Faster than light theory!!

[zero_cool]

ok they say nothing can go faster than the speed of light...well i have a theory, ok if i were on a high speed train, lets say we are going as fast as a bullet, and i hung out the side of this train, and shot a bullet that went the same exact speed as the train, the speed of the bullet would be multiplied, correct? so how come you cant be going light speed, then launch a shuttle while youre going light speed, if this were to happen, wouldnt the shuttle go that much faster than light?

 

[flaurier]

Light speed is constant, therefore you can't go faster.<br />e.g. "you will still see yourself in a mirror while travelling at light speed."

 

[kmarinas86]

The speed of light is a constant.<br /><br />The second is not.<br /><br />The size of your "perceptual" second depends on your speed by this factor:<br /><br />1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)<br /><br />At relative velocity = 0, the size of your "perceptual" second (as measured by clock stationary to you) is the same.<br /><br />So if you go faster, the m/s ratio for light is the same. 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is increased, your thoughts and senses become slower relative to other thoughts. Your "perceptual time" slows. Light exits and leaves you still at c.

 

[Leovinus]

The trouble comes when you think in everyday Newtonian Physics and try to map that into relativistic speeds.<br /><br />At relativistic speeds, time is not constant and neither is mass. I can't explain it further because it hurts my brain too much to try. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zero_cool]

ok....WHO says nothing can go faster than light? how would someone know this? you cant tell me, that some guy messing with numbers on a chalkboard is telling the science community that nothing can go faster, and theyre actually beliving it, is it an absolute fact? or is it just a theory?

 

[kmarinas86]

It's theory.<br /><br />It's a fact that no particle accelerator was able send matter beyond the speed of light.<br /><br />I like to think of it this way:<br /><br />pure mass: < c<br />light (wave/particle duality): c<br />pure waves: /> c<br /><br />All waves we have observe so far are either made of mass, or can act like particles.<br /><br />Pure waves are hard to detect.<br /><br />One knows that particles become increasing wave like at smaller energies. Gamma rays are point like and radio waves disperse more easily. Gamma rays have more momentum than radio waves.<br /><br />If particular waves can travel beyond c, perhaps they are of very low energies. They would be below ELF, so we wouldn't be able to see them anyway just yet. <br /><br />Conversely, it's hard to find a photon with the planck frequency. On reason is that for photons with very high energy, say, as much energy as a microgram of matter, wouldn't you think that the photon would have too much energy to remain as light?<br /><br />I think it would become a particle.

 

[averygoodspirit]

In our particle accelerators we have accelerated particles up to nearly the speed of light. When we collided these highly energized particles together, subatomic particles would mysteriously disappear and then reappear as if from out of nowhere. This leads some to believe that the particle collision accelerated some subatomic particles to FTL speed. FTL particles are not visible on the electromagnetic scale; perhaps the elusive “dark matter” is simply matter that is traveling FTL speeds. Observing the universe electromagnetically at any wavelength is like thinking you are living on the surface of a balloon. The further away you look, (the other side of the balloon), is where the big bang took place. That analogy would work just fine if we lived in a two dimensional universe, but there are more spatial dimensions then that. There is more to the universe then can be observed with our current technology and dark matter is just one example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"When we collided these highly energized particles together, <b>subatomic particles would mysteriously disappear and then reappear as if from out of nowhere.</b> This leads some to believe that the particle collision accelerated some subatomic particles to <b>FTL speed.</b>"</i><br /><br />At the Wilson Synchrotron at Cornell U.; we collide streams of high energy particles together which are travelling in opposite directions at nearly "c" velocities. <br /><br />Although our track is small (1/3 mile) and sometimes it takes weeks of operation to generate good "Hits", we never encountered any data which would lead us to believe that a FTL event had occurred!<br /><br />Please provide a link to this data as I would like to share it with the High Energy Physics group.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

first, we cant go at light's speed. second, the shuttle would need enormous amounts of energy to maintain its <i><font color="yellow">thrown</font></i>speed.<br />the shuttle would disintegrate as it tries to reach the speed of light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[zero_cool]

well unlearningthemistakes, how would it disenigrate as it tried to reach the speed of light? theres no friction in outerspace, in my view you can go as fast as you want in outerspace without having the worry about the effects of going that fast through an atmosphere, i may be wrong on this, so please excuse me if i am, lol im only a 16 yr old, going on speculation...

