It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Theoretical Physics Question’s 101

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:41 PM
Now I understand why we can't go the speed of light.
In order to do so we would need an infinite amount of energy.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:10 AM
If I understand you MCory, not really. You might as well ask if x=vt, is that because the time is the right amount for the distance, or is the distance the right amount for the time. Not a question of causality, just a question of making physical sense.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:19 AM
Thanks again for the reply Amory. I remember reading a comic strip a long time ago, where a mathmatician went crazy spending 20 years trying to prove that two numbers equal to the same thing were not equal to each other. I have a feeling I'm trying to do the same thing here

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:22 AM
5th. As long as something does not pass the event horizon I think it can escape.

Kirenchoff radiation (the blue glow around control rods in nuclear power plants when they get put in the heavy water tank). This occurs when the particles ejected from the rods are travelling through the water at a speed greater than the speed of light in the water. So technically it is possible to go faster than the speed of light.

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:01 AM
This stuff is "way linear."

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by llama009
Kirenchoff radiation (the blue glow around control rods in nuclear power plants when they get put in the heavy water tank). This occurs when the particles ejected from the rods are travelling through the water at a speed greater than the speed of light in the water. So technically it is possible to go faster than the speed of light.

Although the speed of light in a vacuum (c) is always the upper limit. So yes, in any other medium except a vacuum, it is possible for light to travel faster than the speed of light IN THAT MEDIUM.

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by MCory1

Since I can't expect you to reply before I post this, I'll continue assuming I'm correct and I'll respond to the corrections as needed. Now the velocity is figured correctly, because time has dilated in tandem with the length contraction. This is kind of a chicken and egg question, but which is calculated to which? Is the length contraction the "true" effect, and time dilation is calculated to maintain a constant velocity, or vice versa?

I hope I'm clear enough with this. That's about the only thing I've never liked about physics; it's hard enough to explain as it is, let alone when you don't really know what's going on. I do know the "short" answer to this is "it doesn't really matter, they both happen so that's all that's important," but I'd like to know which--if either--is the true effect. Or am I missing a bigger piece of the puzzle? Okay, I've got enough of a headache now...but I masochistically anticipate any replies

I'm no physicist, but I'll have a go at this one.

First of all, the contraction of length and the dilation of time both operate in the same direction, that is they don't work against each other. Both effects end up making the velocity measured by the stationary observer to be less than what he would originally expect them to be. Velocity being distance/time, you can see that decreasing distance or increasing time, or both simultaneously, will only result in a smaller measured velocity.

I believe the problem you are having here is that you have forgotton that the relativistic effects you expect your train to undergo are only noticed by the stationary observer.

The train itself, and it's engineer, would not notice anything of the sort. I guess I mean that, since the effect occurs only from the perspective of the observer, then it's not local to the train or engineer, and no contraction of length or time dilation occurs around the train, as far as they are concerned.

I think that's right anyway. Excedrin, anyone?

Harte

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:57 PM
1. its not possible to travel in a wormhole, provided they even exist, by any means that man currently knows of.

2. its not possible to travel close to a black hole and survive. So travelling within a wormhole that is within a black hole is presently not a possibility.

3. to acheive the speed of light, you must have the mass of a photon, or the equivilant of the combined power of the sun. To propel your 30 ton spacecraft.

4. the fabric of space is a theory that space is layered and folds back on itself, representing a multitude of layers and depth that according to man's current understanding appears to be infinite with respect to our ability to jump "time" and distance.

5. there is no such thing as "time", therefore time travelling either backwards or forwards is not possible. Same thing for seeing your self die outside of yourself ie being able to view a past or future you without you being the one on display. Not possible, you exist inside one vessel and that one is with you currently. There is no possible way to view yourself on the outside except through your reflection in a mirror.

6. Tachyons are a sub-particle of an atom I think (possibly a component of an electron that has fragmented), I am not sure but I think they exist for a blink of a second during fission. There is no substantial proof that they exist but are required in a special form of relativity for mass conversion to energy.

7. you can never reach the end of space as space itself folds back upon itself with many multiple layers of almost infinite depth. Therefore you would get lost before you ever reached the end of space. The current understanding is that if you had a means of navigating in only one plane and in only one vector and could maintain that position that provided you traveled fast enough and for enough "time" that you would eventually come back to where you started. The "time" frame however could be a billion or more earth years even while travelling at the speed of light, if you had a power source to do so. String theory says that it might be possible that the operator of said craft may pass "time" ratherly slowly compared to an external observer. ie the person on earth would be long gone by say a billion years when you arrived back at your take off point, but you however on the craft may have only endured a thousand or more years, provided you yourself could live that long. The reality is that the craft itself did in fact travel for a billion plus years, but the mechanics applied to the physical object that is you and the craft would have only experienced a fraction of the real "time" observed. The faster you go the shorter amount of precieved time you feel, while the rest of the universe still ticks along at the regular rate. This would make interplanetary travel rather difficult even if you had a FTL powerplant as you could essentially initiate the power and be at your destination in what might seem a second to you but would be 10,000 years to the rest of the universe, leaving you to arrive to a planet that you would have no idea if it would even still exist and surely whomever you were trying to meet would no longer exist. And then to travel back and another 10,000 years to pass maybe your homeplanet no longer exists and surely not the people you used to know. Maybe a global war has wiped out your planet and now you do not even have the facilities to return to the planets surface....

The above "time" compression is the fundamental problem with interstellar travel at speeds approaching light speed. How do you go the great distance required without the rest of the universe aging away......

new topics

top topics

0