receiving a message and then remotely stopping the sender before they send the message, preventing the message from being sent in the first place).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It remains an open issue but it is largely accepted this is what is happening.
    Citation needed.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Some approaches in gravity are taking interesting turns which are having to involve Lorentz invariance violation. I think this is the right track, conventional rules only seem to appear in nature from some violation or something more fundamental.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Nothing can travel faster than light. You can give it mre and more energy and it will just get closer and closer to the speed of light - but never reach it.
    Photons can only travel at one speed. THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

    Frumpydolphin - If you give a photon more energy it increases it's frequency though its speed remains 299,792,458 m/s. It's wavelength will decrease giving it more energy.

    Strange. Giving a photon more energy can not accelerate a photon to the speed of light as "Photons can only travel at one speed. THE SPEED OF LIGHT."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It remains an open issue but it is largely accepted this is what is happening.
    Citation needed.

    Well the violation doesn't fit just one model, it fits them all

    Current experimental results indicate that neutrinos do indeed oscillate. These oscillations have a variety of possible implications, including the existence of neutrino masses, and the presence of several types of Lorentz violation.


    Good indication, I would have thought. Unless you can find yourself some model in which it can explain it with better efficiency, then I am likely to trust this one so far.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Tachyons violate important things like causality.

    Tachyons are microscopic and may be protected by the Chronological Protection Conjecture, which says time-violating physics can only happen on microscopic scales.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiropterous Hominid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Question: is there a law aaying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    Nothing can travel faster than light. You can give it mre and more energy and it will just get closer and closer to the speed of light - but never reach it.
    Photons can only travel at one speed. THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

    Frumpydolphin - If you give a photon more energy it increases it's frequency though its speed remains 299,792,458 m/s. It's wavelength will decrease giving it more energy.

    Strange. Giving a photon more energy can not accelerate a photon to the speed of light as "Photons can only travel at one speed. THE SPEED OF LIGHT."
    Correct. See post #13. (I'll edit my original post)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Some approaches in gravity are taking interesting turns which are having to involve Lorentz invariance violation.
    Can you give some examples?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [Well the violation doesn't fit just one model, it fits them all

    Current experimental results indicate that neutrinos do indeed oscillate. These oscillations have a variety of possible implications, including the existence of neutrino masses, and the presence of several types of Lorentz violation.


    Good indication, I would have thought. Unless you can find yourself some model in which it can explain it with better efficiency, then I am likely to trust this one so far.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations
    None of which says "largely accepted".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [Well the violation doesn't fit just one model, it fits them all

    Current experimental results indicate that neutrinos do indeed oscillate. These oscillations have a variety of possible implications, including the existence of neutrino masses, and the presence of several types of Lorentz violation.


    Good indication, I would have thought. Unless you can find yourself some model in which it can explain it with better efficiency, then I am likely to trust this one so far.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations
    None of which says "largely accepted".

    Most scientists I have spoke to over the years, seem to think this is what is happening. You do realize Lorentz invariance is an assumption? Yes it is true we have never seen anything move faster than light doesn't mean it cannot. The universe might not be biased at the core of it. It certainly doesn't have any concept of universal speed I'd wager.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Tachyons violate important things like causality.

    Tachyons are microscopic and may be protected by the Chronological Protection Conjecture, which says time-violating physics can only happen on microscopic scales.
    The conjecture covers time travel of large objects, which isn't what I suggested. I only mentioned faster-than-light transmission of information, which would cause paradoxes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Also, Lorentz violation occurs when it's covariant cousin is spontaneously broken and allows Goldstone bosons (like a ground state photon).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Tachyons violate important things like causality.

    Tachyons are microscopic and may be protected by the Chronological Protection Conjecture, which says time-violating physics can only happen on microscopic scales.
    The conjecture covers time travel of large objects, which isn't what I suggested. I only mentioned faster-than-light transmission of information, which would cause paradoxes.
    Well that one is probably solved by it's brother, Chronological Censorship: Reality will not allow us to detect violations. So it even applies macroscopically in this sense as well. Though such detection is largely modelled using singularities, such detection of time violating physics may lead to an information singularity of similar means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?

    No.

    The photons always travel at the speed of light. If something could add velocities or take away velocities from light, Einsteins thought experiment in which a moving observer travels at lightspeed, the question was could he still see his reflection: Indeed, lightspeed was invariant. The speed of c then, is invariant in all moving frames.
    I hope you don't REALLY think I'm stupid enough to have said that in seriousness. If so, I've been doing something wrong.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?


    No.

    The photons always travel at the speed of light. If something could add velocities or take away velocities from light, Einsteins thought experiment in which a moving observer travels at lightspeed, the question was could he still see his reflection: Indeed, lightspeed was invariant. The speed of c then, is invariant in all moving frames.
    I hope you don't REALLY think I'm stupid enough to have said that in seriousness. If so, I've been doing something wrong.

    Unlike many people, I come here not to troll but to engage in serious conversations about physics. I don't come here and expect a reasonably rational question like the one you posed, only to be told I should see through the sarcasm, which about 2 out of 10 times I often fail to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You do realize Lorentz invariance is an assumption?
    If it is, it is an extraordinarily well verified one. There aren't many things that have been confirmed in so many ways, to such high levels of accuracy.

    Yes it is true we have never seen anything move faster than light doesn't mean it cannot.
    And that is not the reason it is thought that nothing can travel faster than light.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?

    No.

    The photons always travel at the speed of light. If something could add velocities or take away velocities from light, Einsteins thought experiment in which a moving observer travels at lightspeed, the question was could he still see his reflection: Indeed, lightspeed was invariant. The speed of c then, is invariant in all moving frames.
    I hope you don't REALLY think I'm stupid enough to have said that in seriousness. If so, I've been doing something wrong.
    it was quite clear to me that you were being sarcastic.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?


    No.

    The photons always travel at the speed of light. If something could add velocities or take away velocities from light, Einsteins thought experiment in which a moving observer travels at lightspeed, the question was could he still see his reflection: Indeed, lightspeed was invariant. The speed of c then, is invariant in all moving frames.
    I hope you don't REALLY think I'm stupid enough to have said that in seriousness. If so, I've been doing something wrong.
    it was quite clear to me that you were being sarcastic.
    I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating, but I have a relatively rare form of autism. Things like his statement, are not always obvious to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes it is true we have never seen anything move faster than light doesn't mean it cannot.
    And that is not the reason it is thought that nothing can travel faster than light.

    Strange, what are you talking about? Of course it is, the only evidence is a lack of any experimental evidence of a particle moving faster than light in a vacuum.

    However, as I said, invariance is already broken in a number of ways in physics, one such way is through Goldstone bosons in which the speed of light is slightly less in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Strange, what are you talking about? Of course it is, the only evidence is a lack of any experimental evidence of a particle moving faster than light in a vacuum.
    Maybe you haven't heard of something called the Theory of Relativity? (That was sarcasm by the way.)

    I have no idea what your second paragraph means. It looks like the sort of random jumble of buzzwords that made me put you on ignore before. (That isn't sarcasm.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Strange, what are you talking about? Of course it is, the only evidence is a lack of any experimental evidence of a particle moving faster than light in a vacuum.
    Maybe you haven't heard of something called the Theory of Relativity? (That was sarcasm by the way.)

    I have no idea what your second paragraph means. It looks like the sort of random jumble of buzzwords that made me put you on ignore before. (That isn't sarcasm.)

    The theory of relativity....

    Oh thank god we have such sophistication here.

    For your information, nothing in relativity specifically says tachyons cannot exist. The mechanical reason why nothing can reach the speed of light in relativity is because it requires an infinite amount of energy. (This would be given up by Cherenkov radiation) which means it never has an infinite amount of energy because it doesn't reach the speed of light. Tachyons are hypothetical particles that begin their speed at superluminal velocities. It doesn't actually violate relativity.


    And if you have no idea what spontaneous symmetry breaking is, or what a Goldstone boson is or how they are implemented into spontaneous symmetry breaking, then I suggest you break open a book or something, or even better, put me back on ignore because I don't like you either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Anyway... before Prof. Strange replies, I will inform you again that Lorentz violations do happen in physics, in fact, they have to happen in spontaneous symmetry breaking.

    As explained, Lorentz covariance is broken when spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs. This leads to phonons, which travel at a speed just a little under the speed of light (these are Goldstone bosons).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    For your information, nothing in relativity specifically says tachyons cannot exist.
    Of course not. Who said it did?

    The mechanical reason why nothing can reach the speed of light in relativity is because it requires an infinite amount of energy.
    That is one (simplistic) way of looking at it. Although, really that is a consequence of the equation for relativistic acceleration, rather than the reason.

    Tachyons are hypothetical particles that begin their speed at superluminal velocities. It doesn't actually violate relativity.
    OK. I see what you mean. The non-existence of tachyons is based on the lack of observational evidence. That has nothing to do with the speed of light being a maximum (or, in the case of tachyons, a minimum) velocity.


    And if you have no idea what spontaneous symmetry breaking is, or what a Goldstone boson is or how they are implemented into spontaneous symmetry breaking
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Similar to the approximate Lorentz symmetry of phonons in a lattice (where the speed of sound plays the role of the critical speed), the Lorentz symmetry of special relativity (with the speed of light as the critical speed in vacuum) is only a low-energy limit of the laws of Physics


    Extracted from wiki. Earlier I was going to say something similar but didn't think anyone was ready for it... but since it is recognized here, anyone who follows my work, my work is about remodeling physics appropriately to their energy-scales (this includes important questions like when matter appears in the universe and explains why time is emergent). Among those things, Lorentz invariance is also a low energy phenomenon, it appears when the known ''laws'' of relativity set into motion (which was when the universe begins to cool down).

    Lorentz invariance might be broken as you approach the beginning of big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.

    There are many types of spontaneous symmetry breaking models.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Anyway... before Prof. Strange replies, I will inform you again that Lorentz violations do happen in physics
    You keep saying this. But you haven't provided any support. Anyone who had experimental evidence of Lorentz violation would probably be in line for a Nobel Prize.

    Modern searches for Lorentz violation are scientific studies that look for deviations from Lorentz invariance or symmetry, a set of fundamental frameworks that underpin modern science and fundamental physics in particular. ... Both terrestrial and astronomical experiments have been carried out, and new experimental techniques have been introduced. No Lorentz violations could be measured thus far, and exceptions in which positive results were reported have been refuted or lack further confirmations.
    Modern searches for Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.
    ...which is perfectly normal since the speed of light is "c" ONLY in vacuum. In ANY material, the speed of light is LESS than "c".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Anyway... before Prof. Strange replies, I will inform you again that Lorentz violations do happen in physics
    You keep saying this. But you haven't provided any support. Anyone who had experimental evidence of Lorentz violation would probably be in line for a Nobel Prize.

    Modern searches for Lorentz violation are scientific studies that look for deviations from Lorentz invariance or symmetry, a set of fundamental frameworks that underpin modern science and fundamental physics in particular. ... Both terrestrial and astronomical experiments have been carried out, and new experimental techniques have been introduced. No Lorentz violations could be measured thus far, and exceptions in which positive results were reported have been refuted or lack further confirmations.
    Modern searches for Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It won't be about ''if'' it happens. It's a matter of ''when'' we detect this violation, if the universe allows us to detect the phenomenon. A lot physics doesn't make sense without these violations. Sure I could be wrong, but this is more than a belief. As I said, too much physics actually somewhat relies on these interpretations of violations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    pust all of the above in a particle acceleraror
    No need. If you go 20 mph on a bicycle and turn on a flashlight, SURELY the photons will be moving c + 20 mph, right?


    No.

