Again, you make the assumption that it holds true for conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation, and that there are no anomalies which could lead to exceptions, or a slightly varied and more correct method of calculation that could allow faster-than-light travel. I'm not saying there are such anomalies for sure, but Robert Oppenheimer, upon first hearing of the idea of an atomic bomb, proved it mathematically impossible (with a sound and at-the-time correct proof) and then went about his day(Source).
Ok.Then prove him wrong. Show me contradictory evidence.
I have neither the means nor the time to do so. All I am saying, however, is that scientific principles believed to be true and tested through experimentation have been used in the past to disprove events that subsequently happened, and as such you cannot discount the possibility of incompleteness or anomalies.
Bythe way, electrons can "jump" between energy levels in an atom without passing through the space in between, an exception to some fairly basic fundamental rules of physics.
I have neither the means nor the time to do so. All I am saying, however, is that scientific principles believed to be true and tested through experimentation have been used in the past to disprove events that subsequently happened, and as such you cannot discount the possibility of incompleteness or anomalies.
True, but we must not double guess ourselves without reason to do so. If we have no reason to believe that we are incorrect, I believe we must assume that we are correct until we learn otherwise.
I have neither the means nor the time to do so. All I am saying, however, is that scientific principles believed to be true and tested through experimentation have been used in the past to disprove events that subsequently happened, and as such you cannot discount the possibility of incompleteness or anomalies.
True, but we must not double guess ourselves without reason to do so. If we have no reason to believe that we are incorrect, I believe we must assume that we are correct until we learn otherwise.
It seems so fucking familiar. I think it was used in a podcast I listened to, but I can't remember what it was...
I'm an idiot. I think it's from garageband.
By the way, electrons can "jump" between energy levels in an atom without passing through the space in between, an exception to some fairly basic fundamental rules of physics.
How does an electron transitioning from one energy level to another violate any fundamental rules of physics? As to your links, pics repeatable experiments or it didn't happen. And did you even read the wiki article? It doesn't say information can be transferred faster than c.
Bythe way,electrons can "jump" between energy levels in an atom without passing through the space in between, an exception to some fairly basic fundamental rules of physics.
Energy levels are and aren't physical. The amount of energy they gain is an integer but it then takes them a short (as in rotation of an electron short) time to move to the new distance from the nucleus. This is just my rational on it.
Again, you make the assumption that it holds true for conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation, and that there are no anomalies which could lead to exceptions, or a slightly varied and more correct method of calculation that could allow faster-than-light travel. I'm not saying there are such anomalies for sure, but Robert Oppenheimer, upon first hearing of the idea of an atomic bomb, proved it mathematically impossible (with a sound and at-the-time correct proof) and then went about his day (Source).
"Conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation"? I don't care about those conditions. I don't care whether these equations work in Narnia or not. We don't live in Narnia.
If there is a better theory, then we'll use it when it is published, peer reviewed, and tested. Discarding a good theory that works just because something better might come along would be counterproductive.
Where does your source say anything about Oppy thinking that a bomb was impossible? That was the FIRST thing everyone thought about as soon as Fermi published the results of his Chicago experiment.
I have neither the means nor the time to do so. All I am saying, however, is that scientific principles believed to be true and tested through experimentation have been used in the past to disprove events that subsequently happened, and as such you cannot discount the possibility of incompleteness or anomalies.
That's a fancy way of saying you CAN'T do so. This is the theory that best fits the world as we know it know. We're not going to chuck it just because something better might come along eventually. If something better DOES come along, I'll be just as happy as anyone else. Until then, Relativity is teh win.
Photons are able to move at c because they have no mass. For anything with mass to move at c would require infinite energy.
Are photons the only particle with no mass? Starfox mentioned before that photons are tricky because they fall under both particles and waveforms (paraphrasing, stop grinding those teeth Joe). Are they any other 'things' that straddle this line the way photons do?
Do we know why photons always move at c (unless passing through a medium that slows them down)? Once they pass through a medium that slows them down do they instantly bump right back up to c? Because they move at c does that mean that photons can never decay because their internal clocks are effectively stopped? (I'm thinking of the muon experiment). When they are slowed down by a medium do they decay because they are no longer moving at c?
Again, you make the assumption that it holds true for conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation, and that there are no anomalies which could lead to exceptions, or a slightly varied and more correct method of calculation that could allow faster-than-light travel. I'm not saying there are such anomalies for sure, but Robert Oppenheimer, upon first hearing of the idea of an atomic bomb, proved it mathematically impossible (with a sound and at-the-time correct proof) and then went about his day (Source).
"Conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation"? I don't care about those conditions. I don't care whether these equations work in Narnia or not. We don't live in Narnia.
If there is a better theory, then we'll use it when it is published, peer reviewed, and tested. Discarding a good theory that works just because something better might come along would be counterproductive.
You do not care about the conditions in Narnia, yet you do care about conditions, such as near-c speeds in space that, with the technology available, cannot be tested at this point in time.
Where does your source say anything about Oppy thinking that a bomb was impossible? That was the FIRST thing everyone thought about as soon as Fermi published the results of his Chicago experiment.
