/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11484966

251KiB, 1600x1119, 1584230617542.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 02:48:03 2020 No.11484966 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11484968 >>11485008 >>11485089 >>11486464 >>11486476 >>11486602 >>11487098 >>11487130 >>11487301 >>11487342

I'm studying quantum physics and I got an exercise that says '' an observer is moving at 0.66C to another observer who is moving at 0.66C on the oposite direction. Assuming Galilean transformations are correct. At what speed does the observer 1 see observer two approach him. Is there a problem with this result?. If there is, Why is it incorrect?''
I legit don't know why things can't go faster than C. I just heard it and believe it to be some absolute true but I have no idea how to argue that it's true.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 7sd2koRLVBeSJ.jpg, 383KiB, 1460x2048

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 02:50:18 No.11484968 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
bumperino

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:05:00 No.11485008 Report

Quoted By: >>11485012

>>11484966
This isnt quantum physics, so there's your first problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:05:48 No.11485012 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485008
I didn't know how to properly translate it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:28:37 No.11485075 Report

Quoted By: >>11485089

This is Lorentz Transformation, dude
Do your homework
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiKBbMtbGkw&;

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:34:42 No.11485089 Report

Quoted By: >>11485129 >>11485389

>>11485075
No, I'm pretty sure his homework is just very basically
>V should be 1.32C but it's not because you can't go faster than C
and that's it.
His question on the other hand is why, speaking of which
>>11484966
Nobody knows why there's a speed limit other than the fact that going without will break a lot of maths, we can only prove it pratcially and then develop and measure theories from there. You could google time dilation and relativistic mass and shit if you want to understand how the unvierse handles it when you try to go near c, though

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:54:23 No.11485129 Report

Quoted By: >>11485132 >>11485135 >>11485399 >>11485524

>>11485089
We do know why there's a limit, dude.
You cannot break C because it is not the speed of light, it is the speed of causality - the maximum speed at which a massless object could travel without collapsing into a blackhole.

Photons having no mass are the only ones we know off that could reach C and therefore conveniently called as speed of light
Neutrinos were first thought to be a match till they realized that they were wrong, Still, it was so damn light.

Energy and matter are the same. Photons are the purest form of energy. If you put a little weight on a photon, it has to slowdown or it would collapse. Funny thing is that if a neutrino was accelerated and collapsed, the resulting blackhole would be so unstable it too would release so much hawking radiation that it would fry off anything within meters or kilometers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:55:40 No.11485132 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485129
*fry off everything before "evaporating"
The less massive a blackhole is, the more hawking radiation it would spew out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 03:56:43 No.11485135 Report

Quoted By: >>11485145

>>11485129
>it is not the speed of light, it is the speed of causality - the maximum speed at which a massless object could travel without collapsing into a blackhole.
How does that stop objects from traveling faster and just turning into black holes tho?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 04:01:36 No.11485145 Report

Quoted By: >>11485177 >>11485193 >>11487412

>>11485135
The impossibility.
Remember: the faster you go, the more energy you need to go faster.
If you have mass, your mass shall slowly be shaved off the faster you go because it would be fighting against its structural integrity and the resistance in the environment.
No such thing as a true vacuum
Even the vacuum of space is not empty as the cosmic background radiation, magnetic field, sun's radiation, all would offer resistance that would keep your object from accelerating further

To even accelerate a massless object to C, you would need infinite energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 04:15:08 No.11485177 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485145
>massless object
*object with mass
My god, I need to sleep. Quarantine made me too much of a worrywart

Also, remember that energy and matter are the same. Infinite energy shall collapse into an infinitely massive blackhole

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 04:21:55 No.11485193 Report

Quoted By: >>11485244 >>11485456

>>11485145
I'm really new into this deep part of physics but I really like it.
Could you give me a quick rundown on neutrinos? They sound very interesting. I hope I get to see them at class. Since I'm an EE student I don't really know how deep we'll go

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 04:40:05 No.11485244 Report

Quoted By: >>11485367 >>11485403

>>11485193
Too tired. Just wanted to relax and not worry about the bs going on today.
You can just watch the vids
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAAmAbJvvJg
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGv-pcKRf6Q
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1G9ZmoOqiM
Their channels are a good start if you want to learn stuff

Beware of PBSSpaceTime. That channel eats you alive no matter how much classes you've been through

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:22:54 No.11485367 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485244
Thanks, anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:32:50 No.11485389 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485089
You can't go faster than c because that would mean arriving somewhere before leaving your position.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:35:27 No.11485399 Report

Quoted By: >>11485440 >>11485470

>>11485129
We do know why but that's not correct - what you stated is a fact derived from the postulates of special relativity - it's not one of them. The key postulate is that all observers 'see' the same speed of light, ie. that it's an invariant speed. From that fact you can deduce that every light-like interval (length of spacetime) has a length 0, and further derive the lorentz transformations with some basic calc/algebra. The transformations then show that something travelling slower than light will never cross this velocity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:36:18 No.11485403 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485244
>That channel eats you alive no matter how much classes you've been through
What did ESL anon mean by this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:45:26 No.11485440 Report

Quoted By: >>11485478

>>11485399
You're talking in terms of the quantum field.
I'm talking in terms of macro world
Quantum is cheating as the near absence of mass prevents the space time from being applied
But yeah, I get your point

