The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does Einstein's equation E=MC^2 negate the idea of no travel faster than light?  (Read 8244 times)

Offline wadegardner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
I remember Einstein had remarked that nothing in the universe can travel faster than light for it is a universe constant.  I have a question regarding his famous formula E=MC^2.  Does his theory not state (within itself) that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared?  The speed of light is being squared here and it is also being multiplied by mass.  This to me sounds like travelling faster than the speed of light is entirely possible.  Someone please correct me if I am mistaken in my assertion.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 02:09:32 by wadegardner »


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
I remember Einstein had remarked that nothing in the universe can travel faster than light for it is a universe constant.  I have a question regarding his famous formula E=MC^2.  Does his theory not state (within itself) that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared?  The speed of light is being squared here and it is also being multiplied by mass.  This to me sounds like travelling faster than the speed of light is entirely possible.  Someone please correct me if I am mistaken in my assertion.
You're wrong. The faster a body goes the greater E is. E goes to infinity as v goes to c. That means that as the speed of the body gets closer  to the speed of light the energy becomes infinite. This is because if E is the total energy of the body then M is what's called the relativistic mass of the body which is related to its rest mass m0 by

M = m0/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
 

Offline wadegardner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Thank you for taking the time out to answer my question.   :)  I do believe that travelling faster than the speed of light is possible mainly because, I can envision it as being a reality one day.  Perhaps not in todays equations as you have pointed out.   
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Thank you for taking the time out to answer my question.   :)  I do believe that travelling faster than the speed of light is possible mainly because, I can envision it as being a reality one day.  Perhaps not in todays equations as you have pointed out.   
So you think its actually the equations which are preventing us from traveling at or faster than the speed of light? The equations only describe nature. Not the other way around. If we are to beat the light barrier we will have to manipulate spacetime using the science of general relativity. Not by looking for new equations but by looking for new physics which are described by new equations.
 

Offline wadegardner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Point well taken.  It isn't today's equations that hold us back.  Today's equations are a reference point to what exists.  I am sure they will be added onto one day (as you have mentioned) by warping space/time.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Thank you for taking the time out to answer my question.   :)  I do believe that travelling faster than the speed of light is possible mainly because, I can envision it as being a reality one day.  Perhaps not in todays equations as you have pointed out.   

a 100 miles per hour train can not push a man to 101 miles per hour.

the force we use to push us is em force, its speed limit is c. therefore faster than light traveling is impossible.

e=mc^2 might be just another joke.
 

Offline wadegardner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
PmbPhy, do you have any ideas on how we can warp space time?  This is a forum for free thought right?  Perhaps pooling thoughts on this may spark ideas on how this can be accomplished sooner than later.  Never know!! :)  I would like to join in on that.   
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 05:58:27 by wadegardner »
 

Offline wadegardner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
jccc, I appreciate your response.  Einstein's equation E=MC (squared) is the best thing going right now.  Most of the technology that we have is based on it.  One thing I noticed about mathematics is that is usually gets added onto rather than squashed.  The forum is always open to new ideas though. :)     
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile


e=mc^2 might be just another joke.
I think we are witnessing an all together different joke here "jccc". So tell us, what about e=mc^2 causes you so much glee?
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 03:35:13 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
if photon is not real, his N prize is bs also.

agree?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
if photon is not real, his N prize is bs also.

agree?
I'm reading this post jccc, and you read that last post of mine, right?

Without the photon, neither one of us would have much success doing so, right? The photon, electromagnetic radiation is very real, it's what we call light. It's real enough to give us eyesight and also warm the planet upon which we live, I'd say very real indeed.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1832
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Isn't there a strong possibility that FTL travel would involve time reversal?  If that's the case, I think it would be a major sticking point to add to the technical difficulties, such as providing infinite energy, or even defining infinite energy.  Does anyone really know what that is?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: wadegardner
PmbPhy, do you have any ideas on how we can warp space time?
Matter curved spacetime.

Quote from: wadegardner
This is a forum for free thought right?
Yes. So long as this is what you think that means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
 
The following users thanked this post: wadegardner

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Bill S
Isn't there a strong possibility that FTL travel would involve time reversal?
If you find way to travel faster than the speed of light then its possible to use it to go back in time.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Say you did manage to travel faster than light and taken to extremes you could travel 1 ly in a second. You wouldn't be going back in time at all. When you start out the photons reaching you from a solar system 1 ly away have already travelled for 1 year. You can't catch them before they leave that solar system as that would violate all sorts of conservation laws. Those photons are history as far as you are concerned. You would simply see things speeded up enormously. When you actually got to the position you thought the other solar system was when you left it would probably moved somewhere else. As you approach it you will see it moving away from its initial position anyway very rapidly. On the Planck scale I think such thoughts of time travel as well as light speed violation are ruled out. I can't prove that however. It is just an opinion.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"Spooky action at a distance " or entanglement does happen instantaneously , even from huge distances (faster than the speed of light thus ) without any transfer of information , that is .
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
"Spooky action at a distance " or entanglement does happen instantaneously , even from huge distances (faster than the speed of light thus ) without any transfer of information , that is .
For goodness sake, look who's back in town.

Welcome back Don,.......or plato, which ever.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
"Spooky action at a distance " or entanglement does happen instantaneously , even from huge distances (faster than the speed of light thus ) without any transfer of information , that is .
Welcome back, Don. What's your point here? Entanglement can't be used to send anything faster than the speed of light. In fact nothing is moving faster than light with entanglement. It has to be kept in mind that the instantaneous nature of the entanglement does not mean that it can be used to violate any concern with special relativity. The only think that is instantaneous is the effect of measurement.

Let's consider the instantaneous nature of entanglement and what it means. When two particles become entangled it usually happens when there is a collision between two particles and it happens so that something like spin angular momentum will be conserved. That means that when the spin of one of the particles is measured to be "spin up" then when you measure the spin of the other particle the result will be "spin down." There's nothing being communicated to the other particle so I don't see what can be considered instantaneous about it. The particle is merely part of one quantum state and that's a property of the state itself and not the particles.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 21:35:39 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
every time traveler will do some time in the big house.

if you vote me for pres.
 

Offline Merccooper

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
In talking about FTL and traveling to the past, doesn't the delayed choice results in the double slit experiment in some manner suggest that we can alter past events and therefore travel (or communicate) FTL into the past?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Isn't there a strong possibility that FTL travel would involve time reversal?  If that's the case, I think it would be a major sticking point to add to the technical difficulties, such as providing infinite energy, or even defining infinite energy.  Does anyone really know what that is?

i do. bs. debunk me, not delete my opinion. have a little merit about science.
 

Offline wadegardner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
I have read recently read an article that the sub-atomic particle neutrino has been clocked at traveling 186415.0858983536 Miles per second (300,006 k.p.s.) which is faster than the speed of light which travels at roughly 186,282 miles per second.  This is faster than the speed of light but, not by much.  If this is true and does get proved, I am quite sure new mathematical equations will evolve to incorporate the new data.  This could possibly lead to being a step closer to understanding more of what dark matter is and how it equates to everything else.  From what I know of dark mater (or the lack thereof) couldn't this be similar relationship between Isaac Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of curved space time?  From what I understand about the two is there is a lag in gravity the farther away an object is from our sun the less pull it will have of course to hold the planet in space.  What keeps the planets in orbit is the curved space time in which a 'groove' is created by this propagation and is held into space by gravity.  I read the articles and pieced them together that made sense to me.  Are there computations to tie these two together?   If there is, I would like to know what they are.  I haven't got that far into math or physics aspect of it as of yet, but I am pretty good at formulating a spatial orientation and understanding the concepts.  Any help would be gratefully appreciated!!
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: wadegardner
I have read recently read an article ...
Please post the name and source of the article. There have been past reports of this but they turned out to be wrong. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Time_of_flight_of_neutrinos

Quote from: wadegardner
... that the sub-atomic particle neutrino has been clocked at traveling 186415.0858983536 Miles per second (300,006 k.p.s.) which is faster than the speed of light which travels at roughly 186,282 miles per second.  This is faster than the speed of light but, not by much.
If this is true then those particular kinds of neutrinos (there are different kinds of neutrinos by the way) are tachyons. This subject has already been discussed in the American Journal of Physics. See Faster-than-light speeds, tachyons, and the possibility of tachyonic neutrinos by Robert Ehrlich, Am. J. Phys. 71, 1109 (2003). It's described online at :
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/71/11/10.1119/1.1590657

The abstract reads
Quote
Faster-than-light speeds and hypothetical FTL particles known as tachyons are exciting subjects for students, given their speculative and controversial nature. This article presents an overview of these subjects and their role in special relativity and examines the possibility that one or more of the three neutrinos is a tachyon. The paper also describes several low tech demonstrations useful for teaching about faster-than-light speeds and tachyons in intermediate and advanced introductory college-level physics courses.




If this is true and does get proved, I am quite sure new mathematical equations will evolve to incorporate the new data.  This could possibly lead to being a step closer to understanding more of what dark matter is and how it equates to everything else.  From what I know of dark mater (or the lack thereof) couldn't this be similar relationship between Isaac Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of curved space time?  From what I understand about the two is there is a lag in gravity the farther away an object is from our sun the less pull it will have of course to hold the planet in space.  What keeps the planets in orbit is the curved space time in which a 'groove' is created by this propagation and is held into space by gravity.  I read the articles and pieced them together that made sense to me.  Are there computations to tie these two together?   If there is, I would like to know what they are.  I haven't got that far into math or physics aspect of it as of yet, but I am pretty good at formulating a spatial orientation and understanding the concepts.  Any help would be gratefully appreciated!!
[/quote]
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I have a question regarding his famous formula E=MC^2.  Does his theory not state (within itself) that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared?  The speed of light is being squared here and it is also being multiplied by mass.  This to me sounds like travelling faster than the speed of light is entirely possible. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken in my assertion.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Einstein's E=mc˛ doesn't say travelling faster than light is possible. It says "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". It's experimental evidence that says it isn't possible to travel faster than light. Things like pair production and electron diffraction and refraction. An electron is quite literally made from light, it has a definite wave nature, and in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". Something made out of waves can't move faster than the speed of waves. Time travel is science fiction by the way. So are tachyons.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
I have a question regarding his famous formula E=MC^2.  Does his theory not state (within itself) that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared?  The speed of light is being squared here and it is also being multiplied by mass.  This to me sounds like travelling faster than the speed of light is entirely possible. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken in my assertion.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Einstein's E=mc˛ doesn't say travelling faster than light is possible. It says "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". It's experimental evidence that says it isn't possible to travel faster than light. Things like pair production and electron diffraction and refraction. An electron is quite literally made from light, it has a definite wave nature, and in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". Something made out of waves can't move faster than the speed of waves. Time travel is science fiction by the way. So are tachyons.

wadegardner - He's wrong about this because he's making unstated assumptions about the meaning of the terms in that equation. He does that a great deal of the time. In this case he failed to read the first reply which I'll elaborate more on in this post. Let

proper mass (aka "rest mass") = m0

proper energy = E0 = m0c2

Total energy = E0/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

It can be shown that E = K + E0 where K = kinetic energy. So the larger the speed the larger the total energy. As v -> c, E -> infinity which means that v cannot equal c.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length