 

[zero_cool]

Ok wait, I have another question. How come it wouldnt work? I mean how would any one know? Would the secondary shuttle (the shuttle launched after you reached Lightspeed) just stop, or would it just keep on chuggin along side the primary shuttle?or would it just explode for no apparent reason? lol

 

[harmonicaman]

The problem is that the equation changes when you try to add velocities at relativistic speeds. You run into the Laws of Physics!<br /><br />In non-relativistic mechanics, the velocities are simply added and the answer is that "A" is moving with a velocity: w = u+v relative to "C". But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula:<br /><br /> w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c²)<br /><br />If "u" and "v" are both small compared to "c", then the answer is approximately the same as the non-relativistic theory. In the limit where "u" is equal to "c", the sum gives "c" in all cases. This confirms that anything going at the speed of light does so in all reference frames.<br /><br />This change in the velocity addition formula is not due to making measurements without taking into account time it takes light to travel or the Doppler effect. It is what is observed after such effects have been accounted for and is an effect of special relativity which cannot be accounted for with Newtonian mechanics.

 

[zero_cool]

I apologize stevehw33 if ive somehow offended you with my stupidity! im only 16

 

[dragon04]

The Shuttle would not explode provided that the rate of acceleration did not exceed it's designed stress capabilities.<br /><br />IIRC, the shuttles routinely withstand acceleration forces of 3g and could withstand higer G forces that would make shuttle passengers more than a little uncomfortable.<br /><br />You have to remember that the hypothetical shuttle would be travelling in a vacuum. Not in the water, atmosphere, or any other medium of resistance.<br /><br />The rate of acceleration has to be taken into account. Assuming that people are onboard our spacecraft, if we COULD accelerate to light speed, we would want to do so in a manner that didn't pulverize our soft little bodies. 1g is a nice rate. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The mathematics of physics as we understand it does not allow anything to travel faster than light due to the required energies it would take to break the speed limit.<br /><br />I guess the best way to explain it (as a layman) would be that it wouldn't matter whether you are trying to accelerate 1 gram or 10,000kg of mass past the speed of light, or even TO the speed of light.<br /><br />Take the least mass that you can think of. Say one picogram. 1 BILLIONTH of a gram. It would take infinite energy to get that one picogram to light speed.<br /><br />There is the crux of the situation. If it takes infinite energy to get that tiny mass TO light speed, then trying to accelerate a shuttle launched from a mother ship would take infinite energy to the (n)th power to go beyond light speed. Using physics as we know it.<br /><br />So at near light speed, it doesn't matter how massive an object is. Only at fractions of light speed, does relative mass matter.<br /><br />If my explanation is incorrect, I hope one of you experts say so. It's hard to unscientifically put into words what is going on at relativistic speeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

It only takes a small amount of energy for energy to take to light speed. But if there is any mass associated with that energy, then light speed no more.

 

[zero_cool]

Ahh I see, thanks for putting that in laymans for me, but me being the lil rebel I am, how about we just assume, we have infinate energy we can use and work with, ok all im really asking is, what if, im not asking if its actually possible, lol of course i knew that, cause we havnt even made it to light speed, yet let alone go faster than light, so yeah, what if...

 

[harmonicaman]

"What if"s" are great questions!<br /><br />Note that it would take all the "E" in the universe to get your "m" up to "c" velocities...<br /><br /><big><center>E=mc²</center></big> <br /><br />But we may be able to work around the problem someday!

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

zero cool, the space is not a total void. It contains gas and dust. I assume your shuttle would really need a good pilot to avoid (meteoric splash or) asteroid collision. just an analogy: 1 to 5 atoms per cubic meter of space would hit your shuttle. not considering gas and dust and other particulate matter. your shuttle will never make it to half C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

maybe not really ignorance but the "want" to learn. <br />FTL theory as he announced. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[one_billy]

If the escape velocity of a bh is greater than ls.What's going on there.You got your answer but you won't look at it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

if you are talking about BH, not even light can escape it once it got beyond the event horizon. in analogy, it would take more than lightspeed to scape the power a BH pull.<br /><br /><br />lets enjoy life guys... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[zero_cool]

i think i know a way to get out of a BH, lol have your ship equiped with a large electromagnetic field generator, and if its strong enough, it will displace enough energy, and the BH will spit you back out right?<br />kinda like shoving a + magnet between two + magnets held together with a 1/2 inch space between em

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

no. it won't work. check some books.<br /><br />by:<br /><br />1) S. hawking<br /><br />2) ASTRONOMY vol.5 & 6 by zeilik.<br /><br />if you like, you can google.<br /><br />(though I prefer books) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[one_billy]

Books don't have all the answers.Or there would be no need to ask questions.Discoveries are made by people who can see beyond the limits. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

<font color="yellow">Books don't have all the answers.</font><br /><br />or bitterly, some people are just asking the wrong questions. books can offer us much information/answers. we just need the right book and the right questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>