Blazing Speed: The Fastest Stuff In The Universe

Unfallversicherung writes "'If you're light, it's fairly easy to travel at your own speed -- that is to say 186,282 miles per second or 299,800 kilometers per second. But if you are matter, then it's another matter altogether.' Astronomers are now measuring matter that moves at 99.9 percent of light-speed. Jupiter-sized blobs of hot gas embedded in streams of material ejected from hyperactive galaxies known as blazars."

Comments

Gamma is not linear

[durandal61]

Ah, how I love hillbilly journalists. Though the facts of the article itself are not incorrect, the way they are presented reeks of naiveté.

Gamma, the factor that in general relates quantities (time, mass, energy, momentum) in two reference frames in Special Relativity, is non-linear. Being within 0.1% of the speed of light does not place you any 'closer' to breaking it than being within 50% of it.

This is why instead of speaking of the speed of particles and objects travelling close to that of light, we refer to the kinetic energy they have, which gives a much more practical way of understanding these speeds.

Re:Gamma is not linear

[say]

For anybody out there wondering why you can't go faster than the speed of light, this equation is the reason.

An equation cannot be a reason, only an explanation or description. In this case, it is just a description. But since you couldn't go faster than light before Einstein created this equation, the equation can't be the reason for this "rule".

hrrmmm

[odyrithm]

"Nothing we know of zips along more quickly than light. Einstein, nearly 100 years ago, said it's not possible."

Erm did'nt he say nothing(matter) can accelerate to the speed of light?

heavy

[Doc Ruby]

Wouldn't such large, fast masses thereby account for the majority of "stuff" (matter/energy) in the Universe? If they were previously unaccounted, wouldn't that reduce the amount of "dark matter/energy" postulated to be bending the observable universe, by showing another gravity sink instead?

In just what reference frame...?

[JonLatane]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the basic principles of Special Relativity is that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames. In other words, if you're driving at 50mph and a beam of light passes you, it passes at the same speed (relative to you) as if you were standing still or traveling at 100mph, or even at 1,000,000mph.

I suppose it must mean these gases travel at (nearly) the speed of light with reference to stationary objects. But of course, light itself still moves as fast compared to this stuff as it does compared to us.

Re:Not so fast

[Scott Ransom]

Sorry, but that is wrong. You are correct in that there is no "absolute position or absolute motion" as you put it, but who or what gets accelerated certainly does make a difference. Acceleration is how the twin paradox, for instance, is resolved (see here: http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/twin_gr.ht ml The rest of the relativity FAQ is very good as well).

IAAA.

Thanks for the link. Now what about...

[leonbrooks]

...the idea that if the astronomers had simply got the distance to the host galaxy wrong? Say the gas is moving towards us a little, thus appearing hotter/faster in addition to the putative distance error, and the host galaxy is exhibiting a genuine doppler redshift in reaction to this, thus appearing further away?