Can particles without a speed limit exist ?

No, protons are even heavier.

Photons do, though.

what the fuck are you talking about

I thought it was pretty universal that most Scientists are Trekkies? I mean Stephen Hawking is a great fan, and he even starred as himself there.

what the fuck more are you talking about ?

I meant the tachyons travelling backwards in time thingy.

It's a well known fact that one of the interpretation of QM allows for particles from to future to affect the ones in the past. It's called Retrocausality.

> QM interpretations
Oh ok. I thought there was an evidence or something.

It's Star Trek technobabble m8, as in Sci-Fi.*sigh*

I dont watch childrens shows sorry.

You're probably too young to have watched it anyways

but anyway is there any factual basis that tachyons do spooky things or is it just scifi fuelling bullshit ?

Tachyons were referred to as theoretical particles being able to travel FTL which would enable them to travel backward in time. Though this would lead to violation of causality, and the law of physics as we currently know them say this is impossible.

What reason would they have to believe Tachyons would have such spooky properties ?

It was proposed by a physicist in the 60ies, thought he kinda made a mistake in his reasoning. Yet, it has caught on as wild fire in the popular culture, sci-fi, etc., regardless of the fact that our best scientific theories say it's impossible, and our best experiments at CERN, for example, haven't been able to found them.

>speed limit

Speed does not exist. Only relativity exists.

dayum. I guess we're stuck with being slaves of the current laws of physics.

Yep, which is the reason why I turn to Sci-Fi. It's fun to just imagine, from time to time, physical law being different it's consequences.

bump

Why?

test

Speed is a social construct.

So that wasn't me...huh. I was sure I was going to post it, but when I actually saw it, I wondered.

Coz tachyons. Why isn't anything able to surpass the speed of light ? What gives these particles mass ?

>negative mass
or maybe just ask your mom because she has infinite mass

BOOM SHAKALAKA

Infinity is a social construct.

This isn't reddit. This isn't funny.

>negative mass
nice meme

Memes are social constructs.

Social construct is a social construct

all science is a social construct

Me too thanks

>this would lead to violation of causality, and the law of physics as we currently know them say this is impossible.
Quite the opposite. The current laws predict causal violations and that it's a bit odd that we've not been able to observe them yet.

arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf

my BBC when it fucks your wife.

Stop promoting your shitty paper. Pretty much every scientists agrees that you can't violate causality

this. nothing can exceed the speed of light, or go back in time

>Pretty much every scientists agrees that you can't violate causality
[citation needed]

I shouldn't have to do your work for you, it's a well know fact in the scientific community.

Just go watch some Black Science guy vids if you don't have access to a real scientist.

>it's a well know fact in the scientific community.
lol no it's not.
It's just an assumption you made.
The speed of information implies there is some sort of causality, not the other way around moran.

That is false unless a [citation] is given.
:^)

As far as I know, no.

>The speed of information implies there is some sort of causality
Meaning you can't violate it, since nothing can travel faster than light. How was I wrong exactly?

burden of proof, etc., etc.

Because it's an assumption, not a law.
We're already seeing violations in HE physics

David Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th edition, p. 446:

"Although the advanced potentials are entirely consistent with Maxwell's equations, they violate the most sacred tenet in all of physics: the principle of causality. They suggest that the potentials now depend on what the charge and current distribution will be at some time in the future - the effect, in other words, precedes the cause. Although the advanced potentials are of some theoretical interest, they have no physical significance."

It's not an assumption. It's a law. And no, there have been no observed violations of causality. The cause always precedes the effect.

> tenant
> science isn't a religion
if you say so

> having to spoonfeed this hard
> muh light cones
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Quantum_mechanics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

Nowhere in that post did I see a word "tenant". Who are you quoting?

If you see the sun rising every day, you can write a law saying that the sun rises every day. Until we observe a phenomena being caused by something in the future, causality is a law.

Did you read any of those links you are posting? Nowhere does it say it violates causality.

Do you even understand those links?

Yes, quantum entanglement is a thing, but no information can be transmitted with it.

It remains a fact that no information can be carried faster than c.

> they violate the most sacred tenet in all of physics
tenet
sorry autocorrect
eww. do you even math?
It's still an assumption, same as Newton determinancy and mass equivalence.
> 2016
> not knowing what a light cone is
I think I'm done here
Guess you skipped over the first one?
I don't blame you, it kinda refutes your whole point that "no scientist questions causality"

>Guess you skipped over the first one?
The first one is a Star Trek particle. Are you quoting Sci-Fi as evidence?

What's your point? I don't understand.

> he thinks tachyons came from star trek
laughing_girls.jpg
lemme guess, you "believe" there's no such thing as negative mass either.
That treating science as a religion is bad for science.

Are you still spouting Sci-Fi concepts? Does all your knowledge stem from Popsci?

> can't even list his assumptions
> thinks he's a scientist
kek. do you think lightcones are pop-sci too?

Tachyons and negative mass have never been observed. Fuck off, brainlet.

Lightcones are basically refuting all you're saying. Not exactly sure why you refer to them.

God, they told me the scientism was infesting this board, but I didn't believe it.
You think that science is truth? That /current/ science is true?

>0 information
Literally meaningless popsci garbage.

>they told me the scientism was infesting this board
Not sure who told you that cause the way I see it, it's infested with retards.

No.

If the particle has mass, it always travels at speeds less than the speed of light.

If the particle does not have mass, it always travels at exactly the speed of light.

So either way, all particles necessarily travel with speeds at most equal to the speed of light.

Not too long ago exoplanets have never been observed.

>An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet that orbits a star other than the Sun. As of 2 July 2016, 3,443 exoplanets in 2,571 planetary systems and 586 multiple planetary systems have been confirmed since 1988.

Not sure what you're on about.

>Not too long ago
read that part again

Still fail to see your point

Don't worry about it. A few weeks from now, when you're in the shower thinking of who you'll bring to junior prom. It'll hit you.

Saying a one-liner while posting le lenny face is not making your point. Once you're out of grade school, you might be able to express your ideas in clear English.

Something is being transferred in entanglement. Even if we can't make use of it as a signal, that doesn't negate the fact that there is some kind of mechanism causing superluminal phenomenon.

No.. Two balls, red, blue, bags, don't see which is in which, transported to 1 kilolightfaggots away, open one and see it is 1. Red -> the other is?
2.Blue ->the other is?
No ftl.

Contrary to other boards, the first post on Veeky Forums is usually the worst.

It's better to slowly build it up, than starting of explosively and losing steam almost instantaneously

Only if you believe that the uncertainty in unobserved systems is purely epistemic. Stop pretending your personal interpretation is consensus science

im just a lowly undergrad, so take this with a grain of salt, but general relativity essentially disallows it. photons only move at c because they have no mass. And being massless is more or less the requirement to move that fast thanks to gravitation, so going faster isn't even really well defined if you look at space like this.

again all super hand wavey, but as I understand it there is a good amount of physical theory that suggests that tachyons shouldn't exist

>photons have no mass
That's technically not true.

too small to be observed is the same as nothing for all practical purposes in science

but sure. *technically* the photon could have a mass of less than ~1E-18 eV/c^2

you realize this is about the numerical precision to which we've falsified the aether right?

how much mass does the photon have anyway

They have no rest mass, which is the most meaningful kind of mass.

The measurement of mass is extremely relative, just like speed, therefore FTL is obviously a given. Humans have not yet discovered that, but they will in a few months.

>in a few months
elaborate

I was kidding lol.

stop lying time traveller

dubs prove you're a time traveller,

No speed limit means they instantly move from one place to the other
In which case we could not detect them, and for all we know they could exist

I was thinking about this.

Photons have no mass but they do have energy.

Can there be a particle with no energy?

Would this particle have no information?

>Can there be a particle with no energy?
Existence requires energy, as far as I understand. A particle is a wavelet in a field with some threshold of energy.

to what extent are mass and energy the same thing, or at least interchangeable

obviously mass can be annihilated to create an equivalent amount of energy

to what extent can energy be used to generate mass

i heard about some higgs boson interactions that imparted mass onto other particles that should otherwise have been massless, and the mass was originally stored in the higgs field as energy

is this some old popscience bullshit or is there merit to it

What about the Higgs boson?
:)))))))))))))))))))))))

What about it?