Einstein was wrong, E=mc2 does not prove we can not travel faster then the speed of light.

entangled electron communications travel faster than the speed of light, einstein called it spooky

The equation has much to do with rest mass.

in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.

It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.

So no it is not possible to in the traditional sense accelerate and move from point a to point b faster than light. However that is not to say that we couldn't travel faster than light to point b from point a.

The two ways that we know of today that could theoretically really work are Wormholes and Warp Drives. Both of these cheat the law by not actually going faster than light, wormholes is simply a shorter trip between two places than light would travel... a shortcut through space-time... and Warp drives make space-time move around you as opposed to you moving through it.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: Aleister

That's the point, you can't square the speed of light and give it a value when the speed of light cant go faster then itself.
If light could travel faster then 299 792 458 m / s then it could be squared.

You don't understand maths. Using the square a number doesn't change the number.

Multiplying A by B doesn't change either A or B.

Sad, failure to understand something very simple.

originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light and yet his equation says E=mc2
How can one posit a value of c2 when nothing can travel faster then C?

*than

You need to finish that time machine so you can ask ol' fuzzybulb himself.

a reply to: Revolution9
Even the OMG particle travels slightly slower than the speed of light. There is nothing faster than light we have discovered in the universe.

Could it be that Whatever it is that could be faster than the Speed of Light
That We Can't CLOCK IT ?

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: Aleister

That's the point, you can't square the speed of light and give it a value when the speed of light cant go faster then itself.
If light could travel faster then 299 792 458 m / s then it could be squared.

Let A = 6

Let B = A * 2

(B = 6 * 2)

A has not changed, it is a set variable. 6. But we use it's value and double it, assigning it to the new set variable B.

least its how i figures it.. I fail maiths but...

A lil birdie once told me that if photons perpetually passed through a certain special, special, special, silicon based element, inside of a super duper reflective, vacuum enclosure, that light can be measured fast enough to go back in time and alter Einstein's maths.

a reply to: sn0rch

Here is a practical example.

Man A gets a job at $10 an hour. Man A works 8 hours. Time to be paid. 10 * 8 = 80. Oops. 80 is greater then 10. Can't be correct. Here is your $10 of pay. Please return tomorrow to work again.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The equation has much to do with rest mass.

in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.

It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.

So no it is not possible to in the traditional sense accelerate and move from point a to point b faster than light. However that is not to say that we couldn't travel faster than light to point b from point a.

The two ways that we know of today that could theoretically really work are Wormholes and Warp Drives. Both of these cheat the law by not actually going faster than light, wormholes is simply a shorter trip between two places than light would travel... a shortcut through space-time... and Warp drives make space-time move around you as opposed to you moving through it.

Wooooormholes you say?! Hmmmmm.

The dancing crickets once described those kind of Wooooormholes as pure whooowie. A real wormhole entails unhinging one's self from the eliptical fabric of material space, and let the Universe's spin do the work for you, like lifting and planting a needle on a record. But that's just silly, riiiiiiight?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The equation has much to do with rest mass.

in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.

It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.

I don't think that the mass-equivalence formula (E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4) sets any limit to the maximum speed of an object.
momentum p = mv
-> E^2 = m^2*v^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4
for v=c
-> E^2 = m^2*c^4 + m^2*c^4

So the equation says that at the speed of light momentum has the same magnitude as mass in the energy content of a system. Doesn't put a limit, it takes v as the variable regardless of the energy needed to achieve such v.
It's the velocity addition formula that sets the maximum achievable speed thus implying infinite energy for v=c.

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The equation has much to do with rest mass.

in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.

It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.

I don't think that the mass-equivalence formula (E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4) sets any limit to the maximum speed of an object.
momentum p = mv
-> E^2 = m^2*v^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4
for v=c
-> E^2 = m^2*c^4 + m^2*c^4

So the equation says that at the speed of light momentum has the same magnitude as mass in the energy content of a system. Doesn't put a limit, it takes v as the variable regardless of the energy needed to achieve such v.
It's the velocity addition formula that sets the maximum achievable speed thus implying infinite energy for v=c.

Yes yes.. Simply restating what I wrote in formula achieves what exactly?

Instead of stating equations in a veiled attempt at showing off your math skills, realize that there are not that many of us that could understand the raw math involved. Therefore I tend to restate the principles and results of the math into plain English.

This way you can engage with people of all different backgrounds and allows us to get across some quite complex math ideas and concepts.

E=mc^2 is a energy conversion formula, not a formula for making something go the speed of light.

In this formula, which was derived by Einstein by a math postulate not simply something he wrote on the black board, c is not a velocity, but is being used as a constant.

And you can square a constant just fine.

Think of it another way: A foot.

A foot is 12 inches long, and is a liner measurement. It's exactly 12 inches long, and that never changes. It can't be 11 inches, nor can it be 13 inches. It must always be 12 inches.
On the other hand, I can take that foot and square it. That gives me a new value: the square foot, which is used to measure not something in length, but it's area!

The famous equation E=mc^2 is not trying to take the actual velocity of light and squaring it. It's not trying to make something go faster than light.

It's a constant that is being squared, and you can do that just fine with any constant.

Here's a link to how that formula is reached:

Deriving the equation

originally posted by: eriktheawful
E=mc^2 is a energy conversion formula, not a formula for making something go the speed of light.

In this formula, which was derived by Einstein by a math postulate not simply something he wrote on the black board, c is not a velocity, but is being used as a constant.

