Profound speculations on the Speed of objects

[Randolpin]

Speed is how fast an object move in this physical reality. An object can move because there is space around it. We know base on the teaching of G.R. that no object can travel faster than the speed of light or even the speed of light itself because it is the top speed which our reality limits. We also know base on G.R. that an object that moves actually slows the time base on the perspective of observer and it changes it's shape as well as it increase it's mass.

Now the intriguing part of it is that base on my speculation, if an object happens to travel faster than the speed of light it actually disappear on the view of an observer.Another profound speculation is that the object disappear because it actually violate the top speed of reality which is the speed of light. Speed of light has a profound relation on space. The object happened to be travelling faster than the speed of light disappear from the observers perspective because (my most profound speculation) it actually happens to be travelling beyond space-time !!!

 

Those were only my speculations that I want to share on you.. Thank you..

Edited December 13, 2016 by Randolpin

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

You need some sort of falsifiable prediction. Current theory says that a massive object would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. How do you get to a speed beyond that?

 

Not to mention that there is some physics that is known for objects moving faster than c which suggests that they have to be unstable. So you would need to present the new physics that would allow for this.

 

Without addressing issues such as these, your post doesn't meet our threshold for speculations discussion.

 

[Randolpin]

!

Moderator Note

 

You need some sort of falsifiable prediction. Current theory says that a massive object would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. How do you get to a speed beyond that?

 

Not to mention that there is some physics that is known for objects moving faster than c which suggests that they have to be unstable. So you would need to present the new physics that would allow for this.

 

Without addressing issues such as these, your post doesn't meet our threshold for speculations discussion.

 

 

 

I want to clarify first that my speculation is base only on the situation of what would happen to an object travelling beyond c, not speculating a massive object.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Randolpin

[Mordred]

This has been modelled if you know where to look. Though that modelling makes FTL particles even less likely to exist. Start with the math involved in Tachyons.

 

Though we have never found tachyons they were hypothesized to exist but as of yet we have zero supportive evidence. In point of detail to make the math work under SR the tachyon must take on a non interacting spinless negative energy state. Even then you have to deal with causality violations.

 

I would start there, though just using the math of tachyons won't simply be enough as that very model makes the existence of tachyons less likely. So you will need to deal with the problems associated with tachyons.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred

[fiveworlds]

Current theory says that a massive object would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.​

 

 

Where does it say that???

[StringJunky]

 

 

Where does it say that???

 

That's why a massive object can't reach c; it requires an infinite amount of energy.

Edited December 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

 

 

Where does it say that???

Under the transformations of GR/SR.

 

 

Just to be clear on tachyonic particles. The very same mathematical predictions that show the possibility of tachyons under SR. Also make the existence of tachyons extremely unlikely.

[fiveworlds]

Under the transformations of GR/SR.​

 

 

Found it. It comes from the e=1/root(1-(v^2/c^2))mc^2 where it is undefined for v=c.

 

Not to be a ninny but all that says is that we can't accelerate to exactly c. I.E. we would break the light barrier since it is defined again for speeds greater than c.

Edited December 13, 2016 by fiveworlds

[swansont]

 

 

Found it. It comes from the e=1/root(1-(v^2/c^2))mc^2 where it is undefined for v=c.

 

Not to be a ninny but all that says is that we can't accelerate to exactly c. I.E. we would break the light barrier since it is defined again for speeds greater than c.

 

 

What happens to the energy for values that exceed c?

 

 

I want to clarify first that my speculation is base only on the situation of what would happen to an object travelling beyond c, not speculating a massive object.

 

You discussed mass in your OP, as well as other phrasing which only makes sense for massive objects. Massless objects travel at c.

[Country Boy]

Perhaps you do not understand what the words "profound" and "speculation" mean​. To talk about "if an object happens to travel faster than the speed of light" immediately after having said "no object can travel faster than the speed of light" is not "speculation", it is simply non-sense. And non-sense is never "profound".

[Sriman Dutta]

When the OP told about disappearance of a body, it struck to my mind about the annihilation of particles.

[fiveworlds]

What happens to the energy for values that exceed c?

 

 

When Cherenkov Radiation was discovered Einstein revised GR and wrote SR which allows for the existence of Tachyons. Stating that if a particle exceeds c it will always travel faster than c unless an external force causes it to slow down.

[Mordred]

Not correct Einstein wrote SR before he developed GR.

[swansont]

 

 

When Cherenkov Radiation was discovered Einstein revised GR and wrote SR which allows for the existence of Tachyons. Stating that if a particle exceeds c it will always travel faster than c unless an external force causes it to slow down.

 

 

Um, no. It was observed almost 30 years after SR was published, which was developed before GR (not after). Other people developed the theory using SR (Frank and Tamm, who shared in the Nobel in 1958), though Heaviside had predicted the phenomenon (from an EM perspective, I presume) in 1888.

[geordief]

Are there any implications from Cherenkov radiation that could have a bearing on the subject of potential faster than light- in- a- vacuum speeds?

Edited December 13, 2016 by geordief

[Strange]

Are there any implications from Cherenkov radiation that could have a bearing on the subject of potential faster than light- in- a- vacuum speeds?

I seem to recall that there have been some experiments to detect the Cherenkov radiation that would be emitted by tachyons. If they existed. (Results have all been negative so far.)

Edited December 13, 2016 by Strange

[Lord Antares]

!

Moderator Note

 

Current theory says that a massive object would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. How do you get to a speed beyond that?

 

I'm surprised by this as well. How does travelling at 99% c require finite energy, while travelling at c requires infinitely more than that?

Is this why c can't be reached? Why don't they mention this more often, it makes it easier?

 

Also, why did CERN try reaching the speed of light then?

[swansont]

I'm surprised by this as well. How does travelling at 99% c require finite energy, while travelling at c requires infinitely more than that?

Is this why c can't be reached? Why don't they mention this more often, it makes it easier?

Also, why did CERN try reaching the speed of light then?

The equation is nonlinear, and diverges at c.

 

Who is "they"?

 

CERN has not tried to reach c with massive particles.

[Strange]

I'm surprised by this as well. How does travelling at 99% c require finite energy,

 

 

Traveling at 99% c does not require infinite energy. Particle accelerators achieve higher speeds than that.

 

Is this why c can't be reached? Why don't they mention this more often, it makes it easier?

 

It is used very often as an explanation. I am surprised you have missed it.

 

Also, why did CERN try reaching the speed of light then?

I don't think they have tried to do that.

[Sensei]

I'm surprised by this as well. How does travelling at 99% c require finite energy, while travelling at c requires infinitely more than that?

99% of speed of light is just Lorentz Factor 7..

 

If you have rest-mass of electron 9.11*10^-31 kg

Kinetic energy of electron going with 0.99c will be (9.11*10^-31 kg * (7-1))*c^2=4.9126*10^-13 J

[swansont]

And the key is that the Lorentz factor blows up at v=c.