quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
<snip>
Another interesting consequence of the theory is that only massless particles (e.g. photons and neutrons can attain light speed, in fact that is the only speed at which they can travel, they can't slow down. Any particle that has mass cannot attain light speed. So observing photons is pretty much the only way we can explore objects over a certain distance.
<snip>

Neutrons have mass. They’re slightly heavier than a proton. Maybe you’re thinking of neutrinos, but even neutrinos have mass;

Neutrons' speed can also change. Neutron moderators are used to slow neutrons in nuclear reactors; necessary to make fission work in uranium fuel that's only slightly enriched (unlike highly enriched weapons-grade uranium, that will fission with 'ordinary' fast neutrons).

IIRC, they had to adjust GPS calculations to adjust for relativity.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I'm afraid physical travel to "distant galaxies" is not possible in the universe as we understand it at this time no matter how much time and distance contraction might seem to make it so.

I've always wondered about that...
Travel approaching the speed of light seems theoretically possible, but certainly not in our lifetime.

What's new to me is that the distant shrinks with speed. Not sure I understand that. To me, it seems the faster you go, the sooner you get there and so it doesn't seem as far.

On travel approaching the speed of light, what is the limiting factor is Einstein's theory says the closer your speed approaches light speed, your mass increases and approaches infinity.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I'm afraid physical travel to "distant galaxies" is not possible in the universe as we understand it at this time no matter how much time and distance contraction might seem to make it so.

I've always wondered about that...
Travel approaching the speed of light seems theoretically possible, but certainly not in our lifetime.

What's new to me is that the distant shrinks with speed. Not sure I understand that. To me, it seems the faster you go, the sooner you get there and so it doesn't seem as far.

On travel approaching the speed of light, what is the limiting factor is Einstein's theory says the closer your speed approaches light speed, your mass increases and approaches infinity.

And therefore the energy needed to increase that speed also increases.

A warp bubble would explain how an object in motion could side-step the nothing-can-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light rule, and possibly even avoid the effects of time dilation.

In front of the bubble, space-time is contracting, and in back it is expanding. Inside the bubble, the object remains compliant with the usual laws of physics. Time would seem to pass "normally". It's possible that the time dilation effect would even be negated or reduced to an external observer.

This would still involve a massive energy expenditure, which we don't have quite yet.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
This would still involve a massive energy expenditure, which we don't have quite yet.

1.21 gigawatts. Of course a good flux capacitor wouldn’t hurt either.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:
<snip>
Neutrons' speed can also change.
<snip>

Of course. The speed of all physical objects except massless particles such as photons can change. Neutrons are no different in that regard.

That's one thing I don't get. How can anything that physically exists, have zero mass? Small enough that we don't have a device sensitive enough to measure it, OK. But zero? That just doesn't seem to make logical sense.

Then again, NOTHING down in that quantum world really makes sense, does it?

^^^^^^
It’s mind boggling all right.

Even Einstein had doubts about quantum mechanics. “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”, he said.

And that’s despite the fact that his Nobel Prize was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which began the field of quantum mechanics.

Is anyone except authors of nerd books making money off of this knowledge?

Quantum computers are actually a thing now. Companies with really deep pockets have built them and, I understand, even made them somewhat accessible to real people. I don't know if they're profiting from them yet, but I imagine they will be before too long.

There are a lot of scientists at places like CERN that have to be making pretty good salaries doing the research, so yeah they're making money from it. All or at least mostly funded by gov't grants I assume, meaning me and thee are paying for it.

There are a handful of people making money giving speeches and doing Youtube and PBS videos about it.

And of course there are the shit ton of Hollywood projects that are based on the (mostly BS) sci-fi aspects of it all.

Otherwise, I doubt it. This stuff is all dealing with sub-atomic particles so far, and a lot of it is still only theoretical. When somebody figures out a way to translate it to "real" objects, then someone will start to make serious money from it. But I think that's quite a ways off yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
This would still involve a massive energy expenditure, which we don't have quite yet.

1.21 gigawatts. Of course a good flux capacitor wouldn’t hurt either.

Perhaps if we could harness dark matter/energy....

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I think it's about time to see Interstellar again.

You beat me to it!

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Perhaps if we could harness dark matter/energy....

You'll have to go to the dark web to find that...

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
I’m just gonna sit here with my box of crayons.

If you have any extra, please pass them my way. I am a bit hungry.


.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
This would still involve a massive energy expenditure, which we don't have quite yet.

1.21 gigawatts. Of course a good flux capacitor wouldn’t hurt either.

Perhaps if we could harness dark matter/energy....

If it actually exists.
It could just be errors in current theory that will eventually be resolved in some other way.

And speaking of CERN ...
There's speculation that if they increase their energy enough, they could possibly create a new Big Bang and completely destroy this universe

So I if I went from east coast to west coast to work at the speed of light, I would get there faster yet still be late for work?

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:

And speaking of CERN ...
There's speculation that if they increase their energy enough, they could possibly create a new Big Bang and completely destroy this universe

There was a concern that detonation of the Trinity device, the first successful nuclear bomb, would initiate a runaway chain reaction that would pull in the entire earth. Glad it didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
So I if I went from east coast to west coast to work at the speed of light, I would get there faster yet still be late for work?

You would arrive at your destination in approximately .02 seconds. Whether you'd be late or not depends on when you started. You would, however, be a tad younger than your co-workers, if that's something.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:
That's one thing I don't get. How can anything that physically exists, have zero mass? Small enough that we don't have a device sensitive enough to measure it, OK. But zero? That just doesn't seem to make logical sense.

Then again, NOTHING down in that quantum world really makes sense, does it?

Light has mass and can be drawn by gravitational forces. Tachyon particles are faster.

Now if we factor in the Dirac equation...

Not sure if I could bring light to the subject matter, or just make it as clear as concrete.