Why Cant We Go Faster Than Light?

[Thomas Kirby]

I think that I would look for a better reason than an equation that was supposed to explain why we can't measure etheric drift. Look up the origins of the Lorentz equation.

[CPL.Luke]

the theory of relativity provides the perfect equation for this problem and to illustrate the problem here

 

you mean this

 

F = dp/dt = q(v × B + E)

 

I don't see how that could possibly help demonstrate the reason for why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light better than einstein's theory of relativity, unless you want to attempt to derive relativity from that.

 

also einstein didn't create relativity in order to dispel etheric drift in fact he claimed to have never read the results of the michaelson-morley experiment. He created it to explain mechanics in terms of maxwells equations instead of in newton's work, similar to what string theory is trying to do with QM and GR. he also subsequently used it to explain magnetism

[Thomas Kirby]

The Lorentz contraction was invented to explain that the measuring apparatus foreshortened in the direction of travel, thus making it difficult or impossible to measure our progress through the space-time continuum using the Michelson-Morley apparatus.

[herme3]

no' date=' look at the formula

 

for instance 1/0 = infinity (simplified from math jargon)[/quote']

 

I'm confused. When I type 1/0 in a calculator, I get an error...

 

jsut solve it and you will see, its all in algebra 1level math

 

I actually had to take the Algebra 1 exam three times before I could pass it...

 

Math and Spanish exams were the only exams that I ever failed. Math is not my subject. I can barely count without a calculator. I guess all of my intelligence is reserved for programming computers and writing poetry.

[ydoaPs]

Ok' date=' I am really bad at math, so I can't solve formulas very well. However, to get the answer of infinity, wouldn't one of the numbers in the problem need to be infinity?

 

(number)+(number)=number

 

(infinity)+(number)=infinity

 

(infinity)+(infinity)=infinity[/quote']

iirc, operations on infinity are undefined. btw, mass is not infinite at c; it is momentum(mass is invarient) and it is not infinite, it tends towards infinity as your velocity relative to a given observer tends toward c.

no' date=' look at the formula

 

for instance 1/0 = infinity (simplified from math jargon)

 

jsut solve it and you will see, its all in algebra 1level math[/quote']

no. 1/0 is undefined. [math]\lim_{x{\to}0}\frac{1}{x}=\infty[/math]

[CPL.Luke]

yeah, I thought that it would be best to simplify that from the mathmatical version (of which I am well aquainted) herme3 thats why your calculator gave an error message.

 

also the lorentz contraction is in and explained in the theory of relativity it is useless in itself

[Thomas Kirby]

The results of the Lorentz formula reach infinity when it divides by zero.

[CPL.Luke]

yes, but that is irrelevant in why nothing can go faster than light

[ydoaPs]

*cough*relatvistic addition of velocities*cough*

[math]v=\frac{v_1+v_2}{\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}}[/math]

[CPL.Luke]

sorry I meant more that without special relativity, the lorentz contraction is a meaningless equation in this debate, I know that it has everything to do with it in special relativity

[Mowgli]

Im wondering what the reason is. Is it a rule because we cant push objects that fast with any technology we can come up with or is the rule there because of some univerisal law meaning that there's no such thing in the universe that would allow us to do that?

An object moving away from an observer can never appear to be moving away from an observer faster than the speed of light. This is because the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the object emitting the light, and it takes some finite time for the light to reach the observer. Even if the object was actually flying away faster than light, it would appear to be slower than light. And, as the apparent speed approaches that of light, then the real speed tends to infinity, which of course, takes an infinite amount of energy to reach. If we attibute this effect to the basic property of space and time, then you get the coordinate transformation of SR. BTW, this attribution is valid, because space itself is a cognitive model created by our brain based on the light inputs our eyes receive. It is always possible to redefine the properties of space and time in order to account for the distortions in our perception due to motion.

 

What happens to you at light speed, what if I were to be able to a bullet and shoot it out into space faster then light like 200,000 miles a second, would it seize to exsist, would it create a black hole would it just become invisible and move really really fast, what would happen?

Well, nothing will happen to you at light speed. To an observer (with respect to whom you are traveling faster than light), you would appear contracted and aging slower etc. And you would appear to be still traveling slower than the speed of light (if you are moving away from him, that is.)

 

See http://www.TheUnrealUniverse.com

 

Mowgli

[CPL.Luke]

An object moving away from an observer can never appear to be moving away from an observer faster than the speed of light. This is because the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the object emitting the light' date=' and it takes some finite time for the light to reach the observer. Even if the object was actually flying away faster than light, it would appear to be slower than light. And, as the apparent speed approaches that of light, then the real speed tends to infinity, which of course, takes an infinite amount of energy to reach. If we attibute this effect to the basic property of space and time, then you get the coordinate transformation of SR. BTW, this attribution is valid, because space itself is a cognitive model created by our brain based on the light inputs our eyes receive. It is always possible to redefine the properties of space and time in order to account for the distortions in our perception due to motion.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandMasterK

What happens to you at light speed, what if I were to be able to a bullet and shoot it out into space faster then light like 200,000 miles a second, would it seize to exsist, would it create a black hole would it just become invisible and move really really fast, what would happen?

Well, nothing will happen to you at light speed. To an observer (with respect to whom you are traveling faster than light), you would appear contracted and aging slower etc. And you would appear to be still traveling slower than the speed of light (if you are moving away from him, that is.)

 

See http://www.TheUnrealUniverse.com

 

Mowgli [/quote']

 

no it is impossible to reach light speed relative to any observer, its not just an illusion you can't do it

[mustang292]

no it is impossible to reach light speed relative to any observer, its not just an illusion you can't do it

 

Remember it is still only a theory. One that hopefully will be proven wrong. Otherwise the human race will never be able to continue. Our sun will overtake earth at some point. If we can't find a way to travel faster than light, then the human race will be doomed.

[swansont]

The Lorentz contraction was invented to explain that the measuring apparatus foreshortened in the direction of travel, thus making it difficult or impossible to measure our progress through the space-time continuum using the Michelson-Morley apparatus.

 

That's why Lorentz invented it.

 

Einstein derived what would happen under the postulates of special relativity, and came up with the same equation. Unlike the ad-hoc nature of Lorentz, the relativistic use has an actual reason for using the contraction formula.

[swansont]

Remember it is still only a theory. One that hopefully will be proven wrong. Otherwise the human race will never be able to continue. Our sun will overtake earth at some point. If we can't find a way to travel faster than light, then the human race will be doomed.

 

I am of the opinion that anyone who uses "only a theory" when discussing scientific theories should be flogged. It demonstrates that either they are ignorant of the definition of theory, or they are being intellectually dishonest in trying to denigrate the theory.

 

In science, it doesn't get any better than being a theory.

[ydoaPs]

Remember it is still only a theory. One that hopefully will be proven wrong. Otherwise the human race will never be able to continue. Our sun will overtake earth at some point. If we can't find a way to travel faster than light, then the human race will be doomed.

yea, it's only one of the best tested theories ever. if you say "only a theory" it makes you look uneducated in the meaning of a theory.

[Xyph]

Otherwise the human race will never be able to continue. Our sun will overtake earth at some point. If we can't find a way to travel faster than light, then the human race will be doomed.

Faster than light travel isn't a necessity for long range space travel. If the sun does engulf the Earth when it becomes a red giant (which isn't yet an absolute certainty, as far I'm aware, although it'll make little difference either way since if its not engulfed it'll certainly be roasted to uninhabitability long before it would be swallowed) it'll be in 5 gigayears or so. It'll only take a fifth of that time for the Earth to become dangerously hot, I think, but that's still plenty of time to expand even at speeds well below lightspeed.

[wormholeman]

I think the speed of light still travels at c (186.000 miles per second) , from one source.

[CPL.Luke]

also GR left the door halfway open to the possibility of faster than light travel

[wormholeman]

ya

[mustang292]

Originally Posted by swansont;

I am of the opinion that anyone who uses "only a theory" when discussing scientific theories should be flogged. It demonstrates that either they are ignorant of the definition of theory, or they are being intellectually dishonest in trying to denigrate the theory.

 

In science, it doesn't get any better than being a theory.

 

2 months ago I was the subject of a Complete Phsycological Evaluation. They stated in the report that they found me to be of High Intelligence. They didn't give me an IQ score however.

 

They did however say that my main problem is explaining my point of view clearly enough for others to comprehend.

 

So here is a Quote from Stephen Hawking. Maybe it will help explain the what I am trying to tell you:

 

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

[mustang292]

Originally Posted by yourdadonapogos:

yea, it's only one of the best tested theories ever. if you say "only a theory" it makes you look uneducated in the meaning of a theory.

 

It was once theorized that we could not go faster than the speed of sound. "Best tested theories ever" my a@# !

[swansont]

Originally Posted by swansont;

 

2 months ago I was the subject of a Complete Phsycological Evaluation. They stated in the report that they found me to be of High Intelligence. They didn't give me an IQ score however.

 

They did however say that my main problem is explaining my point of view clearly enough for others to comprehend.

 

So here is a Quote from Stephen Hawking. Maybe it will help explain the what I am trying to tell you:

 

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time' date=' "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."[/i']

 

And your point? Provisional, yes, but confirmed and supported by a huge amount of evidence. "Just a theory" implies that there is something more to be had, and there isn't.

[J'Dona]

It was once theorized that we could not go faster than the speed of sound. "Best tested theories ever" my a@# !

Just to answer ths point quickly, breaking the sound barrier was only a technical problem facing engineers of the time. When they said it wasn't possible, it was because they didn't have strong enough materials then, or powerful enough engines, but eventually they designed them and the sound barrier was broken.

 

On the other hand, bringing an object to light speed is not just a technical difficulty, but rather it's not physically possible for the reasons described in posts above. Certainly, this might be disproven, but as far as I'm aware they've accelarated particles to fractionally less than the speed of light in particle accelarators, and this limitation and the relationships described hold true, so it's safe to assume for now that it's reliable in the same way that we assume the law of conservation of energy is.

[mustang292]

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time' date=' "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."[/i']

 

And your point? Provisional, yes, but confirmed and supported by a huge amount of evidence. "Just a theory" implies that there is something more to be had, and there isn't.

 

 

I guess my point is that if we all gave up the way you seem to, we would have never passed the speed of sound because it had been theorized that we couldn't, even after "a huge amount of evidence." To accept that since we have been unable to achieve the speed of light and all tests and evidence so far have failed does not mean that in the future someone may not finally achieve what you are so readily to accept as impossible.

 

We are still in the infancy of knowledge itself. Thousands of years from now our ancestors will look back in history and consider us virtually no more knowledgeable than a caveman.