"When he told Oppenheimer the news, his reply was, 'That's impossible.' Oppenheimer then went to the blackboard and proceeded to prove mathematically that fission couldn't happen. Someone must have made a mistake."
I have neither the means nor the time to do so. All I am saying, however, is that scientific principles believed to be true and tested through experimentation have been used in the past to disprove events that subsequently happened, and as such you cannot discount the possibility of incompleteness or anomalies.
That's a fancy way of saying you CAN'T do so. This is the theory that best fits the world as we know it know. We're not going to chuck it just because something better might come along eventually. If something better DOES come along, I'll be just as happy as anyone else. Until then, Relativity is teh win.
It's also a fancy way of saying I don't have access to cutting-edge astrophysicists and their equipment, along with several years to hypothesize, experiment upon it, and draw conclusions. Again, I'm not saying relativity is not correct, I'm saying that the current method of doing so may be flawed in some way or less-than-complete, as have other scientific principles considered absolutely true at the time. Therefore neither of us can say with any certainty that faster-than-light travel is or is not possible, even though I will say that as of this date, it is probable that Lorentz was completely correct and that it is probably impossible to travel at speeds faster than light with any mass.
Again, you make the assumption that it holds true for conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation, and that there are no anomalies which could lead to exceptions, or a slightly varied and more correct method of calculation that could allow faster-than-light travel. I'm not saying there are such anomalies for sure, but Robert Oppenheimer, upon first hearing of the idea of an atomic bomb, proved it mathematically impossible (with a sound and at-the-time correct proof) and then went about his day (Source).
"Conditions that cannot be verified by experimentation"? I don't care about those conditions. I don't care whether these equations work in Narnia or not. We don't live in Narnia.
If there is a better theory, then we'll use it when it is published, peer reviewed, and tested. Discarding a good theory that works just because something better might come along would be counterproductive.
You do not care about the conditions in Narnia, yet you do care about conditions, such as near-c speeds in space that, with the technology available, cannot be tested at this point in time.
We can do all sorts of experiments with particles traveling at relativistic velocities. Ever hear of a particle accelerator? We can make all sorts of observations of what's happening in space. Ever hear of a telescope?
Again, I'm not saying relativity is not correct, I'm saying that the current method of doing somaybe flawed in some way or less-than-complete, as have other scientific principles considered absolutely true at the time. Therefore neither of us can say with any certainty that faster-than-light travel is or is not possible, even though I will say that as of this date, it isprobablethat Lorentz was completely correct and that it isprobablyimpossible to travel at speeds faster than light with any mass.
Sure, it may be flawed, but what should we do? Just sit around and say, "We won't talk about physics until the ultimate answer is revealed." No.
You can compute imaginary numbers and return real numbers. Example: if x=2i, then x*x=-4. -4 is perfectly real, but you reached it with two completely imaginary numbers.
That's true, but the Lorentz Factor doesn't give you that possibility. Try and work it out to give a real number when v is greater than c.
Sure, it may be flawed, but what should we do? Just sit around and say, "We won't talk about physics until the ultimate answer is revealed." No.
No. What we should do is not view science as absolute, but include the possibility of error or incompleteness. What I am trying to say is that I accept the current method, but I do so knowing there could be a better method, a very real possibility considering the fluidity of science and scientific belief, that could in some way include the possibility of faster-than-light travel. It also could further the proof against faster-than-light travel, and I accept that possibility too. What I do not accept is the idea that anything in any aspect of science is absolutely true without exception, and that includes the Lorentz Factor.
No. What we should do is not view science as absolute, but include the possibility of error or incompleteness.
Isn't this built into the definiton of science? No one here believes that what we know is absolute, but we understand that until presented with contradictory evidence, we should assume we are right.
Comments
As an aside, what is that song?
By the way, electrons can "jump" between energy levels in an atom without passing through the space in between, an exception to some fairly basic fundamental rules of physics. I am referring to the book itself as the source.
If there is a better theory, then we'll use it when it is published, peer reviewed, and tested. Discarding a good theory that works just because something better might come along would be counterproductive.
Where does your source say anything about Oppy thinking that a bomb was impossible? That was the FIRST thing everyone thought about as soon as Fermi published the results of his Chicago experiment. That's a fancy way of saying you CAN'T do so. This is the theory that best fits the world as we know it know. We're not going to chuck it just because something better might come along eventually. If something better DOES come along, I'll be just as happy as anyone else. Until then, Relativity is teh win.
Photons are able to move at c because they have no mass. For anything with mass to move at c would require infinite energy.
Are photons the only particle with no mass? Starfox mentioned before that photons are tricky because they fall under both particles and waveforms (paraphrasing, stop grinding those teeth Joe). Are they any other 'things' that straddle this line the way photons do?
Do we know why photons always move at c (unless passing through a medium that slows them down)? Once they pass through a medium that slows them down do they instantly bump right back up to c? Because they move at c does that mean that photons can never decay because their internal clocks are effectively stopped? (I'm thinking of the muon experiment). When they are slowed down by a medium do they decay because they are no longer moving at c?