travelling faster than light

[lxxvii24]

Bodies travellin at the speed of light like photons have always been said to be massless, so it suffices for me to conclude that travellin at the speed of light could only be possible if one could attain 0 mass. So wat then is mass? What is the mass of a wave. If Einstein converted mass into energy, couldnt mass be converted to waves. Waves dont have weight, so y cant mass be transformed in to a wave, and solve our problems.

[bascule]

The only way for something to travel faster than the speed of light according to Special Relativity is for it to have an imaginary mass (i.e. negative mass squared). These proposed particles with imaginary mass are called tachyons, and would travel backwards in time. I don't think very many people actually take this concept seriously.

[Xyph]

Disregarding all the usual problems inherent in matter teleportation (uncertainty principle, unrealistic energy requirements, etc, etc), you could maybe deconstruct something atom by atom, convert the resulting atoms to photons, beam them at light speed to their destination, convert them back into atoms, and reconstruct the original object, but that doesn't seem remotely practical.

[danny8522003]

Mass in physics refers to an objects 'rest' mass, i.e. when it is not moving (at rest). Waves do not have rest mass and can therefore travel at light speed, anything with rest mass (like you, me, a proton etc) cannot.

 

The problem with converting 'things' into waves is sure impossible. When you think of the critical mass for nuclear fusion/fission and the properties of their atoms, it leads me to believe that not just anything can be turned into energy with the technology we have now. The other bigger problem is, once you have a wave how do you get an atom from it?

[DRU]

The other bigger problem is, once you have a wave how do you get an atom from it?

cant you measure light as a particle or a wave, but never both at the same time?

[5614]

cant you measure light as a particle or a wave, but never both at the same time?

 

Everything has a wave and a particle side of things.

 

Uncertainty principle says that you can't know the momentum and position of a "thing" at any one time.

 

Momentum is a wave property, and position is a particle property. What uncertainty means at a deeper level is that the more you know about the wave properties of a "thing" the less you know about the particle properties of that same "thing".

 

Indeed you are correct in saying that you can observe/measure light as either a wave or a particle... and you are also correct in saying that you can only observe it as 1 of these at a time.

 

eg. if you measure light's wave properties (it's momentum) you will know little/nothing about it's particle properties (it's position).

[5614]

The problem with converting 'things' into waves is sure impossible. When you think of the critical mass for nuclear fusion/fission and the properties of their atoms, it leads me to believe that not just anything can be turned into energy with the technology we have now. The other bigger problem is, once [b']you have a wave how do you get an atom from it?[/b]

[I added the bold]

 

I'm unclear what you are saying/asking here. A particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, this is a consequence of wave/particle duality.

 

However a particle will not act as a wave and a particle at the same time (see my previous post). If you setup an experiment to observe a particle as a particle you will indeed observe it as a particle, and similarly setting an observation up to see the particle as a wave will show you a wave.

 

You ask "how do you get an atom from it [a wave]"... well the atom is both an atom and a wave at the same time, when you observe something you do it in a way that it returns a specific result. What I mean is that you set up your observation equipment to observe either a particle, or a different setup to observe a wave. So depending on how you setup your observation equipment the atom will either be a wave or a particle.

[lxxvii24]

The only way for something to travel faster than the speed of light according to Special Relativity is for it to have an imaginary mass (i.e. negative mass squared). These proposed particles with imaginary mass are called tachyons, and would travel backwards in time. I don't think very many people actually take this concept seriously.

See, i have always believed it is possible to attain negative mass, and i have a theory .BUt i am waitin for the right time to release it. I m still putting thru the test.

[RoyLennigan]

You ask "how do you get an atom from it [a wave]"[/i']... well the atom is both an atom and a wave at the same time, when you observe something you do it in a way that it returns a specific result. What I mean is that you set up your observation equipment to observe either a particle, or a different setup to observe a wave. So depending on how you setup your observation equipment the atom will either be a wave or a particle.

an atom is matter, a photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field. atoms do not make up EM waves. i think you are confusing atoms with particles. what he was asking is how could you theoretically get matter from energy; how could you turn an EM wave into matter.

[lxxvii24]

The only way for something to travel faster than the speed of light according to Special Relativity is for it to have an imaginary mass (i.e. negative mass squared). These proposed particles with imaginary mass are called tachyons, and would travel backwards in time. I don't think very many people actually take this concept seriously.

See, i have always believed it is possible to attain negative mass, and i have a theory .BUt i am waitin for the right time to release it. I m still putting thru the test.

[lxxvii24]

[I added the bold]

 

I'm unclear what you are saying/asking here. A particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time' date=' this is a consequence of wave/particle duality.

 

However a particle will not act as a wave [u']and[/u] a particle at the same time (see my previous post). If you setup an experiment to observe a particle as a particle you will indeed observe it as a particle, and similarly setting an observation up to see the particle as a wave will show you a wave.

 

You ask "how do you get an atom from it [a wave]"... well the atom is both an atom and a wave at the same time, when you observe something you do it in a way that it returns a specific result. What I mean is that you set up your observation equipment to observe either a particle, or a different setup to observe a wave. So depending on how you setup your observation equipment the atom will either be a wave or a particle.

 

well u see, i think the theory u are quoting says light could be a PARTICLE or A WAVE but cant be both at the same time. It is like two sides of a coin, both sides cant exit in the same frame.

[lxxvii24]

an atom is matter, a photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field. atoms do not make up EM waves. i think you are confusing atoms with particles. what he was asking is how could you theoretically get matter from energy; how could you turn an EM wave into matter.

you see i have a scale for that already, matter from energy and matter from waves or vice versa. May i remind us that, everytime,the science community debunks a theory which it doesnt understand, and this trend continues.

200 years ago, i guess no body believed that man could get to the moon. So let us leave the discussion with an open end. Let us not shut it out completely. I think, the reason all this things arent known yet is that we are not well equipped for it yet. Take travellin faster than sound as aan instance at a point is was impossible, but now we know that it is possible.

 

I think the answer to all this lies in our understanding of negativce masses.

THis is y i use the quote below.

[5614]

an atom is matter, a photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field. atoms do not make up EM waves. i think you are confusing atoms with particles

A photon is the quanta of the EM field (quantum is plural) . Maybe my post was not so clear, or maybe you misunderstood it, either way, the confusion would have come from my emphasis on the point that matter behaves as a wave and a particle, similarly waves e.g. EMR (electromagnetic radiation) behave as a particle and a wave.

 

what he was asking is how could you theoretically get matter from energy; how could you turn an EM wave into matter.

To turn energy into matter, well, I'll use an example... high energy EMR such as a gamma ray can (put simply) turn into an electron/positron pair. So we have a gamma ray --> electron + positron.

 

well u see, i think the theory u are quoting says light could be a PARTICLE or A WAVE but cant be both at the same time. It is like two sides of a coin, both sides cant exit in the same frame.

Light is always a particle and a wave, but uncertainty says that you can only observe it as one at a time. I suppose it's kinda like the coin, but not quite what you said. Both sides of the coin always both exist, but you can only see one of them at a time.

 

I think the answer to all this lies in our understanding of negativce masses.

I disagree... but hey, lets leave the little difference in opinions out for now.

[swansont]

Take travellin faster than sound as aan instance at a point is was impossible' date=' but now we know that it is possible.

[/quote']

 

That was recognized as an engineering difficulty. Supersonic bullets, for example, were already in existence. The key was making an aircraft go that fast, which carries different challenges.

 

FTL is not an engineering issue.

[danny8522003]

[I added the bold]

 

I'm unclear what you are saying/asking here. A particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time' date=' this is a consequence of wave/particle duality.

 

However a particle will not act as a wave [u']and[/u] a particle at the same time (see my previous post). If you setup an experiment to observe a particle as a particle you will indeed observe it as a particle, and similarly setting an observation up to see the particle as a wave will show you a wave.

 

You ask "how do you get an atom from it [a wave]"... well the atom is both an atom and a wave at the same time, when you observe something you do it in a way that it returns a specific result. What I mean is that you set up your observation equipment to observe either a particle, or a different setup to observe a wave. So depending on how you setup your observation equipment the atom will either be a wave or a particle.

 

I understand all that, it's just that lxxvii24 was talking about turning mass into waves and then transmitting it and rebuilding an object. I dont understand how you turn my sideboard into a wave or series of waves, transmit it at the speed of light and then rebuild it again into a sideboard at the other end.

[5614]

Ohhh, I get it now... spose I shoulda properly read the thread first! Now RoyLennigan's post makes more sense when he said "matter from energy"... anyway, yeah, it's impossible.

 

You can't turn an object into a wave, transmit it, then reassemble it back into it's original object.

[wormholeman]

I read all the responses from the 1st post to the last. Seems ya'll

are talkin about teleportation. Turning matter to a wave then

to matter again in a different position in space..is a hard concept

to grasp. Imagining if an object is placed on a surface and the

molecular construction of the object is somehow vaccumed into

a collector where the molecules are converted to electrons

and then converting the electrons to molecules again by..I don't

know..Mabey..Reassembly by means of nano technology.

 

Dose that make any sence?

[bascule]

See, i have always believed it is possible to attain negative mass, and i have a theory .BUt i am waitin for the right time to release it. I m still putting thru the test.

 

It's not negative mass you need, it's imaginary mass

[wormholeman]

It's not negative mass you need, it's [i']imaginary mass[/i]

 

I see, negative mass he is interpreting as (nothing),

what he is thinking is of as is a mass which is

completeley opposite to what solid mass is.

 

Simple!

[gagsrcool]

Any subatomic particle to be specific cannot show particle wave-duality both at the same time.

Why did the particle-wave duality actually come up? Scientists after getting to know that most of the sub-atomic particles travel at very high speed started to conclude that it must have some wave nature as such.

Why?

Let us take some small ball weighing only about .00005 grams. If it is hurled at almost the speed of light and continues to get about in that same speed than to most of us it would act as a wave. But if we take it and its velocity into consideration at a certain point then it is observed as aminute particle.

Very much similar is the electron or any other subatomic particle for that matter. This was how the particle-wave duality got into shape and De Broglie gave his equations very soon.

 

I agree with bascule. But 'imaginary mass' is practically impossible. But its existence becomes impossible as nothing in the Universe can actually go much more faster than the speed of light.

[swansont]

Any subatomic particle to be specific cannot show particle wave-duality both at the same time.

Why did the particle-wave duality actually come up? Scientists after getting to know that most of the sub-atomic particles travel at very high speed started to conclude that it must have some wave nature as such.

Why?

Let us take some small ball weighing only about .00005 grams. If it is hurled at almost the speed of light and continues to get about in that same speed than to most of us it would act as a wave. But if we take it and its velocity into consideration at a certain point then it is observed as aminute particle.

Very much similar is the electron or any other subatomic particle for that matter. This was how the particle-wave duality got into shape and De Broglie gave his equations very soon.

 

The deBroglie wavelength is given by [math]\lambda = h/p[/math]

 

Note that momentum is in the denominator. An object travelling near the speed of light will be more "point-like" and less "wave-like" - it is the low momentum states, often because the object has a very small mass, that most clearly demonstrate what is called wave behavior.

[Klatu]

Group,

 

I'm rather suprized that no one has mentioned Tesla waves aka scalar waves or even quantum tunneling.

 

Does anyone remember the Nimtz demonstration?

 

If your would like to check out these sites:

http://www.catandogs.net/english/Scalar_Waves/scalar_waves.html

 

I highly recommend Tom Beardens site:

http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html

 

Superluminal waves have been around since the 1900s thanks to N. Tesla and they have many interesting uses the current world is not ready for.

 

K

[Severian]

The question 'what is mass' is actually rather deep, and it is a question we are currently trying to answer at particle colliders. We think mass is caused by the Higgs boson, but this has not yet been confirmed experimentally.

 

for a 'quasi-political' explanation of the Higgs boson, suitable for the general publiuc, see

http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/higgsa.html

[swansont]

If your would like to check out these sites:

http://www.catandogs.net/english/Scalar_Waves/scalar_waves.html

 

I highly recommend Tom Beardens site:

http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html

 

Bearden's a perpetual motion crackpot. Why would his work gain your endorsement?

[bascule]

Superluminal waves have been around since the 1900s thanks to N. Tesla and they have many interesting uses the current world is not ready for.

 

Tesla didn't understand Maxwell's Equations. He didn't understand the Inverse Square Law, or maybe he wouldn't have wasted so much of his time on his elusive dream of wireless electrical power for the whole world.

 

Tesla did invent an awesome form of communication; the underlying technology behind radio, usurped by Marconi who was actually concerned with making it practical.

 

Tesla certainly deserved the nobel prize for his work on AC electric power and radio. But he quickly became eccentric and his ideas less grounded in practical, real world applications.

 

Considering he barely understood the mathematics behind electromagnetic radiation, how are you claiming he stumbled upon technologies "the world is not ready for?"