Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

@studiot

Could you give an example of a physical theory that keeps infinity in its equations without assigning it a finite value to draw conclusions, similar to how the theory of relativity deals with the impossibility of reaching the speed of light without transforming the infinity generated at v=c by its finite value?

I asked you 3 questions.

All of which you ignored.

One of those questions actually contains the answer to your reply question.

 

Do you call this a discussion ?

 

I can assure you the rules here do not.

[Z.10.46]

@studiot Could you please clarify your question? that make it difficult to understand. If you can provide a clearer version of your question, I'd be happy to help explain it and its connection to the discussion.

And this question here, for everyone: I received a publication offer for this theory. Is this journal reputable?

Editorial Board

Dr Lin Li (US) || Wenlin Gong (China) 25+ Million Reader base

Dear Dr. 

Greetings from the Journal of Modern and Applied Physics!

We have gone through your previous article entitled “The existence of a physical phenomenon that accelerates particles with mass to the speed of light and transforms them into dark energy and dark matter”. We know your expertise so; we are glad to invite you to submit any type of article for our prestigious journal. Your contribution is of great importance for us and it will help the journal to establish its high standards.

The Journal aims to provide the most reliable source of information on the current developments in the area of acoustics, astrophysics and geophysics, biophysics, computational physics, condensed matter physics, engineering physics, laser and quantum electronics, medical physics, optics, semiconductor physics and devices, solid state physics, space physics. We went through your article and wanted to appreciate you for your article, which is very engrossing and enlightening. We, the Editorial member of the Journal of Modern and Applied Physics, believe that our readers will be inspired upon reading your article.

Advantages of publishing with us

Many journals wait several months to decide on a paper after it has been submitted, which is often frustrating for authors. Peer review is typically finished by our Journal staff in 6 weeks. Therefore, waiting more than 8 weeks for a decision is extremely uncommon.
Many authors have discovered that the feedback from our peer reviewers significantly improves their finished papers.

Recently Published articles in the Journal

Configuring observables solving method quantum matrix gravity the proton and neutron as distortional structures in the geometric manifold.
The modification of Newton's gravitational law and its application in the study of dark matter and black holes.
String-like elementary particles based on photon
Time Blast Wave Theory for the Expansion of the Universe
Black holes as geometric distortional extrema
The energy "time"
Submission Link-https://www.pulsus.com/submissions/modern-applied-physics.html

Anticipating your interest with a quick reply.

Cordially,

Managing Editor
+44-7723-59-8358
Journal of Modern and Applied Physics

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

@studiot Could you please clarify your question? It seems to contain some typos or errors that make it difficult to understand. If you can provide a clearer version of your question, I'd be happy to help explain it and its connection to the discussion.

Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

What was unclear about my first and most important question?

There were no spelling mistakes and it was written in textbook correct English.

 

Since I placed 3 question marks in my first post I referred to 3 questions in my second post.

So why do you reply in the singular ?

 

Note I spotted and enquired about a contradiction in your original post.

It was also unclear to me whether you main interest concerned the mathematics and or physics of infinity, as the title suggests, as against a particular effect in Physics.

[John Cuthber]

"Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?!"
Yes, particularly if you use a reductio ad absurdum argument.

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

It is absurd to imagine that something with a non-zero rest-mass  could get to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

[Z.10.46]

Sorry, I don't speak English, I use a translator to understand and respond. Here's the answer to the first question: In my question here, is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light? I noticed that in all other theories in physics, they try to define what corresponds to infinity as a finite value. However, in the theory of relativity, this is not the case, and infinity is preserved as it is to conclude that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

For the second question: I provided the analogy with the Casimir effect, where it gives a well-defined finite value to a divergent series 1+2+3...=-1/12. There are also other examples in physics where it does the same.

 

For your third question, I didn't understand the connection with this discussion. Could you please clarify your question and its relevance to the discussion?

 

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

"Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?!"
Yes, particularly if you use a reductio ad absurdum argument.

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

It is absurd to imagine that something with a non-zero rest-mass  could get to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so

"Could you define what 'infinite energy' or 'infinite mass' means in physics😁?

And why do we try to attribute a finite value to it in all physical theories except for relativity?

I have defined for relativity it as M(c)=-M(c-1), and E=-c^2*M(c-1). It's just a matter of conducting the experiment to know what actually happens.☺️

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

I have defined it as M(c)=-M(c-1), and E=-c^2*M(c-1).

I don’t know what this means. c has units, so c-1 makes no mathematical sense. And it looks like you just threw a minus sign in there, with no justification.

Perhaps it would be better to ask if you can derive the equations.

 

 

[Z.10.46]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Je ne sais pas ce que cela signifie. ca des unités, donc c-1 n'a aucun sens mathématique. Et on dirait que vous venez de mettre un signe moins là-dedans, sans justification.

Il serait peut-être préférable de demander si vous pouvez dériver les équations.

 

 

v is no longer a vector when v=c, so v-1=c-1 with 1 is sclaire with unité m/s is not a vector either, but merely scalars with the same unit.

c=3.10^8 m/s, and c-1=(3.10^8-1) m/s have the same unit. E=m*c^2 is true for low velocities, but for velocities close to the speed of light, we have E=M(v)*c^2. So, here E=M(c)*c^2=-M(c-1)*c^2.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

c=3.10^8 m/s, and c-1=(3.10^8-1) m/s have the same unit. E=m*c^2 is true for low velocities, but for velocities close to the speed of light, we have E=M(v)*c^2. So, here E=M(c)*c^2=-M(c-1)*c^2.

c = 3*10^8 m/s = 1 ft/ns, and c-1 = (1-1) ft/ns = 0 ft/ns

[Z.10.46]

v is no longer a vector when v=c, so v-1=c-1 with 1 being a scalar unit of m/s is also not a vector but a scalar. c=299,792,458 m/s, so c-1=299,792,457 m/s.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Genady]

c=1 ft/ns soit c-1=0 ft/ns

[Z.10.46]

20 minutes ago, Genady said:

c=1 pied/ns soit c-1=0 pied/ns

c-1=299,792,458 m/s-1m/s=299,792,457m/s

In the context of special relativity, as the velocity v approaches the speed of light c, the relativistic mass M(v) increases without limit and tends to infinity. Therefore, M(c) is indeed considered infinite.

As a result, the energy E calculated using E = M(c) * c^2 would also be infinite.

However, when we use the formula E = -M(c-1) * c^2, since M(c-1) is a finite value, the energy E would also be a finite value.

Yes, that's correct. I have a finite negative energy, which can be tested in this experiment.

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

v is no longer a vector when v=c, so v-1=c-1 with 1 is sclaire with unité m/s is not a vector either, but merely scalars with the same unit.

c=3.10^8 m/s, and c-1=(3.10^8-1) m/s have the same unit. E=m*c^2 is true for low velocities, but for velocities close to the speed of light, we have E=M(v)*c^2. So, here E=M(c)*c^2=-M(c-1)*c^2.

c = 3 x 10^8 ms, but also 3 x  10^5 km/s and 186,000 miles/sec. You could convert it to furlongs/fortnight. You can represent it in many ways with different units.

c-1 makes no mathematical sense

E=mc^2 is true only at rest

You still have not derived your equation - you just wrote it down. That’s not how physics is done.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

we have E=M(v)*c^2.

The right side of the equation doesn't yield the proper units for energy, so it can't be correct.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

"Could you define what 'infinite energy' or 'infinite mass' means in physics😁?

No, and that's the point.
It's clearly absurd.

[Z.10.46]

@John Cuthber

@Bufofrog

But instead of discussing the infinity that is absurd in physics, we reduce its complexity to a finite thing M(c-1) or E=-M(c-1)^c^2 where the 1 in c-1 is dimensionless.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

Therefore, M(c) is indeed considered infinite.

No, it is not considered infinite.

 

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

I have a finite negative energy, which can be tested in this experiment.

No, you do not have such a thing.

[Z.10.46]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Non, il n'est pas considéré comme infini.

 

Non, vous n'avez pas une telle chose.

If, as we exclude the possibility of traveling at c=v because it would require infinite energy, here we define this infinite energy as its mass M(c-1), even though 1 is dimensionless. This could explain dark energy and dark matter, which do not manifest in our dimension.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Z.10.46 said:

M(c-1), even though 1 is dimensionless

You cannot subtract a dimensionless value from a value which has a dimension. Fail.

[Z.10.46]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Vous ne pouvez pas soustraire une valeur sans dimension d'une valeur qui a une dimension. Échouer.

And how do we exclude the possibility of traveling at v=c, as it would require infinite energy/mass? We cannot precisely define what this infinite energy or mass is. However, by attempting to define it, we arrive at -M(c-1), where the 1 is dimensionless. Perhaps, it is due to this reason that we cannot observe dark matter and dark energy when a particle travels at v=c.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Z.10.46 said:

And how do we exclude the possibility of traveling at v=c, as it would require infinite energy/mass? We cannot precisely define what this infinite energy or mass is.

Yes, we can. This energy being infinite means that any finite amount of energy is not sufficient to accelerate a massive body to the speed of light.

[Z.10.46]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, we can. This energy being infinite means that any finite amount of energy is not sufficient to accelerate a massive body to the speed of light.

Could you answer his two questions:

Can you give an example in any physical theory or concussion when infinite energy comes out?
Why do we agree to do this just in relativity?
M(c)=M(c-1) can also have a physical meaning even if 1 has no dimension.

It can explain dark matter and dark energy when a particle goes a speed v=c.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Genady]

Just now, Z.10.46 said:

Can you give an example in any physical theory or concussion when infinite energy comes out?
Why do we agree to do this just in relativity?

We don't do it in relativity. We just say that you cannot reach speed of light with a finite amount of energy. No infinite energy is used anywhere in relativity.

[Z.10.46]

And where does the conclusion come from that nothing can travel at the speed of light?

As you mentioned, it is because we would need an infinite amount of energy, and, of course, this energy becomes from the equation. So, please answer these two questions.

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Genady]

Just now, Z.10.46 said:

And where does the conclusion come from that nothing can travel at the speed of light? As you mentioned, it is because we would need an infinite amount of energy, and, of course, this energy becomes excluded from the equation. So, please answer these two questions.

 

Needing infinite amount of energy is a phrase which means that no finite amount of energy will do it. Say this:

"A massive body cannot reach speed of light using a finite amount of energy."

There is no "infinite" in this statement.

This is what relativity says.

[Z.10.46]

Needing infinite amount of energy is a phrase which means that no finite amount of energy will do it. Say this:

In all other physical theories when the equation comes out an infinity of energy makes it a regulization and renormalization and this infinity of energy is equal to a finite energy.

why accept that in relativity the existence of an absurdity to make a conculsion?

 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46