Faster than the Speed of light!

[dragonstar57]

Special relativity says that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. That is, anything with mass must travel through space at speeds less than the speed of light. And particles with zero mass must travel through space at the speed of light.

 

But general relativity says that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and it does.

 

And per Quantum Electrodynamics(QED), photons do not travel at only the speed of light through space. Per Richard Feynman's QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter,(p. 89):

 

"There is a (probability) amplitude for light to go faster or slower than the conventional speed of light. However, these amplitudes are very small and tend to cancel out over large distances."

and of course there is some possibility that there is some kind of exception to relativity (as unlikely as that is)

i'm just saying that we shouldn't say ANYTHING is imposable until we know everything about the universe

[between3and26characterslon]

Two particles 'i' and 'l' set off together at SOL, they pass position 'd' together and then position 'g' together, exactly as would be expected. When they get to position 'k' particle 'l' gets a kick from somewhere and travels faster than SOL. Particle 'l' is now travelling backwards in time which means when particle 'i' gets to position 'n' 1 second later (t=4), particle 'l' gets to the same position 1 second earlier (t=2). So if you were to travel faster than the SOL then would you not just appear to have been travelling from the opposite direction.

 

t=0

a-----b-----c-----d-----e-----f-----g------h-----i-----j-----k-----l-----m-----o------n-----p-----q-----r-----s-----t-----u-----v-----w-----x-----y-----z

i->

l->...............................................................................................................................................................................<l

t=1

a-----b-----c-----d-----e-----f-----g------h-----i-----j-----k-----l-----m-----o------n-----p-----q-----r-----s-----t-----u-----v-----w-----x-----y-----z

i------------------>

l------------------>..............................................................................................................................<l

t=2

a-----b-----c-----d-----e-----f-----g------h-----i-----j-----k-----l-----m-----o------n-----p-----q-----r-----s-----t-----u-----v-----w-----x-----y-----z

i------------------------------------>

l------------------------------------>...................................................................<l

t=3

a-----b-----c-----d-----e-----f-----g------h-----i-----j-----k-----l-----m-----o------n-----p-----q-----r-----s-----t-----u-----v-----w-----x-----y-----z

i------------------------------------------------------------>

l------------------------------------------------------------><l

t=4

a-----b-----c-----d-----e-----f-----g------h-----i-----j-----k-----l-----m-----o------n-----p-----q-----r-----s-----t-----u-----v-----w-----x-----y-----z

i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

l------------------------------------<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------l

 

 

t=4 might be a bit misleading because at the exact moment you went faster than SOl you would meet yourself coming from the other direction and destroy yourself. Logically then you could think that this describes the spontaneous creation and destruction of sub atomic particles (just saying this could be a logical consequence if the above model is correct, I'm not trying to supersede any current theory)

[Tirgan]

Einstein's is not wrong. Because the light is travelling in spatial medium at c speed. And all of measurement of light speed was in spatial medium. But, According to H particle-paths hypothesis in my website hparticles.com/ . The forces e.g. gravitational, electromagnetical can be propagated within H hall package tunnels (Worm hole similarity) in abstract vacuum spontaneously. The forces of this kind e.g. gravitational is constructed of contractons ( Analogous to virtual particles) that released within these tunnels at superluminal speed. (Nominated action at a distance) toward the mass medium at contracted manner.

M. Reza Tirgan

[Marqq]

Two particles 'i' and 'l' set off together at SOL, they pass position 'd' together and then position 'g' together, exactly as would be expected. When they get to position 'k' particle 'l' gets a kick from somewhere and travels faster than SOL. Particle 'l' is now travelling backwards in time which means when particle 'i' gets to position 'n' 1 second later (t=4), particle 'l' gets to the same position 1 second earlier (t=2). So if you were to travel faster than the SOL then would you not just appear to have been travelling from the opposite direction.

...

