Where da Physics junkies at?

[tortilliachp]

at best, significant assumptions are made to allow vacuum Cherenkov radiation. http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v76/i2/e025024 is the best i can do in terms of articles that are available free online.

 

there are vast assumptions made in all similar articles, assumptions that cannot be controlled, only inferred.

when making assumptions, such as assuming Lorentz law needs modification at speeds close to the speed of light, you're moving in uncharted territory.

 

None of our physical theories can directly be attributed to be true above the speed of light, as no one has yet observed superluminal particles, much less verified theories above the speed of light: therefore anyone can speculate, but that's all it is.

 

I see where you're coming from, and largely agree, but is modifying the Lorentz force near the speed of light really controversial? I thought it was a fairly well accepted principle to account for the gamma function.

 

well yes, it's modular physics, but what does that help? if the Higgs particle (but more importantly all the anti-particles) don't exist, that model falls apart. It may be a commonly accepted guess, but it's only an educated guess. That's why experimental physics is so powerful, why it's even worth spending the billions at CERN and similar facilities. You need evidence to check your model. Just look at background radiation and big bang theory: one seems absurd without the other; you need both. inferring too much on an unverified model will lead to false conclusions. but which conclusions are reasonable, which are not? that's incredibly hard to tell, especially when they all seem reasonable enough, because there is little to no evidence either way.

 

If Lorentz force can be ignored close to the speed of light, we could theoretically observe vacuum Cherenkov radiation. find the radiation, and everyone will agree the Lorentz force model needs a revision. untill then, one may theorize, and publish interesting new research, but it's intelligent speculation at best.

 

current theory dictates vacuum cherenkov radiation cannot exist: i'll wait for newer theory, or an observation of the phenomenon like all the physicists i've spoken about it with are also waiting for. However, lack of funding for sending the necessary detection equipment into space, where the vacuum radiation could theoretically be observed, means i'm not holding my breath.

 

(I assume you know all of this even before my post)

[assassin_696]

True true, I guess we just need to wait for the LHC to start churning out plenty of data to at least confirm the Higgs. Whether it's confirmed or not though, either way it'll be fascinating.

[Myweponsg00d]

Well, as a physics graduate, I'll share my enlightenment on the subject.

 

First I'll comment on the speed of light. The speed of light is constant in every frame of reference. Suppose I was in a space ship that was traveling at 50% of the speed of light (which is unrealistically fast btw). If I shot a laser beam out in front of me, I would see it leaving at the speed of light. Now suppose I was shining that light at someone who was stationary. Conventional wisdom might suggest that he will observe my laser beam travelling at 150% the speed of light. However, it does not. The stationary observer will see the light coming toward him at the speed of light. Even light cannot travel faster than light. (at least, by our definition of what it means to travel through space). Even if you are traveling at 99% the speed of light, light would STILL appear to travel FASTER than you by the speed of light. It is impossible to catch. Or, let me say, that if you DID catch it or "go faster" than it, then you would not even exist or travel in the sense that we understand existence in the 3 dimensional world.

 

Secondly, time dilation. There are two different meanings to this term. One referrs to time dilation due to motion, and the other referrs to time dilation due to mass/gravity/acceleration. The first is usually referred to as "special relativity" and the second is usually referred to as "general relativity." Special relativity arises because there is nothing you can do to determine if you are stationary or moving at a constant velocity. If time did not dilate, I could conduct an experiment with laser beams on a space ship, and I would be able to tell that I was moving. But, since time dilates and length contracts, it is impossible to determine if you are moving or if the entire universe is moving past you.

 

General relativity is similar. In a nutshell, there should be no way to tell if you are being pulled by gravity or if you are being accelerated by motion. If gravitational time dilation did not occur, one would be able to conduct an experiment where can determine if he is being held down by gravity or if he is being held down by being accelerated upward.

 

Honestly, the best way to explain these phenomenon to people is basically "There are things about our universe that are fundamental properties. Time dilation must occur according to our perceptions of the laws of nature."

[Quyneax]

Hmm, just a thought. If time goes slower as you speed up, let's say you go so fast that it takes no time at all. Would you go back in time if you moved any faster than that, since it would take negative time? I know it will never be possible to go that fast, just wondering if physics works that way. I can't grasp all the hardcore physics though.

 

I'm told that there is no mathematical difference between going faster than light, going back in time, or being an antiparticle. One way to look at this is converstion of time-momentum (made-up term). Whenever a particle is created from pure energy, the corresponding antiparticle is also created. This sums to zero charge, spin etc. being added to the universe, but the movement in time also sums to zero.

 

Then the Higgs-mechanism comes in, and I can't tell you how that works exactly. Could anyone explain that one?

[Myweponsg00d]

Hmm, just a thought. If time goes slower as you speed up, let's say you go so fast that it takes no time at all. Would you go back in time if you moved any faster than that, since it would take negative time? I know it will never be possible to go that fast, just wondering if physics works that way. I can't grasp all the hardcore physics though.

 

I'm told that there is no mathematical difference between going faster than light, going back in time, or being an antiparticle. One way to look at this is converstion of time-momentum (made-up term). Whenever a particle is created from pure energy, the corresponding antiparticle is also created. This sums to zero charge, spin etc. being added to the universe, but the movement in time also sums to zero.

 

Then the Higgs-mechanism comes in, and I can't tell you how that works exactly. Could anyone explain that one?

 

Explain what? The entire conceptualization of the Higgs theory? Perhaps you should go buy some textbooks because you have no way of even having the slightest idea of what the Higgs theory is all about unless you happen to have studied particle physics for a few years.