Faster then light propulsion

[Alex and physics]

Does anybody have theories on how to move faster than light? My current theory is that if you could possibly make a gravitational wave you could propel a physical body at the speed of light.

 

If you disagree with my theory please so and please post your own theories.

 

 

 

[ACG52]

Nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

[illuusio]

Nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

 

Well, photon ain't massless. It's just too small to measure. Actually electron orbiting around Hydrogen nucleus has velocity over speed of light.

[ACG52]

Well, photon ain't massless. It's just too small to measure. Actually electron orbiting around Hydrogen nucleus has velocity over speed of light.

 

 

Incorrect. Photons are massless. Each refinement in measurement gives a smaller upper limit, if the photon had mass.

 

And electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they exist in probability clouds. The old Bohr model of the atom has been discarded for many decades.

[illuusio]

Incorrect. Photons are massless. Each refinement in measurement gives a smaller upper limit, if the photon had mass.

 

And electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they exist in probability clouds. The old Bohr model of the atom has been discarded for many decades.

 

Well, that's all current belief. Bohr model was discarded because consensus was that there can't be faster than light movement. That was wrong hypothesis for physics.

[ACG52]

Bohr model was discarded because consensus was that there can't be faster than light movement.

 

No, the Bohr model was discarded because quantum mechanics gave a more accurate model.

 

Perhaps you should do some reading before posting erroneous information.

[illuusio]

No, the Bohr model was discarded because quantum mechanics gave a more accurate model.

 

Perhaps you should do some reading before posting erroneous information.

 

Sure there was a few other thing but the idea was good. Adding my own ideas to Bohr model -> complete and functional model.

[Klaynos]

The Bohr model has been observed to be wrong.

[illuusio]

The Bohr model has been observed to be wrong.

 

I know that. I'm trying to say that the idea itself is fine, Bohr model is not. There is too much legacy weight with that model, for example concept of charge. But lets stick with the topic.

Edited September 14, 2012 by illuusio

[too-open-minded]

Einstein won his Nobel prize in physics for this.

 

Was his math wrong?

 

Anything with mass rest that travels the speed of light by his calculations would grow to be the size of the universe. Photons do have mass but only because they are in motion. Anything in motion gains energy and mass.

 

Although Einstein proved newton wrong, somewhat. More along the lines of building off of newton. Maybe someone will build off Einstein.

 

Gravity used to be an attraction between all bodies with mass, now its more of a distortion in space-time from bodies with mass. Even gravity is still just a theory.

 

Everything is not set in stone but Einstein was a brilliant man and I'm going to go with what he said before anybody else lol.

 

Along with the topic, I wouldn't have the slightest idea.

 

Even if we did get to going light-speed in a spaceship. Would the spaceship grow to the size of the universe like Einstein said, or would something else even crazier happen?

[swansont]

Sure there was a few other thing but the idea was good. Adding my own ideas to Bohr model -> complete and functional model.

!

Moderator Note

But this thread would not be the place to discuss this, or to rail against shortcomings of standard physics. You may do so in a separate speculations thread, and only in that thread

 

Einstein won his Nobel prize in physics for this.

The only specifically-named item in his Nobel was the photoelectric effect

 

Anything with mass rest that travels the speed of light by his calculations would grow to be the size of the universe. Photons do have mass but only because they are in motion. Anything in motion gains energy and mass.

Using the standard definitions of items, the mass of the photon is zero. e.g. in E^2 = p^2c^2+m^2c^4 (which reduces to E=mc^2 for objects at rest), that mass is zero for a photon.

 

You can define relativistic mass of E/c^2, but that tends to muddy the discussion. It's also probably unnecessary, since it's just a proxy for total energy.

[illuusio]

 

 

 

Using the standard definitions of items, the mass of the photon is zero. e.g. in E^2 = p^2c^2+m^2c^4 (which reduces to E=mc^2 for objects at rest), that mass is zero for a photon.

 

You can define relativistic mass of E/c^2, but that tends to muddy the discussion. It's also probably unnecessary, since it's just a proxy for total energy.

 

Photon mass is an open issue. Here is one upper limit for it -> http://ggg.hust.edu.cn/upload/1201102181443142003%20PRL%20New%20experimental%20limit%20on%20the%20photon%20rest%20mass%20with%20a%20rotating%20torsion%20balance.pdf

 

 

 

[swansont]

Photon mass is an open issue. Here is one upper limit for it -> http://ggg.hust.edu.cn/upload/1201102181443142003%20PRL%20New%20experimental%20limit%20on%20the%20photon%20rest%20mass%20with%20a%20rotating%20torsion%20balance.pdf

If one wants to contend that photons have mass, one needs results that exclude zero as an answer. Theory says zero, and experiments agree with that. You will never measure exactly zero owing to experimental error. Any conjecture that says "small but immeasurable" is not falsifiable.

[illuusio]

If one wants to contend that photons have mass, one needs results that exclude zero as an answer. Theory says zero, and experiments agree with that. You will never measure exactly zero owing to experimental error. Any conjecture that says "small but immeasurable" is not falsifiable.

 

I agree. Maybe in future there will be an experiment which can give the final answer. I just wonder how massless particle could do anything to electron? but that's just me

 

 

 

[too-open-minded]

Well the thing is that photons do have mass just not at rest. Your both right.

 

Swansont, I read a book called Five equations that changed the world. The book said that Einstein got his Nobel prize for the thing about photons I talked about. I'm sorry if my reference is wrong and not credible.

[ajb]

My current theory is that if you could possibly make a gravitational wave you could propel a physical body at the speed of light.

 

People have studied, for example particle creation and scattering for PP waves. If I recall right, we do not have creation or annihilation in these space-times (as you may at first think). I do not recall any claims that one could accelerate massive bodies (or particles) to the speed of light, though there maybe some subtitles in what you mean here anyway.

 

Do you care to elaborate on your idea?

 

...Einstein got his Nobel prize for the thing about photons I talked about.

 

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/

 

The photoelectric effect was very important in the early development of quantum mechanics and the idea of photons. In "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", Einstein created a model in which the photoelectric effect was explained by absorption of quanta of light, now called photons. It was this simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of light that won Einstein the Nobel prize.

[Moontanman]

This idea has been bandied about a bit, from being possible but impractical, to being both.

 

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

 

I wonder if it would violate causality.

[too-open-minded]

Well I guess the book was wrong lol.

 

It did say that he was given the award for his contribution to physics but that his biggest contribution was on why a photon has mass. Or maybe I misunderstood.

[MigL]

Read about this light speed drive ( not faster than light since space -time distortions such as gravitational field propagate at speed of light ) in The Physics of Star Trek. An area of space-time is expanded behind you and contracted ahead of you, and you, in effect, ride this space-time wave like a surfer riding the leading edge of an ocean wave. You are technically not moving through space-time but along with it and so, relativistic effects are not manifested. Similar to universal expansion where distant galaxies can recede faster than the speed of light because they are being 'carried' by an expanding space-time. The problem is that to warp space-time in the needed fashion, would require extremely large amounts of energy, The book gave estimates but I don't recall a value, just that it was ( impossibly ? ) large.

 

Universal expansion gets around the problem of causality violation by creating an 'event horizon' to the observable universe. For this light drive, causality violation, ie ftl transfer of information, would not be an issue, because it is my understanding that this drive,if possible, would not be ftl.

[ACG52]

Well the thing is that photons do have mass just not at rest.

 

No, they do not.

 

It did say that he was given the award for his contribution to physics but that his biggest contribution was on why a photon has mass. Or maybe I misunderstood.

 

Badly misunderstood. His Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect. Photon's have no mass, and Einstein never said they did.

[too-open-minded]

:/ i'm going to look over Einsteins chapter in the book a second time.

 

So the mass in motion thing from this link is wrong to? - This is what the book said.

http://www.ehow.com/...otons-mass.html

 

 

Guessing this link is right?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/wonderquest/photonmass.htm

Edited September 15, 2012 by too-open-minded

[ACG52]

The first link is incorrect in saying that photons may be considered to have mass because they have energy. Momentum is not mass.

 

According to physicist Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, defined by the equation E=MC2, all energy particles have mass.

 

 

 

Again, incorrect because they are trying to be too simplistic. The equation does not say that energy and matter are the same thing, It says that a given amount of mass has a certain energy equivalent.

[too-open-minded]

Well thanks for clarifying that for me man, its so frustrating. I've read a few other books on physics and now i'm not sure if they were complete bull or not.

 

 

*sigh*...

 

 

I guess i'll just keep my mouth shut about these things until I actually have a degree I earned myself.

[Moontanman]

Warp drive might be more feasible than we thought? A bench top lab experiment might shed some light on the possibility...

 

http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

Edited September 17, 2012 by Moontanman