Print

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

[Dsarker]

Yea, you dont need relativity unless you are dealing with the very big or very fast. SImilarly you dont need quantum unless you deal with the very small or very close. So in all probability should these measurements pass further scrutiny and move beyond doubt (some way to go there though), all that will happen is a specialized theory to explain the behavour will be developed which probably wont reconcile with quantum mechanics or relativity, making it even harder for those of us working in Physics to come up with a GUT (grand unified theory)...

Any explanation won't be an explanation until it reconciles with both classical and quantum mechanics, as well as special relativity. It would basically be saying "A wizard did it".

Well...hate to break it to you...

That is how a lot of physics works. It's not so much why it works, but how it works.

[Ehndras]

Why isn't anything supposed to move faster than light anyway? 

Actually, Tachyons travel faster than light. In fact, they should NEVER travel slower than the speed of light, because that causes all sorts of Physics-related paradoxical things to occur.

[MonkeyHead]

Yea, you dont need relativity unless you are dealing with the very big or very fast. SImilarly you dont need quantum unless you deal with the very small or very close. So in all probability should these measurements pass further scrutiny and move beyond doubt (some way to go there though), all that will happen is a specialized theory to explain the behavour will be developed which probably wont reconcile with quantum mechanics or relativity, making it even harder for those of us working in Physics to come up with a GUT (grand unified theory)...

Any explanation won't be an explanation until it reconciles with both classical and quantum mechanics, as well as special relativity. It would basically be saying "A wizard did it".

Well...hate to break it to you...

That is how a lot of physics works. It's not so much why it works, but how it works.

Yea, us Physicist dont claim to have any absolute truths, just a bunch of mathematical systems that explain various isolated parts of the universe, some of which overlap due to commonality in cause or mechanism. The "miracle" bit is that we have deveoped the set of tools that we have in order to evaluate the systems we can understand. We may not have any idea about how gravity actually works, but the fact we can model it with some pretty awesome accuracy and precision is a wonder. The problem of that we dont get quite why gravity works does not make the system of models at our disposal any less valid. Most people dont understand the internal combustion engine but can still drive one...

[Darvi]

Most people dont understand the internal combustion engine but can still drive one...

Speak for yourself.


Also, who else is hoping for FTL travel within the next few decades/centuries?

[Miggy]

Yea, you dont need relativity unless you are dealing with the very big or very fast. SImilarly you dont need quantum unless you deal with the very small or very close. So in all probability should these measurements pass further scrutiny and move beyond doubt (some way to go there though), all that will happen is a specialized theory to explain the behavour will be developed which probably wont reconcile with quantum mechanics or relativity, making it even harder for those of us working in Physics to come up with a GUT (grand unified theory)...

Any explanation won't be an explanation until it reconciles with both classical and quantum mechanics, as well as special relativity. It would basically be saying "A wizard did it".

Well...hate to break it to you...

That is how a lot of physics works. It's not so much why it works, but how it works.

No.

One of the very, very first and strictest requirements of all of the wacko theories are always that they must reconcile with what we already know. Quantum mechanics are weird and far out, but when you give things enough mass, and realistic potentials, it becomes newtonian mechanics. The difference between the two becomes indistinguishable. The same with special relativity, it is only possible to observe the consequences at speeds close to the speed of light. When you slow down, the difference from classical is too small to notice.

If a theory can explain things moving faster than the speed of light, but disproves things we can observe to be right, then the theory must be wrong. The theory has to account for all off the evidence, not just this specific instance. It has to explain not just why things can move faster than the speed of light, but also why we were fooled into thinking it shouldn't be able to.

To be honest, a solution to this problem ought to bring physicists closer to a GUT, not further away.

[Virex]

Most people dont understand the internal combustion engine but can still drive one...

Speak for yourself.


Also, who else is hoping for FTL travel within the next few decades/centuries?

I'm not too keen on becoming a neutrino though, I like interacting with the rest of the world too much for that.

[GlyphGryph]

Miggy, hasn't QM failed to reconcile with SR, though?

[Ehndras]

No need to Abandon relativity. The issue is that is needs to be FIXED, and we don't yet know enough to coherently do so.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Most people dont understand the internal combustion engine but can still drive one...

Speak for yourself.


Also, who else is hoping for FTL travel within the next few decades/centuries?

I'm not too keen on becoming a neutrino though, I like interacting with the rest of the world too much for that.

We don't have to become neutrinos. We just have to determine the property that lets them go faster than light and find a way to apply that to normal matter. Or we could just skip the whole FTL thing and work on expanding Quantum Entanglement range to the point that it is commercially viable.

[Miggy]

Miggy, hasn't QM failed to reconcile with SR, though?

I... Don't think so? I'll admit that I'm a chemist and not a physicist, so I haven't delved so deep into quantum mechanics or special relativity that I know them in and out, but The Dirac Equation is, to my understanding, special relativity applied to quantum mechanics, which yielded explanations for unsolved matters, for instance the atomic spin.

I don't know if either theory directly predicts the other. I guess that if you assume the Dirac equation is true (which we do because of the consistency with observations), the only way to formulate it would be by using the relativistic models, which would then lead onto relativity.

[Virex]

Most people dont understand the internal combustion engine but can still drive one...

Speak for yourself.


Also, who else is hoping for FTL travel within the next few decades/centuries?

I'm not too keen on becoming a neutrino though, I like interacting with the rest of the world too much for that.

We don't have to become neutrinos. We just have to determine the property that lets them go faster than light and find a way to apply that to normal matter. Or we could just skip the whole FTL thing and work on expanding Quantum Entanglement range to the point that it is commercially viable.

What if their tendency to ignore 99.99999% of all mater is intrinsically linked to their FTL-ness?

[Darvi]

Then I can start with ignoring every single one of you and rush towards Proxima Centauri, right?

[MonkeyHead]

Miggy, hasn't QM failed to reconcile with SR, though?

Very much this. Electricity and magnetism are unified into the electromagnetic force. This has been unified with the strong and weak forces. However, there is NO real workable way to get gravitiational force into the same mathematical framework. Einstien went to his grave seeking this, and Hawking has been trying for years.

Stuff...

IMHO, you have a few things not quite right. Quantum mechanics doesnt become Newtonian dynamics which doesnt become relativity - basically at one scale one set of tools works better than another set, and at another scale both work with similar levels of accuracy. Neither one or other set of equations is more true than the other and neither one nor another represents the actual rules the universe runs on, just a model that we use to make predictions about the future state of the universe with varying degrees of success. All three clearly work for thier intended purpose, which is to explain particular behaviours. The fact that quanta and relativity dont reconcile is not really admissable for either being wrong on the grounds that they arent absolute truth.

One of the very, very first and strictest requirements of all of the wacko theories are always that they must reconcile with what we already know.

I shall assume you know of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. I apologise if I have spelt thier names wrong. Remember, everyone KNEW there was an ether. Everyone. A "wacko" theory can stand alone if needs be. Chemists need not use string or M-theory. Nasa need not use MOND. Protons et al used to be indivisible. "Wacko" results are wonderful as they encourage new models to emerge which can be different to existing frameworks if needs be. If they can be incorporated into what we can already model, great. If not, then until "better" models emerge, then in a box of thier own they must remain.

Miggy, hasn't QM failed to reconcile with SR, though?

I... Don't think so? I'll admit that I'm a chemist and not a physicist, so I haven't delved so deep into quantum mechanics or special relativity that I know them in and out, but The Dirac Equation is, to my understanding, special relativity applied to quantum mechanics, which yielded explanations for unsolved matters, for instance the atomic spin.

I don't know if either theory directly predicts the other. I guess that if you assume the Dirac equation is true (which we do because of the consistency with observations), the only way to formulate it would be by using the relativistic models, which would then lead onto relativity.

For pretty much hydrogen, yes. We have that worked out. But thats not much more than a proton/electron isnt it. It cant really be applied to more complex atomic systems (in particular, things that arent spin 1/2... which is why it works so well with an electron or positron). One result in the form of a specific and specialized equation cant be said to be unification.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What if their tendency to ignore 99.99999% of all matter is intrinsically linked to their FTL-ness?

Then we will find another way.

[Leafsnail]

Maybe we will now be forced to move from special relativity to.... Special special relativity? VIP relativity?

Well it was originally just "relativity" until Einstein realised that what he'd made was just a special case of a more general idea, which he expanded on and named "general relativity", I thought (special relativity being the stuff I've looked at since it's easier ).