Superluminal space travel

vidar · Aug 1, 2005

It is mathematically impossible for a spaceship to travel at the speed of light (c), states the relative theory. It also states that it is not mathematically impossible to travel half or twice the speed of light. The belief in that barrier stands mainly because it does not have to be scientific proven. It stands basically because it has not been disapproved; because we have not yet managed to travel at the speed c . It is a mental barrier for science. Ideas of superluminal space travel are down prioritised, due to that. I think it would be constructive to act as this unproven barrier does not exist, until proven. We should continue with the ideas of superluminal space travel, like we overcame the mental barriers against supersonic travel. Hopefully, some day the c-barrier will be proven to be untrue too. (This is a spin-off from the debate ‘Missions & Launches / Alpha Centauri Explorer’.)

Grok · Aug 1, 2005

Why is the speed of light important? If we could travel at 25% the speed of light, we could still go to some pretty neat places. Granted, it might take awhile, but the end result would be nifty.

dragon04 · Aug 1, 2005

.05c would get us some pretty neat places for that matter <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

Saiph · Aug 1, 2005

Superluminal travel has been down prioritized for two reasons: First, all attempts up to know only confirm relativity. Second, any further attempts (I.e. testing of relativity) require very advanced knowledge of several fields, and there aren't as many people capable of doing it. So while people still work on it, it tends not to be the main avenue of research for most people, it's entered into the "accepted" status of the physics world do to intense and rigourous testing over the past 100 years. <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>

vidar · Aug 2, 2005

It is an old mathematical problem that is put into the STR (Special Theory of Relativity), that forbids travelling at c. The mathematical problem states that; x/0=Ø. This means that it is impossible for any number to be divided with zero. The reason is that any number multiplied with zero, makes zero (x*0=0). The former violates this fact, and that violation is put into the STR, in form of; x/(c-v). There are some experiments with single particles in tubes. The results are used as arguments for the c-barrier. It does not surprise me at all that pure energy travels at c. However, I cannot see it is proven that a particle can not travel at c. Quite frankly, the reason for the failure can be that the scientist did not complete the experiment or that they messed it up. Anyway, these particles are added much energy to be accelerated in those vacuum tubes. Therefore I am not surprised at all that the particles show some increase in energy in the test results. That is no proof for the c-barrier. Classic science says that v=at (which means; c=at) and that E=1/2mv^2 (which means; E=1/2mc^2). I suggest that open minded scientist do not forget these well proved facts. This has not been proven wrong. I really hope there will not be a ‘next Einstein’. That would mean double trouble. A contra-Einstein would rather clean up the scientific mess he left.

craig42 · Aug 2, 2005

Ok not exactly superluminal but. If mass can't travel at c and matter can be turned into energy. Doesn't it follow that energy can be turned into matter? Therfoe couldn't an arbitary advanced civilization build a mass-light convertor and then send a light-mass convertor on a sub-light trip to another solar system. Then turn a spaceship into light at home and turn back into mass at the other end? Of course they would need another pair of amazing convertors for the return journey. Or do I grossly misunderstand?

daniko · Aug 2, 2005

Hi everyone This theme is one of my favorite so I'm glad to find it open. What craig42/b> noted is what I think is the basic idea of "teleportation": 1) transform matter into information 2) transfer the information to unother place 3) transform information in matter Thatway the only obstacle before "Superluminal space travel" is to find way to make information travel faster than light (Yes !!!!) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

craig42 · Aug 2, 2005

Thanks for clearing that up DanIKo So after that we need to ask. Can information be transformed into tachyons, and vice versa?

najab · Aug 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So after that we need to ask. Can information be transformed into tachyons, and vice versa?<hr /></blockquote>Before that, we need to ask if tachyons actually exist!

vidar · Aug 2, 2005

If so, that ‘proof from the particle accelerator’ should ‘take more energy than contained in the entire universe’. I have not noticed such an energy drain. Have you?

vidar · Aug 2, 2005

And before that, I suggest we test for real whether it is necessary at all, i.e. try to send a lightweight vessel close to c.

najab · Aug 2, 2005

There is no need for this test, the phenomena of mass increase with velocity has already been measured.

vidar · Aug 2, 2005

Firstly, I think it is a good idea to test a real vessel at the speed c/10, then to evaluate the real effects. Next higher speed should be considered. Another thing is that it is a big different between a real vessel in space and a particle in highly electromagnetic tubes. I don’t think it was mass increase that was measured. It was energy increase, wasn’t it?

craig42 · Aug 2, 2005

I thought that assumption was implied. Guess I need to be more explict. My apologies.

Grok · Aug 2, 2005

Is there any known matter that travels close to the speed of light? You would think if this were possible, the universe would already have examples. I think we should start with just doing what we're technically capable of and build from there, instead of trying to reach some theoretical limit, but I'm not a man of science, just a layperson.

cuddlyrocket · Aug 2, 2005

Lots. Particles in accelerators like CERN; cosmic rays (some electrons in which travel at 99.999%), and particles produced by solar flares.

vidar · Aug 2, 2005

You are right about that. A persons understanding does not alter the truth. Electrons (atomic particles) is said to been travelled at 99.9% of c. However, particles, as in subatomic particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons) are quite different from matter, and their complex molecule structures. Experimental results on subatomic particles in an electromagnetic tube are not proof of how vessels in space will behave.

vidar · Aug 2, 2005

Particles, as in subatomic particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons) are quite different from things with their complex molecule structures. Experimental results on subatomic particles in an electromagnetic tube are not proof of how vessels in space will behave. I have take lots of courses in physics. It’s what they do not tell that is the controversy here. I suggest some interesting reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Experimental_evidence

Saiph · Aug 2, 2005

Well, the only difference between atomic nuclei, electrons and molecules is the amount of the electrostatic force acting in the system. Since the effect depends on mass, and all have mass, there is no fundamental difference as to why they would behave differently. If you see the energy cost per unit speed increase in particle accelerators for the entire range of atomic nuclei, and other observed phenomena, then it isn't hard to apply that same increase to any object made up of a collection of that material. And according to one of the fundamental assumptions in physics (yes assumption, as it cannot be proven) that what physical laws apply here are valid everywhere, if the laws of SR apply in a particle accelerator, they also apply elsewhere. To deny that is to strip physics down to the core base assumptions and invalidate the entire system by stripping it of all predictive and casaul relationships (I.e. it becomes useless). <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>

daniko · Aug 2, 2005

I think there's something not quite well understood about acceleration to speeds close to C. When we speak of relativity theory we must not forget that it's based on relativeness. When it's said that it takes infinite amount of energy to speed up a Rocket at the speed of light it's true only relatively to the launching pad. Let me give an example: 1) We launch a Rocket weighting 1 tonn with 100 tons of fuel. 2) The Rocket uses 50 tons to speed up to 50% of C. Let suppose that due to it's speed Rocket weights 10% more respective to its launch pad -- />At this stage the Rocket weights 1 tonn respective to it's point of view and the rest fuel weights 50 tonns -- />At this stage the Rocket weights 1,1 tonn respective to the launch pad and the rest fuel weights 55 tonns 3) The Rocket uses 40 more tons to speed up to 90% of C (40 tonns respective to rockets view point). Let suppose that due to it's speed Rocket weights 300% more respective to its launch pad -- />At this stage the Rocket weights 1 tonn respective to it's point of view and the rest fuel weights 10 tonns -- />At this stage the Rocket weights 4 tonn respective to the launch pad and the rest fuel weights 40 tonns So if you got my point - when accelerating - not only the weight of the rocket increases (respectively to the launch pad) but the weight of the rest fuel. I think it also is true for the internal energy stored in the rest fuel. Not only the mass of the rocket will raise to the infinity when approaching C but the energy of the left fuel. Practically it will occur that you don't have to load The Univers in your fuel tanks to reach the C <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Second example: When speaking of the particles in the accelerator: Yes respectively to the static accelerator it takes enormous amount of energy to speed up a particle near C. But if the accelerator speeds up a bomb of

larper · Aug 2, 2005

They sound completely wrong to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

dragon04 · Aug 2, 2005

Regarding Example #2.... The annihilation of an electron and positron would yield a specific amount of energy. But that yield is constant. the speed at which the "bomb" is travelling is unimportant. What IS important, however, is that as the proton accelerates, it gains relative mass. At some defined speed, the proton has too much mass to be affected by your "bomb" in any meaningful way. Let me give an example. You have an infinitely long cannon barrel. You put a cannonball in it. You have a charge (your bombs) that propels the ball to a specific velocity. The force of your bomb dictates how fast your cannonball can travel ( A = F/M). Now. Let's say that once we get your cannonball moving at velocity (x), That right behind it, we accelerate a package of bombs with the same yield right behind it. All we can do is maintain the current velocity of the cannonball detonating bombs one at a time. If we want to accelerate the ball, we must use either larger or more bombs. And as the ball goes faster and faster, it requires even more or bigger bombs to keep a constant acceleration. And you are aboslutely correct, as the bombs go faster, THEIR mass increases. So now, not only do we have to worry about making the cannonball go faster, we have to worry about keeping the fuel mass accelerating at the same rate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

robnissen · Aug 2, 2005

I usually don't even bother reading threads with a title like this one (I only read this one because there were so many posts, I was curious what people could possibly be saying), because they all tend to fall in the category of: If I can clearly state something, it might be true. For example, I can clearly state the following: "The temperature of an object can be lowered to -1000 F." Simple, easy to state and understand, the only problem with the statement is that it is completely false. This is just another example of such a concise statement, easily understandable: "It is possible to travel faster than the speed of light." The only problem with this statement is that it is flatly false. Alas, we will continue to get posters who think that the fact a proposition can be stated clearly, is evidence that the proposition might be true.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

Superluminal object can not be observed. The effect of it’s light is rather similar to the effect on sound of a supersonic plane. Imagine this: When a superluminal object approaches you, the light it projects is slower than the object it self. The light accumulates behind it. When the object has passed, the accumulated light will appear as a flash for you. When a superluminal object moves away from you, the light’s frequency is so stretched out that it is invisible to you. All in all, observing ‘mysterious’ flashes, can be observing superluminal objects.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

I think a single electron has properties closer to photon than a object. What is observed in the particle accelerator is rather light than mass. Single electrons’ properties can not count as evidence of how objects will behave. I can very well understand the worries of discovering that the SR is not perfect. I suppose there were similar worries when the Einstein’s GR made Newton’s laws of gravity partly invalid. However, it does not change the nature of things, only our own perception of it. I will rather be ignorant at the right track, than arrogant at the wrong. (No offence.)

Superluminal space travel

vidar

Guest

Grok

Guest

dragon04

Guest

Saiph

Guest

vidar

Guest

craig42

Guest

daniko

Guest

craig42

Guest

najab

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

najab

Guest

vidar

Guest

craig42

Guest

Grok

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

Saiph

Guest

daniko

Guest

larper

Guest

dragon04

Guest

robnissen

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page