The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Faster than the speed of light?  (Read 21766 times)

chimera

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 475
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #25 on: 24/05/2005 13:02:23 »
Nope, all seemingly valid points, but look it up: Henri Poincare (with accent aigu) proved rigorously that a finite collection of particles confined to a box and subject to Newton's laws of motion must always return to initial state or (at least very close thereto) after a sufficiently long period of time. The Poincare cycles.

This forced Boltzmann to revise his earlier claim of the irreversibility of entropy to a less clear-cut statistical one, after which Planck stepped into view...

(I suggest Paul Davies' About Time (1995) Simon&Schuster, very good)

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

DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12656
• Thanked: 3 times
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #26 on: 24/05/2005 17:53:42 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

...proved rigorously that a finite collection of particles confined to a box and subject to Newton's laws of motion...

But isn't that where it falls down? Don't particles comply to QM rather than Newtonian laws of motion?

chimera

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 475
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #27 on: 24/05/2005 22:39:44 »
QM is a refinement on Newton, can say things better than Newton at times, but will never contradict Newton.

Question is of course the fine print: at least very close thereto. Is that good enough. And that's where QM comes in, and says no, most probably not, since QM deals in probabilities. That's only my words, but I think it's safe to say. This is also based on experiments with inequalities between particle/antiparticle pairs that would indicate time indeed has an arrow points thataway and not the other. You could not run them in reverse, in short.

Frankly, it also appeals to other knowledge we both share, I think, about pure deterministic models breaking down in the face of sheer numbers of variables, like DNA and exact twins, and other stories. We could not even begin to retrace all the minute differences, let alone do anything important about them, or even swap them just for the hell of it.

Life is not a film that can easily be played back frame by frame, since in real life the next frame with all content is *built* by the previous one, and if they fail to act, these actors disappear from it. And living things themselves a good example of how difficult it is to undo certain things.

No, QM is superiour there, I think. Now just a simpler to grok QM, and life would be a lot sweeter.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 24/05/2005 22:40:37 by chimera »

DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12656
• Thanked: 3 times
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #28 on: 24/05/2005 23:28:40 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

Life is not a film that can easily be played back frame by frame, since in real life the next frame with all content is *built* by the previous one, and if they fail to act, these actors disappear from it. And living things themselves a good example of how difficult it is to undo certain things.

This is a problem I've come across a lot in psychology research. When looking for the cause of a certain behaviour there are just too many variables and interactions of them to be able to point the finger with any degree of certainty.

A pair of twins could grow up to be very different as the result of just 1 small difference. The earlier in their development that occurred, the more pronounced the difference (chaos theory in action).

I've had many arguments about spanking or caning children to do with this exact problem. It seems to be accepted that corporal punishment causes children to grow up with violent tendencies. I dispute the evidence for that. No account whatsoever seems to have been taken of the general environment of the children that have been researched - stability of family, hours worked by parents, hobbies, the behaviour of significant others in their lives, etc

I also think the genetics of it needs to be examined more closely. If a parent has a violent trait that is kept well in check, the child may not see that violence manifest itself but could well have inherited a "violence" gene.

erm... I seem to have digressed again. Sorry [:I]

chimera

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 475
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #29 on: 25/05/2005 00:22:40 »
quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

I also think the genetics of it needs to be examined more closely. If a parent has a violent trait that is kept well in check, the child may not see that violence manifest itself but could well have inherited a "violence" gene.

erm... I seem to have digressed again. Sorry [:I]

Interesting angle. Hadn't they already found some clear genetic correlation about that with children of violent abusers that  had a (far) greater chance of becoming violent abusers themselves even when placed into foster families at a young age? And compared that with children of people that were abused, but not by their parents, since these grow up normally nearly without exception?

Would have thought that report would put them high on some peoples sh*tlist when it ever comes to enforced (chemical) sterilisation or other such draconics...

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 25/05/2005 00:24:17 by chimera »

DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12656
• Thanked: 3 times
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #30 on: 25/05/2005 00:57:13 »
Yeah, there have been a few studies but i've got doubts about the research methods & interpretation of the data. I think most of these were cases of finding what you want to find.

swim

• First timers
• Posts: 1
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #31 on: 25/05/2005 04:23:23 »
so glad you came back around to discussing QM. I am trying to help give my kid some scientific ammo to support the possibility of say tractor beams or transporters "beam me up Scotty" stuff. Any takers?

chimera

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 475
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #32 on: 25/05/2005 11:50:58 »
quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

Yeah, there have been a few studies but i've got doubts about the research methods & interpretation of the data. I think most of these were cases of finding what you want to find.

Well, never mind. I doubt though that such 'guided' research in the end would work, since eugenics don't really have a leg to stand on, as has been shown in the past, already starting in the late 19th century in the States.

You cannot extinguish certain traits by pruning alone, since a DNA-pool works like a kind of holographic memory in that sense. Kill off all examples of one undesired trait, and over time they will be back to the old level, simply because it crawls back out of the woodwork, so to speak. It an expression of something deeper, like cutting your hair does not make it stop growing.

And they were sh*t out of luck when their first target was not gays, but schizos, very topical and interesting disease at that time, but from their own research it showed that those happened to come quite a lot from exactly the sort of families that produces the representatives voting on that type of bills in certain houses of parliament, so they could have probably kicked themselves for  beginning about that particular ailment.

Otherwise I agree in general those bastards can make life hell for a lot of innocent people, without any scientific groundwork whatsoever.

OK, back to the topic. Every realised that a beam-me-up-scotty drive would imply you die, and a copy of you, but not you, lives on? There is no 'transportation', just destruction at one end and creation at the other. No 'sending' of anything but information. That teleporter is a mini-meatgrinder, and they just slap some saucages together again at the other end and give it your name, is more like it.

[love this crap]
« Last Edit: 25/05/2005 11:54:55 by chimera »

DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12656
• Thanked: 3 times
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #33 on: 26/05/2005 00:26:02 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

Yeah, there have been a few studies but i've got doubts about the research methods & interpretation of the data. I think most of these were cases of finding what you want to find.

OK, back to the topic. Every realised that a beam-me-up-scotty drive would imply you die, and a copy of you, but not you, lives on? There is no 'transportation', just destruction at one end and creation at the other. No 'sending' of anything but information. That teleporter is a mini-meatgrinder, and they just slap some saucages together again at the other end and give it your name, is more like it.

[love this crap]

NOOOOO... Captain Kirk is alive & well & living in Azerbaijan rearing goats!

simeonie

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #34 on: 26/05/2005 21:44:04 »
OO KK this is really strange stuff here and totaly off topic lol but W/E

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

daveshorts

• Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2583
• Physics, Experiments
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #35 on: 26/05/2005 22:02:54 »
quote:
so glad you came back around to discussing QM. I am trying to help give my kid some scientific ammo to support the possibility of say tractor beams or transporters "beam me up Scotty" stuff. Any takers?

You can move atoms around using laser beams
http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical%20Tweezers%20Introduction.htm
basically it works because when the atom moves off centre it tends to refract the light in that direction and bending light produces a miniscule force which pushes the atom back again. So not going to be able to move ships very fast...

drkev

• Guest
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #36 on: 02/08/2005 21:18:14 »
E=MC squared (cant do the power signs so lets assumed sq means to the power of 2)

E = energy required, M = mass of object and C = speed of light

We find that if these are plotted on a graph the closer we get to light speed, the more energy is required and the more mass is generated. When we get to light speed we find that we require infinite energy and we generate infinite mass. This is a basic principle which was explained in About Time by Stephen Hawking. Therefore it follows that it would be impossible to travel at light speed.

Theoretically (assuming such a craft could be built) we could travel at 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light but never at the speed of light as we would require infinite energy and would create infinite mass.

Time travel is possible and has actually been demonstrated with two synchronised atomic clocks on various occassions.

Live long and Love life

Kevin Fisher

simeonie

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #37 on: 02/08/2005 21:27:49 »
why is the speed of light infinite energy?

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

Ultima

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #38 on: 02/08/2005 22:24:08 »
simeonie it's only like that when something has mass and is travelling towards the speed of light. Light itself is mass less and isn’t under the same constraints. The "speed" isn't infinite kinetic energy; the amount of energy required by the system to reach the sped C is infinite under those conditions. Since you can't have an infinite supply of energy something with mass can't ever reach the speed of light.

wOw the world spins?
« Last Edit: 02/08/2005 22:37:02 by Ultima »

ukmicky

• Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3011
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #39 on: 03/08/2005 01:32:43 »
simeonie
No matter how fast you go light will always pass you by at the same speed. even if you could travel at
186,000 miles per second which is the speed of light c. or even 200,000 miles per second
light would still go pass you at 186,000 mps.  but as to what would happen to time for you compared to earth at that velocity is anybody's guess

Ultima

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #40 on: 03/08/2005 08:29:33 »
ukmicky you aren't living up to your name; "miles" shouldn't that be km! metric, metric, metric! plus are miles an SI unit? I'd expect this from the US but not the UK! [:O] Or are you of the older imperial generation?

wOw the world spins?
« Last Edit: 03/08/2005 08:31:12 by Ultima »

simeonie

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #41 on: 03/08/2005 22:48:52 »
wow that is actually really cool ultima but...... that doesnt explain WHY it has to be infinite energy coz really there is no such thing as infinite energy is there?

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

kenshin

• First timers
• Posts: 3
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #42 on: 28/08/2005 17:17:52 »
Quote
Originally posted by diegostation

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

well! dont you think that we are going into future every moment?At higher speeds,time gets dilated and hence the rate at which we are going into future decreases.At v=c, time dilation is infinite and we always stay in present.So, as I see it, only way to go in past is to move faster then c.

YaleL

• First timers
• Posts: 1
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #43 on: 07/08/2006 12:47:37 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

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.

Anyone able to tell me if Chimera is still active on this forum?

This Time
-- In Time

another_someone

• Guest
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #44 on: 07/08/2006 13:28:35 »
quote:
Originally posted by YaleL
Anyone able to tell me if Chimera is still active on this forum?

His last post was on 19th August 2005 – beyond that, I cannot say whether he continues to visit the forum or not.

George

neilep

• Withdrawnmist
• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 20602
• Thanked: 8 times
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #45 on: 07/08/2006 13:41:14 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

quote:
Originally posted by YaleL
Anyone able to tell me if Chimera is still active on this forum?

His last post was on 19th August 2005 – beyond that, I cannot say whether he continues to visit the forum or not.

George

I am afraid he met with a nasty car accident..HE is FINE !!...no worries....but it was such a close call that it completely changed his outlook on life. I am afraid his change of lifestyle is our loss.

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

RMorty

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 17
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #46 on: 15/08/2006 22:45:45 »
Well as far as time travel goes, assuming that time is eternal. No one will ever accomplish it or we would have met somone from the future already because they could come to our time.  Right? Unless those people at the looney bin are telling the truth... lol.

another_someone

• Guest
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #47 on: 15/08/2006 23:34:26 »
quote:
Originally posted by RMorty
Well as far as time travel goes, assuming that time is eternal. No one will ever accomplish it or we would have met somone from the future already because they could come to our time.  Right? Unless those people at the looney bin are telling the truth... lol.

Please explain what you mean by 'time travel'.

We are all travelling in time – what we cannot do is to jump discontinuously through time, but we cannot do that through space either.  The other thing we are not able to do is reverse the direction of time (at least on a macroscopic scale), and that is something different to space, where we can move both forward and backward.

George

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 35
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #48 on: 03/09/2006 19:05:41 »
The faster we travel the slower we age. This conclusion is partially based on experiments done on the atomic and subatomic levels where these particles are accelerated to near light speed in a cyclotron and their normal decay duration is extended. So since we are made of atoms composed of subatomic particles the slowdown would cause us to age slower than people who are moving at the earth speeds we left behind. So on ship, we might feel we have travelled only a few days. But back on earth, decades might have gone by. The closer to light speed we come the slower our time passes in relation to those on earth. So those who attempt such a trip would have to carefully way the consequences of their choice.

BTW
One thing to keep in mind, is that we don't know the physical effects of near light or faster than light speeds on the human body. In any case, the acceleration would have to be gradual in order to prevent inertial forces from killing us by having us slam against the ship's wall.

Isaac Asimov pointed out in one of his books that hull friction caused by dust and gas would also have to be taken into consideration.  True, these are tenuous but at light speed they become significant to the point of causing hull breach. There is also the impracticality of coming back to family members who have aged while we remain relatively young.

There is interesting info at the following site:
« Last Edit: 03/09/2006 19:15:30 by Radrook »

bostjan

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 107
Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #49 on: 10/09/2006 03:03:14 »
I'm travelling forward in time right now.  So yeah, time travel is real.
But you cannot move faster than light.  If you could somehow make space appear and disappear, then you could travel at any speed less than the speed of light through a smaller space, but if you were moving space somewhere else, it would take time to do that as well, and there is no known way to move empty space.

Any negative mass stuff moving faster than light would probably not interact with us in any way, like a parallel universe or something, except you would never ever see it nor feel it, so it's essentially not there.

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Faster than the speed of light?
« Reply #49 on: 10/09/2006 03:03:14 »