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.

# Physics, anyone?

page: 1
4
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:55 AM
My ignorance about faster-than-light travel bugs me. Does anyone here have the inclination and expertise to discuss why, exactly, it is impossible? I get that the object traveling at such speeds would increase exponentially in mass... but why would that happen? Why couldn't some object just go as fast as a photon?

Also, if you did manage to go faster than light, it would probably freak you out. Say you go 2x the speed of light to Mars. When you get there, you could set up a telescope and actually watch yourself taking off from Earth. Right? If you went 4x the speed of light to mars and back, would you arrive on Earth before you took off?

Is that why FTL speed is impossible, because breaking the light barrier equals breaking the time barrier?

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by vexati0n
My ignorance about faster-than-light travel bugs me. Does anyone here have the inclination and expertise to discuss why, exactly, it is impossible? I get that the object traveling at such speeds would increase exponentially in mass... but why would that happen? Why couldn't some object just go as fast as a photon?

Mostly its not really known what would happen if something moved faster than light, because nobody has ever done any experiment or observed it happen.

But as far as impossibilty of travelling AT the speed of light... the standard reason is that due to relitavistic effects, things get heavier as they go faster.
And once you get to the speed of light, the multiplication of the mass is so high that you now have INFINITY mass.
Its easy for a photon, because it has no mass, so multiplying zero by infinity is (in this case) still going to have zero mass, so it can do the speed of light thing.
But for a rocketship... tell me what kind of engine you'd put into it, or how you would power it?

Thats the simple answer. There is a more complex one.

P.S. Whats needed is a way of getting to a speed faster than light without actually having to go "through" the speed of light" to get that fast.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:05 AM
They pretty much believe that it's not possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light.

Bending the fabric of space/time is another thing though.

Point A and Point B are on a piece of paper. You fold the paper so they connect. Boom, you went from A to B faster than you could at the speed of light.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:10 AM
the speed of light is calculated by the maximum speed a massless particle can travel. What would you want to move that is less than zero mass?

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:26 AM
This was Einstein's claim according to his calculations.

The theory of special relativity.
E=mc2

In a nutshell, he says that as an object speeds up it gains mass. Speeding up takes more energy, and more mass also means more energy. And by the time it reaches the speed of light, the calculation shows that the mass would be infinite as would the amount of energy needed.

So far as we know, nothing can go beyond infinite, hence super-luminal travel is not possible.

We've yet to prove Einstein wrong.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:27 AM
I wonder if you could hurl a bunch of antimatter across galaxies, traveling faster than the speed of light so no one can see it to stop it from colliding with something thereby turning it into nothing at all.

Oh my.
I better be careful or I'm going to make myself have a nightmare.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:05 AM

Originally posted by vexati0n
Also, if you did manage to go faster than light, it would probably freak you out. Say you go 2x the speed of light to Mars. When you get there, you could set up a telescope and actually watch yourself taking off from Earth. Right? If you went 4x the speed of light to mars and back, would you arrive on Earth before you took off?

Yes and No.

Yes you would see yourself through the telescope but its just a delayed reflection of yourself.

No you wouldn't meet yourself on earth before leaving to mars because you have already made the trip there and back...

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by ChaosMagician

That sentence makes very little sense.....

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:38 AM

Originally posted by exo87
reply to post by ChaosMagician

That sentence makes very little sense.....

They all made sense to me.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:43 AM
Einstein says faster than, or even at, the speed of light travel is impossible. One physicist says it might be without violating general relativity. Of course we have no way to create a space time bubble but maybe one day we will, although it's extremely doubtful. Interesting concept anyway:

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 14-5-2011 by wasco2 because: typo

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:55 AM
First off there are many miss-quotes. The big E never said that you cannot go faster than the speed of light. What was said is you cannot go the speed of light. The problem is we live in an analog universe. You cannot reach 10mph from 5mph without being at some point 7mph. If you could instantaneously change speeds without being all the intermittent speeds (this is digital vice analog) then going faster than the speed of light is possible. IE. you could go from 90% the speed of light straight to 110% the speed of light without being at 100%.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:40 PM
I think I get it ... sort of. Just posting to answer my own question...

General Relativity has a rule against going faster than the speed of light because if you were in a theoretical space ship trying to approach that speed, you just couldn't actually get there. That's because the speed of light is a constant, regardless of the observer - To someone a kabillion miles away viewing your ship, it would appear that you were travelling very close to the speed of light, but to you, the speed of light is always 186,000 miles per second. From the viewpoint (gravity field) of the spaceship, light is always travelling 186,000 miles per second faster than the ship, even if the ship is traveling 186,000 mps faster than an outside observer.