    The photons always travel at the speed of light. If something could add velocities or take away velocities from light, Einsteins thought experiment in which a moving observer travels at lightspeed, the question was could he still see his reflection: Indeed, lightspeed was invariant. The speed of c then, is invariant in all moving frames.
    I hope you don't REALLY think I'm stupid enough to have said that in seriousness. If so, I've been doing something wrong.
    it was quite clear to me that you were being sarcastic.
    I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating, but I have a relatively rare form of autism. Things like his statement, are not always obvious to me.
    well then maybe you should slow down and think a bit before posting 'from the hip'. your condescending attitude doesn't help much either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [COLOR=#252525][FONT=sans-serif]Similar to the approximate Lorentz symmetry of phonons in a lattice (where the speed of sound plays the role of the critical speed), the Lorentz symmetry of special relativity (with the speed of light as the critical speed in vacuum) is only a low-energy limit of the laws of Physics


    Extracted from wiki.
    You don't provide a source, but it appears to be from here: Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where it is talking about hypothetical models. At the end of that section, it says:
    Even though there is no evidence of the violation of Lorentz invariance, several experimental searches for such violations have been performed during recent years.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [It won't be about ''if'' it happens. It's a matter of ''when'' we detect this violation, if the universe allows us to detect the phenomenon. A lot physics doesn't make sense without these violations. Sure I could be wrong, but this is more than a belief. As I said, too much physics actually somewhat relies on these interpretations of violations.
    You seem to be confusing your wishes with science.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.
    ...which is perfectly normal since the speed of light is "c" ONLY in vacuum. In ANY material, the speed of light is LESS than "c".

    It is however recognized as a valid Lorentz broken symmetry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    well then maybe you should slow down and think a bit before posting 'from the hip'. your condescending attitude doesn't help much either.
    You are dealing with a well-known internet troll and master sockpuppeteer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Even though there is no evidence of the violation of Lorentz invariance, several experimental searches for such violations have been performed during recent years.

    Oh there is evidence, there is no proof. What is a theoretical model, if not evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.
    ...which is perfectly normal since the speed of light is "c" ONLY in vacuum. In ANY material, the speed of light is LESS than "c".

    It is however recognized as a valid Lorentz broken symmetry.

    Give it a rest, Reiku, you are posturing again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    I could argue neutrino oscillations are evidence for Lorentz symmetry breaking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Even though there is no evidence of the violation of Lorentz invariance, several experimental searches for such violations have been performed during recent years.

    Oh there is evidence, there is no proof. What is a theoretical model, if not evidence?
    Contrary to your crank misconceptions, theoretical models are just that, they do not count as "evidence". Stop posturing, you aren't impressing anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.
    ...which is perfectly normal since the speed of light is "c" ONLY in vacuum. In ANY material, the speed of light is LESS than "c".

    It is however recognized as a valid Lorentz broken symmetry.

    Give it a rest, Reiku, you are posturing again.

    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    (and by the way, tach, you shouldn't be talking about anyone being a master troll when you are trolling, right here right now. So far conversations have been relatively pleasant, since you not being here... Let's see how quickly this escalates now.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Oh there is evidence, there is no proof.
    If there is evidence, then please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed journal where it has been published. (Shouldn't be difficult for such world-changing results.)

    And of course there is no proof; this is science. there is never proof.

    What is a theoretical model, if not evidence?
    It is just theoretical model. Until confirmed by evidence. Anyone can create a mathematical model which is wrong. That isn't evidence of anything.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    deleted
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Even though there is no evidence of the violation of Lorentz invariance, several experimental searches for such violations have been performed during recent years.

    Oh there is evidence, there is no proof. What is a theoretical model, if not evidence?
    Contrary to your crank misconceptions, theoretical models are just that, they do not count as "evidence". Stop posturing, you aren't impressing anyone.

    Of course a mathematical model accounts as evidence. To think it doesn't... I mean... do you have any idea what you are saying?

    Evidence doesn't need to be solid in the hand, able to touch and see. Evidence comes in many different forms. Only thing that doesn't change, is to get the absolute proof then yes, we need to observe the violation or in the meanwhile get some indirect evidence, which there appears to be plenty of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Oh there is evidence, there is no proof.
    If there is evidence, then please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed journal where it has been published.

    No because if it had been detected, it wouldn't be evidence, you'd have a proof.

    There is plenty evidence in the form of theoretical models which are heavily mathematical. This is a form of evidence whether you like it or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Which says that you are wrong: "there is no evidence".

    So far conversations have been relatively pleasant
    Apart from your attitude and insults.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    It is just theoretical model. Until confirmed by evidence. Anyone can create a mathematical model which is wrong. That isn't evidence of anything.

    For neutrino oscillation, it appears to predict the phenomenon rather well. You don't think this is evidence in some form?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.
    ...which is perfectly normal since the speed of light is "c" ONLY in vacuum. In ANY material, the speed of light is LESS than "c".

    It is however recognized as a valid Lorentz broken symmetry.

    Give it a rest, Reiku, you are posturing again.

    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The fact that you don't understand the basics and that you misinterpret the more advanced concepts in a crank fashion doesn't mean that you are right, it only means that you are a posturing crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Which says that you are wrong: "there is no evidence".

    Yes I am contradicting it, it's written wrongly. You can't say there is ''no evidence'' when we have very acceptable Lorentz violating models which appear to work well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I do have an idea. Which is why I am unable to understand your second paragraph.

    Well you are learning something then. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Lorentz invariance means for special relativity, leads to Goldstone bosons which travel at a speed less than c.
    ...which is perfectly normal since the speed of light is "c" ONLY in vacuum. In ANY material, the speed of light is LESS than "c".

    It is however recognized as a valid Lorentz broken symmetry.

    Give it a rest, Reiku, you are posturing again.

    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The fact that you don't understand the basics and that you misinterpret the more advanced concepts in a crank fashion doesn't mean that you are right, it only means that you are a posturing crank.

    I know you are dying for one, but I am not getting into a flame war with you on the sole intent of bickering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Which says that you are wrong: "there is no evidence".

    Yes I am contradicting it, it's written wrongly. You can't say there is ''no evidence'' when we have very acceptable Lorentz violating models which appear to work well.
    There is no such thing as "Lorentz violating models", Reiku. There are though , several "Lorentz symmetry violating models". You obviously have no clue, you aren't impressing anyone with your persistent posturing. One last kick in your pants: there is no experimental confirmation of any of these "Lorentz symmetry violating models".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Can a mod please correct the thread title? I thought this thread was about the quickest liquid to pass through the human body.

    you think it's beer or coffee?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Read it for yourself on Lorentz violating models, Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Which says that you are wrong: "there is no evidence".

    Yes I am contradicting it, it's written wrongly.
    You are no position to contradict and/or correct since you are no scientist, you are a plain vanilla crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [Of course a mathematical model accounts as evidence.

    OK, so if I say that then that is evidence that Newtonian gravity is wrong?
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No because if it had been detected, it wouldn't be evidence, you'd have a proof.
    You appear not to understand how science works. Back on ignore.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [Of course a mathematical model accounts as evidence.

    OK, so if I say that then that is evidence that Newtonian gravity is wrong?
    What formula is that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Wait...is that Reiku from sciforums?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No because if it had been detected, it wouldn't be evidence, you'd have a proof.
    You appear not to understand how science works. Back on ignore.

    If you don't understand how saying there appears to be working models and then saying this is ''not evidence'' I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand how physics works.

    It's exactly the same as how when over the last couple of years scientists have been creating simulations of the universe, which as they said ''added evidence to the idea that we may be living in a simulation.''

    This is a good example, how even if a model only suits the mathematical side of things, still acts as evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Wait...is that Reiku from sciforums?
    Yep.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Even to just show a thing in physics and argue it mathematically, can be evidence in itself. Some physics have been largely mathematical and turned out to be correct over the years, such as the Dirac Equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Very famous story behind it, Dirac wedded Relativity and quantum mechanics completely mathematically.

    It wasn't until later after the equations discovery was the positron discovered. This was the first mathematical evidence directly predicting quantum phenomenon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No because if it had been detected, it wouldn't be evidence, you'd have a proof.
    You appear not to understand how science works. Back on ignore.

    If you don't understand how saying there appears to be working models and then saying this is ''not evidence'' I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand how physics works.

    It's exactly the same as how when over the last couple of years scientists have been creating simulations of the universe, which as they said ''added evidence to the idea that we may be living in a simulation.''

    This is a good example, how even if a model only suits the mathematical side of things, still acts as evidence.
    No, dude. Just plain no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No because if it had been detected, it wouldn't be evidence, you'd have a proof.
    You appear not to understand how science works. Back on ignore.

    If you don't understand how saying there appears to be working models and then saying this is ''not evidence'' I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand how physics works.

    It's exactly the same as how when over the last couple of years scientists have been creating simulations of the universe, which as they said ''added evidence to the idea that we may be living in a simulation.''

    This is a good example, how even if a model only suits the mathematical side of things, still acts as evidence.
    No, dude. Just plain no.


    Just no?

    You see, I am not saying ''just right,'' because I am actually giving examples in which mathematical models have served as evidence.

    The Dirac Equation mathematically predicted positrons before they were even discovered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Very famous story behind it, Dirac wedded Relativity and quantum mechanics completely mathematically.

    It wasn't until later after the equations discovery was the positron discovered. This was the first mathematical evidence directly predicting quantum phenomenon.
    No, the maths wasn't the evidence, it was the model. The model showed where to look for evidence, and evidence was found, therefore it was a successful model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Very famous story behind it, Dirac wedded Relativity and quantum mechanics completely mathematically.

    It wasn't until later after the equations discovery was the positron discovered. This was the first mathematical evidence directly predicting quantum phenomenon.
    No, the maths wasn't the evidence, it was the model.


    One of the most contradictory statements I have ever heard. You do know, the math makes the model? The model yes has parameters in the context of quantum mechanics and special relativity, but to say the mathematical conclusions where not the evidence, the model was, is a contradiction. The model was entirely mathematical. It predicted the positron before any experimental evidence supported it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Very famous story behind it, Dirac wedded Relativity and quantum mechanics completely mathematically.

    It wasn't until later after the equations discovery was the positron discovered. This was the first mathematical evidence directly predicting quantum phenomenon.
    No, the maths wasn't the evidence, it was the model.


    One of the most contradictory statements I have ever heard. You do know, the math makes the model? The model yes has parameters in the context of quantum mechanics and special relativity, but to say the mathematical conclusions where not the evidence, the model was, is a contradiction. The model was entirely mathematical. It predicted the positron before any experimental evidence supported it.
    All of the no. You're not even addressing what I said. I'll say it again in a different way, for clarity. The mathematics is not evidence. The mathematics form a model. The model makes predictions which can either be confirmed or denied by evidence. In the case you state, Dirac's model predicted a positron, but was not, in itself, evidence for the positron. The evidence came later and confirmed the validity of Dirac's model.
    It is important to make that distinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Very famous story behind it, Dirac wedded Relativity and quantum mechanics completely mathematically.

    It wasn't until later after the equations discovery was the positron discovered. This was the first mathematical evidence directly predicting quantum phenomenon.
    No, the maths wasn't the evidence, it was the model.


    One of the most contradictory statements I have ever heard. You do know, the math makes the model? The model yes has parameters in the context of quantum mechanics and special relativity, but to say the mathematical conclusions where not the evidence, the model was, is a contradiction. The model was entirely mathematical. It predicted the positron before any experimental evidence supported it.
    All of the no. You're not even addressing what I said. I'll say it again in a different way, for clarity. The mathematics is not evidence. The mathematics form a model.

    And you said the model is the evidence, not the maths. You can't deal with any respectable paper without the context of mathematics. Mathematics is what adds to the evidence of an assertion, an assertion without mathematics is bunk and meaningless often.

    You can't wrap it up either way to suit your ''model comes first over mathematics'' argument. Whatever you model, the topic is irrelevant. The point is that the Dirac Equation, whether based on a model or not, was largely mathematical and predicted phenomenon before it was even observed in the lab.

    So to even suggest mathematics doesn't account for evidence is blatantly wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 73
    Last Post: May 4th, 2013, 06:42 PM
  2. Which thaws the slowest and fastest?
    By thurrmac in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 31st, 2013, 08:57 AM
  3. Fastest technological progress possible
    By freemarketfascist in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 28th, 2012, 02:39 PM
  4. fastest speed of spaceship?
    By noob in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 27th, 2008, 01:34 PM
  5. fastest 1/4 mile
    By william in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 29th, 2006, 08:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •