Can I go faster than the speed of light?

[ryan125]

This is a question, I'm not and do not pretend to be smarter I was just wondering why (so don't yell at me for making a mockery of your precious costant). <br /><br />It is said no matter what propulsion a space craft uses, it can't not go faster than the speed of light. Lets say the space craft was on a long trip and a particle accelerator was slowly shooting particles behind the space craft in an attempt to get it to reach the speed of light, this would be impossible because the particles being shot out could not reach the speed of light therefore it would be true that no matter how many more you shot out, it would only get closer and closer to C and never reach it. But now lets say you used a light sail, it would again never reach C. BUT (here is my question) lets say you had a strong laser behind the light sail pointed at it being dragged along with the sail. The entire craft would begin to speed up, but the light from the laser would stay a constant to any observer on the craft...am i correct? so for all purposes of how fast the craft COULD go it could go faster than light was traveling when the craft started? So while it is impossible because of the definition of C, it is possible for matter to travel faster than light is traveling at another point?

 

[qso1]

Its a good question actually.<br /><br />However, the precious constant is something that so far, the scientific community has been able to uphold for now and they have the means to test for it while you and I don't, unless your a scientist involved in SOL research.<br /><br />I'd love to think that we will be able to go FTL but my only hope that we ever can is that someday the scientific community will have new data that bears out the possibility.<br /><br />I probably won't be around to see that day in any case as I'm getting up in years and its likely to be decades before any fundamental breakthroughs can be expected.<br /><br />Einstein is a hard person to refute and I have my own opinion about it, but I cannot support that opinion with hard data...therefore, Einstein 1...me...0. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[h9c2]

Would the photonic pressure at the sail be greater than at the laser? Think recoil. Maybe you'd get more net propulsion with the laser pointing backward.

 

[origin]

I personally would not call the speed of light a 'precious constant', it is more of an annoying constant. One of many reasons that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is that the mass of an object increases as it's velocity increases. To increase velocity above the speed of light, it would take an infinite amount of energy since the mass of the object would be infinite. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5billionyearslater]

Well said, origin! This is the correct answer.

 

[qzzq]

Not only its mass will increase; at near c velocities relativistic effects like time dilatation begin to play a noticeable effect; time 'slows down' as the object approaches c. The closer it gets to c, the slower an imaginary clock travelling alongside the object would tick. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>***</p> </div>

 

[h9c2]

Please note that Einstein meant that E=mc^2 be applied in the restframe of the object.<br /><br />Invariant mass and relativistic mass are two different things. Objects do not get "heavier" as their speed increases.<br /><br />Consider this: If an object with any mass is accelerated to approach c, does it collapse to form a black hole? Surely if its mass approaches infinity, it would?

 

[yevaud]

It is obligatory to post this ditty when this topic arises:<br /><br />"There once was a woman named Bright<br />Who could travel faster than light<br />She left one day, in a relative way<br />And returned the previous night." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Whew, thanx for getting that. Don't want to violate the rules of the Universe <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

(Written on the wall of a CERN men's room)<br /><br />"This give's me a Hadron."<br /><br />"What a Boson."<br /><br />"Yeah, that guy should be Lepton."<br /><br />Seeya. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[heyscottie]

H9C2 is right. Gravitational mass does not increase, BUT inertia and momentum does.<br /><br />This means it still does get harder to accelerate objects as they are moving faster relative to you. And an infinite amount of energy is still required to get any object with positive mass to travel at c.

 

[h9c2]

"There once was a woman named Bright<br />Who could travel faster than light<br />She left one day, in a relative way<br />And returned the previous day."<br /><br />The 'meter' is all wrong <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />(D'oh!)

 

[yevaud]

Sorry, should read "previous <i>day</i>..."<br /><br />The evils of posting in haste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[origin]

"Invariant mass and relativistic mass are two different things. Objects do not get "heavier" as their speed increases."<br />The point is if you acclerate relative to your inertial frame your relativistic mass will increase which will necessitate the need for more and more energy to continue the acceleration. Long before the speed of light will be reached you will run out of energy to continue the acceleration.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h9c2]

If we add the effects of time dilation into the answer of the original question, and rephrase the question to: Can I cover a distance of 10 lightyears in less than 10 years, as measured by my own watch, then the answer is yes. There is nothing stopping you from covering 10 lightyears in lets say 3 years (by your clock)<br />This would only count for you and your crew though. To any observer at the origin or the destination, it will, even in the best case scenario, always have taken slightly longer than 10 years. <br /><br />edited for stupidity

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"The evils of posting in haste."</font><br /><br />Continuing this off topic poetry analysis...<br /><br />I think you had it right. It's a limerick. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[origin]

I think Wiley Coyote used a set up like this, only with a fan, a skate board and a sail which worked fine until he ran out of cord and unplugged the fan...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h9c2]

Indeed. My comment was a pun. (besides, rhyme is seperate from meter). Anyway...

 

[ianke]

For the record folks... 'she returned the previous night." <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ryan125]

yes i know time is supposed to slow down...sadly I don't believe time actually exists. Everyone speaks of time as something we can "slow down". For example a gravitational red shift is said to be caused by time dilation. When (in my mind) this can not be in the case because the wavelength of the light at the source would be lets say 560nm there would be no "shift" towards red if this was caused by time because light would not speed up, time would speed up. time speeds up to what area the observer is in and the 560nm wavelength would remain unchanged. (thank you everyone for your other answers guys)

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>I don't think this is right. The laser will be exerting it's own acceleration/pressure in an equal and opposite direction to the beam driving the light sail. No acceleration should be possible.</i><br /><br />CE... I think you are absolutely spot on. If the laser was physically attached to the craft it was trying to accelerate, energy would be lost. If the beam of light is not attached, then the radiated pressure would be inversely proportionate to the distance. In other words... although solar sails may be very efficient, they can not accelerate a craft to C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[ryan125]

"I think you are absolutely spot on. If the laser was physically attached to the craft it was trying to accelerate, energy would be lost. If the beam of light is not attached, then the radiated pressure would be inversely proportionate to the distance. In other words... although solar sails may be very efficient, they can not accelerate a craft to C." <br /><br />alright lets say SOMEHOW you had light as a source of propulsion and the source would speed up with the craft. My point was there is no evidence to actually support that mass increases as you get closer to the speed of light. Lets say that particle x is at rest and is accelerated too .1C. Would it take any more amount of energy to accelerate it from .9c too C (i know it would take more energy, but most of that energy would be wasted and only a slight amount of it would actually go to acceleration of the particle). As far as i know there is no evidence that mass increases as it speeds up. The only evidence i see is scientists can't get a particle faster than .999999 C. Which is very simple, because what they use for propulsion can not travel faster then C, the limit is in the speed of light not because of some magical force that stops matter from traveling. So if we could make light travel faster we could achieve faster then C travel.

 

[derekmcd]

Hmmm... I'm not really sure the correct way to approach what you are thinking. I'll start by:<br /><br />"<i>alright lets say SOMEHOW you had light as a source of propulsion and the source would speed up with the craft.</i>"<br /><br />If we introduce "somehow" into the equation, then the rest of what you are talking about might make sense. Let's, however, consider the fact that E=MC^2 and special relativity have been, to date, bullet proof. "Somehow" is not possible.<br /><br />"<i>My point was there is no evidence to actually support that mass increases as you get closer to the speed of light.</i>"<br /><br />Eh? All forms of energy are accounted for in the total mass of an object. E=MC^2 has validated this. As speed is increased, so is kenetic energy. Energy adds mass. More mass requires more energy to accelerate. C is the comsic speed limit.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[ryan125]

sorry I made a mistake i didn't type what i was thinking i meant to say it hasn't been proven (to my knowledge) that reaching near light speed increases the mass by so much it requires an infinite amount of energy to achieve light speed. Unless scientists somehow figure that from .999999 light speed to closer to light speed, the mass becomes so great it can no longer be moved and have any particles in a particle accelerator really have enough mass from acceleration to form even micro black hole? <br /><br />"alright lets say SOMEHOW you had light as a source of propulsion and the source would speed up with the craft." <br /><br />The reason i said somehow was to not have an arguement about wether or not a certain space craft would actually move anywhere but if you had light as a propulsion, the source of light moving with the craft, would the craft constantly accelerate?. Because C would be to an observer on the craft still equal to C the craft would keep accelerating without a boundry. I think the problem i have is scientists in different fields are constantly tweaking and redefining theories to suite their needs, until eventually it has become a huge tangle of contradicting nonsense, when a different easier, and more correct answer is available. Actually saying light does not speed up, but still covers a distance in less time to the same observer in the same location is contradicting.

 

[ianke]

Hello ryan125,<br /><br />1.What is moving the light source? If it is attached to the craft, then the push forward is going to be cancelled out by the force of emission. 'equal and opposite reaction' No speed gain. you sit there in a really bright light. <br /><br />2.Your speed would have your time frame slow down so that any light catching up to you would appear to you as the same speed as a person observing it at rest. In other words light speed is always the same to any observer.<br /><br />3. Yes your mass does increase relative to your speed. why does this not sound correct to you? <br /><br />Ianke<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>