morgsboi Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) 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 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 [math]Speed[/math] is faster than [math]C[/math], would the [math]Speed[/math] take the place of [math]C[/math] or would the basic laws of physics not allow it? Edited November 8, 2011 by morgsboi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Anyway, we have got very far from the point. The point was, I was wondering if the [math]Speed[/math] is faster than [math]C[/math], would the [math]Speed[/math] take the place of [math]C[/math] 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. Edited November 8, 2011 by DrRocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 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. Anyway, we have got very far from the point. The point was, I was wondering if the [math]Speed[/math] is faster than [math]C[/math], would the [math]Speed[/math] take the place of [math]C[/math] 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 [math]v<<c[/math]. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystery111 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgsboi Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgsboi Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Yes, I'm just trying to learn Is that encouragement or sarcasm? /quote] Encouragement for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The time Traveller Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Physics doesn't say that kinetic energy is always conserved, so there is no contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnStu Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 A bracket is missing there. Still an excellent tweek for a young person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now