To compensate for the apparent change in velocity of light between the observer's viewpoint and the ship's viewpoint, the ship's mass would increase exponentially with its speed, because gravity is a function of mass and a gravity field required to accelerate light would need to be immense. If you want to go faster than light in your gravity field, your mass would need to be beyond infinite because mathematically anything less than that would simply obey the laws of relativity and you'd be stuck going slower than light. Mathematically, of course, you can't have infinite mass, either.

The only way to cheat this rule would be to somehow separate mass from gravity (create a force field around your gravity field which makes your craft effectively "disappear" from space - warp bubble?), or find a different method of going from Point A to Point B that doesn't involve moving through the space between those points (wormholes, teleportation, etc.).

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:41 PM
The interesting thing to note about this theory is that although it doesn't rule out super-luminal speeds, nothing has been observed yet to actually be doing so, nothing.

Tachyons, bosonic string theory, etc have been hypothesized, but again, still not actually able to be tested or observed to even come close to becoming theory.

Einstein's equations are still hanging in there... thus far.
But I wouldn't hold my breath.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by vexati0n

My thread on Harmonic Frequency and Light:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My thread on Torsion and Time/Space travel:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by vexati0n
My ignorance about faster-than-light travel bugs me. Does anyone here have the inclination and expertise to discuss why, exactly, it is impossible? I get that the object traveling at such speeds would increase exponentially in mass... but why would that happen? [color=gold] Why couldn't some object just go as fast as a photon?

Inertia.

Photons are born at the speed of light. This is evidence that they have zero mass. The implication is that the electron released by ... say ... a light emitting diode, is already traveling around it's atom at the speed of light, and is just released in a particular direction.

Say one uses the mass of the sun to accelerate a melt-proof object by firing it at the sun and it passes near the surface. The massive gravity of the sun will accelerate it to phenominal speeds as it gets closer. When it passes perpendicular to the sun it will be at maximum velocity. How great could this velocity be?

Well the problem is that mass is recursive in the acceleration formula. Force = mass x acceleration. This force also applies to the force required to move an object. To affect it's accleration. Let's say the melt-proof object is the size and shape of a bullet. Sitting on a table, one could blow on it really hard and move it. Changing it's inertia from "at rest" to "moves slightly." But say someone shot that melt-proof bullet out of a gun. Would breathing on it change it's course? Not so much.

The faster something is going the greater the force required to change it's inertia.

In the same way as the melt-proof bullet gets closer to the sun's surface and starts going faster and faster, the pull of gravity has less and less leverage to speed the bullet up. Till eventually the bullet is going so fast that a bigger sun would be needed to make it go any faster. And it still wouldn't be going even half the speed of light.

Originally posted by vexati0n
.[color=gold]Also, if you did manage to go faster than light, it would probably freak you out. Say you go 2x the speed of light to Mars. When you get there, you could set up a telescope and actually watch yourself taking off from Earth. Right? If you went 4x the speed of light to mars and back, would you arrive on Earth before you took off?

An melt-proof bullet with a camera is launched at 4x the speed of light. It loops the sun once and returns to the launcher four minutes later. We take it out, plug it into the USB port and watch the video. The video shows that it is 0.00 seconds long. There is a single frame. That single frame shows no sun and a galaxy of stars around the unmeltable bullet. All bigger and closer than any stars in our normal galaxy. They are all yellow, just like our sun. It looks like a galaxy full of distant yellow suns the size of our moon. The spectral absorption lines shows each and every one of them has the exact same signature as our sun. In fact after further analysis it turns out that our melt-proof bullet has entered a curved space, where all it sees is the same sun in every direction. A closed universe where light loops back on itself.

Is that why FTL speed is impossible, because breaking the light barrier equals breaking the time barrier?

This is like saying that perpendicular objects can only exist on flat peices of paper, because non euclidian geometry is 3D. But right angles can and do exist in the third dimension. There is no barrier. Time, like a yard stick, is a unit of measurement. If I measure out a football field, that doesn't automatically make the football field uncrossable because it was measured. In a similar way, accelerating to light speed is not possible only because there isn't a small enough unit of time to do it. And if something is moving in incriments smaller than 1 second x 10 to the negative 43rd it is already moving at light speed.

Hope that helps.

David Grouchy
edit on 16-5-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by vexati0n

As several people have mentioned already, it's impossible for a massive object to reach the speed of light because, as velocity increases, mass also increases. As mass increases, the force required to accelerate that mass also increases. At the speed of light, the object would have infinite mass, but an infinite force would be required to accelerate such a mass to the speed of light, so the speed of light is unreachable for any object with mass.

Now, objects without mass (photons, for example) must move at the speed of light. Having no mass, they have no inertia (because mass is inertia), and inertia resists acceleration. Without inertia, there is nothing to keep them from endlessly accelerating to the fastest possible speed (which, of course, is the "speed of light" - 2.99792458*10^8 m/s)

What I haven't seen anyone mention yet is why, exactly, mass increases with velocity. And I don't really know why no one's mentioned it - it's not all that complicated. Mass increases with velocity because length contracts with velocity. Density stays the same, so, as the length of the object gets smaller, the mass increases. It really is that simple.

Now, why does length contract, you ask? Because that's how time is dilated. Let's say there was a star called Star located 100 light-years away according to observers on the Earth. Now, you get in your spaceship and go really fast - in fact, very near the speed of light (but not quite at the speed of light, and certainly not faster than it). Now, if the distance to Star stayed 100 light-years, it would take slightly longer than 100 years to get there. But, this is where length contraction comes into play. Going very near the speed of light, the distance might be reduced to, say, just 2 light-years, according to you, measuring from you spaceship (remember, though, it's still 100 light-years away according to those on the Earth). Now, according to you it only takes slightly more than 2 years to reach Star.
When you get to Star, you have only experienced slightly more than 2 years, while an observer on the Earth would say you experienced slightly more than 100 years. Hence, time has been dilated.

So, time dilation is caused by length contraction. Length contraction also causes mass dilation, which, itself, leads to the speed of light being the maximum velocity for any object with mass.
edit on 16-5-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by CLPrime

You guys should read my thread on harmonic resonance and frequency aswell as my one on torsion fields the explain how to achieve above light speed travel.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by wasco2
Einstein says faster than, or even at, the speed of light travel is impossible. One physicist says it might be without violating general relativity. Of course we have no way to create a space time bubble but maybe one day we will, although it's extremely doubtful. Interesting concept anyway:

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 14-5-2011 by wasco2 because: typo

This is the general theory for warp travel with the Alcubierre drive...whether it is possible remains to be seen.

Basically it would take the space in an area and fold it up along a line towards the destination, and as the ship passed through it, it would expand back out to normal behind. The ship itself would reside in a 'bubble' of normal space riding this wave of compressed space at a fraction of the speed of light. However, the distance it has travelled, once it's expanded back out, would have required it to be going much faster than the speed of light in the time it arrived because when it went through it, the space was compressed enough so that a light year in normal space would have had a relative distance equivalent to perhaps a few miles or less as the ship passed through it.

Whether this is at all feasible remains to be seen.

As far as the statement another poster said about anti-matter...anti-matter still has mass, and therefore can no more break the speed of light than any normal matter. Anti-matter is simply matter with reverse charges. (A positron is basically an electron with a positive charge instead of negative) Regarding shooting it at something in space...space is far from empty so it would be slowly annihilated as it plowed through particles of regular matter creating all kinds of explosions of light and energy.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by CLPrime

I can't edit my post anymore, but, re-reading what I wrote (I really have very little else to do at the moment), I noticed that I misspoke in my explanation of how mass increases due to length contraction. I stated that the length of the object decreases, which, because density stays the same, causes the mass to increase. Of course, this is wrong... if density stayed the same with length decreased, mass would also decrease. However, anyone paying attention to the rest of my explanation should know what I meant to say - that distance, as measured by the observer, is what decreases (obviously, because 100 light-years becomes 2 light-years). This corresponds to an increase in the length of the moving reference frame (or, specifically, in the example I gave, the spaceship), which produces the increase in mass.

As I said, it really is that simple

Maybe that's why no one else mentioned it.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:55 PM
I honestly think this is why science hasn't had the break throughs it was having.. there is no speed limit of the universe and time although may be measurable doesn't not actually exist as an entity. I think a supernova could cause the particles it's made up of to move faster than the speed of and I believe this is how black holes are formed. I can't prove this as I don't have millions or billions of dollars.

Through quantum entaglement faster than light speed must be possible because the meausable change occurs instantanious which would suggest that electrons can exchange data faster than the speed of light can travel.
edit on 16-5-2011 by mb2591 because: i can prove that faster than light speed is possible

edit on 16-5-2011 by mb2591 because: typo

top topics

4