Faster than C?

raghara2 · Aug 27, 2005

It depends how it would be done, and what property it would give to accelerated object.

cuddlyrocket · Aug 28, 2005

All of which shows that it is impossible to get to faster than light travel by accelerating an object through c. It does not show that it is impossible to travel faster than c. Again, what law of physics does faster than light travel break? The strongest argument against faster than c travel is that we have never observed it. Similarly, we have never observed time travel. But neither is prohibited by the laws of physics as currently understood.

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

well, faster than light travel may result in traveling backwards in time...which has some interesting consequences for causality. But relativity doesn't say things cannot go faster than light. merely that an object cannot transition between the three categorie (less than, equal to, and greater than C). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

Hi Steve! I wondered where you were hiding... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />However, the rules are so good that it's stupid to ignore them. So we insist upon them in the absence of anything else better or describes events as well, without clear demonstration of such claims. That's why scientists insist upon using them, knowing full well, we will learn more as time goes on.<hr /></blockquote> In principle, you're right. In context... read up, brother! The rules are so good so that the Standard Model can't account for ~94% of the mass of the universe. The "rules" are ~6% right. Wow, man, that's really... good. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Nothing is true unless tested [snip]<hr /></blockquote> It may come as a big surprise to you, but you've got it backwards. What's true is true regardless of whether we believe it or not. Not being able to test it doesn't make it invalid, it makes it beyond our current reach. Good thing you're not in charge of R&D or the only tests we'd be running would be to confirm what's already known, rather than exploring the unknown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

mcbethcg · Aug 28, 2005

"People want to live forever, so they believe in the bible, quoran, etc. as a matter of faith, despite any evidence to the contrary. People want their science fiction dreams to come true, so they believe in superluminal travel as a matter of faith, despite all evidence to the contrary. " AS PROVEN ALREADY HERE.

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

Science quiz: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The faster one goes, only sets up an exponential barrier. The closer one gets to Cee means that more energy needs to be used to accelerate closer to it. But as the energy needed to reach cee would, for ANY mass take more than the available energy in the universe, in fact an infinite amount of energy, thus, no mass can ever reach cee.<hr /></blockquote> As long as you're going to describe it, why not name it? It'll give the folk a handle on the concept. Actually, let's make it a game. One free "Hooray!" for the first person that can name this particular mathematical curve. No helping, Stevie! We know you already know, you post-doc nobel laureate, you! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

This sounds familiar... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"People want to live forever, so they believe in the bible, quoran, etc. as a matter of faith, despite any evidence to the contrary. People want their science fiction dreams to come true, so they believe in superluminal travel as a matter of faith, despite all evidence to the contrary. "<hr /></blockquote> Ah, that's right. It's what you started the thread with. Gotcha. So, ah... why are you quoting yourself? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />AS PROVEN ALREADY HERE.<hr /></blockquote> Whoa. No need to shout, dude, we can read you fine. I'm not sure I get the "proven" thing, though. Do people dogmatically believe strange things? Sure. I see evidence of that all over this thread (and in many other forums and in many places in life). What's yer point? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

Re: Faster than C? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It's a physical law. There is no way around it.<hr /></blockquote> You know, I agree that this is an interesting subject, but just out of curiosity, why bother to start a fresh thread when there's already one on the subject – in the same category even – that's been active for 3 weeks? And why start with such a parochial observation? Why not post some new discovery that reinforces your subluminal notions? Or challenge us with some superluminal notion? Or are you after something completely different...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

siarad · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Now, how are the laws of quantum mechanics being broken in all our computers?<hr /></blockquote> I don't really know, not being so educated but thought I'd posted it. Surely tunnelling is an observation not a law, then again I've been out of the game long enough for it to have become a law <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Designers, like I was, would just love electrons to follow the law & not cross a barrier for which they have insufficient energy. In your CPU electrons are tunnelling from the silicon into the silicon oxide insulator causing unwanted heat that just shouldn't be there. In the 1970's I recall working with RCA which used Sapphire as the insulator not silicon oxide as a better heat conductor, radiation harder & less prone to tunnelling. Oddly such insulators are being studied again to reduce electron leakage & increase heat conduction. Going for smaller sizes in CPU manufacture increases this leakage non-linearly which has brought to a stop increases in clock speed (iNTEL just couldn't get to 4GHz) leading to the multiple-core CPU to increase computing power. Of course other things act even more to bring up this limit but they follow a law.

siarad · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The 'light barrier' by which you probably mean the speed of light cannot be exceeded, is NOT just an assumption, but is an observed, confirmed fact.<hr /></blockquote> No, C is a number a barrier is er physical. I meant the one does not presuppose the other & the assumption was the barrier. No time to check but I think I did say 'if it exists'. My remarks were not scientific but wishful thinking which keeps occurring here. In any event how can one tell reaching light speed since it is a constant & will be travelling at C irrespective of your speed M&M proved this. Surely only external observers can measure your speed w.r.t their C Travelling at C you will still have a reflection in a mirror, no wooden stake through the heart will be necessary <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

Well, tunneling is a consequence of quantum mechanics description of matter as a wave. So it's really not breaking quantum mechanics there, though the systems are being limited by it. Any other examples? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Aug 28, 2005

You say 'description' but what's the law by which to calculate tunnelling. I carefully said laws as opposed to my saying observations too. My original post wasn't exactly serious, I was just throwing in hopes as seemed befitting to the topic as exceeding C & living forever is a hope.