And you can square a constant just fine.

Think of it another way: A foot.

A foot is 12 inches long, and is a liner measurement. It's exactly 12 inches long, and that never changes. It can't be 11 inches, nor can it be 13 inches. It must always be 12 inches.
On the other hand, I can take that foot and square it. That gives me a new value: the square foot, which is used to measure not something in length, but it's area!

The famous equation E=mc^2 is not trying to take the actual velocity of light and squaring it. It's not trying to make something go faster than light.

It's a constant that is being squared, and you can do that just fine with any constant.

Here's a link to how that formula is reached:

Deriving the equation

Exactly.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.

I don't think that the mass-equivalence formula .... sets any limit to the maximum speed of an object.

Yes yes.. Simply restating what I wrote in formula achieves what exactly?

Instead of stating equations in a veiled attempt at showing off your math skills, realize that there are not that many of us that could understand the raw math involved. Therefore I tend to restate the principles and results of the math into plain English.

This way you can engage with people of all different backgrounds and allows us to get across some quite complex math ideas and concepts.

I didn't use any math skill since I'm pretty bad, is just that you said something wrong, that e=mc^2 implies anything in the energy needed to accelerate an object. and that's the same thing that erik said in the first sentence. You said "Exactly", but it was contradicting your statement.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
is just that you said something wrong, that e=mc^2 implies anything in the energy needed to accelerate an object.

This doesn't make sense.... I said that E=MC2 in simple terms means that the required energy has a gradient which is exponential related directly to the rest mass of an object.



And yes E=MC2 is also very much about how much energy is contained within matter.... that matter and energy are interchangeable.

Please refer to this...



Do you follow?

originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light...

There is a great deal more math to the Theory of Relativity than the equation you referenced.

However, to be clear, Einstein never specifically posited that an object couldn't travel faster than light; only that impossible things would be happening if it did. But what is clear is that an object cannot travel at the speed of light. Relativity technically allows for objects that travel faster than light, such as the theoretical partial, tachyons.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Here you were wrong:

in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
... snip ..
In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.

No, it means that the energy of a rest mass is equivalent to its mass times a constant.

I said that E=MC2 in simple terms means that the required energy has a gradient which is exponential related directly to the rest mass of an object.

It's wrong aswell, and the graph you posted is not E=MC^2 so it's misleading. The graph is M with variable v (which is only showed in the extended form) so there is no E and it is based on the relativistic velocity-addition formula.



Here instead you were right:

... snip .. It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent..

And yes E=MC2 is also very much about how much energy is contained within matter.... that matter and energy are interchangeable.

But there is no ALSO, the contracted formula is ONLY an equivalence between inertial mass and energy.
The extended formula is the equivalence between relativistic, ie mass + momentum (momentum is velocity*mass) and energy. This shows the speed, but does take it as a variable, it does not attempt to calculate how to reach such speed.

Neither of the 2 versions imply infinite energy content of a relativistic mass, in fact it's twice the inertial mass at the speed of light. It's the energy required to accelerate that mass to such a speed to be infinite, due to the relativistic velocity-addition formula.

I don't want to seem a grammar/math nazi or nitpicking you, but the OP argument is probably due to these kind of confusions.

a reply to: Aleister

Another approach, that comes to us from watching the antics of UFOs and from some independent thinking about physics allows us to imagine a condition of being without mass (and its attendant inertia) to achieve any velocity that we would desire. In other words, a massless state is totally removed from the bounds of physics as we use it to limit possibilities.

Now, if you want to argue that it is impossible to create a massless state, that is an entirely different argument and has no legitimacy whatsoever. What we profess to knowing is not what we don't know and we cannot arbitrarily make rules on what we don't know.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light...

There is a great deal more math to the Theory of Relativity than the equation you referenced.

However, to be clear, Einstein never specifically posited that an object couldn't travel faster than light; only that impossible things would be happening if it did. But what is clear is that an object cannot travel at the speed of light. Relativity technically allows for objects that travel faster than light, such as the theoretical partial, tachyons.

And Neutrinos... but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Here you were wrong:

in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
... snip ..
In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.

No, it means that the energy of a rest mass is equivalent to its mass times a constant.

I said that E=MC2 in simple terms means that the required energy has a gradient which is exponential related directly to the rest mass of an object.

It's wrong aswell, and the graph you posted is not E=MC^2 so it's misleading. The graph is M with variable v (which is only showed in the extended form) so there is no E and it is based on the relativistic velocity-addition formula.



Here instead you were right:

... snip .. It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent..

And yes E=MC2 is also very much about how much energy is contained within matter.... that matter and energy are interchangeable.

But there is no ALSO, the contracted formula is ONLY an equivalence between inertial mass and energy.
The extended formula is the equivalence between relativistic, ie mass + momentum (momentum is velocity*mass) and energy. This shows the speed, but does take it as a variable, it does not attempt to calculate how to reach such speed.

Neither of the 2 versions imply infinite energy content of a relativistic mass, in fact it's twice the inertial mass at the speed of light. It's the energy required to accelerate that mass to such a speed to be infinite, due to the relativistic velocity-addition formula.

I don't want to seem a grammar/math nazi or nitpicking you, but the OP argument is probably due to these kind of confusions.

dude not to be funny here but I was learning about Relativity in the 80's and 90's at university where after I took up a role with the university research department and worked there for 15 years as a research physicist....

what I said is not incorrect... re-read it.