RE: Hyperspace travelling, is it possible?
I am sorry but this article is not super precise... and I therefore must react.
This value is given by the different physical constants that rule our universe, and was determined by these during the creation of the universe, the "Big Bang". The only thing scientists did with it, was measure its speed.
c is a fundamental constant. It is not connected to any other fundamental constants.
Photons are particles that travel at the speed of light (duh!). Photons are the only elemental particles that freely exist and possess no mass. The fact that they posses no mass is, precisely, the reason why they travel at the speed of light.
That is wrong. What about gluons?
Photons move across the Higgs Field, yet they do not interact with it. That is why, they have no mass.
Then how can you explain that the Higgs boson was observed from its decay into two photons? The story is more complicated than that. The Higgs field interacts with the photon field via loop-diagram processes.
Therefore, the speed limit a particle may reach is defined by a the speed a no-mass particle moves at, a photon, light. (there's funny things that happen when you use this equation with light, as you slow it down... a photon GAINS mass!
That's totally wrong. A photon is massless. The experimental limit on the mass of the photon is something like 0.000000...1 kg with 54 zeros. Special relativity tells us that E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4. In the case of the photon, the second term drops. In the case of a massive particle, both terms are there. If your massive particle is at rest, the first terms vanishes.
Time, does not exist for photons, or light; from its point of view, everything is instant.
This is nonsense. Time is what it is. As space. Relativity puts these two together.
It's pop science pal. I'm not intending to give a "deep" explanation of any concept, but merely introduce people into the topic. With the hope that, in a future they may reach for more precise info.
Yes, Gluons, up, charm, top, higgs boson, down, strange, bottom, electrons, muon, tau, Z boson, electron neutrino, muon neutrino... im missing some... Want me to add them after I "round up" the speed of light for the ease of the reader?
Regarding the photon's mass... you should re-read. I dont say "photons HAVE mass" I say "If you (for some magical reason are able to) SLOW DOWN a photon, it'd gain mass... under Lorentz eq.)
"This is nonsense. Time is what it is. As space. Relativity puts these two together."
to the relative point of view of a photon... time is nonexistent, since it has no reference points.
Hi,
I didn't want to be rude (although after reading myself again, my message may sound rude). Sorry about that. I only wanted to give you tips to make your post precise enough. Popular science should not be wrong neither. You should make it easy to read, simplified and correct.
Editing your post and changing a few words here and there should make it correct. Why don't you want to do it?
When reading again your post, you are not stating "if you slow down a photon". There is no if. You should explicitely add that this is a gedanken experiment as photons cannot be slowed down.
I have neither discussed the number of digits for the speed of light, nor the fact that I wanted you to add the other particles. You are free to do what you want. Photons are not the only massless elementary particles. Why don;t you want to remove the 'only'?
You cannot deduce c from other fundamental constants, which is what you quote.
Spacetime exists for all particles, including photon. This makes no sense to say that time is non existent. The photon proper time is zero, and this is maybe what you wanted to discuss. Which is a different story than saying time does not exist.
"simplified and correct"
Pi = 3.1416 == Simplified.
It is not RIGHT, yet it serves the purpose many give to it.
"Editing your post and changing a few words here and there should make it correct. Why don't you want to do it?"
Because once I start doing that, It'll become a an unstoppable rock rolling down the hill... Probably causing the dis-interest in the public I'm aiming to.
"You should explicitely..."
It is explicitly implied.
"You are free to do what you want. Photons are not the only massless elementary particles. Why don;t you want to remove the 'only'?"
You're right about that... I'll change the word for is one of (also covering the possibility that another particle other than the Gluon is found).
"You cannot deduce c from other fundamental constants, which is what you quote."
Sadly. I am forced to: simplification.
"Spacetime exists for all particles, including photon."
Yes, yet the photon does not "experience" it... " if we could see from the photon's point of view: In an nonexistent instant, we'd be at the star"
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-photons-view.html