serak_the_preparer · Aug 28, 2005

TomnacKid, Well done. I like the way you expressed that idea, particularly the use of the analogy with the Polynesians. Day07, It's not the laws of space and time which break down at the event horizon of a black hole, but our understanding of how those laws cause space-time to behave at the heart of a black hole. A viable theory of quantum gravity should give us the added insight we need to work out what actually occurs under such extreme conditions. Ordinary_Guy: asymptotic. Does this mean I'm a post-doc Nobel laureate, too?

day07 · Aug 28, 2005

You are correct. I should have been more specific.... The Laws are there, its our 'Understanding' of them that breaks down under extreme conditions. - Of course in my case, the understanding breaks down under what many of you would consider normal conditions <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

frobozz · Aug 28, 2005

Actually, travelling faster then light is infact a violation of the laws of physics as currently understood. Simply look at the term in the Lorentz transformation: (1 - v^2 / c^2)^(-/12) Now, if v /> c we get a complex number. Cool, no problem right? Only at present, the laws of physics, for example relativity, tacitly state that the universe is a real manifold. That means, no imaginery numbers, i.e. there does not exist a velocity which is greater than C.

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

tunnelling is, however, a direct consequence of the wave nature of particles when applied to a non-infinite potential barrier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Aug 28, 2005

Thanks. I didn't mean to distort the topic. I threw it in to show unexpected things can happen, for which we have no calculation, (chaos?) which fitted with the wishful thinking of the topic

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Ordinary_Guy: asymptotic. Does this mean I'm a post-doc Nobel laureate, too?<hr /></blockquote> Yes, on both counts! ...But we'll go with "honorary" on the PhD. Still, "honorary" will be a step above you-know-who (who wrote his dissertation on the back of his unused Thorazine tablets). As I promised: Hooray! (~No charge for that) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

Sairad, we do have calculations for it. And it's complicated, but not chaotic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

cuddlyrocket · Aug 29, 2005

Actually, I have an Honours degree in Physics. And another in Mathematics. (Both from Manchester University in the UK.) I am well aware of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. Neither in themselves prohibit travel faster than c. You are correct that the equations of special relativity produce Imaginary quantities. Two possibilities are that the exact form of the equations as given by Einstein only applies in the sub-light regions. Or Imaginary mass exists. Who knows what properties it would have? Perhaps it only interacts with Real matter through gravity? Hey, perhaps it's the Dark Matter whose existence we know of, but whose nature we're completely in the dark about (excuse the pun). You state: "The burden of proof is upon who makes the claim." All I have claimed is that the laws of physics as presently understood do not prohibit faster than c travel. (I haven't said it was possible. I haven't said Imaginary mass exists.) You say they do. Well prove it.

frobozz · Aug 29, 2005

Ok, I'll accept those two are possible ways around the situation that I hadn't thought of. Shouldn't we be able to check the second however for plausibility even if we can't check the first? If not, what would be stopping us (unless I've completely missed something, we'd just need to check predictions that we come up with if we were to extend the fields equations to a complex manifold ( I am not sure if this can be done uniquely) and see if it violates anything we now). Can you think of anyway of checking the first?

siarad · Aug 30, 2005

Relativity completely alludes me & it seems I'll die without understanding. However I'm not arguing against it just that all the proofs I've seem are from externally applied force. Yes I've oft posted over having to use e/m = C^2 in design to gain the right result from an externally applied magnetic force. Isn't this topic about people wishing to travel above C which is from an internally applied force. Further light-speed of C is limited by the product of magnetic & electric properties of Space, an em phenomena. Surely matter, not being em, is governed by the Gravitational properties of Space-Time. I don't understand space-time & why it has to be used w.r.t. gravity either <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> My real objection to such fantasies of />C travel is practical. At such speed, apparently, the Universe becomes a dot of light ahead. So no matter how you zig & zag you have no concept of direction or ability to find your desired destination.

jatslo · Aug 31, 2005

Yes, internal. I agree ;o)

mrmux · Aug 31, 2005

I can't believe he even answered back while still smouldering from his own petard. Good for you, my dear Rocket. That was an absolute joy to behold. Ne te confundant illegitimi!

serak_the_preparer · Aug 31, 2005

Two possibilities are that the exact form of the equations as given by Einstein only applies in the sub-light regions. Or Imaginary mass exists. Who knows what properties it would have? Perhaps it only interacts with Real matter through gravity? Hey, perhaps it's the Dark Matter whose existence we know of, but whose nature we're completely in the dark about (excuse the pun). Well, I am a skeptic about faster-than-light phenomena, but I also accept that our models of physics are just that: models. Approximations only. And one day we may come up with a better model to discover - lo and behold! - that it includes superluminal phenomena. I particularly like your comment regarding imaginary mass and dark matter. Which points up the inadequacy of our current models while also offering an intriguing bit of speculation. In that spirit, let me reciprocate with the following material: D.10 What are tachyons? Are they real? There is a formula that relates mass to speed in the special theory of relativity: m = m0 / SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) where m = energy divided by c^2 (sometimes called "relativistic mass") m0 = rest mass v = velocity of mass relative to you c = velocity of light (constant in all frames of reference) So, as you see an object moving faster and faster, its mass increases.... This led Einstein and others to conclude that it was impossible for any material object to travel at or beyond the speed of light. Because as you increase speed mass increases. With increased mass, there's a requirement for increased energy to accelerate the mass. In the end, an infinite amount of energy is needed to move any object *at* the speed of light. Nothing would move you faster than the speed of light, according to this type of analysis. But, some research

Faster than C?

raghara2

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

Saiph

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

day07

Guest

frobozz

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

Saiph

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

frobozz

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page