All categories

3 years ago

Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light?

1 answer:

5 0

So far, I have not been able to run a mile in under 30 minutes.
That proves that I can't do it, but <span>that does not necessarily mean
its impossible. It </span>doesn't prove that nobody else can do it.

Nobody and nothing has ever traveled faster than the speed of light.
That doesn't prove that somebody or something that hasn't tried yet
can't do it. But discoveries in Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology,
and Relativity, over roughly the past 125 years, which explain and predict
almost everything seen in hundreds of experiments and thousands of
observations since then, do all agree that the speed of light is, let's say,
nature's "speed limit", and that no matter how hard you try, nothing and
nobody CAN travel faster.

You might be interested in

A uniform thin film of material of refractive index 1.40 coats a glass plate of refractive index 1.55. This film has the proper

Alexeev081 [22]

Answer:

31.25 year .

Explanation:

The thickness of layer must change so the destructive interference may be converted into constructive interference . This can happen if thickness is reduced by λ /4 , so that path difference changes by 2 x λ /4 = λ /2 .

This will convert destructive to constructive interference.

change in thickness required = λ /4

= 525 / 4 nm

= 131.25 nm .

year required to wear off

= 131.25 / rate of decay

= 131.25 / 4.2

= 31.25 year .

4 0

3 years ago

Particles q1 = -53.0 uc, q2 = +105 uc, and

Nimfa-mama [501]

Answer:

$-180.38\ \text{N}$

Explanation:

$q_1=-53\ \mu\text{C}$

$q_2=105\ \mu\text{C}$

$q_3=-88\ \mu\text{C}$

r = Distance between the charges

$r_{12}=0.5\ \text{m}$

$r_{23}=0.95\ \text{m}$

$r_{13}=1.45\ \text{m}$

k = Coulomb constant = $9\times 10^9\ \text{Nm}^2/\text{C}^2$

Net force is given by

$F=F_{12}+F_{13}\\\Rightarrow F=\dfrac{kq_1q_2}{r_{12}^2}+\dfrac{kq_1q_3}{r_{13}^2}\\\Rightarrow F=kq_1(\dfrac{q_2}{r_{12}^2}+\dfrac{q_3}{r_{13}^2})\\\Rightarrow F=9\times 10^9\times (-53\times 10^{-6})(\dfrac{105\times 10^{-6}}{0.5^2}+\dfrac{-88\times 10^{-6}}{1.45^2})\\\Rightarrow F=-180.38\ \text{N}$

The force on the particle $q_1$ is $-180.38\ \text{N}$ .

8 0

3 years ago

1. una masa oscila a la frecuencia de 3Hz y con una amplitud de 6cm. ¿cuáles serán sus posiciones en los tiempos t=0 y t= 3.22 s

alisha [4.7K]

Answer:

yes

Explanation:dccdcc

3 0

3 years ago

I NEED HELP PLEASE THANKS! :)

Nady [450]

Answer:

0.962 s

Explanation:

Speed = frequency × wavelength

v = fλ

2.60 m/s = f (2.50 m)

f = 1.04 Hz

Period = 1 / frequency

T = 1/f

T = 1 / (1.04 Hz)

T = 0.962 s

7 0

3 years ago

Is position a base or derived quantity?

amid [387]

Position is measured in meters (m), so it is a base quantity.

<h3>What is base quantity?</h3>

A base or fundamental quantity is a physical quantity, in which other quantities are derived from.

Example of fundamental quantities;

Mass
Length (position)
Time
Temperature
Amount of substance

<h3>What is a derived quantity?</h3>

Derived quantities are those quantities obtained or expressed from fundamental quantities.

Example of derived quantities;

Speed
Acceleration
Volume
Area
Density, etc

Thus, we can conclude that position measured in meters (m) is a base quantity.

Learn more about base quantities here: brainly.com/question/14480063

#SPJ1

8 0

2 years ago