Can there be a speed higher than light

[Ignat]

It follows from Special theory of relativity that as the speed of movement increases, three circumstances arise: the mass of the moving object increases, its size decreases in the direction of movement, and the passage of time on this object slows down (from the point of view of an external "resting" observer). At normal speeds, these changes are negligible, but as they approach the speed of light, they become more noticeable, and at the limit - at a speed equal to c - the mass becomes infinitely large, the object completely loses size in the direction of movement and time stops on it. Therefore, no material body can reach the speed of light. Only the light itself has such a speed, as well as the "all-pervading" particle, the neutrino, which, like the photon, cannot move at a speed lower than C.

How can there be processes occurring at a speed faster than the speed of light? The following options are possible here:

• The physical laws at superluminal speeds differ from the classical ones and Special theory of relativity restrictions cease to apply;

• Interactions at superluminal speeds are possible for those types of matter that are still unknown.

Is it possible to turn back time, i.e. is it possible to build a time machine? Apparently not! First, it is impossible to return the infinite to its original state. Secondly, each state of matter is individual and cannot be repeated. In other words, to create a time machine, it would be necessary to return to its original state, not only our universe, but all matter, i.e. the entire infinite objective world, which is practically impossible.

Claims about time lapses, "time loops", etc. are also pure fiction. Due to its infinity, matter can never repeat any previous state, it will still differ in some way.

 

[Helio]

It follows from Special theory of relativity that as the speed of movement increases, three circumstances arise: the mass of the moving object increases, its size decreases in the direction of movement, and the passage of time on this object slows down (from the point of view of an external "resting" observer). At normal speeds, these changes are negligible, but as they approach the speed of light, they become more noticeable, and at the limit - at a speed equal to c - the mass becomes infinitely large, the object completely loses size in the direction of movement and time stops on it. Therefore, no material body can reach the speed of light.

Yes. That is essentially a law in Relativity.

Only the light itself has such a speed, as well as the "all-pervading" particle, the neutrino, which, like the photon, cannot move at a speed lower than C.

This was the original view of the speed of neutrinos. But from Dr. Davis, and lots of Clorox (so to speak), he discovered, that neutrinos can change from one type to another, of the three known types. IIRC. Thus, for this to happen, they are traveling slightly slower than the speed of light.

How can there be processes occurring at a speed faster than the speed of light? The following options are possible here:

There is, for one case, the hypothetical tachyon. It is emitted at a speed > c, thus there is no process needed to gain speed to get it faster than c once emitted. But, all searches have failed to find it, so far.

 

[promytius]

Perhaps higher dimensions allow or possess differences that allow for light-speed to be exceeded.

 

[billslugg]

"We don't serve tachyons here."
A tachyon walks into a bar.

 

[Classical Motion]

Any measurement depends on reference. An EM propagation goes east at c and west at c. Relative to each other, that’s two times c. Assuming c.

Loop current field has a relative speed of just under two times c.

The relative proton speed at CERN should be just under two times c. That’s a guess, never been there.

But conductor field velocity factor is just under c. Thus relative loop speed is just under two times c.

And of course loop current would be an acceleration, not velocity.

So relative speed(velocity) and relative acceleration greater than c can be had. With reference.

And one way c propagation has never been measured. Constant speed for all observers has never been verified. Only math has suggested it. Again, it depends on what reference you’re using.

What is the speed or velocity of transformer action? Could it be called an instant feedback?

The only common reference for speed, velocity, acceleration or any motion----- is no motion at all. Zero motion. Zero displacement. Static.

And we can only synthesize the static state. By moving in formation.

Just some thoughts.

 

[promytius]

"A tachyon"
"Who's there?"
"Knock knock"

 

[ChrisA]

The best way to explain why you can not go faster than light is to remember that there are FOUR, not three, dimensions. The fourth one is time. All objects move through all four. You sitting at you desk, using the chair as the reference point as not mong in X, Y, Z but you are moving in the time dimension at the rate of once second per second (relative to the chair. If you were to suddenly move to the left a very near "c" you would stop moving in the time direction at 1 second per second, you rate through time (as seen by the chair) would nearly stop.

Now we make one simple definition: We define the speed of light in the time dimension as 1 second per second. Then the three distance axis the units are "light seconds". So if you run at one unit per second you are moving at "c".
If you accept this then something very surprising happens -- Every object on the universe is now traveling at the same exact speed and that is "c" and in this system c=1.0. Your velocity is always a constant 1.0

So not only can we not go faster, we can not go slower. "c" is the ONLY speed possible in a 4D universe. OK this works in the unaccelerated case, working this out in the general case is above my pay grade.

I was not the first to think of this; someone famous, whose name I forget, beat me by about 100 years. This is not new science either. It follows from special relativity. The trick is to observe that a stationary object moves through time at a VERY predictable rate that is the same everywhere in the universe. One time unit per unit of time.

We can change the direction of our 4D velocity vector, but not its magnitude. It is always "c".

 

[Classical Motion]

No you can not go faster than light. Because we can not find anything that can go faster than light. In order to go faster than light, we need a speed that is faster than light. So no, not faster than light.

But I do believe we can accelerate a particle to light, but not faster.

The dynamic of acceleration being converted into mass……. Is much different than you think.

Because you are accelerating a spin, not a marble.

When you accelerate a spin, a portion of that acceleration goes towards increasing that spin, not the displacement of the spin.

Do you follow? As you approach c, all the acceleration goes to spin, not displacement. And the more spin, the heavier, and the SMALLER the spin becomes. A much smaller target with a lot less area. For acceleration.

This can be mitigated and avoided…… if you use intermittent acceleration instead of continuous acceleration.

A timed duty cycle acceleration…… which prevents an increase in spin, and applies the acceleration to the displacement vector, not the spin vector.

c could be reached without mass gain. BUT no faster.

Hayseed physics.

No one way speed higher than c.

 

[billslugg]

The speed of light is intimately tied to the strength of the charge force. An EM wave is generated only by a moving charged particle. The strength, or stiffness, of the field causes waves to move at light speed. In order to go faster than light, one must find a stiffer, stronger field than charge. The Strong Force is stronger but it's range is too short to be of any use to us. Maybe Strong Force actions within the nucleus of atoms happens faster than c. This might not be something we could measure though.

 

[ChrisA]

No you can not go faster than light. Because we can not find anything that can go faster than light. In order to go faster than light, we need a speed that is faster than light. So no, not faster than light.

But I do believe we can accelerate a particle to light, but not faster.

The dynamic of acceleration being converted into mass……. Is much different than you think.

Because you are accelerating a spin, not a marble.

When you accelerate a spin, a portion of that acceleration goes towards increasing that spin, not the displacement of the spin.

Do you follow? As you approach c, all the acceleration goes to spin, not displacement. And the more spin, the heavier, and the SMALLER the spin becomes. A much smaller target with a lot less area. For acceleration.

This can be mitigated and avoided…… if you use intermittent acceleration instead of continuous acceleration.

A timed duty cycle acceleration…… which prevents an increase in spin, and applies the acceleration to the displacement vector, not the spin vector.

c could be reached without mass gain. BUT no faster.

Hayseed physics.

No one way speed higher than c.

Spinning a point mass works mathematically, but mathematics like that does not model the real universe at scales that approach geometric points. A geometric point is MUCH, much smaller than any subatomic particle, and even the Planck length is huge compared to zero.

You have to guess the size of the smallest massive object that has a defined size and ask if it can spin with a velocity of c. I doubt it.

Math is great, but it is possible to use math to model objects that can't exist in nature.

 

[billslugg]

The great thing about arguing how small something can be is no one can dispute you. On the "large" side of the coin they can see it.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have a scenario. To ponder. Charge a plate. Rotate plate so we can measure the broad side field and the null edges. Now rotate plate very fast. This field is not emitted, but it is shined outward, at a c rate.

Now go out from the plate, to a distance where the swing velocity of that field, is c.

Would we ever be able to measure that plate field at that distance? Could the field travel(shine) out farther than that c swing distance?

I believe the range, distance, of an E field is and can be set with rotation.

Stop plate. Discharge plate.

Set electroscope 10 ft from plate. E field shines out to 1 ft in 1 nanosecond.

Charge plate to 1 e for 10 nanoseconds. Check response travel time. With scope.

Charge plate to 10 coulombs of e, for 10 nanoseconds. Check response travel time.

The weakest field travels just as fast as the strongest field.

This can be repeated and done with current fields too.

 

[billslugg]

Any charged, symmetrical (disc shaped) plate, spun rapidly would emit a separate EM wave for each of the unbalanced charges sitting on it. By mutual repulsion they would be located at the edges, I believe. The EM wave emitted by each individual charge would be exactly balanced by the corresponding one on the far edge. No energy would be emitted. Class discuss quietly while I go catch a smoke in the teacher's lounge.

 

[Classical Motion]

When I was in the world, one of the things I wanted to do, but never got around to it, was to build an air capacitor mounted on an insulated axle. So that one plate could be rotated in the opposite direction of the other plate. Increasing my experimental spin velocity.

I wanted to see if rotation, could change the capacitance of the capacitor. I still wonder if this could be seen at certain input frequencies to rotational frequencies. Or ratios of such.

Of course we could never rotate matter, even close to charge rotation speeds, OR field speeds.

But still this might be very interesting.

A twister capacitor.