 

t=4 might be a bit misleading because at the exact moment you went faster than SOl you would meet yourself coming from the other direction and destroy yourself. Logically then you could think that this describes the spontaneous creation and destruction of sub atomic particles (just saying this could be a logical consequence if the above model is correct, I'm not trying to supersede any current theory)

 

OK, from what I understand, relativity does not EVER say travel backwards along a time continuum is caused by high speeds/inertial environs. From the model of time-dilation, the affected system is slowed (and ok, possibly reversed, but I doubt it), but this doesn't change its position in the time continuum. Wasn't Einstein's idea that any matter (I don't believe he spoke of other particles in this) would turn to pure energy upon reaching the speed of light?

 

Tirgan-- you forgot your hyphen again... Everyone, his site is url eliminated by moderator

Edited June 26, 2011 by swansont
deleted url

[swansont]

Einstein's is not wrong. Because the light is travelling in spatial medium at c speed. And all of measurement of light speed was in spatial medium. But, According to H particle-paths hypothesis in my website hparticles.com/ . The forces e.g. gravitational, electromagnetical can be propagated within H hall package tunnels (Worm hole similarity) in abstract vacuum spontaneously. The forces of this kind e.g. gravitational is constructed of contractons ( Analogous to virtual particles) that released within these tunnels at superluminal speed. (Nominated action at a distance) toward the mass medium at contracted manner.

M. Reza Tirgan

 

!

Moderator Note

Tirgan, please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined this site. Promoting non-mainstream science outside of speculations and advertising your website are against the rules. You are at risk of being banned outright as a spammer.

 

Do not derail this thread by responding to this warning

 

Wasn't Einstein's idea that any matter (I don't believe he spoke of other particles in this) would turn to pure energy upon reaching the speed of light?

 

I am not aware of any reference to Einstein claiming that. I'm not sure where this idea came from; it's persistent and incorrect.

[alpha2cen]

More important thing is what makes us can not over the speed of the light. Is it only relativity theory problem? Are there other reasons?

[csmyth3025]

A more important thing is: what makes us think we can not go over the speed of the light? Is it only relativity theory problem? Are there other reasons?

There are observational reasons. Basically, nothing has been found to go faster than the speed of light no matter how much energy we pump into it. We have found, however, that the relativistic mass of a particle will increase in exact accordance with the predictions of special relativity as it is accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light. This is strong evidence that special relativity represents the way things really do work - and special relativity predicts that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle with rest mass (or a spaceship, for instance) to the speed of light (photons have no rest mass).

 

Chris

[IM Egdall]

Chris is right. Just ask a particle physicist at CERN or any other particle accelerator facility. They find exponentially more and more energy is required to get a particle with mass to go closer and closer to the speed of light. This indicates that an infinite amount of energy would be needed to get that particle to actually reach the speed of light. This is just what relativity predicts.

[alpha2cen]

I have just find something which is faster than light.

After Big-Bang Inflation had occurred immediately in the Universe.

So there is something faster than light at the very high energy state.

[khaled]

The theoretical physicist dr. Kaku have mentioned 4 things that travel faster than light,

 

check this: Link

[alpha2cen]

Red shifted light from far away star also move faster than original speed of the light.

The light speed is

absolute light speed from the far away star = light speed + Universe expansion speed

[swansont]

The theoretical physicist dr. Kaku have mentioned 4 things that travel faster than light,

 

check this: Link

Kaku points out three things that are misapplications of "nothing travels faster than c" (an incorrect summary of relativity), and a fourth that's speculative physics (negative matter). The universe isn't a thing, so it can expand faster than c. The pattern of a light swept across the sky is likewise not a "thing" — the photons are unconnected causally, and are not limited to the speed of light. Entanglement does not allow superluminal communication. So there is no example of anything traveling faster than light in that list.

[time]

all light travels at the same speed...

so if you move just as fast as it...it would apear to stand still!

kind of like if your standing next to the train trax, you will see each box car a they zoomed pased you.but if you were moving at the exact speed of the boxcar, say you were sitting inside of it. all you would see is the one boxcar because the new boxcars cant reach you. go faster and you could see boxcars that shld have already passed you.

 

if you look, at a clock then travel at the speed of light away from it..it would apear to stop..due to the fact that the newly changed light cant reach you...

so if you couild move faster...you would see light that was already emmited.