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:53:56 No.11485456 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485193
>They sound very interesting. I hope I get to see them at class. Since I'm an EE student I don't really know how deep we'll go
I second this query. I am about to start college this year for bachelors in EEE. My prime reason for choosing this branch over CS(which is higher paying) is it's a combination of physics+coding which are my favorite subjects. Do they really teach quantum physics in engineering or is it only for those doing bachelors in science

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:57:21 No.11485470 Report

Quoted By: >>11485472 >>11485500

>>11485399
What the fuck are you talking about?
That sentence is complete nonsense

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 05:59:13 No.11485472 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485470
Now you understand quantum physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:01:12 No.11485478 Report

Quoted By: >>11485486

>>11485440
Do you know what a quantum field is? We're discussing special relativity, no curved spacetime and no fields. Please read a book dumbass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:04:22 No.11485486 Report

Quoted By: >>11485496

>>11485478
*Quantum World
Chill. I get the point and you get my point

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:09:24 No.11485496 Report

Quoted By: >>11485500

>>11485486
No, I'm saying I don't get your point because what you said isn't coherent not does it hold any meaning in physics. That's not a good indication that you get mine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:12:31 No.11485500 Report

Quoted By: >>11485508

>>11485470
He is saying that
No matter how fast you go, in your perspective, you would always seem like you are not moving.
Thus, if you are traveling at 50% of C, then you threw a ball at 60% of C, you would believe that that ball is now travelling at 110% of C

Which is impossible
Lorentz makes sense of it by saying that, in the perspective of an outsider who is at 0% of C, you are travelling at 50% of C and your ball is just at 99% of C

>>11485496
Well, ok, explain it to me like you're talking to a 5 year old

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:19:10 No.11485508 Report

Quoted By: >>11485513

>>11485500
>I'm talking in terms of macro world
It's a fallacy that things are quantum because "small"

>Quantum is cheating as the near absence of mass prevents the space time from being applied
There are no issues with spacetime and quantum mechanics, special relativity is easily compatible with quantum mechanics and we have been doing quantum mechanics in curved spacetime for well over half a century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:22:48 No.11485513 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485508
Ok, but won't escalating a quantum particle, like say a down quark, at C, basically cause it to collapse into a blackhole?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:24:58 No.11485515 Report

Quoted By:

Speed of light is fixed not really because it's the fastest but because it's a constant.

Things look like they work different in different frames. Almost as if the laws aren't constant in all places. That's a big problem, and Einstein embraced it instead of getting rid of it. Since observation is at the center of science he did exactly that, put the observation in the center.

So instead of holding a standard physical law constant in all frames, he simply held a standard observation(which of course is light) constant in all frames and the laws would change covariantly between the frames to explain all the observations, with the standard observation as a measuring scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:40:31 No.11485524 Report

Quoted By: >>11485526

>>11485129
>Photons having no mass are the only ones
what is gluon

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 06:42:56 No.11485526 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485524
>gluon
A neet that refuses to leave the strong nuclear force.
That's what it is

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO pepese.jpg, 14KiB, 228x221

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 16:24:30 No.11486464 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
i'd like to physic her quantums, if you know what i mean

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 16:30:15 No.11486476 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
This is basic special relativity, not quantum physics

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 17:25:01 No.11486602 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
using galilean transform you get 1.32C.
the answer is that nothing can move faster than C, and for this to work then the time needs move at different speed for the two observers.
meaning they don't travel faster than C, but instead travel some speed x away from eachother and moving through time in different speeds.
aka fucking time travel

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 20:55:55 No.11487098 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
Light can't go faster than c because that wasn't observed in the Michelson Morley experiment
From that experiment light was taken to be a constant regardless of what inertial frame you are in

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 21:05:00 No.11487130 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
oh my god i love science

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 22:14:23 No.11487301 Report

Quoted By: >>11487308

>>11484966
real psychics phd student here

You see the magnifying constant of the first observer won't be the same as the tertiary triad coefficient. You need to apply the velocitron of the second observer to the pentagonal directional scalar given to you directly by the Galilean trisome of the omeglo ray splitter. To get the optimal Galilean auto-artificial prime transformant to the bottom of the first observer's magnar vector you should be adding the second observer's alpha coefficus and taking the square power to the dominant seventh root. This way you will always end up in the blue section of the deceptimius spectrum. Either way the math is pretty easy but if you get stuck you should probably ask the prof for help.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 22:17:13 No.11487308 Report

Quoted By:

>>11487301
>dominant 7th
it's Tonic 4th you illiterate hillbilly

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 22:35:15 No.11487342 Report

Quoted By:

>>11484966
This class of special relativistic problems use a vector addition formula. Given relativistic velocities $u, v$ , the addition formula is

$u’ = \frac{u + v}{1 + (vu / c^2)}$

The work on your end is to figure out whether the velocities point in the same direction or opposing directions. To find the velocity relative to someone on one of the ships, we think about it like this: the two ships are approaching each other quickly. If we fix an observer off a single ship, we see that they don’t perceive that they’re the ones in motion, but that the other ship is advancing incredibly quickly towards them. Hence we end up adding these vectors to get our result: 0.91947c.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Mar 2020 23:02:31 No.11487412 Report

Quoted By:

>>11485145
Does your brain seriously not allow you to understand that you've merely moved the goal posts (not actually this but for lack of a better phrase) to a different implication in the same implication framework? e.g. analogous to, when asking why we've stopped at a red light, answering how one sees red light or the mechanics of pressing the brake pedal.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches