15 upvotes, 5 direct replies (showing 5)
View submission: What if faster-than-light particles erase themselves from existence?
While I'm not a physics expert, I just want to point out that this sort of speculation is more sci-fi than science. I get that it can be fascinating to think about something like this, but unless you really understand the mathematical basis of your claim, and go through the tedious process of formulating your hypothesis as a theory which makes testable predictions which other scientists can then go on to verify, this sort of speculation will not yield any new knowledge. More importantly, if you were to try and do this, you'd likely find out a whole set of real life observations that contradict your model, at which point you would have to abandon the theory.
The difference between approaching this as an expert, vs someone who has only basic knowledge of the field, is that the expert will know of the existing models that do explain the available data, and they'll know the limits of those theories, and be looking specifically for a model that can help bridge the gaps in the current knowledge. Such scientists undergo many years of training, perhaps a PhD, which teaches you how to come up with hypotheses that have a good chance of working, as opposed to others which are less likely to succeed.
Now I don't know for sure whether you have enough training to come up with a model that's likely to work, but if not, you need to realise that it's pretty easy to come up with a description of nature that sounds convincing, but is an incomplete description and unlikely to hold up to scrutiny. Coming up with an idea like this isn't the hard part, it's actually working out the mathematics behind it, and seeing whether it holds up to the current scientific models, and whether it can explain more than the current best theories. If you do think your model is up to that standard, you could publish it in a peer reviewed journal, and other experts in the field will be able to scrutinize your work, and generate good feedback.
I understand that you're likely thinking of this sort of thing just for fun; that's absolutely fine. I hope you'll understand that I don't mean to be unkind here, I just want to point out why this is not how science works.
Comment by Replevin4ACow at 14/01/2025 at 12:30 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Can we make this the automatic reply to 99% of the questions on this sub?
Comment by Auios at 14/01/2025 at 13:17 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Not saying OP is distributing misinformation but your post is a great foundation that schools should teach better to students to combat actual misinformation.
Comment by -ADEPT- at 14/01/2025 at 17:44 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
science ftw
Comment by UNisopod at 14/01/2025 at 21:30 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
And in this particular case, I'm not even sure how you could go about testing any conclusions to see if they fit even if someone did come up with a coherent mathematical model.
If someone says "what if X happens and so that's why Y is never detected" and X is also something which we can't detect then the whole idea is just a purely hypothetical loop.
Comment by tauisgod at 14/01/2025 at 22:06 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is a perfect response. I'm only an armchair physicist but I think one of the most common problems is that people spend too much time thinking about *c* being one of the most defining aspects of the universe[1]. Don't get me wrong, it's pretty dang important, but the universe doesn't really care what the speed of light is. In reality, it's the speed of causality[2] which defines the speed of light.