I have proven faster then light is an impossibility

[marine(uc)]

okay based on the theory of reletivity light will always go the same speed, even if your going the speed of light and you turn on a light it will move away from you. but from a fixed point of reference it will move the normal speed of light.

 

Now people always talk about needing to find a way to move faster then light to travel to distant stars.

 

BUT it is impossible. because even if we were to be able to go faster then light through some imaginary means, we would just go the speed of light no matter how much faster we were going.

 

BECAUSE, time slows down to equal the speed of light the faster your going. so if you were going faster then light, time would just slow you down so ur acually just going the speed of light.. just like it does to light right now.

 

so basically, even if we go faster time will slow down enough that the speed of light is our maximum speed.

otherwise then if u ran and turned on a flashlight, from a fixed point the light would move faster then light.

 

but this is just my theory.

[ajb]

This is well understood in special relativity.

[marine(uc)]

oh. i thought people only thought it was unattainable. i didn't think they thought of what would happen if you acually went faster.

[Gilded]

i didn't think they thought of what would happen if you acually went faster.

 

They indeed have, for example if something has negative mass it will always travel at superluminary speeds. However, as something of negative energy goes back in time it can be seen as having positive energy and going forward in time. AFAIK this is how causality is preserved even with hypothetical superluminary particles like tachyons as no information is transferred FTL.

[marine(uc)]

They indeed have, for example if something has negative mass it will always travel at superluminary speeds. However, as something of negative energy goes back in time it can be seen as having positive energy and going forward in time. AFAIK this is how causality is preserved even with hypothetical superluminary particles like tachyons as no information is transferred FTL.

 

lol im only 17. whats causality mean? and FTL?

[ajb]

They indeed have, for example if something has negative mass it will always travel at superluminary speeds. However, as something of negative energy goes back in time it can be seen as having positive energy and going forward in time. AFAIK this is how causality is preserved even with hypothetical superluminary particles like tachyons as no information is transferred FTL.

 

 

You mean negative mass squared.

[Gilded]

You mean negative mass squared.

 

Ah indeed, v > c results in an imaginary mass.

 

lol im only 17. whats causality mean? and FTL?

 

FTL is an abbreviation of "faster than light".

 

Causality concerns cause-effect relations, and is an important part of relativity. Violation of causality creates a paradox, for example the famous grandfather paradox.

[marine(uc)]

ohhh thats really interesting lol. i read the grandfather paradox. thats a neat situation

[Pete]

okay based on the theory of reletivity light will always go the same speed, even if your going the speed of light and you turn on a light it will move away from you. but from a fixed point of reference it will move the normal speed of light.

 

Now people always talk about needing to find a way to move faster then light to travel to distant stars.

 

BUT it is impossible. because even if we were to be able to go faster then light through some imaginary means, we would just go the speed of light no matter how much faster we were going.

 

BECAUSE, time slows down to equal the speed of light the faster your going. so if you were going faster then light, time would just slow you down so ur acually just going the speed of light.. just like it does to light right now.

 

so basically, even if we go faster time will slow down enough that the speed of light is our maximum speed.

otherwise then if u ran and turned on a flashlight, from a fixed point the light would move faster then light.

 

but this is just my theory.

 

You're thinking purely in terms of special relativity. Within general relativity there are ways to get around this by "cheating". One way has been devised and is known as the Alcubierre Warp Drive. That and other examples of faster than light travel are on a NASA web site at

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/glenn/research/warp/ideachev.html#alcub

 

Pete

[ydoaPs]

ohhh thats really interesting lol. i read the grandfather paradox. thats a neat situation

 

Grandfather "paradox" isn't all that neat and it really isn't a paradox at all. It's just a common misconception due to the failure of one to follow the timeline rather than the traveller. If you follow the timeline, it's rather simple.

[Zero]

Several thoughts:

 

In principle, according to the Everett-Deustch “many-worlds interpretation,” the Grandfather Paradox has little to do with either (a) the timeline involved, or (b) the traveler himself. The common fallacy lies in the concept that only one spatial-dimension is traveled. Realistically, the only plausible solution is that the “time-traveler” is involved in some sort of peripatetic activity (for lack of a better expression) in the multiverse, i.e., multiple levels of dimensional reality are being accessed to complete the theoretical scenario.

 

As for FTL in Special Relativity, first, we have the EPR paradox. I know, I know: you're saying, “it’s a highly-contested model.” Nonetheless, I re-present it as indication (however subtle it might be) of FTL potentiality.

 

Further, special relativity doesn't preclude FTL speeds. It forbids an object traveling at v < c from reaching c. If, however, the object was ALREADY moving at v > c at the moment of its inception, theoretically, it should be acceptable in the framework of special relativity (it would not be able to decelerate to < c).

Edited July 22, 2008 by Zero
multiple post merged

[Pete]

Grandfather "paradox" isn't all that neat and it really isn't a paradox at all.

Please prove this assertion

It's just a common misconception due to the failure of one to follow the timeline ...

Please explain what you mean when you use the term timeline. Usually the term timeline refers to a sequence of events. If that is the case your comment failure of one to follow the timeline is not clear.

... rather than the traveller. If you follow the timeline, it's rather simple.

Please clarify. Timeline according to whom? Different worldlines given different timelines, hence the Grandfather paradox.

Sorry to keep bugging: I needed to add clout to what I was saying...special relativity doesn't preclude FTL speeds.

What part of this thread indicates that we are sticking to special relativity?

 

Pete

[Zero]

"What part of this thread indicates that we are sticking to special relativity?"

 

Nothing indicated that we were STICKING to SR, I was simply responding to the comment earlier stating that the original scenario was "well understood in SR."

 

I was merely using SR scenarios to demonstrate the possibility of FTL within those scenarios.

 

Besides, the possibility of FTL only increases as we attain proximity to General Relativity. The causality violations become more and more easily explained and/or less frequent.

 

PS: I wasn't arguing the point, just throwing out ideas.

[Pete]

"What part of this thread indicates that we are sticking to special relativity?"

 

Nothing indicated that we were STICKING to SR, I was simply responding to the comment earlier stating that the original scenario was "well understood in SR."

 

I was merely using SR scenarios to demonstrate the possibility of FTL within those scenarios.

 

Besides, the possibility of FTL only increases as we attain proximity to General Relativity. The causality violations become more and more easily explained and/or less frequent.

 

PS: I wasn't arguing the point, just throwing out ideas.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. By the way, I wasn't trying to criticize you, just curious as to somethings that you posted, that's all.

 

Pete

[Zero]

Cool, thanks Pete.

Seriously, however, the concept of FTL intrigues me, as does so-called “time-travel.” The whole “Time’s-Arrow” concept/paradox has always been one of my favourite…even better than the Grandfather Absurdity.

However, I was wondering, if I have questions to pose to the (obviously greater) intelligent users here, where might I post…?

My question relates to the Dirac Constant, and the subsequent frequency in Planck’s Relation.

Not sure if I can pose off-topic questions here, or need to start my own post.

Thanks for any info.

[swansont]

Cool, thanks Pete.

Seriously, however, the concept of FTL intrigues me, as does so-called “time-travel.” The whole “Time’s-Arrow” concept/paradox has always been one of my favourite…even better than the Grandfather Absurdity.

However, I was wondering, if I have questions to pose to the (obviously greater) intelligent users here, where might I post…?

My question relates to the Dirac Constant, and the subsequent frequency in Planck’s Relation.

Not sure if I can pose off-topic questions here, or need to start my own post.

Thanks for any info.

 

If you're thinking it's a new topic, start a new thread, especially if you would be posting in a thread someone else has started.

[booker]

Hey, Pete.

 

You're thinking purely in terms of special relativity. Within general relativity there are ways to get around this by "cheating". One way has been devised and is known as the Alcubierre Warp Drive. That and other examples of faster than light travel are on a NASA web site at

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/glenn/research/warp/ideachev.html#alcub

 

Pete

 

Re: Alcubierre’s "Warp Drive". This one premises some form of exotic energy:

 

"...First, to create this effect, you’ll need a ring of negative energy wrapped around the ship, and lots of it too."