I was doing some new learning as I do from time to time the other day learning a little about the history of neutrino's. The thing that stood out the most for me was the discussion on whether they oscillated or not and the reasoning behind it. It was once thought they had no mass, and without mass it was impossible for them to oscillate, so therefor either there were different types of neutrino's or they had mass to allow them to oscillate.

In return, this gets the blood flowing on the thought of speed of light vs time. The argument against the neutrino's not having mass was that they would experience no time because they would be restricted to moving at the speed of light. So, with that fact out of the way, I ask, what is the opposite of the speed of light and how do you achieve it. Are we currently moving at or near the bare minimum of relative speed? Are we in fact perceiving time at its fastest state? Or does the expansion rate, galactic orbit rate and the solar orbit rate contribute to our relative speed.

I often wonder if our universe forms and evaporates as fast as the explosion of two particles colliding in a particle accelerator, and we just perceive it differently.

thank you for your time.

Edited April 19Apr 19 by taste

36 minutes ago, taste said:

I ask, what is the opposite of the speed of light and how do you achieve it.

I don't know what "opposite of the speed of light" means. However, (according to Wikipedia) the peculiar velocity of the Sun relative to the comoving cosmic rest frame is 369.82 ± 0.11 km/s towards the constellation Crater near its boundary with the constellation Leo.

1 minute ago, KJW said:

I don't know what "opposite of the speed of light" means. However, (according to Wikipedia) the peculiar velocity of the Sun relative to the comoving cosmic rest frame is 369.82 ± 0.11 km/s towards the constellation Crater near its boundary with the constellation Leo.

maybe i worded it wrong.

by opposite, I mean, what is zero in terms of speed and are we at it or not.

so the speed of light is "299 792 458 m / s" .... how do we get to 0.0 m/s ?

We are always at a speed of zero relative to our own frame of reference. It should be noted that speed (or velocity) is always relative to something. However, the local speed of light is always the same in all frames of reference.

Edited April 19Apr 19 by KJW

The speed of light, c , is the only speed where you don't need to ask the question "Relative to what ?", as it is measured to be the same to all observers in all frames.
Every other speed that is not c , has to be measured relative to something else, as it differs for observers in differing frames.
None of the speeds that are not c can be 'pinned down' as being at any particular value, or to 0 m/s, as all such motion is relative.

Can you re-phrase what you mean by 'opposite' of a speed, or the max/min rate of time, because if you realize motion is relative, such questions are ill posed.

2 hours ago, taste said:

what is zero in terms of speed and are we at it or not.

Any inertial observer can decide they are at rest. Nothing about physics changes with your choice of inertial reference frame. So, if you want to be at rest, you’re at rest, and other things are moving.

(approximately, since we’re actually accelerating, and that’s not relative. But it’s small)

.

space-time is not a physical object

space-time does not exist in the physical sense and is only used as a conceptual model for mathematical calculations.

einstein never claimed that space-time exists

everything is relative

..

the neutrino is also a conceptual model.

neutrino doesn't exist in reality.

for the process of ascillation a particle must have mass

scientists don't know how what they call neutrino changes its properties so they multiplied images of neutrinos adding to each new image the missing properties for calculations

it makes no sense to divide physical reality into massless particles

it is done only for mathematical calculations and confirmation of physical theories

...

p.s

'the opposite of the speed of light'

light has no speed

what are called photons are the process of transferring a quantum of energy

Edited April 20Apr 20 by 0340

within the standard interpretation, a massless neutrino would cause a problem as our definition of time simply has a singularity there.

for as long as we don't have any evidence of an neutrino mass, the other alternative would be that some laws of physics of neutrinos is not Lorentz invariant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations

that would allow a particle to oscillate even when travelling exactly at the speed of light. our current model wouldn't be ideal to describe it, though it is still possible.

There is no unique way to define time, so a Lorentz-violating neutrino would specify its very own concept of it, practically defining its own clock that perceives the flow of time differently from our electro-magnetic based ones. and if such clocks existed and were used to measure the speed at which light, it would turn out it changes depending on the frame.

Edited April 20Apr 20 by Killtech

43 minutes ago, Killtech said:

within the standard interpretation, a massless neutrino would cause a problem as our definition of time simply has a singularity there.

What do you think is the “definition” of time? (in a physics sense) Is it something other that “that which is measured by a clock”?

A massless neutrino might cause problems for neutrino models, but timekeeping doesn’t depend on them.

43 minutes ago, Killtech said:

for as long as we don't have any evidence of an neutrino mass, the other alternative would be that some laws of physics of neutrinos is not Lorentz invariant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations

that would allow a particle to oscillate even when travelling exactly at the speed of light. our current model wouldn't be ideal to describe it, though it is still possible.

There is no unique way to define time, so a Lorentz-violating neutrino would specify its very own concept of it, practically defining its own clock that perceives the flow of time differently from our electro-magnetic based ones. and if such clocks existed and were used to measure the speed at which light, it would turn out it changes depending on the frame.

Moderator Note

Please keep speculations in its own thread in the speculations section, rather than hijacking someone else’s thread with that discussion.