5 ms·
Well in a sense yes. The distance between the two protons decreases at almost exactly twice the speed of light, as seen from the rest-frame of the detector. Tha
by kmm 8y ago
Well in a sense yes. The distance between the two protons decreases at almost exactly twice the speed of light, as seen from the rest-frame of the detector. That's not a violation of relativity as there is no physical object or information moving that fast. And of course either proton sees the other approaching at just a little less than c
- iamgopal 8y agoExplain your last sentence ?
- saagarjha 8y agoFrom the frame of reference of each proton, the opposing proton is going nearly the speed of light. Edit: someone asked for a more detailed explanation, so here it is. Because of the equation in the article, it's impossible to see anything as moving faster than the speed of light in any reference frame; they just appear to asymptotically approach it. Both protons are moving at nearly the speed of light and perceive the other as moving at a speed that's slightly closer to the speed of light.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AceJohnny2 8y agoAs an entity approaches the speed of light, its "timeframe" slows down. So the timeframe of one proton is slowed down so much that, to it, the speed of the incoming proton is only the speed of light. A key insight of Einstein's relativity is that the speed of time isn't fixed and absolute. Hence, "relativity". I highly recommend Chris Lee's excellent 2012 article on the history of "the speed of light" at Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/the-complicated-trut...
- jujulet 8y ago> speed of time isn't fixed and absolute Isn't 'speed' defined with the use of 'time'? Doesn't that make an expression such as 'speed of time' kind of meaningless?
- saagarjha 8y agoThis is "speed" in the sense of "how fast does time flow".
- jujulet 8y agoYeah but 'fast' is also defined in terms of time...
- saagarjha 8y agoExactly, it's a relative thing.
- jujulet 8y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but you're basically saying 'the speed of time is a function of the speed of time'.
- ablerman 8y agoSomeone please correct me if I misunderstand, but it might be more useful to phrase it as, "the speed through time is a function of the speed through space"
- scottie_m 8y agoThe whole point of relativity is that space and time are part of the same fabric: spacetime. Movement through both is relative, and inseparable. The Lorentz factor is a factor for distance, time, and mass.