New math - Basic basic basic idea... 50 billion km view

[Nopinky]

I remember reading somewhere that in order to break the speed of light barrier we would need "new math", this because E=Mc^2 forbids it.<br />That be said this is the little thought I had...<br />-New math breaks current laws of physics (not a problem if its proven) <br />That new math will most likely allow some sort of time travel (FTL travel by defenition is time travel)<br />We know "time travel will NEVER happen because people from the future do not frequent our current time" (Steven Hawkin)<br />Therefore new math does not get developed, time travle and the Speed of light never get broken.<br /><br />Does that make sense? In a loose way. I know it would mean that you subscribe to certain theorys that many here may not believe (like we actually exist). Just thought I would throw it out there. Thank you for your opinions.

 

[qso1]

Just a thought but if one is to break the speed of light, the formula should be E = MC. Instead it reads E = MC2 which is speed of light squared of course. This implies the barrier is speed of light times itself which yields a far higher number.<br /><br />This anomaly has been brought up before but I've never seen a really good answer as to why we say we cannot go faster than light when the equation states faster than light squared. I don't know if we will ever get beyond the speed of light, much less speed of light squared. <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>

 

[ianke]

Hello Nopinky,<br /><br />I think you probably understand this, but mathematics can be altered to do anything. However mathematics can not move squat. It is used to discribe a function and define the parameters of a physical thing. Not the other way around. <br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hi qso1,<br /><br />You see velocity squared in many equations concerning the measure of mass, velocity,and energy.<br /><br />Example: impact energy is defined as mass times velocity squared <br /><br />Note: may or may not be related but you run into velocity being squared a lot in physics.<br /><br /><br />Ianke<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<font color="orange">mathematics can be altered to do anything. However mathematics can not move squat.</font><br /><br />something like this entered my mind upon reading the post, the guy seems to quite divorced from reality and probably believes we make our own<br /><br />there is physical reason why we cannot travel faster than the speed of light<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

E= mc^2 is the reason in the language of math.<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> Actually, it is Special and General Relativity that speaks to it best but for this purpose ... this will do <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Hows it goin Ianke,<br /><br />That much of what you explained I can understand...I think, but what exactly does it mean as it relates to E= MC2 vs E = MC? That is, why the squared if its E = MC? I'm not the best there is at math so bear with me here. <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>

 

[ianke]

I'm not the best person to ask as there are way more learned people here, but I will try.<br /><br />lets look at it simply:<br /><br />1.a body at rest stays that way unless acted upon<br /><br />2. As you accelerate, energy is needed to do so.<br /><br />3. The faster something is the more energy it takes for it to increase its speed in an incremental manner. <br />a. This is a direct relation to the mass that the object has is now increased in relation to its relative speed. (hence the speed squared accomodates this in the equation by changing the plotted slope between zero and infinite energy ) I like to think of it like you are now increasing both the original mass by absorbing the energy it took to get to the speed you are at now (you are pushing a heavier load because the mass has absorbed the energy added prior to get to the state you are at now). This might be a misconception but it helps me visualize the issue.<br /><br />b. Time also dialates and slows down as well. think of it as a photon bouncing between 2 mirrors. at rest the photon bounces at a steady rate. now accelerate the mirrors, since the photon is not bound by your referencepoint alone it now has to take a zig zag path between the to mirrors as it travels through spacetime. To the 3rd party observer time has slowed down for you. They see your clock running slower. However, you are subject to the same laws the mirrors are so you yourself think the bouncing photon in your observation moves exactly the same as it did when you were at rest. <br /><br />If this doesn't ring true, maybe you can look at it the other way. It seems awfully coincidental that a plot of any mass travelling the speed of light needs exactly infinite energy and becomes infinite mass as they intersect right there at 186,000 miles/second. HMMM! <br /><br />Relativity rules here.<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Anything better than that, and you need a physicist. I am a chemist, who can understand the math much better than convert it to words. Backwards isn't it?<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Please if any physics folks wish to correct this, feel free as I am pretty shure it has holes in it.<br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Einstien originally thought not as E=MC2, but M=E/C2.<br /><br />However, pertaining to the barrier aspect of the equation, this is how I try to explain it to myself:<br /><br />Try to keep in mind that it is a measurement taken with the mass at rest. Now take a photon, a packet of energy with zero mass that is always traveling at a constant of C, and make M=0. <br /><br />E=0*C2 + motion. A particle with with zero mass and in motion will still always have the energy of motion. Now, if you add mass and try to accelerate it, the work being done to that mass is adding kinetic energy (aka mass) and C can never be achieved. <br /><br />As for trying to explain why C2 is layman's terms... I think that is not possible unless you understand all the derivations of the formula. And that math is a bit over my head. It just works <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> and has been proven to work. <br /><br />E=MC2 tested <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>

 

[ianke]

You are correct because the calculation is in reality a way of denoting the amount of energy that can be dirived from mass. It is more pertinant to look to the whole of the relativity theories of his to deal with the question of mass acceleration to the speed of light. It gets a lot more intense than the above equation for logical proofs. Here I am trying to answer as simply as possible to answer the above poster. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

qso1,<br /><br />Anyway, I hope what Derekmcd and I have said help. Otherwise, I would suggest looking up the english version(it is free domain on the web) and fight through the great Albert E works yourself. It is do-able albeit difficult. But then what worth you get from it is quite valuable.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Both of you have done an excellent job of explaining it. Now I just need to digest the mathematical aspects of it but I already have a better understanding. Thanks again Ianke and Derekmcd. <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Ianke, minor correction; impact energy is <font color="black"> 1/2 </font>mass X velocity squared. <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>

 

[h9c2]

c^2 is not a number that describes a velocity. The validity of the equation can be found in the units.

 

[ianke]

Oops, been a long time for impact equations. Thanks for the correction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hi H9C2,<br />you are absolutely correct. c^2 is a constant in the equation, but what I was trying to explain was the need for it to be squared. Maybe I did not make that clear enough. the speed c and the constant c^2 are realy to different things. The constant is basically a conversion factor to deal with mass-energy conversions. c itself is the value of velocity of light in a vacuum. Related but not the same.<br />Does this seem to correct this? I really do have a harder time with the verbal discription that the mathematical logic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[larper]

There was a great Nova episode called E=Mc^2, where they explained in the simplest terms possible the meaning behind each of the 4 characters in that equation. Look for it.<br /><br />http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Velocity squared, units-wise, equals 'specific energy'.<br /><br />'Specific energy' of an object is the 'bound energy' divided by the mass.<br /><br />The 'bound energy' of an object in orbit is the Kinetic energy of the object minus the Potential energy relative to the gravitational field of the thing it is orbiting.<br /><br />Specific energy allows us, in orbital mechanics, to treat objects of any mass the same. Using specific energy is what allows us to talk about the 'Delta V' required to transfer between orbits without consideration of the mass of the object being transferred. (This is no longer true if the object is a significant fraction of the mass of the objects creating the gravitational fields which bind the energy)<br /><br />In general terms, delta V is the square root of specific energy. So if you calculate the energy difference between two orbits, and then divide by the mass and take the square root, you have the dV required (assuming no losses, which is never a correct assumption in the real world).<br /><br />hth <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hi spacester,<br /><br />Yep. another example of the velocity squared function. Thanks.<br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Nopinky]

Boy that got away quick. <br />My point is actually a lot more simple. (hense the 50 billion km view referense... its far away, not alot of detail).<br />I personally hope for man to one day break the FTL barrier. I have always thought we will one day break it. However, my detuction is what I am trying to clarify, not the way I got there or the deeper meaning of it. <br /><br />Basically...<br /><br />Since we are not frequented by people from the future, we can assume time travel NEVER happens EVER. That being said be never reach FTL. One (mathmatically) can not exist without the other.

 

[vandivx]

"explain why C2 is layman's terms"<br /><br />if layman's terms mean not too involved mathematical explanation then I would try the physical explanation although that assumes you at least know that kinetic energy=1/2mv(sq)<br /><br />E=mc(sq) is not kinetic energy but rest mass energy, that is energy that a matter at rest contains (statically in the form of some opposing internal tension for example) <br /><br />for the sake of argument, consider the energy content of matter gets released completely via two very energetic photons - EM radiation which travels at speed c in two diemetrically opposed directions <br /><br />now if you appply the kinetic energy KE = 1/2mc(sq) formula to each of the two photons, you get as the sum of the kinetic energy for the two photons (ph=photon)<br /><br /> Total kinetic energy KEph1 + KEph2 = 1/2mc(sq) + 1/2mc(sq) = mc(sq) (where m is photon mass which is function of photon frequency, it is not rest mass)<br /><br />voila we get mc(sq)<br /><br />the logic here goes like this: the rest energy that matter contains is converted into pure kinetic energy (because photons have no rest mass) which gets released in two photons flying in opposite direction (because overall momentum of the system is conserved) and each of these is pure kinetic energy given by classical formula 1/2(mass of photon equivalent)c(sq) and so both of them added make mc(sq)<br /><br />the square on c in E=mc(sq) thus originates (in priniciple) in the classical formula for the kinetic energy where the velocity is squared <br /><br />this is quite dirty explanation and it might not go down well with your teacher<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>this is quite dirty explanation and it might not go down well with your teacher </i>"<br /><br />Probably will not settle well with the 'layman' either.<br /><br />I think the biggest issue is folks asking "why C^2" as the same as "why 'this speed/velocity". <br /><br />Why not something faster or slower.<br /><br />It's difficult to free yourself of that mindset. <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>

 

[vandivx]

"why not something faster or slower"<br /><br />when the talk is about the speed of sound propagation which depends on medium through which the sound propagates, nobody asks that for obvious reason<br /><br />after many years of pondering the speed of light I came to the conclusion and worked out a theory that there is a medium everywhere - an aether - and light propagates in that medium and thus personally I have no problem with the speed of light anymore, no more that I have problem with the speed of sound propagation, only difference is that there is only one aether medium and we don't have a choice over that<br /><br />part of the theory is working out how aether medium fits in with special relativity theory and it does fit nicely, else I would have to abandon the idea of aether of course<br /><br />if you stop and consider the issue without prejudice the fact that the speed of light is an invariable constant is plain evidence which is just crying out for some medium responsible for how fast light propagates, else in the absence of any medium no speed could be guaranteed the way it is, it would be totally arbitrary and light would move at whichever speed or else it would be just a magical thing if it would set and maintain its speed at some constant value in all frames of reference and in that case also it would be no wonder that people would be asking why doesn't it go slower or faster and why just this speed and not other - that's precisely because their premises tell them it should be arbitrary (because they were told no aether exists)<br />Einstein didn't bother his young head with that problem or he just couldn't make head and tail of it, whatever it was he just accepted it as given that speed of light is invariable and built his theories upon the acceptance of that (or was it recognition as is more charitably said)<br /><br /><br />as to layman's explanation look at it this way - nobody asks why velocity is squared in the ordinary formula for kinetic energy and I buil <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>