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.

# Question/theory on faster than light travel

page: 2
2
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:15 PM

The Earth is not moving appreciably toward or away from the sun. The sun is not moving appreciably toward or away from the Milky Way. Therefore there is no red or blue shift between these objects.

The red shift we have detected from other galaxies is not in opposition to the fact they are moving toward us... it is verification of the fact that they are moving away from us.

The only thing that affects red or blue shift is the relative velocity between two objects. There is no meaningful term for absolute velocity; all velocity is relative. On Earth we assume velocity as relative to the ground, but in space there is no such reference. Therefore it does not matter whether we are moving toward another object or it is moving toward us; the effect is the same. Neither would it matter if a traveler was moving toward an object or the object was moving toward the traveler.

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:47 PM
Quite rudly i havent read through the entire list of replies so i dont know if this has already been adressed yet.

Light is relative to the observer, hence a man on the earth ( observer 1 ) will notice light fly past at around 299792.458 km/s

an observer ( 2 ) traveling at half this speed would also observe the light travel past them at the same speed.

if the observer 1 observered the light which observer 2 was veiwing, this seems to imply a slight problem. however when relativity is taken into account then time is passing 2 times as fast as for observer 1

heres where it comes together , the faster moving time means, observer 2 is observing the light travel past time at 2 times the rate that observer 1 can see.

A simple time distance and speed equation sorts this one out.

Speed = distance over time.

i will not use the actual speeds of light and cosmic distances for simplicitys sake.

Normal observer:

train speed is 50 meters a second

travels for 30 seconds

distance acheived 1500 meters

Half speed of light observer:

train speed is 50 meters per second,

traveling at 25 meters per second. ( pretend this is half light speed )

travels for 30 seconds, the train should pull away from observer 1 by only 1500 meters, HALF the distance observer 1 has observed.

BUT lets not forget, at half the speed of light, time is Double the normal rate. so for observer 2, while observer 1 counts 30 seconds on the clock observer 2 would could 60 seconds, and hence the train would also have traveled 1500 meters

im afraid if it doesnt make sence now, im not sure i can offere anymore help personally

SO essentially no matter what speed you acheive, light will always behave in a normal fashion

edit on 16-9-2010 by C1OUD because: Forgot to answer the actually question

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:39 PM
Velocity is relative. If you travel faster than light relative to something then it should appear to be a black hole to the observer. You would be running into photons that left that object before you started traveling at that speed in that direction. However, according to relativity it is not possible to travel that fast though. I posted one that demonstrates the principles of [Special Relativity Explained ; irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com...], essentially the motion of a photon is a right triangle whereby the hypotenuse is always the speed of light.

Another absurdity, as with [Classical Maxwell Equations ; irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com...], is that photons don't oscillate relative to anything beside themselves when they travel the speed of light in a vacuum (time slows down to a stop for a photon at full speed relative to an observer according to special relativity, and thusly the time rate of change of electric fields can't possibly exist in a vacuum. However, that is a quantum necessity so that angular momentum is conserved for a photon, since the spin or magnetic field of a photon traveling at light speeds must remain constant, and because a photon doesn't carry a charge either).

If you were allowed to violate special relativity and run into photons, then you would be eating them like pacman eats dots, lol, but they would be severely redshifted dots you would be running into.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:39 PM
ever herd of the sound barrier?
scientists make mistakes.
they have NO idea what gravity if.
they know what it does.
makes apples fall from trees!
and they have lost faith in black holes.
remember, scientists said the earth is flat.
now they Know more,
they know it is round?
soon they will know more!!!
and not just guess.

edit on 16-9-2010 by buddha because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:12 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The Earth is not moving appreciably toward or away from the sun. The sun is not moving appreciably toward or away from the Milky Way. Therefore there is no red or blue shift between these objects.

I did not say anything about the Earth moving towards or away from the Sun.
I did not say anything about the Sun moving towards or away from the Milky Way.
You did say that if we look ahead while moving we will see blueshift and if we look behind we see redshift. I corrected that statement by saying it was false

The red shift we have detected from other galaxies is not in opposition to the fact they are moving toward us... it is verification of the fact that they are moving away from us.

So you are saying that it is a fact that they are moving towards us, but its also a fact that they are moving away from us?

The only thing that affects red or blue shift is the relative velocity between two objects. There is no meaningful term for absolute velocity; all velocity is relative. On Earth we assume velocity as relative to the ground, but in space there is no such reference. Therefore it does not matter whether we are moving toward another object or it is moving toward us; the effect is the same. Neither would it matter if a traveler was moving toward an object or the object was moving toward the traveler.

Exactly, hence why *you* won't see any blue/redshift if you were moving relative to me unless the color shifted objects were moving relative to you, in which case the terms 'ahead' and 'behind' become meaningless.

edit on 16-9-2010 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax

although you will probably take note of the awkward behavior of your lights spewing strange particle radiation all over the place - though exactly how this would appear from your perspective is not really something I can predict.

Actually, it's well understood. Your lights wouldn't look any different to you at all--they'd still have the same frequency (and speed, of course). Other people's lights would be frequency-shifted, not yours.

No, it's not well understood.

Yes lights moving at the same speed relative to you would appear to have an unaltered spectra. However, motion is not relative - the speed of light mandates that there be a 'zero' velocity - though it is nearly impossible to determine this 'zero' speed due to the nature of relativity.

However, when you apply quantum physics, things get really interesting - specifically the Planck constant. In case you're unaware, that's the maximum amount of energy that can exist in any given area of space. Theories abound as to what happens when you try and put more energy into a region of space than is allowed by the laws of physics. My hunch is that energy simply changes forms and assumes mass (or other properties yet to be identified and cataloged). In either case - Planck units unify all metrics - the smallest unit of time is defined by the speed of light and the smallest unit of space.

Thus, as you approach the speed of light, high-frequency radiation (such as the broad-spectrum emissions of a light bulb) will be blue-shifted to the point where Planck energy is being exceeded. One could calculate what velocity would be necessary to achieve this (although experimental verification of current Planck unit values is pending) with different velocities - but it would be in the extremes (as the smallest unit of space can contain about as much energy as exists in the gas tank of your car before problems arise).

Remember - there is an 'absolute zero' - a state of maximum entropy (everything becomes more clear when you start seeing velocity, gravity, and 'time' as an entropic exchange as opposed to forces and numbers). Electromagnetic waves ripple through the universe like waves across water - the difference being that the faster the source of electromagnetic waves travels, the slower their rate of atomic and sub-atomic reactions become (start thinking of this as 'quantum temperature' and you see how the grandfather paradox is silly) - therefor, it becomes almost impossible to tell how fast you are actually traveling relative to the medium.

However, you are moving relative to the medium, and this does dictate that your electromagnetic waves will 'stack up' to the point that they violate Planck constants (or initiate whatever processes occur at those energy densities). Note that it does not become much of an issue until you approach the extremes of frequency and/or velocity to begin with.

Even now - many forms of radiation we encounter could be caused by our motion relative to space, even though we don't seem to be traveling anywhere near the speed of light, interactions with various particles (that already have rather high energy densities) could be influenced by rather 'normal' velocities. This could also explain some curious observations, recently, that imply "physics could be different in different parts of the universe." Physics aren't different - just the conditions, and therefor the results.

I could be making connections that aren't there with that last one - but it doesn't hurt to throw the idea out there for thought.

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Aim64C
Yes lights moving at the same speed relative to you would appear to have an unaltered spectra.

Thank you for confirming what I said.

However, motion is not relative - the speed of light mandates that there be a 'zero' velocity - though it is nearly impossible to determine this 'zero' speed due to the nature of relativity.

The speed of light mandates nothing of the kind, because it is the same for all observers regardless of their motion relative to each other.

However, when you apply quantum physics, things get really interesting

What is 'quantum physics'? Do you mean quantum mechanics?

My hunch is that energy simply changes forms and assumes mass (or other properties yet to be identified and cataloged).

Thank you for sharing your hunches with us. Are you planning to have them experimentally confirmed?

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:09 AM

.. you cant . calculate the real speed of light . when you are inside of a galaxy .. you would have to be at a distance far from any galaxy to .. get the actual speed of light.. light is at constant though out the galaxy so you may reach faster than light within the galaxy yet the light would still be at its constant .. that is why it is constant..
our current . calculated speed of light is not the actual speed of light it is the limit of light within the galaxy the .. black holes force . limits its speed ... slows light down.. .. the galaxy moves at the speed of the expance .. and light does not reach it's speed but it comes really close . but I don't know the speed either so I can't say how fast it may truly be...
..The acutal speed in . a Galaxy .. for light would most likely depend on the size of the Black hole of said galaxy ..

edit on 22-9-2010 by Vonour because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:34 AM

Thank you for confirming what I said.

