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.

 

About light, the speed of light, FTL travel, and transdimensional craft...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Wikipedia:


According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by γmc2, where γ = 1/√1 − v2/c2 is the Lorentz factor. When v is zero, γ is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E=mc2 formula for mass-energy equivalence. The γ grows rapidly with v and approaches infinity as v approaches c. It would thus take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of massive objects.

More generally, it is normally impossible for any information or energy to travel faster than c. One reason is that according to the theory of special relativity, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame,[Note 5] and causality would be violated.[Note 6][9] In such a frame of reference, an "effect" could be observed before its "cause". Such a violation of causality has never been recorded,[21] and would lead to paradoxes.[Note 7][36]

As we can see, that wiki extract makes it clear that the main problem with FTL travel is mass...anything with mass will require infinite energy to reach the speed of light...I believe that photons (discrete packets of electromagnetic energy i.e. light) actually do have mass, it's just so insignificant that we are unable to measure it...first I make the assumption that matter is merely energy in a stabilized form...and all energy can be converted from one form or another...take the photo-electric effect for instance...if we change the energy level of an electron it releases a photon with a frequency corresponding to the difference in energy levels, assuming it jumps up an energy level, and doesn't move down closer to the nucleus...we could also look at what happens when we pull two quarks far enough apart from each other...the "elastic" bond between them pulls harder and harder, until eventually the bond snaps, but instead of that binding energy being released like when a nucleus breaks apart (nuclear fission)...that energy goes directly into creating two new quarks...and what we end up with is two quark pairs instead of one...we started with 2 quarks but ended up with 4...binding energy was transformed directly into a "particle" or "matter" if you will...matter is truly nothing but vibrating energy in a stabilized form...like a "knotted" system of energy in a way...the double slit experiment essentially gave conclusive proof that all particles were in fact waves...or particle-waves if you will (they can behave like either a wave or a particle in under different circumstances), although I believe the interference pattern they got with the double slit experiment was more due to the positional probability waves of the electrons more than the fact they aren't actually "particles"...but it should be clear "matter" is merely vibrational energy in a bound form...

Light/photons are exactly the same...it's merely a packet of vibrational energy...but a very basic form...photons hold a quanta of energy, the base unit of energy as Max Planck discovered...for this reason, coupled with their vibrational state, I believe their mass is almost impossible to measure...science acknowledges light as a wave, but I'm not so sure about other "matter"...but it should be clear everything in this universe is just energy in one form or another...this is where we get into the realm of craft capable of speeds FTL...if we could artificially raise the vibrational state of matter to a state similar to that of light, or even higher, we could essentially create "weightless"/transdimensional craft capable of light speed, or even faster, and maybe even capable of time travel...and none of it actually breaks the laws of Physics or Einstein's law of special relativity...this is essentially what the guy in "Evidence The Case For NASA UFO's" tries to explain...and probably does a slightly better job then me...he calls them "highly quantized craft"...some of you may call such craft "superluminal"...he even has a working theory on how this may work...I suggest you watch it if you haven't, quite interesting indeed...

[edit on 14/12/09 by CHA0S]




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
SO what exactly were your questions again? Because I read statments, tell me if I'm wrong here.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Oh..sorry...I did start off this thread with a question but it turned into something totally different and I removed the initial question because it didn't really have much to do with the rest of the post...if anyone could answer, the question I initially was going to ask was:



The thing I don't understand...is if you reach half the speed of light for example...how is it that light will still pass you as quick as it would if you were on Earth? Wouldn't that mean that the speed of light is now faster since your already going half the speed of light but from your perspective light still seems to whiz past you with the same velocity...I just can't understand that concept...


I'll change the thread title if possible...

EDIT: Title changed...I also wanted to state that I once asked my physics teacher the above question but can't really remember the answer I got, nor if I understood it...

[edit on 14/12/09 by CHA0S]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Ok I'll crack at your question. I believe it's because of friction and drag. Light does not experience friction like mass does nor does it have to adhere to the limitations that mass does. Light waves can travel until their stopped by mass where as laws like inertia apply to mass. The faster mass travles the heavier it becomes, this isn't true of light so the light would always be faster then mass.

(edit: add matter wherever the word mass appears) Sorry.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I've always wondered about the mass of these photons to be honest.

They are effected by gravity wells yes?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

I'm not sure that properly answers my question...let me put it another way...here on Earth we measure the speed of light as 299,792,458 m/s...then we get on a craft which accelerates us to half the speed of light...but light still shoots past the craft as if we were standing still on Earth...picture a jet flying along...if you then got in a car and managed to drive along side the jet at half the speed that jet was travelling...should that jet seem to pass you slower because your in the car, compared to how fast it seems to pass if you were standing still? No such thing happens with light...it just zooms past you with the same apparent speed even if you reach 99% the speed of light...and I can't wrap my head around that...

reply to post by Seiko
 



They are effected by gravity wells yes?
In other words, are they affected by gravity? I'm not sure to be honest...I know photons can be affected by the density and structure of a substance, hence we get refraction when they enter a different substance...they probably are affected by gravity but we can't measure the effects of that either...otherwise we'd have to conclude they have mass...and we haven't...

[edit on 14/12/09 by CHA0S]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


I may have been referring to the event horizon of a black hole. This leads me to think that light has mass but my opinion is not backed by scientific fact.

It's just something I've always wondered about.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
If you travel at half the speed of light then the light YOU OBSERVE is still travelling at the speed of light because your perception of time slows.

To put it another way, since light travels at around 300 000km per second and as you accelerate your "second" is slowed so the light covers more distance according to you in that second. (That isn't 100% accurate but maybe an easier way to visualise it.)

I agree, it's a very difficult concept to grasp but you strike me as reasonably intelligent person so sit back and think about it and it will come to you.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by OZtracized]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by OZtracized]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Photons don't exibit a RESTING mass.

Apparently they do have an extremely tiny mass when moving at light speed.

I know what you're going to say, don't bother. It's unsettling when you start to wonder if the eggheads aren't just changing the rules to make sure their theories make sense.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
The information is wrong;

scientists have already accelerated mass and information faster than the speed of light


'We have broken speed of light' - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk...

I remember they said the particle looked like it appeared before it left


Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light
www.universetoday.com...

[edit on 14-12-2009 by DjSharperimage]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DjSharperimage
 

I was reading the first article you linked and it states:


The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.

Then they state:


The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.

So I'm not fully sure if they are talking about quantum tunnelling (which isn't really FTL science) or if they actually did get the photons to travel FTL...the second linked article is certainly an interesting read though. Thanks.

reply to post by OZtracized
 


Thanks for your explanation, it has shed a little light on the subject, as you say, it should all make sense to me one day....maybe


[edit on 14/12/09 by CHA0S]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join