The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Faster than the speed of light?  (Read 21835 times)

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Faster than the speed of light?
« on: 29/04/2005 20:08:25 »

Do you think that if you go faster than the speed of light you would go forward in time or backwards or neither. I forget how the theory goes. I am sure you can't see or go forward in time because it won't have happened yet... duh!
However I am not sure about backwards in time or anything. I think if you went faster than the speed of light then I would have thought everything would go black and you wouldn't see anything.
Is this Einsteins theory or relativity?

mmm hi!


 

Offline ADD HAHAHA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #1 on: 01/05/2005 05:30:28 »
it u go forward in time and the only thing that in theory goes faster then light is gravity and ppl arnt exactly shore on what gravity is. so i dont no how u could go that fast.

Drew Rody
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #2 on: 01/05/2005 12:53:28 »
Yeah but what I am saying is "what if" you went faster than the speed of light.


Simon
Trust me I am a doctor!
 

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #3 on: 03/05/2005 05:24:15 »
well i wonder if it could be possible to move to another faster than the speed of light without actually traveling faster than the speed of light.
ill try to explain.
lets say your in antartica  and penguins are running along on the ice, the fastest penguin running on the ice = speed of light. Well what if you broke off a chunk of ice and just floated past this fast penguin? Your not running faster than it (which is impossible) but are over coming it with out moving (spacially) faster.
Basically if you broke off a chunk of space some how and were in it, you could beat a light beam in a race but your not really moving...or something...
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #4 on: 03/05/2005 07:57:08 »
How would the penguin be moving faster than the speed of light? And how would the ice be moving faster than the speed of light? That would have to be an olympic penguin! lolz


Simon
Trust me I am a doctor!
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #5 on: 03/05/2005 11:27:47 »
Thatís called reducing the distance you are travelling! If you start warping space; so that you are going the same speed but have less of a distance to travel, you get somewhere quicker (no ****). LOL sensor!

wOw the world spins?
« Last Edit: 03/05/2005 11:28:34 by Ultima »
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #6 on: 03/05/2005 12:07:52 »
Relativity is formulated on the assumption that the fastest information can travel is the speed of light. so even if you and your mate travel in opposite directions down the road and from a person standing still you both look like you are travelling away at 3/4 of the speed of light. If you each look at the other you think they are going away at slightly below the speed of light. All the inconsistancies in this are dealt with by changing time, and space so it all works.

It sounds crazy but it seems to work increadibly well, so why not go with it...
 

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #7 on: 04/05/2005 00:37:57 »
quote:
Originally posted by Ultima

Thatís called reducing the distance you are travelling! If you start warping space; so that you are going the same speed but have less of a distance to travel, you get somewhere quicker (no ****). LOL sensor!

wOw the world spins?



How probable is it that humanity will ever be able to do this?

Warp 9! ENGAGE!
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #8 on: 04/05/2005 21:04:12 »
I am wondering though..... you probably could move faster than the speed of light but whatever is moving that fast you wouldn't be able to see because the light wouldn't reflect off it because it couldn't keep up. Plus I really doubt we will be able to go the speed of light.... EVER. Also does anybody know what "warp speed" is from Star Treck? Is that supposed to be the speed of light or something?


Simon
Trust me I am a doctor!
 

Offline diegostation

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #9 on: 09/05/2005 18:29:08 »
You don't have to beat the speed of light to travel in time. The more your speed gets closer to the speed of light the more you're traveling to the future. Just study Einstein's time dilatation.

The most popular example to explain this is the twin's paradox, when one of the twins travel with a speed of 0,5C out of earth and then returns with the same speed 40 years later, but to the traveler it only passed 17.3 years, so he sees his twin brother much older than him.

You have to use some formulas to calculate all this...
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #10 on: 09/05/2005 21:17:37 »
well that is really cool.... But what it 0,5C ? That is a cool theory though!

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline diegostation

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #11 on: 10/05/2005 00:35:06 »
C is speed of light, 0.5C being 0.5 times the speed of light (or half the speed of light)
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #12 on: 10/05/2005 16:00:28 »
yeah but hyperthetically speaking if you did go faster than the speed of light would you see things that happened before? Or would everything just go black and you would see no light? hmm

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
« Last Edit: 10/05/2005 16:00:56 by simeonie »
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #13 on: 10/05/2005 21:54:32 »
hmmm I don't think time travel is possible but I do think that if you moved faster than the speed then you would see something weird.
The sun's light take 8 and a half minutes to get to here so if we traveled from earth to the sun faster than the speed of light abd looked down at the earth with a super cool telescope we would see things that happened so many minutes ago. :)

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #14 on: 13/05/2005 06:09:09 »
light travels through space though. I was using the penguin ice as an example!
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #15 on: 15/05/2005 17:13:18 »
I think that you would only see the things that happened in the time you skipped when you were travelling at the speed of light.

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #16 on: 21/05/2005 23:41:14 »
AS far as I can make out, relativity doesn't preclude something from travelling FTL so long as it has no mass. If there were such a thing as negative mass, it wouldn't be able to travel SLOWER than C.
But at C time stands still. So FTL? Hmmmm... would it be like a photon for which time & space are meaningless?
*goes back to counting his toes coz it's easier to fathom*
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #17 on: 23/05/2005 16:18:29 »
Right I think that is slightly beyond my intelligence at the moment... I am only at G.C.S.E level Science at the moment! lol But you seem to know your stuff! Are u lot like in university or something!?!

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #18 on: 23/05/2005 18:08:27 »
quote:
Originally posted by simeonie

But you seem to know your stuff! Are u lot like in university or something!?!



I'm just good at bluffing! heh [:p]

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #19 on: 23/05/2005 20:21:20 »
Which is how he got his degrees, ofcourse. :)

Eth, now tell me: do you think that an upper limit to something implies there is a mirror function  at work on the other end? A realm where time would flow backward? Or where things only stayed in one piece as long as you kept using it and shelving something would mean instant decay, because of reverse entropy?

Isn't that just a bit of a philosophic twick with miwwows?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #20 on: 23/05/2005 21:11:39 »
I really think that, that is a kinda weird theory and is like a multi-story buildin....has lots of floors!!! lol

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #21 on: 23/05/2005 21:28:58 »
I refer my good friend to the point I raised elsewhere concerning the 2nd law of thermodynamics  appearing to imply that there is an arrow of time that cannot be reversed. It just doesn't feel right to me that time could be mirrored, & maybe the 2nd law prevents such a thing.

If 2 timelines diverged as an exact mirror image of each other, surely that divergence would start when time began - i.e. the Big Bang. 1 would go forwards from that point & the other would go backwards. How could it go backwards in time by going forwards? (eh?) As such it would be absolutely impossible to ever know about it as one would have to not only travel backwards through time but back beyond the start of time. And if that happened, would the traveller then not become subject to the reverse flow of time there and hence not notice it anyway?

Staying in 1 piece only so long as it's used?... hmmm - that reeks of the "would a tree make a sound falling if no-one was there to hear it" problem. If the act of observing changes the state of that which is being observed then I suppose taking that to the Nth degree would allow for such a thing. It's not nice to think about though! I need a drink!!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #22 on: 23/05/2005 21:33:00 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

Which is how he got his degrees, ofcourse. :)



Lawks, I've been rumbled! [:0]
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #23 on: 24/05/2005 11:55:52 »
quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

 If the act of observing changes the state of that which is being observed then I suppose taking that to the Nth degree would allow for such a thing. It's not nice to think about though!



Now hold that thought: all forms of autopoiesis *are* struggling upstream in that exact fashion - any kind of 'order', self-imposed or not. Without constant fiddling it will fail.

So by turning things inside-out, you see some amazing Janus-faced similarity between supposedly orthogonally opposite things.

Also think on the statistic nature of entropy. In a simplistic realistic example with gas, there is the distinct statistic possibility of an exactly identical composition/configuration recurring given enough time, however small. This negates the idea of irreversibility, and effectively 'resets' time, since everything is back to where it was before, and whatever happened in between no longer of any interest, really.

On cosmic scales such total recycling would take near infinite time, though, but the chance is statistically not zero, and maybe more local 'resets' are a possibility, especially if chaos and order are something like different sides of the same coin.
« Last Edit: 24/05/2005 12:00:44 by chimera »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #24 on: 24/05/2005 12:22:11 »
quote:
Also think on the statistic nature of entropy. In a simplistic realistic example with gas, there is the distinct statistic possibility of an exactly identical composition/configuration recurring given enough time, however small. This negates the idea of irreversibility, and effectively 'resets' time, since everything is back to where it was before, and whatever happened in between no longer of any interest, really.


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean that if a volume of gas is left to its own devices there is the possibility of the same composition/configuration recurring? If so, surely that has nothing to do with entropy: it's just the molecules moving around in random fashion & by chance alone all arriving simultaneously at points where they simultaneously were at some previous point in time.
Presumably if all the particles had the same direction & velocity that they previously had the whole cycle would repeat itself indefinitely.

Then again, if it were an enclosed system totally free from any outside influence, the particles would eventually submit to the force of their gravity thus precluding any such re-occurrence.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #24 on: 24/05/2005 12:22:11 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums