| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2011 10:52:51 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I don't however understand how an object of mass could travel faster than light in special relativity. It would require infinite acceleration and energy to even reach the speed of light. How could it go faster? |
Adrenaline. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:33:36 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I love all the extra dimensions of string and M-theory. Perhaps the neutrinos went through a worm hole or through a different dimension. I suppose that is possible. Maybe the Marshmallow could do it as well, and miss the earth entirely.
I don't however understand how an object of mass could travel faster than light in special relativity. It would require infinite acceleration and energy to even reach the speed of light. How could it go faster? |
well the first question would be is relativity actually correct? |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:40:46 AM · #28 |
Nothing's moving, only mind :)
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:59:12 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I love all the extra dimensions of string and M-theory. Perhaps the neutrinos went through a worm hole or through a different dimension. I suppose that is possible. Maybe the Marshmallow could do it as well, and miss the earth entirely.
I don't however understand how an object of mass could travel faster than light in special relativity. It would require infinite acceleration and energy to even reach the speed of light. How could it go faster? |
well the first question would be is relativity actually correct? |
Correct is a difficult term. Newtonian physics is "correct" under most real life situations, but as it turns out, it doesn't work under conditions of large gravitational fields or very fast speeds. Relativity works much better in these situations. Relativity doesn't work very well with very small objects, where quantum physics is a much better model. String theory is an attempt to explain quantum physics and relativity in the same model. It is unproven, but it kinda works.
The neutrino experiment is a real challenge to a relativity primary principle, that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Is the experiment a special situation that can be explained by string theory or some other theory or was the experiment faulty? We don't know at this point.
Relativity has been proven to work in many situations it was predicted to work on, and in these cases, it is certainly correct. There is however likely to be a more general theory that will have relativity as a special case, just as newtonian physics is a special case of relativity. Einstein realized this, and tried to find the more general theory. String theory may be the answer, but then again, maybe not. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 08:50:55 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Nothing's moving, only mind :) |
There is no spoon. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 10:02:51 AM · #31 |
| You humans think in such three-dimensional terms. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 10:03:56 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Originally posted by jagar:
Nothing's moving, only mind :) |
There is no spoon. |
Thanks Neo.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 12:14:03 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Correct is a difficult term. Newtonian physics is "correct" under most real life situations, but as it turns out, it doesn't work under conditions of large gravitational fields or very fast speeds. Relativity works much better in these situations. Relativity doesn't work very well with very small objects, where quantum physics is a much better model. String theory is an attempt to explain quantum physics and relativity in the same model. It is unproven, but it kinda works. |
One fundamental difference between relativity, newtonian physics, quantum theory and string theory is the latter has really been crafted in a "backward" fashion. String theorists look at the existing data and craft a scenario which would fit with the data. It has never been able to make a prediction that can then be tested (a very important step for legitimacy). There are now something like 10^500 pertubations of string theory, so one could expect to find a scenario to fit with almost any data set.
I think it's a really interesting idea, but it's important to isolate it from classical physics, quantum physics, and relativity which all have made successful predictions. OTOH, all three have also failed with other predictions which is why we strive to find an all-encompassing theory. The odds still favor error as the answer for the super-fast neutrinos, but it would be an exciting time if it were confirmed.
Message edited by author 2011-10-26 12:14:21. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 01:21:02 PM · #34 |
Once again you guys have gone so far off topic that you didn't even answer the OP's question, rather you veered off in an attempt to explain if it is possible... He didn't ask that. He asked "IF" Originally posted by mike_311:
a marshmallow traveled at 99.99 percent the speed of light hit the Earth, what would happen? |
The answer is at this speed, special relativity says that the energy of this marshmallow equals about 100,000 terajoules. The most powerful American bomb known as "Castle/Bravo" was detonated on February 28, 1954 and released energy equivalent to an astounding 15 megatons of TNT or 84,000 terajoules. As with many uncontrolled natural phenomena, most of this energy will end up as heat, light and sound although there would also be tremendous ionization of the local atmosphere that would go along with this event. When you look at the energy per particle of the marshmallow, the energy is shared by 100 trillion trillion protons in the marshmallow for an average energy per particle of 10 billion volts per proton. This is more than enough energy to trigger some thermonuclear fusion and the production of gamma radiation.
As for what it does when it actually impacts, it will cause a detonation equal in energy to a stony asteroid 200 yards across traveling at 20 miles/second and produce a crater several miles across.
ETA: PS. This is not an original question...
Message edited by author 2011-10-26 13:22:49. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 01:47:38 PM · #35 |
| Obviously the results would be devastating and because of that, we can be certain that our extraterrestrial enemies are working on, or have a weapon that uses this technology. That's why I have petitioned Congress to allot $97B to NASA for the development of an anti-marshmallow weapon and to put Slippy in charge of R&D. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 02:20:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Obviously the results would be devastating and because of that, we can be certain that our extraterrestrial enemies are working on, or have a weapon that uses this technology. That's why I have petitioned Congress to allot $97B to NASA for the development of an anti-marshmallow weapon and to put Slippy in charge of R&D. |
SWEET !
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 02:29:49 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Obviously the results would be devastating and because of that, we can be certain that our extraterrestrial enemies are working on, or have a weapon that uses this technology. That's why I have petitioned Congress to allot $97B to NASA for the development of an anti-marshmallow weapon and to put Slippy in charge of R&D. |
SWEET ! |
You can send that money direct to me. I've already got my giant blow torch ready for patent. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 03:33:31 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It was reported a few weeks ago that scientists measured some neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. They have done it twice, but are waiting for independent confirmation to report it as absolutely true. If confirmed, this will punch a big hole in relativity theory. Actually it is quite exciting. |
It will be a couple of years before we hear either way (by which time I'm sure the media will have long lost interest and the story will slip most people by), but you don't have to disregard relativity for the results to be correct (which is dubious).
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
But you're assuming the weight of the marshmallow is 7g stationary. In that case as it reaches 99.99% speed of light, it's mass will have increased (and size decreased) thus the amount of energy required to have propelled it to that speed will also have increased. |
To around 200g, yes... I did correct for that :P. |
I would think the mass increase of fast objects would be questioned if mass can travel faster than the speed of light. Those two theories go hand in hand. |
You're assuming (if the experiment is correct), that the neutrinos are in fact travelling the given distance (not that I really buy in to string theory), but that's one of several explanations proposed that doesn't violate relativity. You can also have objects with mass travelling faster than the speed of light without breaking relativity, which only states an object with mass can't travel at the speed of light. |
I love all the extra dimensions of string and M-theory. Perhaps the neutrinos went through a worm hole or through a different dimension. I suppose that is possible. Maybe the Marshmallow could do it as well, and miss the earth entirely.
I don't however understand how an object of mass could travel faster than light in special relativity. It would require infinite acceleration and energy to even reach the speed of light. How could it go faster? |
Well, if the marshmallow heats up as it's traveling towards the earth, thus starting to burn...as on a stick 'round the campfire, would it not start to char, thus producing carbon...which would continue to burn with increasing speed, thus making it's own fuel... :p Is Jeapardy on yet! |
|
|
|
11/18/2011 09:07:11 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's a really interesting idea, but it's important to isolate it from classical physics, quantum physics, and relativity which all have made successful predictions. OTOH, all three have also failed with other predictions which is why we strive to find an all-encompassing theory. The odds still favor error as the answer for the super-fast neutrinos, but it would be an exciting time if it were confirmed. |
Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result
The team behind the finding in September that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and found the same result.
If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics. |
|
|
|
11/18/2011 10:30:33 AM · #40 |
read a book by Michio Kaku a few years back that said faster than light travel would be a good thing for a grand unified theory as it allowed a lot of the math to work out and unify many equations.
i may have to dust that book off and re-read it now as it may have some relevance again. |
|
|
|
11/18/2011 11:07:28 AM · #41 |
|
|
|
11/18/2011 11:46:32 AM · #42 |
come on, its a standard size marshmallow, lets not get unrealistic here...
Message edited by author 2011-11-18 11:46:40. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 01:04:23 PM · #43 |
It seems Einstein is still correct. Neutrinos are not faster than light. It was just a faulty wire in the experiment. I feel better now.
//www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100009/Scientists-did-not-break-speed-of-light-it-was-a-faulty-wire.html |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 01:51:13 PM · #44 |
I'm now having nightmares about the marshmallow of doom. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2012 02:12:31 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I'm now having nightmares about the marshmallow of doom. Thanks. |
When you woke up, was your pillow missing?? |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 02:27:39 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
When you woke up, was your pillow missing?? |
No, but the bathroom was in flames and my wife was under the floor making tea from dryer lint.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2012 02:45:23 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
When you woke up, was your pillow missing?? |
No, but the bathroom was in flames and my wife was under the floor making tea from dryer lint. |
Pics... we want pics! That is definitely a "Kodak moment" (or Canon, or Nikon, or Pentax, or Olympus... you get the idea)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 03:38:45 AM EDT.
