[The Scientist (OP)]

We know that the speed of light travelling in a vacuum c = 3x10⁸m/
s Is there any possible ways to go beyond that figure? Perhaps we can merge some of the light theory with other theory and try to get something out of it.

[Dragon Ice]

I know a lot of people would disagree with me but I think I know a way that in THEORY works

(in practice is a different story)

(If anyone wants I can post my formula however it is not finished so I do not think it is appropriate for a forum yet)

My theory states that if you input the equivalent ENERGY of the MASS you are trying to move
into said MASS (E=MC^2)

(1 gram is more energy than a 20 kt nuke)
AND

You do it in an instant TIME with zero RESISTANCE

You will hit the speed of light for a very small amount of time before dropping back below again

[JMLCarter]

There's also a highly speculative unprovable viewpoint that c is a barrier that cannot be crossed rather than a limit as such.
In  other words there may be particles with superluminal velocity, we just can't interact with them. A theory that as I understand cannot be disproven (nor is there any evidence for it).

[Dragon Ice]

There's also a highly speculative unprovable viewpoint that c is a barrier that cannot be crossed rather than a limit as such.
In  other words there may be particles with superluminal velocity, we just can't interact with them. A theory that as I understand cannot be disproven (nor is there any evidence for it).

I have also heard a theory that when any particle hits the speed of light it becomes an energy wave rather then staying as a particle

[yor_on]

A particle can't hit the 'speed of light' in a vacuum Dr Ice.
Ever..

And we have never measured any particles going any faster either. Waves is another thing, but there it's not so much the way they seem to behave as how useful they are that decides it. It's called 'information' and even though waves at times might seem as if they travel faster than 'c' it's either in a medium other than a vacuum (where even light slows down) or/and containing no useful information, meaning that they can't be used for anything as far as I know.

If you have a formula and want to get it looked over just open a thread in 'New Theories', I'm sure we'll have a look at it but prepare yourself for some flack, don't worry though, we're mostly friendly here.

[Dragon Ice]

HM yor_on

that is why my theory is theoretical physics

it requires time to equal zero which in practical phyics cannot be done
(with current technology)
IF (thats a BIG if) you could make an object accelerate at an instant speed
(i said it was a big if)
you would remove the major factor stopping any object from reaching the speed of light

(i will post my theory once i have finished the "fancy' bit of making it look right with the correct symbols)

[JMLCarter]

Actually I recall now a weird and to my knowledge not mainstream possibility that if a particle's momentum is such that it's speed is within HUP of a theorised viable velocity on the other side of speed_of_light that it could "quantum tunnel" through the light barrier.
I guess its suggesting that the light barrier would behave a bit like a black hole event horizon - I wonder what Hawking would say.

Hmmm, maybe that could actually be testable in a big particle accelerator one day.
I wonder if anyone ever did anything with that theory.

"Oh no, we're all stuck in a black hole". Actually there's another theory trying to explain why constants have the value the do that talks about parent and child universes with differing physical constants. Those with unstable constants die out, those stable live to have more children. Any-one know what that one was called?

But it's all theory not established physics. It's not new theory though.

[yor_on]

Light is weird, if you found a way to make invariant mass act as light, what you name a 'instant acceleration' then you would have broken all limits there are. In a 'instant acceleration' you are, as JML points out, well inside the 'Heisenberg Uncertainty principle', and would become the first macroscopic object to 'fluctuate' in our reality

If that would be possible the discussion of what 'acceleration' you need would become meaningless.

[spook1456]

We know that the speed of light travelling in a vacuum c = 3x10⁸m/
s Is there any possible ways to go beyond that figure? Perhaps we can merge some of the light theory with other theory and try to get something out of it.

Yes it is possible to go beyond light speed but we must be massless if not it is impossible as mass becomes infinite as we are  approaching the speed of light.

[Phractality]

Light can't go faster than light, and I believe particles with rest mass are made of light, so they can't either. I do believe dark energy is faster than light, but matter is not made of dark energy. That's about all I can say without "evangelizing".