74
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 23:54, October 14, 2011
, 23:54, October 14, 2011→Path Independence and Photons
==Path Independence and Photons==
==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... <br />
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... <br />
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E<sup>2</sup>=(pc)<sup>2</sup>+(mc<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup>. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E<sup>2</sup>=(pc)<sup>2</sup>+(mc<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup>. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==
==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==