Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
No known particle travels faster than light, but such particles are called 'tachyons'.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No known particle travels faster than light, but such particles are called 'tachyons'.I've heard of particles moving faster then the speed of light. I read it is some school litterature in highschool. i cant remeber the name of the particle. I thought i might inform you of this!
Maybe you answered this before, but what is your take on this? Increasing mass seemed like such a great reason why you can't reach light speed. What's wrong with it? Is it too intuitive to be true?(some physicist believe that, when a particle accelerates, its mass increases, which is one reason why it's impossible to hit lightspeed; I personally don't ascribe to that idea)
The expansion of spacetime on the local scale is negligible and local motions of objects overcome any such effect. It is only on the very large scales where the expansion manifests itself.Ok, I don't want to get too far into cosmology, but:
Weird Galaxy Glows Bright in Amazing Telescope Photo - Yahoo! News
I'm still struggling with this "expanding space" idea. From the link:
"These intriguing features, and the strong radio signals from Centaurus A, strongly suggest that the galaxy is the result of a violent galaxy merger. The dusty band is likely the remains of a spiral galaxy that is being ripped apart by the gravitational pull of a massive elliptical galaxy, ESO officials said."
Now if space itself is expanding, and this is a separate property from any actual motion of heavenly bodies -- don't all such theories predict that 2 galaxies couldn't possibly collide, ever? Yet we see evidence of exactly this happening ...
How do we explain that?
local motions of objects overcome any such effect.
The expansion of space accelerates galaxies away from each other, but there are more forces at work than just that. Electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are too weak to change the way galaxies move, but gravity, now that can be strong enough.Ok, I don't want to get too far into cosmology, but:
Weird Galaxy Glows Bright in Amazing Telescope Photo - Yahoo! News
I'm still struggling with this "expanding space" idea. From the link:
"These intriguing features, and the strong radio signals from Centaurus A, strongly suggest that the galaxy is the result of a violent galaxy merger. The dusty band is likely the remains of a spiral galaxy that is being ripped apart by the gravitational pull of a massive elliptical galaxy, ESO officials said."
Now if space itself is expanding, and this is a separate property from any actual motion of heavenly bodies -- don't all such theories predict that 2 galaxies couldn't possibly collide, ever? Yet we see evidence of exactly this happening ...
How do we explain that?
Actually it is - or will be, in a few billion years. The Andromeda galaxy is hurtling towards us. Run!That would be painfully obvious if our galaxy were being intruded upon by another ...
That's not quite how it works. The Big Bang theory says that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a tiny, hot, dense state. The Big Bang itself is this ongoing expansion, it's not a thing that has a location, nor does this expansion have a centre somewhere in the universe we can send a spaceship to.Still, doesn't the expanding universe idea have the big bang at it's center? Why doesn't this phenomena falsify that?
Actually two galaxies colliding results in on average about zero collisions between stars. What does happen is the gas present in each system becomes turbulent and this induces a large star formation event.That would be painfully obvious if our galaxy were being intruded upon by another ...Still, doesn't the expanding universe idea have the big bang at it's center? Why doesn't this phenomena falsify that?
So galaxies that are close together can exert gravity on each other that overrides the average moving-away effect,
Everything expands away from everything else. We don't see the Earth moving away from us, but we see distant galaxies accelerating away, and further ones accelerating away even faster. However, this is what you'd see no matter where you are in the universe. There's no central point, as every point is moving away from every other point.
What is the second fastest (naturally) moving particle?
It would, but the calculation is intractable.It would be interesting to model what sort of "zone" needs to exist, for galaxies to be close enough to overcome expansion, but far enough away not to crash into each other for however many zillions of years, such that we can witness it now
Well, apart from c, there's no hard limit on how fast a particle can go, so any particle can go at any speed. That said, you tend to find neutrinos moving at almost c, so I'd say them.What is the second fastest (naturally) moving particle?
Well, apart from c, there's no hard limit on how fast a particle can go, so any particle can go at any speed. That said, you tend to find neutrinos moving at almost c, so I'd say them.
If we take a purely mathematical approach and try to model how three (or more) bodies of arbitrary mass, position, and momenta, would move at any given point... it turns out it's impossible. You simply cannot run through the algebra and say, "OK, if they had these initial conditions at t = 0, they would have these conditions at t = t" - c'est impossiblé.
Tachyons, if they exist, can move at any speed above c.
Tachyons aren't an actual type of particle, though; they're the name given to any particle that goes faster than light. 'Tachyon' is the same kind of word as 'sub-luminal' - it's not an actual particle itself.Wait, I thought tachyons could beat light, which would make light the second fastest thing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?