Einstein's theory of relativity (speed of light travel)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chembuff1982

Guest
I was debating with my friend over Einstein's theory of Relativity claiming we would never be able to surpass the speed of light.. Physics and math have set in stone that we would never be able to do this. However, in the past we have said things were not possibly capable of doing according to current mathmatical and physical properties. They say light is a particle and a wave, therefore I do not totally agree with Einstein's theory of relativity. Think of a wave, I will use a sine wave as an example. Now sine waves can cover all sound waves mathmatically. If sound is a wave, what happens when you compress or expand it, or raise or lower the maximums and minimums? The sound changes of course. The higher the peaks, the higher the frequency, the lower the peaks the lower the frequency. If you compress the sine wave (sound wave) the wave should move faster to reach it's destination. Now think of everything in life on a level way below subatomic particles. It is theorized recently that vibrational movements cause atoms and everything above that to be what they are. So, if you changed the vibrational pattern of substances temporarily, they would have the properties of other things, possibly allowing for them to travel at the speed of light or faster depending on what sine wave is created from the change of these small vibrations. Until we completely understand how these properties of vibration work between these small entities, we cannot conclude that it is not possible to travel at or above the speed of light. If, we can figure out how to alter these vibrations for a substance or substances, or energy, and figure out how to reverse this back, we can possibly send people and things through space at and above light speed.<br /><br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">I was debating with my friend over Einstein's theory of Relativity claiming we would never be able to surpass the speed of light.. Physics and math have set in stone that we would never be able to do this. However, in the past we have said things were not possibly capable of doing according to current mathmatical and physical properties. They say light is a particle and a wave, therefore I do not totally agree with Einstein's theory of relativity.</font><br /><br />???<br />They say ___ - /> Therefore I do not agree with ___<br /><br />Strange logic.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Think of a wave, I will use a sine wave as an example. Now sine waves can cover all sound waves mathmatically.</font><br /><br />Sine waves are mathematical trigonometric functions. They can be used in the definition physical laws. What kinds of sine waves are you talking about? Why not cosine waves? They're the about same, just that cosine waves are phase shifted 90 degrees.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If sound is a wave, what happens when you compress or expand it, or raise or lower the maximums and minimums?</font><br /><br />First of all, compression only occurs for longitudinal waves, not light waves. Second, longitudinal waves are also called compression waves. Third, the parts of a longitudinal wave include compression and rarefaction, which signify the varying amplitude, not the frequency. It is the cycle between compression and rarefaction at a particular place in a given time period that determines this.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The sound changes of course. The higher the peaks, the higher the frequency, the lower the peaks the lower the frequency.</font><br /><br />Actually, the height of the peaks has to do with amplitude, not frequency. It is the number of peaks that pass a point in a given second that determines the frequency.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If you compress the sine wave (sound wave) the wave sh</font>
 
C

chembuff1982

Guest
the whole point was about reorganizing or converting the properties of matter and energy to that of another source such as light or something that could possibly be faster than light and then converting back to the original. You would not have to slow time and space down or use a vacuum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
The speed of light is fast enough already. It is intrinsically linked with space and time and is just about the most important thing in the universe! Due to time dilation (as described by special relativity) if you could travel at the speed of light (which would need infinite energy for anything with mass) you would experience NO time during your journey. At the speed of light, time stops and distances become zero, so you reach your destination instantly.<br /><br />As relativity describes it, we see light take around 8 minutes to travel from our sun to our eyes on earth, but to the photons doing the travelling, the journey is instant.<br /><br />The faster you get the more time slows down for you. A traveller would seem to take 5.05 years to make a journey of 5 light years at 0.999c but to them the journey would only take just under 3 months. If they came back again at the same speed they would have only aged something over 5 months, but we would have aged over 10 years. And the closer you get to c, the slower time passes for you, until at c where it actually stops.<br /><br />So if something travelling at the speed of light reaches its destination instantly (from its point of view), then how could it possibly go any faster than this? Relativity means we see it take a long time to make the journey, but we aren't doing the travelling!<br /><br />So what you are really asking here is how can we make the journey seem faster to people not making the journey.<br /><br />Special relativity has predicted the results seen in particle accelerators. It seems to hold up to any way can scrutinise it (for now) <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">the whole point was about reorganizing or converting the properties of matter and energy to that of another source such as light or something that could possibly be faster than light and then converting back to the original. You would not have to slow time and space down or use a vacuum.</font><br /><br />Chemistry doesn't do it.<br />Nuclear power doesn't do it.<br />Turing matter into light and back into matter requires annihilation of subatomic particles and subsequent reformation of them. The only thing know to be capable of this is the interaction of particles with antiparticles which leads to photons which must interact with other particles to form new particles. But we currently have no way of turning the resulting photons into particles and antiparticles arranged structurally at our will, much less the molecules. We can't even create an antimolecule. The only ways we know how to turn entire particles into energy is through brute force. The only ways we know how to create particles from photons is either by pair production or interaction with other particles. Chemistry, Fission, and Fusion (all of these are not as brute) only allow us to convert a small part of mass into energy by increasing the binding energy of particle systems. To turn it all into photons would be like having a binding energy of mc^2 for the thing the photon leaves.<br /><br />(Mass of constituent particles * c^2) - binding energy = (Mass of the whole particle * c^2)<br /><br />(Mass of constituent particles - Mass of the whole particle) * c^2 = binding energy<br /><br />The "whole particle" left off would practically have zero mass (nonexistent and nondetectable).<br /><br />Gauge boson (e.g. photon) energy is matched by binding energy. For every increase of gauge boson (e.g. photon) energy there is an equivalent change in binding energy. The increase of gauge boson energy is due to emission of gauge bosons. For every decrease in binding energy, there is an
 
S

search

Guest
Thats Ok chembuff1982<br />Nobody knows it all and we all end up mixing things once in a while. I have done that countless times.<br /><br />
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So if something travelling at the speed of light reaches its destination instantly (from its point of view), then how could it possibly go any faster than this? Relativity means we see it take a long time to make the journey, but we aren't doing the travelling!<br /><br />So what you are really asking here is how can we make the journey seem faster to people not making the journey. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />one thing about traveling at speed of light is that upon reaching that speed, you would go into stasis from which you would have no way getting out unless somehow you would slow down below c due to some chance external causes, else you would be cooked good for eons hurtling into space blindly not being able to do a thing about it or even realizing its happening, exactly like that photon<br /><br />and yes, unless we can "make the journey seem faster to people not making the journey" I won't care about it unless I would have been the one who travels, I am that selfish<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

observer7

Guest
Intersting thing about traveling at lightspeed. Take the photons created in the big bang, they have been traveling at the speed of light for what we percieve as 13 plus billion years. To the photon ZERO TIME has elapsed! Even after the heat death of the universe, total entropy, if there is a photon that is say 6 X 10^60 years in our future it still will have experienced zero time.<br /><br />Think about that one for a while and you see that if you can travel at lightspeed you effectively have a time machine, its just a matter of "slowing down" into your target epoch. <br /><br />I think this is a strong argument for not ever being able to travel at or beyond lightspeed. <br /><br />"300,000 Km / sec, its not just a good idea, its the LAW."<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>
 
G

green_meklar

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Think about that one for a while and you see that if you can travel at lightspeed you effectively have a time machine, its just a matter of "slowing down" into your target epoch. <br /><br />I think this is a strong argument for not ever being able to travel at or beyond lightspeed.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think an even stronger argument is that, once you actually reach the speed of light, you <i>can't</i> slow down. The ship is infinitely massive and experiences zero time, so nothing can ever stop it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
At c, due to length contraction, not only would the ship have infinite mass, but it would have zero length! We are talking about becoming a singularity here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Strange logic."<br /><br />It's far, far worse than that. States he doesn't believe in Relativity because of the wave/particle duality, which are totally irrelevant and not addressed by relativity. The whole thing is a mass of bad physics, one non-sequitur and fallacy after the other, and a dreadul misunderstanding of basic physics from first to last. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />good teacher would see through what the guy posted and reinterpret it, its only to shallow look over that sees only the surface that it is non-sequitur and falacies<br /><br />what he is trying to say is this: my friend claimed that because of Einstein's theory of special relativity we would never be able to surpass the speed of light... physics and math have set in stone that we would never be able to do that. <br /><br />however in the past we have said some things were not possible to do according to the then current mathematical and physical beliefs and time has proven us otherwise<br /><br />they say light photon is a particle as well as a wave and since special relativity applies to particles only, that leaves open the possibility that the wave properties of photons might allow them to travel faster than light (at least during those times when they are not particles but waves) and because of that I do not totally agree with Einstein's special theory of relativity since I assume it applies to particles only, not to waves (or at least not completely to waves, there are avenues left for exceptions from the theory)<br /><br />think of a wave, a sine or cosine wave for example. Now, Fourier analysis tells us that the real world waves can be approximated by these mathematical functions. If the sound propagates in the form of a wave, think of what happens when the medium in which these waves propagate is made to change in such a way that affects the wave's frequency or amplitude, the sound changes of course.<br />In compressed medium, the peak <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

thermionic

Guest
Wasn't there a fellow posting here who was writing a REALLY LONG BOOK about physics, which would explain how to build flying saucers that could travel faster than light? I forgot his name, wasn't BigBrain but maybe nearly as smart. So Steve, there's proof that you are wrong!<br /><br />People seem to latch on to this goal of faster than light travel, and propose many solutions without taking the prior effort to learn what we already know on the matter. This gives me a chuckle since our current speed records are a few orders of magnitude short of C, and it will be a while before we need to rework physics to break the speed limit. Excelsior!
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Was it <i>Volantis</i>, aka David Thomson? <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>
 
G

green_meklar

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>At c, due to length contraction, not only would the ship have infinite mass, but it would have zero length!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yep.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We are talking about becoming a singularity here<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, something along those lines, anyway. Doesn't sound too easy, does it? :p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Since special relativity applies to particles only..."<br /><br />Dreadfully misinformed. The key to understanding relativity is understanding the fundamental building block of physical processes, which is light speed.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />that wasn't my idea, that was what the guy said and I just rewrote his post, was obvious that that's what he tried to say that waves belong in different category than matter (particles) as far as special relativity goes, don't put that in my mouth as I myself don't believe that to be so, read the posts carefully and don't jump the gun<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"And they never come up with any ideas."<br /><br />Again showing that not only do you not read my posts, but they are too simply written and widely informed to have any impact on yours. It's so typical.... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> wasn't direct allusion to you but I admit I don't read much of what you post, its either abuse and or put down of someobody or else its way involved/specialized for me (or its way off my area of interest, most planetary astronomy is in that category), also have no idea if you do come up with some new stuff (which typically means exposing oneself to be shot down) mostly you seem to post what the established and or correct position of physics is and I have no beef with that, else I would have corrected you and I don't remember doing so <br /><br />so far in those few weeks I see that you post here (I joined this forum section not long ago) I didn't notice you post new ideas and that is not meant sarcastically, just the impression I get<br /><br />that last paragraph about the uncle is lost on me as I don't get it, perhaps that is not part of post but it is your new signature??<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Which is what we teachers call being 'untrainable'. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />LOL you made my day by this, its like you slapped medal on my breast, the 'trainable' ones are the herd that follows and thank god I am not one of those, you noticed that correctly<br /><br />also LOL @ you and teacher, you are the most unsuitable for teaching anybody, not that I have to be told twice to put somebody down to his proper place but you are in completely different category, I shudder that you may hold a teaching position someplace<br /><br />I do make mistakes I admit but they are my mistakes and if I see where I was wrong I will learn from it, don't have to be pushed that way by teachers, just told (in unofensive way preferably) and I may or may not see my way depending on my judgment, if its mistaken one, too bad for me, thing is it doesn't do anybody good to accept something on authority that he can't arrived at oneself, even if aided by teacher, its almost better to stay mistaken but true to oneself LOL than be like robot or parrot repeating what one was taught<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
The worst teacher in the world<br />Summary of the lesson:<br />"he wants you to feel as stupid as possible, so that his greasy ego might be inflated. Worst of all, the greased ego inflation is visible to even an untrained eye; maybe its more a swelling; by the end of class it is bulbous and pustuile."
 
S

search

Guest
Teach here? Did you loose the job? <br />How about "where the intelectually curious meet to discuss space and science". <br />Sure...acta est fabula plaudite.
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"People seem to latch on to this goal of faster than light travel, and propose many solutions without taking the prior effort to learn what we already know on the matter. This gives me a chuckle since our current speed records are a few orders of magnitude short of C, and it will be a while before we need to rework physics to break the speed limit. Excelsior!"<br />----------------------------------<br /><br />does it ever occur to anyone to ask why is that? why do people latch on that goal of faster than light travel?<br /><br />simple answer might be that its exciting idea since it would open up new horizons and many interesting possibilities, that is if you don't care or don't have any responsibility to integrate that idea into physics in all relevant areas - which would be really impossible task<br /><br />the real reason for FTL fancying is that the 'physical picture' of Einstein's special relativity theory (to the extent that there is one) contains in itself no apriory barriers to FTL travel, I mean that macroscopic bodies and particles of matter alike are pictured as entities existentially independent of everything, that hower and move in void like space - same as photons of EM radiation do move about and with which they may or may not interact but otherwise are not existentially tied one to another, such picture or reality then leads people to think - to heck with photons (and mathematics of SRT), why couldn't matter just ignore them and move faster than them and thumb noses at their poky speed, why should the speed of particles of light limit how fast other particles of matter could move...<br /><br />and that's all because of the false view of space with matter and particles within it as some sort of billiard balls that end where their surface borders on space and beyond is just plain spatial void<br /><br />likely everybody has once seen that picture of rocket travelling at speed of light and astronaut on board looking into a mirror fixed on the rear of rocket comp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gammarayburst

Guest
quote from vanDivX,<br /><br />"true to oneself LOL than be like robot or parrot repeating what one was taught "<br /><br />post<br /><br />"IQ" , or testing on what you know of what was taught.<br /><br />Learning what is not taught is called "CQ", at least that is what my friend Mr. Vogelsang said, creative ideas that are your own. Without "CQ" there would have never been an "IQ".<br /><br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts