Why can't C be exceeded?

[Exidor]

I had the unorthodox idea that inside a black hole C might be exceeded for in falling matter and pass into imaginary time. I base this on letting v exceed c in:

1/((1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2))

If C can't be violated then colonizing the stars is next to hopeless. I don't personally believe that C is absolute. I know this would be a major inconvience for Physics in general. I would venture that at some point Einstein's may of thinking will be replaced just like Newton's was.

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, Exidor said:

I had the unorthodox idea that...

!

Moderator Note

Non-mainstream ideas need to be posted in our Speculations section, partly so students know it's not something they can use in class, so I've moved it there. Please read the special rules that govern this section, and support your arguments with evidence. Explain your reasoning when making claims and assertions. "I don't personally believe c is absolute" is a pretty hand-wavy argument. You'll need to explain how your ideas work as well as mainstream explanations. Please be specific and clear (this will save pages of calls for clarity).

Good luck. 

 

[Ghideon]

9 minutes ago, Exidor said:

I would venture that at some point Einstein's may of thinking will be replaced just like Newton's was.

Remeber that Einstein's ideas was accepted because of observations and experimetal results. What experiments do you suggest that will make Einstein's formulas invalid? 
Also note that Newton is still good enough for many situations, his thinking has not been completely replaced. I believe scientific progress will find additions to Einstain's thinking rather than a replacement. 

[Exidor]

Wasn't there something in the news about tachyons at CERN recently? I guess if you detected one that would be an indication Einstein missed something. Quantum entanglement over a large distance might be a candidate. The current Cosmological model has some serious problems like dark matter and dark energy being undetectable. I don't see how an object wouldn't continue to accelerate after passing through the event horizon of a black hole. Is the escape velocity of a black hole C at the event horizon? Making any predictions based on my idea would be difficult and would take some time. Thanks for listening.

[Endy0816]

Well dark matter is detectable via gravity. Hydrogen attracted to it even causes webs to show up.

You get division by zero at c. Mathematically any distance shrinks to nothing too.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Endy0816
phone acting wonky

[Janus]

42 minutes ago, Exidor said:

I had the unorthodox idea that inside a black hole C might be exceeded for in falling matter and pass into imaginary time. I base this on letting v exceed c in:

1/((1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2))

If C can't be violated then colonizing the stars is next to hopeless. I don't personally believe that C is absolute. I know this would be a major inconvience for Physics in general. I would venture that at some point Einstein's may of thinking will be replaced just like Newton's was.

Energy considerations are more of an issue when it comes to interstellar travel than the c speed limit is.

Let's say that you want to travel to a star some 70 light yrs away.  It is a colony ship, so you only need to worry about ship time, which you want to keep to 1 yr

Under Relativity, you would need to travel at 0.999897954 c and would require 1.08e18 joules of energy/kg of ship (getting up to speed and slowing down at the end. ) that's about 1/500 of the total energy output for the World over one year, and that is for 1 kg, a colony ships would require centuries worth of the World's energy output.

Now let's figure it out using good old Newtonian physics and removing the c speed limit. to make that same trip in one year would require traveling at 70c, and would require an energy of 4.41e18 joules,  about 4 times as much as we would need using Relativity!

It not the speed limit that's the real issue. Relativity, with its speed limit actually saves us energy over Newton and no speed limit.

And in reality, it would be even worse, as these numbers assume 100% efficiency in converting energy to ship velocity.

Theoretically, if you had a ship that could accelerate at 1g, you could reach the center of the galaxy in 20 yrs ship time.  But for any realistic rocket drive, this would require an amount of fuel that would equal the mass of many, many stars.

[Exidor]

Check the news, they may have detected a tachyon at CERN. I have read about warp drive being a real possibility. There is also "Musha jump drive".

Edited October 25, 2018 by Exidor
Revision

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Exidor said:

Check the news, they may have detected a tachyon at CERN. I have read about warp drive being a real possibility. There is also "Musha jump drive".

A link is prefereable to "check the news"

[Ghideon]

22 minutes ago, Exidor said:

Check the news, they may have detected a tachyon at CERN

Can you provide a reference? The only thing I found was about tau neutrinos that were supposed to have traveled faster than the speed of light. But it was not confirmed, instead it was dismissed as a faulty element in the equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Ghideon
x-posted with swansont. Grammar.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Exidor said:

Wasn't there something in the news about tachyons at CERN recently?

There was a flawed result from 4 or 5 years ago that had superluminal neutrinos, but that was traced to a bad optical fiber connection.

1 hour ago, Exidor said:

I guess if you detected one that would be an indication Einstein missed something. Quantum entanglement over a large distance might be a candidate.

Not from anything we currently know.

 

[Exidor]

Sorry, my error, I was confused about when they thought they had detected a tachyon. I misread it.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Exidor said:

I had the unorthodox idea that inside a black hole C might be exceeded for in falling matter and pass into imaginary time. I base this on letting v exceed c in:

1/((1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2))

That equation is from Special relativity and applies to particles in inertial frames of reference (ie. no gravity) moving relative to one another. This doesn't apply to black holes, where you would need to use the equation for gravitational time dilation; for a Schwarzschild black hole this is: [math]t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r}}[/math]

(Where r_s is the Schwarzschild radius)

This would (like the SR equation) imply that time becomes imaginary within the event horizon. But this equation only applies outside the black hole. To understand what happens inside (or better, as you fall through) the event horizon, you need to use different coordinates. For example the Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html.

In this case, it does appear that something falling in goes faster than the speed of light and approaches infinity near the singularity. But, it never exceeds the speed of light! That is because the coordinate speed of light also increases.  Explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates (For any local observer, the infalling object will never exceed the speed of light.)

 

[Exidor]

Thanks for the information. It's very helpful.

[Rajiv Naik]

lets keep it simple-

 

we cannot exceed speed of information which creats us.

All information which creats this universe is brought by photons/radiation wave , so how information can travel faster than its  source ?

 

it has nothing to do with actual speed with which light travels.

 

 

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, Rajiv Naik said:

we cannot exceed speed of information which creats us.

I did not get that, to be able to answer, can you please explain? What information creats us? 

2 hours ago, Rajiv Naik said:

All information which creats this universe is brought by photons/radiation wave , so how information can travel faster than its  source ?

I have some trouble with the statement above. Of course a radio signal (=information) can travel faster than the antenna (=source) that sent the signal?

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Ghideon
spelling

[Rajiv Naik]

with what. I have read latest -

all force are basically due to motion - centrifugal or centrifugal (Electric or magnetic flux)

all particles are ultimately virtual particles With different quanta of radiation or enegy recieved from radiation.

 

at Bigbang when light radiation traveled it was with much faster speed than current speed of light, as it travelled its speed reduced as wave slowed down (distribution of energy). (we can see now that universe is expanding faster than speed of light we observe). Paradoxical isnt it? but its vaccume which does it (67% of our universe is filled with dark energy (radiation)

photons as well as rest of the particles are basically virtual particles .

mass or malter is basically a form of energy-storing information of mass in virtual particles giving them mass or-which we perceive as mass.

particles only oscillates or pulsates they do not have momentum.

illussion of momentum is created by traveling radiation- (origin of energy-is due. to rule of chaos or thermodynamics applied to vaccume)

quantum theory is thus coordinated with modern classical physics.

I think this is enough?

 

 

 

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

all force are basically due to motion - centrifugal or centrifugal (Electric or magnetic flux)

This is not true. I assume you misunderstood what you read. 

31 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

I think this is enough?

I think it almost entirely incorrect in every detail. 

[Ghideon]

 

10 hours ago, Rajiv Naik said:

I think this is enough?

I do not find an answer to my question in your reply. Your text is not compatible with my understanding of Big Bang for the reasons @Strange noted. Maybe you need to ask some specific question(s) about the topic?

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Rajiv Naik said:

at Bigbang when light radiation traveled it was with much faster speed than current speed of light, as it travelled its speed reduced as wave slowed down (distribution of energy). (we can see now that universe is expanding faster than speed of light we observe). Paradoxical isnt it?

The maximum speed limit applies to massive objects. There for spacetime is not really inhibited by "c":   Light has no rest mass. 

Quote

photons as well as rest of the particles are basically virtual particles

No, virtual particles are by definition, particle, anti particle pairs that are created, and annihilate in less than a Planck instant.

[Moontanman]

I recently watch a PBS video that explained that inside a black hole that time and space do indeed swap out to some extent, time becomes space like and space becomes time like.  I honestly do not have the math skills to really understand it.. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I recently watch a PBS video that explained that inside a black hole that time and space do indeed swap out to some extent, time becomes space like and space becomes time like.  I honestly do not have the math skills to really understand it.. 

Inside the event horizon, in Schwarzschild coordinates, the radial direction becomes time-like so the (notional) singularity is in your future. Which is another way of understanding why everything ends up in the centre. 

[koti]

Quote

Why can't C be exceeded?

The shortest reasonable answer I can think of, easy to grasp to anyone including children would be:
Because that's what we observe when we do experiments - that's how the world works.

[Itoero]

C can't be exceeded because it can't.