It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Faster-than-light 'tachyons' might be impossible after all

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Faster-than-light 'tachyons' might be impossible after all


www.newscientist.com

Faster-than-light particles, or "tachyons", may be fundamentally impossible, according to two mathematical physicists. If they're right, their new theory would also imply that time – seemingly one of the most fundamental facets of nature – is no more than a mirage.

Tachyons crop up as possibilities in several speculative physical theories, such as some versions of string theory. Physicists have searched for their expected signatures.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
My question here is what is so special about light? Why is it that nothing can travel faster than light?

I thought that gravity was instantaneous and faster than light.

I feel that the idea of space without time is scary because then our future is already decided, as the article also says.

Does this also dash our hopes of travelling vast light years in space, faster than light, by warping space time?

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Good find, I also speculated that gravity has an instantaneous force faster than light. If the sun dissapeared, what would happen first, would we go out of orbit first then 8 minutes later see the sun dissapear or what.

I believe these questions are answered in the book 'The Final Theory' by Mark Mccutcheon.

The Final Theory Website

All the best
Marty



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Photons can reach 299, 792, 458 meters per second because they have no mass. Anything with mass that approaches the speed of light becomes infinitely massive, therefore making it impossible for anything else in nature to reach that kind of velocity.

Tachyons, if they existed, would be incredibly difficult to utilize in technology. Not only that, but if we did somehow find a way to make a spacecraft with some kind of "tachyon drive", it would likely violate causality (since traveling faster than the speed of light is also time travel).



[edit on 19-3-2009 by GeeGee]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
This is an interesting article that claims that gravity is faster than light.


This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature.


Here is the link and source to the entire article

The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
This is an interesting article that claims that gravity is faster than light.


This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature.


Here is the link and source to the entire article

The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say



Since things gain mass as they approach the speed of light, wouldn't they begin to have incredibly strong gravity, as objects of large mass have more gravity...also, what about magnetism? Relative to magnetism, gravity is really really weak.

So, what if an object approaching the speed of light...was magnetized?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
You can't treat gravity and light in the same way simply because light is matter, energy (kinetic energy) and gravity isn't. Here's a good, short, read that will help you understand things a bit better.

math.ucr.edu...

It's a really neat concept.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
You can't treat gravity and light in the same way simply because light is matter, energy (kinetic energy) and gravity isn't. Here's a good, short, read that will help you understand things a bit better.

math.ucr.edu...

It's a really neat concept.


Prove that light is matter. It can be proven it is not just the same as it can be proven it is. There is no proof what so ever aside from theory that light is matter.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 

Ok, rule one: Very very little can be PROVEN in science; this is why there are many "theories" which are generally accepted to be truth. We can't prove them because they aren't testable in all situations.
So don't spout off about proving things.

Second:
It has been shown to be tangible energy because it can be slowed down and it can be teleported.

Now, I understand that light isn't matter under the most common definition of matter but it is tangible and has some form of substance.

Light is an amazing thing because without it, there's nothing. These wavelengths are essential not only to all known forms of life but also to the existence of creation as we know it.

Also, speak in complete sentences please.

Also also, How could I forget photons?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Mr Headshot]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 

Ok, rule one: Very very little can be PROVEN in science; this is why there are many "theories" which are generally accepted to be truth. We can't prove them because they aren't testable in all situations.
So don't spout off about proving things.

Second:
It has been shown to be tangible energy because it can be slowed down and it can be teleported.

Now, I understand that light isn't matter under the most common definition of matter but it is tangible and has some form of substance.

Light is an amazing thing because without it, there's nothing. These wavelengths are essential not only to all known forms of life but also to the existence of creation as we know it.

Also, speak in complete sentences please.

Also also, How could I forget photons?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Mr Headshot]


I do recall typing in complete sentences. I am very educated in physics and light properties. I did not once say that it did not have the properties of matter under certain cirrcumstances. I did however state the it is and is not matter. The key problem with light is that it is not tangible. Proof of this would be in that if you made a perfect sphere with a perfect reflective surface on the inside, while shining light into it you seal it off the light inside would cease to exist. First rule of atomic science is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Where does the light matter go? I am not trying to be mean here but I feel that too many people believe way too much about what they are taught and refuse to think about the basic theories themselves. Please prove that I have spoken in any incomplete sentences.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee
Photons can reach 299, 792, 458 miles per second because they have no mass. Anything with mass that approaches the speed of light becomes infinitely massive, therefore making it impossible for anything else in nature to reach that kind of velocity.


Hmmmm.... perhaps black holes simply started out as space travelers that got the math wrong!


"Ensign... Hit the light speed button"... Bam! - infinite mass - Black hole!

IRM



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Now that tachyons are scathed off the list, does anyone know of any contenders?

What other particle could be made to travel at supraluminal speeds?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
Here is the link and source to the entire article

The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say



Actual experiments to confirm gravity put the speed same as speed of light. But more likely they were in error when they simply confirmed the speed of light for the second time around


I think a way to measure speed of gravity is to send several space probes around the solar system at varying distances away from the sun. They will actually measure the changes in gravitational gradient as planets aline. They will send telemetry back and forth and have their clocks synchronized.

The first experiment had to fail because they were measuring the curvature of spacetime made by a massive planet against the stellar background. Basing the readings on visible light, they will indeed measure the speed of light. They should've measure gravity gradients instead with time synchronized probes(if that is technologically possible)



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk
They should've measure gravity gradients instead with time synchronized probes(if that is technologically possible)


I totally agree.

But NASA hasn't even released the full data set from Gravity Probe B - so we are forced to on their word alone, and we have only their non-interpretation of the data they collected... We paid for that data and all we got were hand-picked samples of measurements/reading and their non-conclusion vis-vis NASA's allegations that the experiment 'failed'.

('Failed' - or it gathered data that did not support their pet hypothesis;-)

*And why would NASA do something so efficient and sensible as you are suggesting; why do both things things at once and so efficiently, when you can spread it out over years and charge four times the amount, it's not like it's NASA's money...



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I think we need to understand what causes gravity before we can make an accurate analysis on the speed of gravity.

Does anyone have their own thoughts on how gravity is created?

I always wondered if gravity has something to do with motion of mass. Everything from large celestial objects down to the molecular level. Kind of like an object moving through water creates waves(or mass moving through space time).

If you were able to cool an object to absolute zero, would gravity still exist? Would the intensity gravity increase if an object's temperature is increased?

I would appreciate any friendly discussion or comments on this matter.

I apologize for any incorrect spelling or incomplete sentences.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hung Lo
I always wondered if gravity has something to do with motion of mass. Everything from large celestial objects down to the molecular level. Kind of like an object moving through water creates waves(or mass moving through space time).


Nice post!

It does have something to do with the motion of mass (primarily rotation) - and that is why NASA isn't releasing the full data set from Gravity Probe B. ;-)

Are you familiar with 'torsion-field physics' or even 'Hyperdimensional Physics'?

NASA refuses to uses those terms, choosing to substitute the term ""frame-dragging effect" to describe the effect that a rotating mass has on gravity, etc

*Try incorporating "frame-dragging effect" into your searches, you will find some interesting stuff.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Einstein's physics is based upon frames of reference.

What the physicists keep mostly silent about is the nature of the frame of reference.

Rotating spheres are the frame of reference, in other words celestial bodies, like planets. Light is only constrained by Einstein to travel at a constant velocity relative to observation from a rotating sphere, while it is in vacuum.

Now, you understand that all bets are off for non-Einsteinian measurements of the speed of light. c is only constant under very constrained conditions.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Another interesting thing I remember is of the Pioneer anmoly, the spacecraft was found to be about 100 feet less than where it should have been near Pluto. However I was unable to understand it's relation to gravity of the Sun. What does it mean by Sun's gravity is slowing the spacecraft down? Wasnt Sun's gravity always on that object ?

Here is the link

Pioneer Anamoly



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Ok, here is an interesting question for ya...

E=mc^2

Meaning that the energy in an object is proportional to the product of its mass and the speed of light squared.

gravity is a product of mass.

So, if we were to convert one ton of matter directly into photons (via E=mc^2) and if photons have NO mass...

Then where did the objects mass go?


Certainly Gravity is a product of HOW energy is stored IN matter, instead of the MATTER itself.


-Edrick



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Certainly Gravity is a product of HOW energy is stored IN matter, instead of the MATTER itself.


Yes that is a good way of putting it.

My question is, if gravity is an energy, why arent we able to harness this energy? We all know that gravity warps space time, then if we are able to harness this gravity and amplify it, the possibilites of travel in space are endless.

Do you have any info on any workable anti-gravity/ artificial gravity devices that have been invented, if any?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join