Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SolarShado]

Back to "removing the Higgs == FTL travel": my first thought was: what'll keep all the newly massless particles together? I doubt the molecules would remain assembled as the speed of light.

Heat = random variations in kenetic energy (aka velocity) of atoms (not a great description, feel free to elaborate/correct me)
speed of light = (effectively) infinite velocity

so, from the perspective of an atom, traveling at the speed of light is a bit like being superheated, at least as far as interactions with other nearby atoms

[cerapa]

But what happens when it crashes into something? Since its massless, then the thing it flies into should be entirely unaffected. Hell, wouldnt light break the darn thing apart?

[malimbar04]

Back to "removing the Higgs == FTL travel": my first thought was: what'll keep all the newly massless particles together? I doubt the molecules would remain assembled as the speed of light.

Heat = random variations in kenetic energy (aka velocity) of atoms (not a great description, feel free to elaborate/correct me)
speed of light = (effectively) infinite velocity

so, from the perspective of an atom, traveling at the speed of light is a bit like being superheated, at least as far as interactions with other nearby atoms

Gravity is only one of 4 different forces, and is irrelevant on the atomic scale. Heck, it means significantly less even on the insect scale, where they could happily hold a blob of water the size of themselves without worrying about a cup. The theories that are predicting the Higgs particle, I think they keep all atomic forces intact without gravity.

But what happens when it crashes into something? Since its massless, then the thing it flies into should be entirely unaffected. Hell, wouldnt light break the darn thing apart?

Well, it depends on how bouncy you are. If you stick to the object, then it will absorb all of your energy into motion. That is what happens when we shoot light at a dark object.

 If you are very bouncy, say 100% so, then you would fly back off of the object in teh opposite direction. The human structure would probably collapse like hitting a train (sucks to be that guy), but all your massless material would still exist. The object would actually gain twice your energy into motion, since it's sending you back the way you came. They can do this with high quality mirrors and light for space travel.

As for light breaking it apart, I... think you might be right. A massless object that still has the other fundamental forces would still absorb light, which would mean it absorbes the energy, and moves or changes accordingly. Light hits us now like a wet noodle might, but without mass we are basically wet noodles as well. Verdict? light-speed transportation would be a bitch.
I think that's what the theory guesses anyways, we'll find out more if the higgs exists and if we find it.

[Deus ex Machina]

Does this guy often make pseudo-science bullcrap threads? :p

[G-Flex]

They aren't always about science, but in a word, yes.

[Deteramot]

The problem with removing the Higgs Boson is that, likely as not, it would simply annihilate the matter in question. And, technically, even if that were not to happen, FTL would still not be possible. In order to travel FTL, you would require negative mass. Theoretical physicists believe (and I have no sources to back this up, but it makes sense to me!) that any matter with negative mass would be moving backward through time. This is actually a tangent to my point, but it is interesting to consider.

My point: the higgs boson is only theoretical, and these types of theoretical musings would be better placed on a Physics forum where most people aren't talking out of their asses.

[Cheese]

Isn't matter travelling backwards through time in fact antimatter?

[Deus ex Machina]

They aren't always about science, but in a word, yes.

That's a bit of burn. =p

My point: the higgs boson is only theoretical, and these types of theoretical musings would be better placed on a Physics forum where most people aren't talking out of their asses.

Essentially, a theoretical theoretical physicist is talking about a theoretical usage for a theoretical particle that theoretically may not do anything that people have theorised.

Try saying that whilst drunk. =p

[malimbar04]

Isn't matter travelling backwards through time in fact antimatter?

no. no it's not.

Antimatter is when it has the opposite properties, like a an electron with positive charge (called a positron) circling a proton with a negative charge (don't know what this is called), thus making like hydrogen, but opposite. If it touches real hydrogen, the particles collide and make energy (waves I think? light?), and annihilate themselves.

[Tellemurius]

Isn't matter travelling backwards through time in fact antimatter?

no. no it's not.

Antimatter is when it has the opposite properties, like a an electron with positive charge (called a positron) circling a proton with a negative charge (don't know what this is called), thus making like hydrogen, but opposite. If it touches real hydrogen, the particles collide and make energy (waves I think? light?), and annihilate themselves.

no they make pure energy, those collisions are massive energy outputs as the masses of both matter are converted into energy, think nuclear.

[malimbar04]

Isn't matter travelling backwards through time in fact antimatter?

no. no it's not.

Antimatter is when it has the opposite properties, like a an electron with positive charge (called a positron) circling a proton with a negative charge (don't know what this is called), thus making like hydrogen, but opposite. If it touches real hydrogen, the particles collide and make energy (waves I think? light?), and annihilate themselves.

no they make pure energy, those collisions are massive energy outputs as the masses of both matter are converted into energy, think nuclear.

Nuclear, thanks. So in other words "yes and yes", since that produces huge waves, lots of light, and lots of heat. Just clarifying so I don't confuse it with the abstract form of "moving ghost" definitino of energy.

[qwertyuiopas]

If antimatter was matter travelling backwards through time, then matter/antimatter annihilation would really be matter becoming antimatter in a massive release of energy. Perhaps matter bouncing time-wise and imparting double it's energy to the current moment. (and it likely could bounce from antimatter to regular matter, although from our point of view it would require a massive ammount of energy, because from a reversed time perspective that would look like giving off energy, and physics wouldn't allow free energy anyway...)
[/musings and extrapolation disregarding facts]

Does that really sound plausible? Probably not.

[nordak]

Theoretically, if an object was moving at say the speed of light and has no mass.  How would you stop it or add mass?

[forsaken1111]

Theoretically, if an object was moving at say the speed of light and has no mass.  How would you stop it or add mass?

Well they were saying you'd re-add the god particle.

I think this would result in hilarity.

[Phmcw]

Wow, bad physic at work? Bad physic at work!

I don't know how to phrase it, or where to begin, but it doesn't work like that.