Please note that, when approaching extremes of velocity, Planck maximums will be exceeded by merely the IR emissions of your body.

The speed of light mandates nothing of the kind, because it is the same for all observers regardless of their motion relative to each other.

We have a failure of communication.

The speed of light establishes a 'universal zero.' Light travels at the same speed away from an object, regardless of how fast that object is moving. This is why we have red-shift and blue-shift. I know this is condescendingly simple to you - but you're missing one important thing that is established - the speed of light is absolute, and therefor provides a measure of absolute velocity. An object traveling at 0.25C and an object traveling at 0.27C have a 0.02C difference in velocity they will observe. However, each will behave as an object traveling at 0.25C and 0.27C respectively.

This means that red and blue shift occur relative to the medium of space when traveling. This will lead to blue-shifting of emitted spectra to the extremes, at which point Planck unit maximums are challenged and/or exceeded.

Einstein couldn't fully grasp the implications of his own theory because of information and knowledge that was not available at the time.

What is 'quantum physics'? Do you mean quantum mechanics?

Semantics. We can argue them all day. Physics and mechanics are interchangeable in almost every context and vocabulary.

Thank you for sharing your hunches with us. Are you planning to have them experimentally confirmed?

Sorry, I forgot to use the power of a Ph.D or some other certificate of fellatio mastery before proposing a theory. But that is all theories amount to "hunches" and some conglomeration of mathematics to demonstrate it may be possible. Especially in regards to Planck units. As I said - the smallest unit of space can contain roughly as much energy as is in a car's fuel tank - and that's many, many times smaller than the alleged diameter of a gluon.

Translation: it's technologically impossible for us to validate Planck energy density or experimentally test what happens when those units are exceeded, simply due to the extremes involved.

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C

Please note that, when approaching extremes of velocity, Planck maximums will be exceeded by merely the IR emissions of your body.

???????
I'm sure you are using E=hv and assuming the frequency observed is
fo = fs*sqrt((1+(v/c))/(1-(v/c))), correct?

We can easily get a huge value for 'fo' if we increase the relative velocity to anything near 'c' and that would give us a huge value for E. However I'm not 100% sure that's how it works. When calculating E I think we have to use fs and not fo, but feel free to correct me.

We have a failure of communication.

The speed of light establishes a 'universal zero.' Light travels at the same speed away from an object, regardless of how fast that object is moving. This is why we have red-shift and blue-shift. I know this is condescendingly simple to you - but you're missing one important thing that is established - the speed of light is absolute, and therefor provides a measure of absolute velocity. An object traveling at 0.25C and an object traveling at 0.27C have a 0.02C difference in velocity they will observe. However, each will behave as an object traveling at 0.25C and 0.27C respectively.

If you are saying one object has a speed of 0.25c and another a speed of 0.27c, then that means the 'main' observer is neither one of those two objects. If that's the case, then they will not behave as objects traveling at .27c and 0.25c as far as redshift effects is concerned, they will observe and behave as objects moving at 0.487c (or 0.018c if in the opposite direction) relative to each other. What they see or do relative to the 'main' observer does not affect what they see or do relative to each other.

When we calculate the redshift that *they* will see we have to use their relative velocity, which means the equations would use either 0.018c or 0.487c, the other numbers (.25 and .27) can be ignored and would not mean anything.

edit on 22-9-2010 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:01 AM

This means that red and blue shift occur relative to the medium of space when traveling. This will lead to blue-shifting of emitted spectra to the extremes, at which point Planck unit maximums are challenged and/or exceeded.

There is no 'medium of space'.

There is no ether.

Also, see daniel_g's comment regarding frames of reference. He is right, you have neglected to account for the frame of the observer.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:16 AM

I'm sure you are using E=hv and assuming the frequency observed is
fo = fs*sqrt((1+(v/c))/(1-(v/c))), correct?

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The speed of light is constant. Regardless of how fast a source of radiation is moving, the radiation will move away from that light in all directions at the same velocity.

The irony of relativity is that it establishes both a minimum and maximum velocity - absolutes, if you will.

If you are saying one object has a speed of 0.25c and another a speed of 0.27c, then that means the 'main' observer is neither one of those two objects. If that's the case, then they will not behave as objects traveling at .27c and 0.25c as far as redshift effects is concerned, they will observe and behave as objects moving at 0.487c (or 0.018c if in the opposite direction) relative to each other. What they see or do relative to the 'main' observer does not affect what they see or do relative to each other.

Speed of light is constant. It moves away at the same -absolute- velocity regardless of the velocity of the source. This is not unlike a boat in water - waves move at a consistent speed away from the boat, regardless of the velocity of the boat. Boats moving in water will encounter waves at relative frequencies. A boat moving will have waves 'stack up' at the front of the boat, and 'stretch out' at the rear (presuming forward velocity). However, two boats traveling at the same speed (relative speed of zero) will encounter these waves at their source frequency. Not much different from EMF in space.

However, it should be noted that red and blue shift do still occur, because the absolute speed of the waves differentiates between a moving boat and a stationary boat.

When we calculate the redshift that *they* will see we have to use their relative velocity, which means the equations would use either 0.018c or 0.487c, the other numbers (.25 and .27) can be ignored and would not mean anything.

This is where you are dead-wrong. You can collide objects at superluminous relative velocities. The universe doesn't break because it's smart enough to realize none of the objects are actually traveling faster than the speed of light. Therefor, velocity is not merely relative, but an entropic state inherent to objects.

So, as an object approaches C - its own spectra will be blue-shifted to universal extremes that challenge Planck maximums - regardless of relative velocities. However, since relativistic effects of velocity do not begin to take noteworthy effect until objects approach impractical velocities - it's not likely to be used for anything other than navigational metrics and establishing communications protocols over stellar distances. The extreme case of shifting beyond planck maximums is not likely to be encountered in anything but the most extreme events our universe has to offer.

Originally posted by AstyanaxThere is no 'medium of space'.

There is no ether.

There is some method by which electromagnetic radiation propagates in 'empty' space. I applied the term "medium" because, well, the definition of the word fits the application. There is -something- (or a lack of something, hell) propagating EMF. Whatever it is - whatever form it takes - it serves as a medium. You may not be able to 'seal it in a bottle' and take some home - but something certainly allows for our universe to exist.

Also, see daniel_g's comment regarding frames of reference. He is right, you have neglected to account for the frame of the observer.

The observer is the very 'fabric' of space, in this instance. Which I have perfectly accounted for within the bounds of human knowledge on the subject.

I'm actually shocked that so few familiar with the field seem to really -get- the implications. The speed of light is as fast as you can go. Since there's a 'speed limit,' there is also a 'speed zero' any 'slower' and one goes 'backward' and begins to approach the speed limit, yet again. Thus - the speed of light could be said to be minimum entropy, while the 'absolute zero' velocity is maximum entropy. This shouldn't be all that difficult to figure out and then extrapolate the implications.

... Please, Dear Lord... do not tell me this is a 'new' idea. This should have all been apparent back when Einstein's theory was first observationally verified (more or less). It should have been even more apparent when 'spooky action at a distance' was confirmed to act nonlocally by sharing information at speeds that can only be described as 'instantaneous.'

I'm serious. You all are starting to scare me.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:31 AM

All right, then. (Snaps book shut.)

Speed of light is constant. It moves away at the same -absolute- velocity regardless of the velocity of the source.

Correct.

You can collide objects at superluminous relative velocities.

Wrong.

Let me explain why. Imagine two starships travelling through space (let's forget the boats in water, they're really no help to us at all). One is travelling at three-quarters of the speed of light. So is the other, but in the opposite direction. They are moving towards each other.

You watch them collide at a relative velocity of one and a half times the speed of light.

OMG Einstein was wrong!!!

No he wasn't.

To a doomed crewperson aboard one of those starships, the other will not be approaching at more than the speed of light. It would be approaching at a very high speed, certainly--very close to the speed of light, in fact--but that speed, that relative velocity, would be less than that of light.

Objects never collide at superluminal velocities. Never.

What you have forgotten is that the velocity of an object is different to different observers who are themselves moving relative to one another). From your viewpoint, you see two starships that seem to be moving towards each other at a relative velocity greater than that of light. But that's not what observers aboard those starships see.

At this point I regret I must open the physics book again. To understand what the starship crews see, you have to account for changes in viewpoint. This is accomplished through the good old Lorentz transformation. If you'd like to see a simple explanation of the problem above, here's a good one.

There is some method by which electromagnetic radiation propagates in 'empty' space. I applied the term "medium" because, well, the definition of the word fits the application. You may not be able to 'seal it in a bottle' and take some home - but something certainly allows for our universe to exist.

That's ether. But let's assume, for a moment, that it exists. Are you not making several assumptions about it? Why do you think it all occupies a single frame of reference? Is it uniform and at rest with respect to itself? And does it form the 'frame of reference of the universe'? Why do you think so?

The observer is the very 'fabric' of space, in this instance. Which I have perfectly accounted for within the bounds of human knowledge on the subject.

See above. In fact, you are merely positing a privileged observer. Privileged observers (frames of reference) are forbidden by Special Relativity, a rather well-founded theory in terms of experimental confirmation.

... Please, Dear Lord... do not tell me this is a 'new' idea.

It isn't new, it's just wrong.

edit on 23/9/10 by Astyanax because: fat needed trimming.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
You're putting the cart before the horse.

The speed of light is constant. Regardless of how fast a source of radiation is moving, the radiation will move away from that light in all directions at the same velocity.

I don't know where I stated that the speed of ligth is variable

How about no? My book is always a good reference and my instructor made sure to point out mistakes the author may have had. Having my physics book open doesn't mean I won't think about what you are saying.

This is not unlike a boat in water - waves move at a consistent speed away from the boat, regardless of the velocity of the boat. Boats moving in water will encounter waves at relative frequencies. A boat moving will have waves 'stack up' at the front of the boat, and 'stretch out' at the rear (presuming forward velocity). However, two boats traveling at the same speed (relative speed of zero) will encounter these waves at their source frequency. Not much different from EMF in space.

This is your mistake, waves of ligth aren't anything like water waves. Yes, two boats traveling at a relative velocity of 0 will encounter those waves at their source frequency. But suppose one of the objects is orbiting around the other in a perfect circle and we stablish a well known coordinate system. In your boat example the boat that's going around the other boat will see water waves at different frequencies depending on where it's located, I am nearly positive my relativistic objects won't, but make sure you check some sort of references before taking my word.

If we add a third object - an observer moving at a velocity not equal to zero relative to either one of the objects - then yeah, then object in orbit will appear to observe blue/redshifts, but once the observer works out the equations he will realize there is actually none of that happening between the first two objects.

In simplistic terms, the inhabitants of the ever approaching Niburu think we sometimes see our Sun blueshifted, and other times redshifted. Relativity will make them know that's not actually what we see. What we see is a color invariant Sun year round (ignoring elliptic orbit that is).

edit on 23-9-2010 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:51 AM
Particles can go faster then the speed of light.
Why not.
Aren't galaxies speeding away from us faster than the speed of light.
There might be some blue shift particles coming at us faster than the speed of light.
Only light and electrical ether transmissions are limited to light speed.
I was looking for a reference in Whittaker's "History of the Aether... " for
a footnote that said a coil or winding of wire had a faster of light transmission.
Perhaps because of ether particles.
In any case I thought it made sense because how can a coil of wire transmit
at the speed of light unless all the coil is loaded.
Also as the radio wave speeds off the next signal has to be loaded.
Particles at 50x the speed of light were reported by Tesla.
I think we can still find them coming in if any one looked.
ED: Tesla said his airship would go 300mps so there is a limit
to speed in the air but what about outer space.

edit on 9/24/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 06:01 PM
I have a question to add.

Say a massive object was to be accelerated in a vacuum, and it had an infinite distance to travel, would it eventually exceed light speed, would it be equal to light speed, or would it travel just under light speed?

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:55 AM

There are no infinite distances that have been observed. The universe we see is finite. But let's ignore that for a minute.

According to Special Relativity, your spaceship would never actually reach the speed of light, but it could could come as close to it as you like, as long as you have enough energy to accelerate it with. The amount of energy you need increases exponentially as the ship's speed approaches that of light.

To accelerate any massive object to the speed of light would take an infinite amount of energy. No can do.

top topics

2