However, rewording the question allows us to make a guess based on the mathematical framework of dynamics. There's no real way to tell because as far as we know, it cannot happen, so we have no experimental evidence based on what could happen. And we would call this new speed 'speed of light', which still would be badly named. The correct name would be 'maximum possible speed'.īut what if there was a higher speed? Than light and anything else without mass would travel at this speed. It is the speed light travels at, yes, but only because there is no higher speed aviable. Which means the massless object will instantly go to the maximum possible speed.Īnd since this speed was first measured with light, we call it speed of light.

Because there is no mass to slow down the acceleration. Whatever amount of energy you used, the result will be infinite acceleration. Now take a thing without mass, for example a photon, and invest some energy to accelerate it. The more mass the object has, the more energy you need to accelerate it.īasically mass and acceleration are working against each other. The more enegery you invest, the faster the object accelerates. To understand this, you have to understand mass and acceleration: There is no such thing as faster than the speed of light. We looked at the weird orbit of Uranus and built a mathematical model to predict where/when we should see the planet Neptune and saw it.Īll of that is to say, I would focus on building a strong conceptual foundation before getting into the more mathematically dense and highly theoretical world that is gravitational fields of particles accelerating past the speed of light. A basic, but still great example of this was the discovery of Neptune. Most often, due to funding constraints, theoretical physicists are working to explain observations or using observations to predict what we should see based on what we do see. Theoretical physics from a physicist and a mathematician are two completely different ball-games. Mathematicians love questions like this because oftentimes, math can be used as a substitute for what we can observe and interpret from those observations. You need a solid foundation of the well-known concepts before getting into the extremely dense, highly mathematical and theoretical aspects of physics. If you do in fact have a rudimentary understanding of physics as you stated above, I would suggest studying the basics first. Users that frequently receive this flair in their posts will be granted a 'Crackpot physics' user flair too.

Crackpot physics: If your hypothesis seems to span many fields of physics, including fundamental physics and currently open problems, your post will directly receive a flair as 'Crackpot physics'.

Post and comments containing these types of links will be removed automatically by the automod. We do not allow personal Google document links.

No short links, no Google links We do not allow the shortened links, please use the complete link.

You can use hypothesis, model, idea, etc.

Theory avoidal: As main guideline, avoid the word theory if possible.

No discussions about already established facts

Hypothesis: Discuss about hypothetical universes or about possible ideas that could explain our Universe unresolved problems.

Discuss SCIENCE: No hypothetical metaphysics or philosophical dilemmas are allowed.

Example: Here is a hypothesis: Neutrinos make up some of the dark matter

Starting with 'Here is a hypothesis:'.

Example: What if hbar was smaller in value? Starting with a 'what if' and ending in a question mark '?'.Post title: Every (non-meta) post title must be formatted in either one of these two ways:.Be civil: Remember people are in the other side of the conversation and follow the redditquette.If you have a question about the science of our world consider discussing in: Let's discover together the possibilities of our multiverse. Both the scholars of science and the laymen are welcomed here. You have a new theory of physics? Let us discuss it.

Particle traveling faster than light