# Thread: what is the fastest possible thing?

1. Wether it is electrons or protoms or photons how fast can they go without breaking some law out there.

2.

3. 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

4. .....no where near close lol

5. 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.

6. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
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

7. Originally Posted by Strange
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.

8. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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?

9. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
Originally Posted by Strange
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?

10. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

12. But is there a scientific explanation for this?

13. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
.....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.

14. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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

15. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
But is there a scientific explanation for this?
Einstein's Relativity -- 1905. Maxwell's equations in about 1880, i think.

16. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
.....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

17. 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.

18. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

19. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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).

20. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

21. Originally Posted by Strange
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.

22. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

23. LHC: How fast do these protons go?

i was pretty close with my guess.

24. Thanks for the explanation dan hunter, cleared up a lot.

25. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
Uneducated people are always "pretty sure".

26. 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.

27. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

28. Originally Posted by ajarjour
Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
Originally Posted by Strange
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?

29. Originally Posted by Strange
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?…...

30. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

31. Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

32. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

33. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

34. 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).

35. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
''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.

36. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

37. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

38. 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).

39. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
It remains an open issue but it is largely accepted this is what is happening.
Citation needed.

40. 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.

41. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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."

42. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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

43. Originally Posted by Karsus
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.

44. Originally Posted by Chiropterous Hominid
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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)

45. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Some approaches in gravity are taking interesting turns which are having to involve Lorentz invariance violation.
Can you give some examples?

46. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
[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".

47. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
[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.

48. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Karsus
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.

49. Also, Lorentz violation occurs when it's covariant cousin is spontaneously broken and allows Goldstone bosons (like a ground state photon).

50. Originally Posted by Karsus
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Karsus
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.

51. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

52. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

53. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

54. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

55. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

56. Originally Posted by Strange
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.

57. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.)

58. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

59. 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).

60. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

61. 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.

62. Originally Posted by Strange
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.

63. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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

64. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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".

65. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

66. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by frumpydolphin
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.

67. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
[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.

68. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
[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.

69. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

70. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
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.

71. Originally Posted by Strange
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?

72. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

73. I could argue neutrino oscillations are evidence for Lorentz symmetry breaking.

74. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

75. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.)

76. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

77. deleted

78. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

79. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

80. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

81. Originally Posted by Strange

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?

82. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

83. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

84. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

85. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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".

86. 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?

87. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

88. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
[Of course a mathematical model accounts as evidence.

OK, so if I say that then that is evidence that Newtonian gravity is wrong?

89. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

90. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
[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?

91. Wait...is that Reiku from sciforums?

92. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

93. Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
Wait...is that Reiku from sciforums?
Yep.

94. 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.

95. 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.

96. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

97. Originally Posted by Karsus
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

98. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

99. Originally Posted by Karsus
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

100. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Karsus
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

101. Originally Posted by Karsus
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Karsus
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
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.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement