Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: ScientificBoysClub on 06/02/2009 14:49:03
-
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
-
Any answer would be speculative; the situation is not possible; people have conjectured that faster-than-light travel would reverse time.
-
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 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 ?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19767.msg220804#msg220804). I think it was DoctorBeaver that provided it.
-
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.
-
A lot of discussion for a 'troll' question. That's what some posters want. Don't encourage them.
-
You just did; oops; now it is we just did [:)]
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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 [;)]).
-
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 [:)]
-
so we have made justaskin happy [;)]).
Thanks lightarrow.And now I guess I have to shut up with my crazy notions. [:D]
Cheers
justaskin
-
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! [:)]
-
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
-
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 ??
-
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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19767.msg220804#msg220804). I think it was DoctorBeaver that provided it.
BLAH BLAH no TROLLING HERE BLAH ??
-
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 .....
-
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 ?
-
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.
Discussion on big bang physics or conjecture.
Similar to the previous, but more conjecture.
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).
Discussion on FTL physics or conjecture.
See up.
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...
-
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 [;)]
-
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 ...
Why?
then why Dr.Einstein and every one think about traveling @ the c ?
About why exactly he thought it, you should ask him, and since this is already meaningless, so it's your question. About the others, I don't know.
About *physics* there are many reasons, but I've the suspect that you already know them and so I won't bore you again.
Regards.
-
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 [;)]
no way the edited word was only space ... it was space and time and now its only time ........ the the heck
? what's wrong with u ? ask any one !! ..
-
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 .....
If, every day you wake up, you are prepared to go haring off in any direction in your studies then you will never get anywhere. Until there is very strong evidence to the contrary - and I defy anyone to produce any - then we go along with the 'c limit'.
If, one day, someone produces an experimental result which can only be explained by a ftl solution then everything will change.
Meanwhile, the view that 'anything is up for grabs' is not real Science.
-
Okay everyone - I appreciate how any answer to this question would be pure speculation, but I believe that ScientificBoysClub's intention was not to troll the forum with it.
I've shrunk the posts about trolling, but how about we approach this in a different way...
What would happen to mass and energy as we approach the speed of light?
Why is c an unbreakable speed limit?
-
I have a speculative notion about why mass can't exceed the speed of light; that is that the most fundamental constituents of mass is light.
I think even in the mainstream QM theory Quarks are held together by Gluons which must always move at the speed of light. Nothing can move faster than its constituent parts can move. That's the way I think of it anyway.
-
Let's start with BenV:s last question.
"Why is c an unbreakable speed limit?"
The discussion of what our universe and light consists of and lights possible speed is a long one historically. The Michelson–Morley experiment is what one could say starting the modern view of our universe, made in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. It was primarily made to test the idea of an aether, but in its conclusion it also gave a good aproximation of lights speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Albert Einstein didn't conjure his ideas from a hat, he built on what was known and created his vision.
1905 in his special theory of relativity he proposed that nothing could exceed the speed of light in a vacuum (186,000 miles a second). "Einstein's theory of relativity together with the principle of causality requires that no matter or information can travel faster than the speed of light. Speeds faster than that of light are encountered in physics but, in all such cases, no matter or information is transmitted faster than c." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
There have been experiments testing this theory as the question nowadays circulate around the idea of 'information'. In all FTL experiments the ground is that no information will travel faster than light. This principle have been seen to be correct even for such experiments as 'entanglements'. There will always be clever schemes trying to take advantage of that phenomena but as far as I've seen no experiment yet has succeeded using entanglement for passing information faster than c.
Here is one example of testing the idea of information traveling at FTL from 2003.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12797
As for the first question, according to to Einstein's theory the increasing kinetic energy will be equivalent to an increasing mass, and that goes for all kinds of acceleration, rotational as well as 'straight' ones. What that means is that there is no limit to lights barrier, it's not like the sound barrier that can be broken giving the correct speed under a 'specific weather condition'. What happens with accelerating mass is that when your speed increase so will your mass, and to go past lights speed your mass will have to be infinite.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_gp_sl.html#rotlight
-
Sounds good to me yor_on; I see no problem with your concepts here.
-
Okay everyone - I appreciate how any answer to this question would be pure speculation, but I believe that ScientificBoysClub's intention was not to troll the forum with it.
I've shrunk the posts about trolling, but how about we approach this in a different way...
What would happen to mass and energy as we approach the speed of light?
Why is c an unbreakable speed limit?
Thanks a lot for understanding me !!
-
Why is c an unbreakable speed limit?
There are two aspects to this question; the first is why is there a finite speed limit, and the second is why is 'c' the value that it is, and not a different value?
If there was not a finite speed limit it would not be possible to resolve anything. It's important to remember that infinitely fast is not the same as instantaneous; infinite speed would still require a non-zero journey time and even though the journey time would be infinitely small it would still be greater than zero, which would be the case with instantaneous movement. So with infinitely fast movement, all journeys would take the same nominal time, which would be infinitely small, regardless of the length of the journey. This would then in turn mean that regardless of traveling at the same nominal infinite speed, two journeys of different length would have to be traveled at different speeds for them to take the same time. In the end, it's only consistent and only works if you only use infinities and don't try to use any real numbers.
As to why 'c' is the value that is is and not a different value; I think that's open to debate. Considering just how fundamental it seems to be to how the universe seems to work, I'm inclined to think that everything that depends on 'c' being the value that it is and not some other value is derived from 'c', so if 'c' was a different value everything that depended on it would still work. In this respect, the value of 'c' is abstract because everything by which we measure it depends upon it, so it can only be described in terms of itself.