[swansont]

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

Yes, but as I also said, I put it on here to get information to learn about it. I am only 14 so I haven't exactly been able to get a PHD with years of studying. But I am hoping too.

My point is that you are approaching this from the wrong direction. I understand the situation, because I was 14 once and didn't know how how scientific results were achieved. But you need to start with some scientific principle. Einstein started with the speed of light being the same in all reference frames and incorporated that into kinematic analysis. E=mc^2 was one result.

[between3and26characterslon]

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

Yes, the right hand version is a lot better.

I don't think you've quite understood what Cap'n was getting at here. Have a read of this http://www.efm.leeds...al_analysis.htm

What it is saying is that all the terms in an equation not only have units but have dimensions as well, so for instance:

velocity 'v' has units of ms^-1 and dimensions of LT ^-1 (where L=length and T=time)
acceleration 'a' has units of ms^-2 and dimensions of LT ^-2

so if you wrote an equation

v=a

you can test its validity by checking its dimensions and you can see.

LT ^-1 ≠ LT ^-2

In terms of dimensions used in an equation the lefthand side must equal the righthand side.


In regards to your equation to 'tweek' Einstein's theory I'm affraid you can not pull an equation out of thin air, presume it's correct and then reverse engineer it to find out why it's correct. What Swansont is saying is the E=mc² was the result of a lot of work not the beggining.

[michel123456]

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

S=Speed
C=3 x 10⁸ ms^-1 (speed of light)
If S>C then E=M(C+(S-C)^2

Maybe Morgsboi is 14 and missing knowledge he will acquire no doubt about that, but his mind is working.
I suppose from his OP he was basically asking whether Energy increases over mc^2 for hypothetical FTL particles.

[morgsboi]

Mystery111, on 6 November 2011 - 11:49 PM, said:

You are 14, and you want to know about neutrino's, or how they are applied in relativity? All due respect but you really are jumping in the deep end my friend first.

I have done lots of studying and have a good understanding, also I'm a very quick learner. What do you expect me to do? Light magnesium with a bunsen burner? I'm much more advanced than a lot of people my age.

[IM Egdall]

You go Morgsboi! Someday soon, you will be teaching us.

[morgsboi]

michel123456, on 7 November 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

Maybe Morgsboi is 14 and missing knowledge he will acquire no doubt about that, but his mind is working.
I suppose from his OP he was basically asking whether Energy increases over mc^2 for hypothetical FTL particles.

Yes, I'm just trying to learn

IM Egdall, on 8 November 2011 - 12:26 AM, said:

You go Morgsboi! Someday soon, you will be teaching us.

Is that encouragement or sarcasm?

Anyway, we have got very far from the point. The point was, I was wondering if the is faster than , would the take the place of or would the basic laws of physics not allow it?

This post has been edited by morgsboi: 8 November 2011 - 12:53 AM

[DrRocket]

morgsboi, on 8 November 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

Anyway, we have got very far from the point. The point was, I was wondering if the is faster than , would the take the place of or would the basic laws of physics not allow it?

If the speed is faster than c, then the existing theory fails and all bets are off. Special relativity does not allow such speeds.

If you mindlessly continue to apply Lorentz transformations you wind up with things like imaginary mass which no one knows how to interpret sensibly.

This post has been edited by DrRocket: 8 November 2011 - 01:06 AM

[A Tripolation]

morgsboi, on 8 November 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

Yes, I'm just trying to learn

I applaud your efforts. Learning is always amazing. But you might want to take the advice of other posters here. You have chosen to tackle a problem that many theoretical physicists, with decades of experience, couldn't solve. Read Dr.Rocket's post above. And also read up on Lorentzian Transformations.

What Dr.Rocket was saying is that once you start to plug in superluminal (faster than light) speeds into some of the transformation equations present in Special Relativity, you get weird things like imaginary mass, or even violations of causality. Both of these events are bad from a mathematical perspective. They cannot be solved by an equation like the one you have shown. But it is good that you are even thinking about the neutrino experiment.

Quote

Anyway, we have got very far from the point. The point was, I was wondering if the is faster than , would the take the place of or would the basic laws of physics not allow it?

I don't really think there are basic laws of physics, per se. Einstein's equations reduce to newtonian mechanics when . If superluminal information transfer is possible (a highly unlikely if), then we would need to work out a new set of laws that could handle these type of speeds and that would also work in EVERY instance that Einstein's relativity works in. Make sense?

[Mystery111]

morgsboi, on 7 November 2011 - 11:07 PM, said:

I have done lots of studying and have a good understanding, also I'm a very quick learner. What do you expect me to do? Light magnesium with a bunsen burner? I'm much more advanced than a lot of people my age.

I'm sure you are... but I never understood properly for instance, the Dynamics of the Dirac Equation until I was in my late teens... do you see where I am getting at?

[morgsboi]

Well it's not an actual equation. It just shows the question I wanted answering and now it is. And if anyone wants to add some additional information then they can.

[michel123456]

morgsboi, on 8 November 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

Is that encouragement or sarcasm?

When I was 14 my interests were to play with Airfix and Corgi Toys.
To give you an idea why I don't think anyone would dare to use sarcasm against you.

[mississippichem]

Its great that you're curious about such things at a young age. Keep learning more physics and mathematics, you'll get to the point where you'll be able to consider things such as relativity. Just remember to always take to heart the advice of those more experienced (which you seem to be doing). Do these things, and I can almost promise that you'll be able to rub elbows with PhD physicists in your lifetime. The journey is long and hard, but well worth it. The man who thinks he is finished learning should just go die .

[morgsboi]

michel123456, on 8 November 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

When I was 14 my interests were to play with Airfix and Corgi Toys.
To give you an idea why I don't think anyone would dare to use sarcasm against you.

Ah, thankyou. I really think I can do well at this with some good time and studying.

mississippichem, on 8 November 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

Its great that you're curious about such things at a young age. Keep learning more physics and mathematics, you'll get to the point where you'll be able to consider things such as relativity. Just remember to always take to heart the advice of those more experienced (which you seem to be doing). Do these things, and I can almost promise that you'll be able to rub elbows with PhD physicists in your lifetime. The journey is long and hard, but well worth it. The man who thinks he is finished learning should just go die .

Yeah, but I am very limited with resources that I can use other than the internet, but I think college and university will be a big help too.

[IM Egdall]

[quote name='morgsboi' timestamp='1320713261' post='637275']
Yes, I'm just trying to learn



Is that encouragement or sarcasm?

/quote]

Encouragement for sure.

[The time Traveller]

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

Okay, thanks. So what is V?


Yes, the right hand version is a lot better.

the world of physics recognises both the conservation of momentum and the conservation of kinetic energy. However how can both be conserved simultaneously in any given situation if one is equal to mv and the other ½ mv²? One is directly equal to 'v' and the other 'v²'. It doesn't take a brilliant mathematician to observe that this is clearly impossible.

therein lies the dilemma of the scientific community. When people do not realise their own intellectual limits, they do not enter into the struggle to understand that which they have failed to comprehend. Learning is no substitute for understanding. It is in admitting a lack of understanding and in wrestling with the problem that the mistakes of the past are rectified

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Physics doesn't say that kinetic energy is always conserved, so there is no contradiction.

[JohnStu]

A bracket is missing there. Still an excellent tweek for a young person