Why Cant We Go Faster Than Light?

[Xyph]

Well, while it seems fairly likely that the light speed barrier will remain unbreakable, that doesn't mean there won't be ways around it. That some form of traversible wormhole or warp drive will one day allow us to work around this inconveniently slow universal speed limit while still adhering to the laws of Physics as we know them at the moment isn't completely implausible.

[wormholeman]

I was searching on the web and I found these other articals about

breaking the light speed barrier.

 

http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=rogers-web&tab=&p=breaking+light+speed+barrier

[swansont]

I guess my point is that if we all gave up the way you seem to' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

AFAIK there aren't any sections of science that were based on a postulate of the speed of sound being an absolute limit. As such, the sound barrier as a physical limit was never a scientific theory. It was conjecture. Breaking the sound barrier did not have repurcussions that surpassincg c would - it's a postulate of special relativity, so now you have to explain all of the results of SR that are consistent with c being a limit, in terms of that not being the case.

[CPL.Luke]

also when chuck yeager broke the sound limit bullets had been doing it for hundreds of years :/

 

It was well known that it was possible, just difficult. Just like the space elevator

[Mowgli]

And your point? Provisional' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Why do you think there isn't anything more to be had? That sounds more like a statement of faith...

 

"We are only at the beginning of the development of the human race; of the development of the human mind, of intelligent life - we have years and years in the future. It is our responsibility not to give the answer today as to what it is all about, to drive everybody down in that direction and to say: 'This

is a solution to it all.' Because we will be chained then to the limits of our present imagination" -- Richard Feynman

 

- Mowgli

[ydoaPs]

Mowgli, you seem to not understand what a theory is.

[wormholeman]

Richard Feynman is a fine fellow.

[Mowgli]

AFAIK there aren't any sections of science that were based on a postulate of the speed of sound being an absolute limit.

 

Well, that is because we are not bats We don't sense our world using sound. If we echolocated our way around, we would have found that the speed of sound was a fundamental constant in our physics.

 

Breaking the sound barrier did not have repurcussions that surpassincg c would - it's a postulate of special relativity' date=' so now you have to explain all of the results of SR that are consistent with c being a limit, in terms of that not being the case.[/quote']

Again, in a bat's reality, the repurcussions of breaking the sound barrier are almost identical to those of superluminality in SR - time reversal, causality violation etc.

 

Best,

Mowgli

[ydoaPs]

Well' date=' that is because we are not bats We don't sense our world using sound. If we echolocated our way around, we would have found that the speed of sound was a fundamental constant in our physics.

 

 

Again, in a bat's reality, the repurcussions of breaking the sound barrier are almost identical to those of superluminality in SR - time reversal, causality violation etc.

 

Best,

Mowgli[/quote']

that is baseless rubbish

[swansont]

Why do you think there isn't anything more to be had? That sounds more like a statement of faith...

 

By definition. In science, there is no higher step to attain than to be considered a theory. I think you and mustang are trying to read more into the statement than is there.

[swansont]

I was searching on the web and I found these other articals about

breaking the light speed barrier.

 

http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=rogers-web&tab=&p=breaking+light+speed+barrier

 

Some basic things to consider:

 

The postulates of special relativity do not translate into "nothing can travel faster than light"

 

Popular articles are written by journalists who often get details wrong and are in no way a substitute for actual peer-reviewed journal articles.

 

And in areas like this' date=' you have to consider Sturgeon's law - "90% of everything is crud." Searches that yield electrogravitics and UFO web sites can't be considered to be particularly reliable.

 

The Wang experiment at NEC, for example (cited in several of your links), is a case of anomalous dispersion, or reshaping of the light pulse. Interesting physics, but causality was not violated.

[Mowgli]

By definition. In science, there is no higher step to attain than to be considered a theory. I think you and mustang are trying to read more into the statement than is there.

Yes, I guess I misunderstood your statement as "there is nothing more to be had than SR." In time, SR and GR as theories will be superseded by other, more general notions of space, time and reality.

[danny8522003]

Is what i've read about light travelling at 300c in caesium gas a load of rubbish, or can it be explained without affecting SR?

[ydoaPs]

i've never heard of that. got a link?

[mustang292]

By definition. In science, there is no higher step to attain than to be considered a theory. I think you and mustang are trying to read more into the statement than is there.

 

For you to try and read only a theory and nothing more is pathetic. In science we seek the unbarable truth. Theory does not equal Truth. Therefore, you and your dad on a pogo stick are willing to accept what you learn in a dictionary to be your reality. PATHETIC.

[wormholeman]

a dictionary is just a source for definitions, thats all.

[CPL.Luke]

danny I think what your reffering to is what swansont refferenced in post #61 where a light pulse entered cessium gas and then the (check me on this) leading edge of the wave becomes the peak.

 

this gives the impression that the light entered the cessium before it actually did, giving the impression that light traveled faster than c

[swansont]

danny I think what your reffering to is what swansont refferenced in post #61 where a light pulse entered cessium gas and then the (check me on this) leading edge of the wave becomes the peak.

 

this gives the impression that the light entered the cessium before it actually did' date=' giving the impression that light traveled faster than c[/quote']

 

Yes, that's basically it.

[GrandMasterK]

Wow I love how you guys take the ball and run with it. No one remarked on my high speed black hole repetition idea so im assuming it's ridiculously stupid.

[revprez]

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?

 

It is a natural consequence of a constant speed of light (in a vacuum) in all observer frames. If no matter how fast (or slow) a traveler goes, light is always traveling 3x10^8 m/s faster in his frame of reference, there's obviously no way you can catch up with it.

 

What happens to you at light speed...

 

You, as a massive body, cannot travel at the speed of light.

 

Rev Prez

[Lokarin]

Hmm.... not to get into a debate... but here are MY hypothesis... feel free to dis it all you want... (A professor actually laughed at me when I said this...)

 

 

1.

Ok, first off.... there is no such thing as speed

E=mc^2

 

that could mean either Mass * meter/second squared (acceleration) or Mass * meter^2/second (velocity squared)

 

*hang with me, this is long and silly*

 

Mass itself is the only constant in the universe... Time, Light, existance... all of that is relative. The REASON (I thinks) that mass 'appears' to become greater at higher speeds is because it is experiancing the effects of 'Time' in a greater degree.

 

IE. An object traveling at the speed of light doesn't become an infinate mass, but rather its mass experiences an infinate amount of time... to the outside observer there would be little difference

 

2.

Secondly...

Light, quite debated, could be either a wave or a particle.... my theory is that it actually is both and that waves and particles are not separate, but on the same spectrum... one being negative values and one being positive values (values of what I don't know) where Light intersects at exactly 0 *or 1, not sure*

 

IE. Once a mass exceeds the speed of light, its no longer comprised of particles, but rather of waves

 

3.

Light is nothing special

Using the speed of light as a goal if hardly a worthy endeavor. Its just another value, there IS nothing special about it... the universe does not depend on the fact that light is always 3x10^8 (or something) m/s and would not come crumbling down if prooven otherwise. Particles travel in relative motion. 2 objects at rest, though appearing to have no velocity, actually could be travelling several thousand m/s. Waves, on the otherhand, I think they do not exist relatively, but absolutely to some universal 0-point. The problem with current theory is they are dealing with Particle light, which APPEARS to travel at a constant velocity

 

IE. Waveform light may have an incredibly higher 'velocity'

 

In summary, since I got a little sidetracked... my Hypothesis is that Mass itself cannot exceed a certain ACCELERATION (velocity is moot). Then it does it becomes light and eventually a wave. While instantaneous to the object, from an outside view this process would appear infininate (effect of time on the object)

 

If I am right... I wonder what a Carbon-Wave would look like... it would appear as a form of radiation as far as we can comprehend

 

Posibilities:

The Tacion particle, the only known object to move faster than light... I think it is actually a Wave, with similar properties to light. What it is a wave of I don't know

 

Impossibilities:

Hey, I was sleeping when I thought this up... its probably screwy out the ying-yang

[Locrian]

Ok' date=' first off.... there is no such thing as speed

E=mc^2

 

that could mean either Mass * meter/second squared (acceleration) or Mass * meter^2/second (velocity squared)

 

[/quote']

 

Uh no, it couldn't mean either of those things. It has units of mass*meter^2/second^2. I think that prof might have had the right idea...

[arkain101]

Here is somthing I just read

 

"In the other experiment, a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds 300 times the normal speed of light.

 

According to the researchers, the main part of the light pulse leaves the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side! "

 

I thought about it for awhile and came up with some idea.

 

Since space is literally not there, im talking about the area between the clusters of particles. Then it can not really be used in cirtain equations since it is mearly a word for somthing that isnt there.

 

Okay so to us on earth we say that light travels around 300,000km/s or something like that, but if you were able to site on the light wave at the very front and go for a ride wouldnt you have time dialation and space contraction? And there for your measurement of how fast light travels would be a different reading?

 

Getting to the point, they claimed the light traveled 300times faster than C.. but if the light is in a different realm because of its intense speed that maybe thats how fast it really is and somehow they were able through that experiment to realize that? If light can act like matter then it would in fact follow the same laws..

So im saying that when we shoot a ray of light it is infact already infact lightyears ahead of where we would interpret it to be? causing it to seem that the light passed through the tank before it even started.

To us it just started but in the world of the light it was already done because of the time dilation and space contraction, but because of our relative persepective we can not detect with conventional experiements?

 

Im starting to think that light is actually infinite, I mean the speed. but depending on your perspective it will apear to be at a given velocity.

 

WHich makes sense.. maybe the universe is actually just as close to us as it is far away.. because of the light dilations..

 

Im still feeling like im not getting the concept properly put into words.. Its like If i turned on a flash light and pointed it at mars, the light is traveling at speed of light and because it can act like matter then it would have such a space contraction that mars would be like 1mm away to the light but at our perspective somehow it takes 3mins or whatever and works out to 70million miles...

 

If this were true it would be insane.. it would mean the universe is actually pin size and infantly apart..

 

Some expert please! give me some thoughts on this before it tears my mind apart.

[Fellbeast]

I belive in your theory about light behaving as a particle and wave but ( and my knowledge is mostly from high school chem.) my theory is that E=mc2 is correct but i think that in some form we r just pure energy to an extent i cant remember what i was originally thinking ( not many people where i live enjoy this) but that was the generality of it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm.... not to get into a debate... but here are MY hypothesis... feel free to dis it all you want... (A professor actually laughed at me when I said this...)

 

 

1.

Ok' date=' first off.... there is no such thing as speed

E=mc^2

 

that could mean either Mass * meter/second squared (acceleration) or Mass * meter^2/second (velocity squared)

 

*hang with me, this is long and silly*

 

Mass itself is the only constant in the universe... Time, Light, existance... all of that is relative. The REASON (I thinks) that mass 'appears' to become greater at higher speeds is because it is experiancing the effects of 'Time' in a greater degree.

 

IE. An object traveling at the speed of light doesn't become an infinate mass, but rather its mass experiences an infinate amount of time... to the outside observer there would be little difference

 

2.

Secondly...

Light, quite debated, could be either a wave or a particle.... my theory is that it actually is both and that waves and particles are not separate, but on the same spectrum... one being negative values and one being positive values (values of what I don't know) where Light intersects at exactly 0 *or 1, not sure*

 

IE. Once a mass exceeds the speed of light, its no longer comprised of particles, but rather of waves

 

3.

Light is nothing special

Using the speed of light as a goal if hardly a worthy endeavor. Its just another value, there IS nothing special about it... the universe does not depend on the fact that light is always 3x10^8 (or something) m/s and would not come crumbling down if prooven otherwise. Particles travel in relative motion. 2 objects at rest, though appearing to have no velocity, actually could be travelling several thousand m/s. Waves, on the otherhand, I think they do not exist relatively, but absolutely to some universal 0-point. The problem with current theory is they are dealing with Particle light, which APPEARS to travel at a constant velocity

 

IE. Waveform light may have an incredibly higher 'velocity'

 

In summary, since I got a little sidetracked... my Hypothesis is that Mass itself cannot exceed a certain ACCELERATION (velocity is moot). Then it does it becomes light and eventually a wave. While instantaneous to the object, from an outside view this process would appear infininate (effect of time on the object)

 

If I am right... I wonder what a Carbon-Wave would look like... it would appear as a form of radiation as far as we can comprehend

 

Posibilities:

The Tacion particle, the only known object to move faster than light... I think it is actually a Wave, with similar properties to light. What it is a wave of I don't know

 

Impossibilities:

Hey, I was sleeping when I thought this up... its probably screwy out the ying-yang[/quote']

[bombus]

I think Einstein's theories make it impossible to accelerate an object up to the speed of light (or faster) but do not actually prove that nothing can go faster than light. I think I am right in saying that, theoretically, if something can be made to instantaneously move at the speed of light the mass increase would not occur. Certain things move at the speed of light (light for one!) and there may be some 'things' (particles/waves/whatever) that move faster than light (FTL) but can never travel slower than the speed of light.

 

In SCi Fi, FTL travel is often acheived by warping space-time around the spaceship, rather than having the spaceship 'move' through space. As spacetime has no mass, it does not increase in mass when moved. As everything is relative, it's the same from the point of view of the travellers within the spaceship as moving through space at the speed of light (or faster).

 

I think in Star Trek they use a Warp Drive. Warp 10 is infinite speed and the SS Enterprise never goes that fast.