The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What happens to the time if I can travel faster than speed of light?  (Read 9590 times)

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
If I can travel faster than speed of light ... what happens to me ? ..... like mass and energy ?

what happens to my time ? What would happen to mass and energy as we approach the speed of light?

Why is c an unbreakable speed limit?


WHAT IF ????  :o  [8D]  :P  ::)
 
but just think about it if Einstein will not think about impossible we would never get awesome theories (of relativity  ) from him ...... and I just wanted to know what happens to space and time ....

some say Time gets reversed ... but how ?


mod edit - references to trolling removed
« Last Edit: 10/02/2009 04:15:23 by ScientificBoysClub »


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Any answer would be speculative; the situation is not possible; people have conjectured that faster-than-light travel would reverse time.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
This is a troll question.

You must be aware that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light to form the question in the first place, so knowing this, why are you asking about something that you already understand to be impossible?
 

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
This is a troll question.

You must be aware that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light to form the question in the first place, so knowing this, why are you asking about something that you already understand to be impossible?
\
hello can't u see if condition ? what if ?
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
This is a troll question.
Quite possibly but we talk all the time in here about black holes, event horizons,singularities and the like as if you were liable to have an accidient with one on the way to do the shopping.But ask about faster than light speed and you are a troll.
So maybe someone can give me a link to.
A photo of an electron in action or a proton or even a photon.Or just an atom maybe.
Have we ever seen any of these things?.
You must be aware that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light to form the question in the first place, so knowing this, why are you asking about something that you already understand to be impossible?
Why can't things move faster than light just because Einstein said so?.What equipment do you or anyone else for that matter have that would detect anything that was moving faster than light.A German scientist has claimed to have sent signals at greater than light speed has his claims been proved wrong.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
1. What is impossible is to overcome light speed, not to have particles already travelling at higher speeds (tachions, even if it's just speculation).
2. Group velocity or phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave can travel at > c in some materials/devices but the speed of the signal, that is the speed at which information can be sent (what really count) is still < c.
In the void, phase velocity = group velocity = signal velocity = c.
3. Einstein, as far as I know, has said that you can't overcome signal velocity.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2009 10:49:00 by lightarrow »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: justaskin
So maybe someone can give me a link to.
A photo of an electron in action or a proton or even a photon.Or just an atom maybe.
Maybe the kids are trolling, I don't know. But there was a video a few threads back that showed the video you ask about.


Topic was video of an electron
. I think it was DoctorBeaver that provided it.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2009 00:36:53 by Vern »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
This is a troll question.

You must be aware that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light to form the question in the first place, so knowing this, why are you asking about something that you already understand to be impossible?
\
hello can't u see if condition ? what if ?

If everything points to the answer being x, what is the point in asking what it would be like if the answer was y?  There's no way to meaningfully discuss y because there is no way to meaningfully derive y.  All meaningful derivations result in x so that is the only thing that can be meaningfully discussed.

So in answer to your original question; it would be like a blue zebra on toast, which is just as meaningful as any other answer you might get.
 

Post by stevewillie click to view.

Offline stevewillie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Shrunk
A lot of discussion for a 'troll' question. That's what some posters want. Don't encourage them.
 

Post by Vern click to view.

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Shrunk
You just did; oops; now it is we just did :)
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
1. What is impossible is to overcome light speed.
Unless you were involved in the making of the laws that govern our universe you don't know that.
All we know is at mankinds current knowledge it would seem that we can't exceed the speed of light.
In a hundred or a thousand or a million years time man may look back on this period the same way we look back to when people thought the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth and think how could they have been so misguided.


  There's no way to meaningfully discuss y because there is no way to meaningfully derive y.  All meaningful derivations result in x so that is the only thing that can be meaningfully discussed.
Meaningful derivations like
Being able to go back in time and kill my grandfather.
Being able to watch my brother age more slowly than me while he watches me age more slowly than him.
Being able to shoot through a worm hole to another universe.
Being able to watch a broken cup leap off the floor back on to the table from which it has fallen and become one again.
Are these the kind of meaningful derivations you mean?.
Oh and did Guenter Nimitz and his team observe faster than light information transfer or not?.

Cheers
justaskin


 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
1. What is impossible is to overcome light speed.
Unless you were involved in the making of the laws that govern our universe you don't know that.
All we know is at mankinds current knowledge it would seem that we can't exceed the speed of light.
In a hundred or a thousand or a million years time man may look back on this period the same way we look back to when people thought the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth and think how could they have been so misguided.

Probably you don't have understood what physics is. Physics is not phylosophy or religion. If, today, I weigh a grain of sand and the most precise scale I have has a sensitivity of 1 g and I find that the grain's weigh is lower than 1 g, then it's weight is *zero*. If tomorrow you make a new kind of scale which has a sensitivity of 0.1 g, you weigh again the grain and you find 0.2 g, then *tomorrow* the grain's weigh is *different than zero*. Now, are physicists so stupid to think that tomorrow no one will be able to make more sensitive scales? Of course not. So, why do they say, today, that the grain has no mass?

***Because physics is based on EXPERIMENTAL evidence***

and not on "reasonings", "logic", "religion", "phylosophy" ecc. ecc. A theory in physics has no meaning if it's not, at least, based on some experimental facts, and however will remain just a theory if some of its predictions won't be verified experimentally.
*That's what discriminates between physics and other subjects*.

Do you think that light speed can be overcome in an indefinite future? Ok, I think that too. Does this idea behave to physics?
NO!
« Last Edit: 08/02/2009 12:32:21 by lightarrow »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Ok Lightarrow I understand what you are saying.It just annoys me from time to time that people say such and such happens when they IMHO should say it is our current understanding that such and such happens.
It is nice to know that you do not discount the possibility of FTL speed.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Ok Lightarrow I understand what you are saying.It just annoys me from time to time that people say such and such happens when they IMHO should say it is our current understanding that such and such happens.
It is nice to know that you do not discount the possibility of FTL speed.

Cheers
justaskin
What if, however, in that indefinite future we discover that everything is as most folks thought it was back at the turn of the 20th century. What if we find to our horror that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Then we will understand many things that we do not now understand. We will know why we can never exceed light speed, for example. And we will know the fundamental cause of all relativity phenomena.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
What if, however, in that indefinite future we discover that everything is as most folks thought it was back at the turn of the 20th century. What if we find to our horror that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Then we will understand many things that we do not now understand. We will know why we can never exceed light speed, for example. And we will know the fundamental cause of all relativity phenomena.
The fact that EM field could be the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality shouldn't necessarily preclude the possibility of FTL communications/travels, where here with FTL I mean going faster than light speed *in the common void*, that is going faster than 299,792,458 m/s: in another kind of void, with lower energy density, light speed could be higher, as I suggested in the other thread:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20139.msg225391#msg225391
but of corse all this is just high speculations (not physics; so we have made justaskin happy  ;)).
« Last Edit: 08/02/2009 15:55:19 by lightarrow »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Yes; I remember that lightarrow. I like to think that it might be possible to develop communication capability that is FTL. Then I think if that is possible, and there are more advanced beings than us in the universe, they will have developed that. And then I speculate; we might be engulfed in FTL messages of great wisdom that we are missing because we don't have a suitable receiver.


Pure speculation; but fun to think about IMHO :)
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
   so we have made justaskin happy  ;)).
Thanks lightarrow.And now I guess I have to shut up with my crazy notions. :D

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
   so we have made justaskin happy  ;)).
Thanks lightarrow.And now I guess I have to shut up with my crazy notions. :D

Cheers
justaskin
No, you don't have to shut up, but it would be nice to think more in terms of real physics, or to explicitly say that we are conjecturing, that's all!  :)
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
No, you don't have to shut up, but it would be nice to think more in terms of real physics, or to explicitly say that we are conjecturing, that's all!  :)
I guess then that is the trick to know when we are quoting physics or conjecturing.
So.
Discussion on black holes physics or conjecture.
Discussion on big bang physics or conjecture.
Discussion on the universe(infinite or not)physics or conjecture
Discussion on FTL physics or conjecture.
So I guess we come full circle.
You say FTL not possible. Physics.
I say why not.Conjecture.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Post by ScientificBoysClub click to view.

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
Shrunk
A lot of discussion for a 'troll' question. That's what some posters want. Don't encourage them.

'troll' question. huh ?       when einstein asked a question what will happen if a person travels faster then c..... is this a 'troll' question. ??
????????
MR.TRoll ??
 

Post by ScientificBoysClub click to view.

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
Shrunk
Quote from: justaskin
So maybe someone can give me a link to.
A photo of an electron in action or a proton or even a photon.Or just an atom maybe.
Maybe the kids are trolling, I don't know. But there was a video a few threads back that showed the video you ask about.


Topic was video of an electron
. I think it was DoctorBeaver that provided it.


BLAH BLAH no TROLLING HERE BLAH ??
 

Post by ScientificBoysClub click to view.

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
Shrunk
This is a troll question.

You must be aware that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light to form the question in the first place, so knowing this, why are you asking about something that you already understand to be impossible?
This is NO TROLL QUESTION ...... WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE YOU ... IF U R STUDYING PHYSICS YOU SHOULD THINK IN ALL POSSIBLE WAYS AND ANGLES .....
 

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
This is a troll question.

You must be aware that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light to form the question in the first place, so knowing this, why are you asking about something that you already understand to be impossible?

You must be aware that nothing can travel with the speed of light ... then why Dr.Einstein and every one think about traveling @ the c ?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
I guess then that is the trick to know when we are quoting physics or conjecturing.
So.
Discussion on black holes physics or conjecture.
Conjecture. But it's more towards physics than towards conjecture, because of many reasons, theoretical and experimental. Theoretical from General Relativity, which is a strong physical theory, not just speculation, and experimental because there are oservational evidences of the existence of black holes, even if we still don't have that certainty. For the subject of FTL, instead, it's all another story, it's totally conjecture.

Quote
Discussion on big bang physics or conjecture.
Similar to the previous, but more conjecture.

Quote
Discussion on the universe(infinite or not)physics or conjecture
I would say much more conjecture than the previous (and infact I'm not particularly interested in that subject).

Quote
Discussion on FTL physics or conjecture.
See up.

Quote
So I guess we come full circle.
You say FTL not possible. Physics.
I say why not.Conjecture.
No, you haven't said that, you have said that I don't know if it's possible or not to overcome light speed, and here you are wrong, because actually I know it very well, it's what (universally recognized) physics says, so it's on you to show us why you can make the statement that I don't know if it's possible or not to go FTL...
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Oo-er...  that's spooky;  the original question has been heavily edited in the light of some of the responses to it, just like re-writing history.  That's usually bad karma  ;)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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