 

therefore seeing back in time!!!!

Edited August 9, 2011 by time

[Dekan]

But general relativity says that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and it does.

 

I ME, could you help clarify for me, what's meant by space expanding faster than light?

 

Surely "space" isn't a substance? It's just a word we can use for the empty gap between objects. Eg, if two objects are 1 mile apart, we can say there's a "gap" of 1 mile between them. Or we can say there's a "space" of 1 mile between them.

 

So the words "space" and "gap" seem to be synonymous. If that's true, then the above quote from your post, could be rephrased:

 

"General Relativity says that a gap itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and it does."

 

But what exactly would we understand by that?

[IM Egdall]

I ME, could you help clarify for me, what's meant by space expanding faster than light?

 

Surely "space" isn't a substance? It's just a word we can use for the empty gap between objects. Eg, if two objects are 1 mile apart, we can say there's a "gap" of 1 mile between them. Or we can say there's a "space" of 1 mile between them.

 

So the words "space" and "gap" seem to be synonymous. If that's true, then the above quote from your post, could be rephrased:

 

"General Relativity says that a gap itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and it does."

 

But what exactly would we understand by that?

 

Let me try to answer you. The distance between galaxies is increasing over time. I guess you could call it the "gap" between galaxies. Evidence for this is the so-called red-shift. Light from distant galaxies is shifted in frequency towards the red or lower frequency.

 

Now where ever we look in the sky, the further away a distant galaxy is the greater the red-shift we see. This is interpereted per general relativity as due to the expansion of the universe itself over time. This expansion stretches the frequency of the light from these distant galaxies; thus we see a lower frequency by the time the light reaches us.

 

So it is though these galaxies are speeding away from us. And the further out we look, the greater the red-shift so the greater a galaxy appears to be speeding away. And, per general relativity, there is no limit to this speed. It can be greater than the speed of light. In fact red-shifts of very distant galaxies make them appear to be speeding away from us at greater than the speed of light.

 

The tricky part is that this apparent motion of distant galaxies away from us is actually, per general relativty, the expansion of the space between the galaxies. The galaxies themselves show relatively little motion. It is the space between galaxies everywhere in the universe which is expanding. To quote from Wikipedia:

 

"The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself."

 

Hope this helps.

 

all light travels at the same speed...

so if you move just as fast as it...it would apear to stand still!

kind of like if your standing next to the train trax, you will see each box car a they zoomed pased you.but if you were moving at the exact speed of the boxcar, say you were sitting inside of it. all you would see is the one boxcar because the new boxcars cant reach you. go faster and you could see boxcars that shld have already passed you.

 

if you look, at a clock then travel at the speed of light away from it..it would apear to stop..due to the fact that the newly changed light cant reach you...

so if you couild move faster...you would see light that was already emmited.

 

therefore seeing back in time!!!!

 

Einstein himself famously pondered a similar scenerio (at age 16). Per Maxwell, light is made of continuously changing electric and magnetic fields. The changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, and vice-versa. The key word here is changing. The fields have to change over time to continue to produce each other.

 

Einstein realized that if he caught up to a light wave, it would look as though it were standing still to him (as you point out). But per Maxwell, a stationary light wave is impossible. It must move to exist. From this, Einstein realized that we can never catch up to a light beam. In fact, the speed of a light beam is always the same; it is unaffected by our (uniform) motion.

 

By the way, a hypothetical particle called a tachyon does travel faster than the speed of light, giving some wild time effects like the ones you mention. See Causality in the link below:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

[questionposter]

Quantum tunneling isn't traveling faster than light because a particle is not traveling distance over time (because if it did, that means it would accelerate and that means it would emit light, which doesn't happen in quantum tunneling). Instead, a particle "just appears" in another locations because it has a likeliness to be there at all. Or I guess because a particle's wave function extends indefinitely, a particle's existence itself technically extends indefinitely, but seems to be concentrated in specific regions, so when a particle does appear in another location instantaneously, its not moving, its just another part of its existence showing up.

Edited August 13, 2011 by questionposter

[dragonstar57]

so how can space in between 2 objects expand faster than c? is that not saying that they are moving apart at greater than C? space is just ...space it can't really expand because it isn't really anything space is just an area where nothing is so if we say "the area where nothing is can expand faster than c" does that not imply that the objects themselves are moving?

[csmyth3025]

so how can space in between 2 objects expand faster than c? is that not saying that they are moving apart at greater than C? space is just ...space it can't really expand because it isn't really anything space is just an area where nothing is so if we say "the area where nothing is can expand faster than c" does that not imply that the objects themselves are moving?

You're both right and wrong. Distant galaxies do, indeed move apart faster than c. The problem you're having is that you're trying to apply the concepts of Special Relativity (which are only locally valid) to a phenomenon that's occurring across different inertial frames of reference. General Relativity, not Special Relativity, applies when there is no single global frame of reference.

 

We can say that a distant galaxy is moving away from us at a speed greater than c because we're in one frame of reference - our local patch of space. You might think of it as anything within a few tens of millions of light years from us. The distant galaxy is in its own similar frame of reference - which might also be anything within a few tens of millions of light years from it.

 

Things at the edge of our local patch of space are moving away from us according to the Hubble constant (~70 km/s per 3.26 Mly). Their velocity is small compared to the speed of light, though (maybe 600 or 700 km/s). Likewise for things at the edge of the local space of the distant galaxy.

 

Nothing with mass can move through our local patch of space - our inertial frame of reference - at the speed of light relative to us (or relative to anything else in our local frame of reference). The same goes for the inertial frame of reference around the distant galaxy.

 

Between us and the distant galaxy there may be a thousand other "local patches of space" (inertial frames of reference). Each one is expanding "slowly" just like ours. All that expansion adds up.

 

...Moreover, we know there is no contradiction with special relativity when faster than light motion occurs outside the observer's inertial frame. General relativity was specifically derived to be able to predict motion when global inertial frames were not available. Galaxies that are receding from us superluminally are at rest locally (their peculiar velocity vpec = 0) and motion in their local inertial frames remains well described by special relativity...

(ref.

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0/0310808v2.pdf )

The above quote is taken from Section 3 of a 2003 paper written by Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis entitled "Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe". This paper is well worth reading and it may help to clear up some of the questions you have.

Chris

Edited to elaborate on inertial frames of reference.

Edited August 21, 2011 by csmyth3025

[dragonstar57]

so if object A is moving at some fraction of C (lets call this x) and object B is moving at some fraction of C (lets call this y) and if you were to view from one of the objects (with the assumption that it is stationary) and assuming that x+y>C the other object would be moving faster than C relative to the 1st object and that's kewl if they are far enough away...?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

so if object A is moving at some fraction of C (lets call this x) and object B is moving at some fraction of C (lets call this y) and if you were to view from one of the objects (with the assumption that it is stationary) and assuming that x+y>C the other object would be moving faster than C relative to the 1st object and that's kewl if they are far enough away...?

Nope; in relativity, velocities don't add up like that. Suppose object A and B are shooting towards each other at 0.9c. From A's perspective, B isn't coming at it at 0.9 + 0.9 = 1.8c; B is coming at it at [imath]\frac{0.9+0.9}{1+0.81}=[/imath] 0.994c.

 

Relativity is fun that way.

[dragonstar57]

Nope; in relativity, velocities don't add up like that. Suppose object A and B are shooting towards each other at 0.9c. From A's perspective, B isn't coming at it at 0.9 + 0.9 = 1.8c; B is coming at it at [imath]\frac{0.9+0.9}{1+0.81}=[/imath] 0.994c.

 

Relativity is fun that way.

...and yet they impact when they both reach the same point?

which would be sooner than if you were to just look at object B's speed relative to object A? what i don't understand how they both can be heading towards some unknown point at x and will arive at z but if you look it through relativity they won't meet at the point...? can someone make a diagram of this explaining the effects of relativity with additional points.... a---x---b if speed of a= speed of b = C and -light second will the objects collide in 3 secs or in 3 sec a and b have reached point x but not reached each other?