Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light Barrier
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 76 of 178 (468014)
05-26-2008 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
05-25-2008 6:47 PM


Re: The speed of Light
I said
Where do you get this shit? I assume this is a joke?
Percy noted that it's actually a lift from here
and checking the date of the entry, you'll find the answers to my questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 05-25-2008 6:47 PM cavediver has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 77 of 178 (473541)
06-30-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by cavediver
07-11-2005 5:27 AM


Questions
Hi Cavediver.
You've inspired me to purchase Nigel Caldor's Einstein's Universe to obtain a grasp of relativity. I recall you advising someone to purchase it in another thread; which, I can't remember. I hope you can give me a brief synopsis of the book, and better prepare me for concepts to come.
Moreover, I'm trying to understand your analogy, but I still have some hurdles to leap. Granted, the only astronomy knowledge I have is from an introductory community college course, but I was and still have a great deal of curiousity on the subject, and who knows, perhaps take it as a major.
As you can see, your velocity vector is pointing entirely within the time-direction and not pointing in any spatial direction. This is you, moving through time with "time-velocity" c, and not moving through space at all.
This I don't understand. How can one move through time yet not be moving through space? Would photons be an example of this? Traveling c but not moving through space? If so, how could it not be moving through space if it has a direct effect on me? Is this how we on earth experience space-time? Or is the ruler being tilted partially in each dimension?
Finally, tilt the ruler until it is horizontal. You now have NO time-velocity at all, but all of your velocity is in the spatial direction. How much velocity? c of course... the length of the ruler is fixed.
If the ruler is tilted directly up - entirely in the time-direction- moving at velocity c identical from my earthly frame of reference to the ruler being pointed directly horizontal- moving entirely in the space-direction? In other words, are they one and the same?
I may have more questions, but I have to leave for work.
Thank you in advance for any help you can give.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 07-11-2005 5:27 AM cavediver has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 78 of 178 (478690)
08-19-2008 5:10 PM


An alternative view
Hi!
An alternative view on the speed of light barrier could be that the speed is a constant for gravity and its effects, I hasten to add not gravitation [force] which in my opinion operates at supra-light speeds when made to interact with other elements.
We of course can't see any FTL interactions, we are living in a Universe that operates at 300,000,000m/sec and anything that interacts at FTL is invisible to us.
I see all FTL interactions rather like an old 25fps movie and in that movie an explosive shell is fired [off screen] and the train blows up, no matter what we do [unless we are very lucky] we won't see the shell in any frame of film.
It would readily explain 'spooky action at a distance', the apparent erratic positioning of the proton in matter and all number of other seemingly 'difficult' to explain observations, including the two slit phenomena.
Any thoughts?
Edited by V-Bird, : Not enough noughts!

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2008 5:31 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 79 of 178 (478692)
08-19-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by V-Bird
08-19-2008 5:10 PM


Re: An alternative view
Why do we need an alternative view when Special Relativity is the most successfully tested theory of all time?
It would readily explain 'spooky action at a distance'
No, it would not. 'spooky action at a distance' has nothing to do with FTL interactions - instead, it is simply a feature of non-classical variables.
and all number of other seemingly 'difficult' to explain observations, including the two slit phenomena.
What is difficult to explain regarding the two slit phenomena?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by V-Bird, posted 08-19-2008 5:10 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 80 of 178 (478695)
08-19-2008 6:18 PM


So you think that a simple exchange of gravitation between distant particles at FTL speeds is a non-starter then?
Considering that any form of Higgs boson type of particle is glaringly absent [except by its effects] perhaps an FTL phenomenon might solve the riddle in a less prosaic manner.
To have gravitation operating at FTL would not require any re-write of GR or SR, just the destruction of HUP, the most unsatisfactory fudge in science since Aether! [In my opinion]
An equally less prosaic solution to the two-slit experiment is also there with FTL gravitational exchange.
You might be right, it's too simple.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Son Goku, posted 08-21-2008 6:21 AM V-Bird has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 178 (478839)
08-21-2008 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by V-Bird
08-19-2008 6:18 PM


Hello V-Bird
So you think that a simple exchange of gravitation between distant particles at FTL speeds is a non-starter then?
It is more than a non-starter, it is directly contradicted by observational evidence.
To have gravitation operating at FTL would not require any re-write of GR or SR
Gravity operating faster than light would certainly require a rewrite of General Relativity. Since Special Relativity does not describe gravity a rewrite of gravity would be irrelevant to it.
just the destruction of HUP, the most unsatisfactory fudge in science since Aether!
Gravity has no relation to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which is a result of Quantum statistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by V-Bird, posted 08-19-2008 6:18 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by V-Bird, posted 08-21-2008 12:35 PM Son Goku has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 82 of 178 (478851)
08-21-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Son Goku
08-21-2008 6:21 AM


Hmmmm.
So you can show me this observational evidence can you?
Gravity certainly works at below 'c' but gravitation?
FTL Gravitational Exchange [which is a quantum scale event] can certainly sideline HUP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Son Goku, posted 08-21-2008 6:21 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Son Goku, posted 08-21-2008 1:13 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 178 (478858)
08-21-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by V-Bird
08-21-2008 12:35 PM


So you can show me this observational evidence can you?
I am not sure how to present all gravitation based experiments and their results over the last eighty years in digestible format. It is similar to asking me to show you the evidence that energy conservation is never violated. It follows from the fact that it has never been observed to occur at all and that several other experimentally verified principles forbid it. Since General Relativity forbids gravity to move faster than light (in so far as a speed of gravity is defined in the theory), any experimental support of General Relativity can be seen as evidence against the proposal.
FTL Gravitational Exchange [which is a quantum scale event] can certainly sideline HUP
First of all, Faster-than-light gravitational exchange is not a known or supported theory or effect, so referring to it in a concrete manner and ascribing it properties such as "it is a quantum scale event" is very vague, especially when it is supposed to contradict an explicitly quantum phenomena. This would be similar to me announcing that the Son Goku particle has spin 3/2 and can circumvent the Rita-Schwinger equation. Secondly, assuming this effect is a coherent concept (since I'm in a generous mood) how do the position and momentum operators resulting from the theory commute?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by V-Bird, posted 08-21-2008 12:35 PM V-Bird has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 08-21-2008 1:27 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 84 of 178 (478859)
08-21-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Son Goku
08-21-2008 1:13 PM


how do the position and momentum operators resulting from the theory commute?
By train, presumably?
Have fun, SG. I had quite enough of V-bird over at IIDB...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Son Goku, posted 08-21-2008 1:13 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 85 of 178 (500904)
03-03-2009 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
07-10-2005 1:15 PM


Why can't we exceed the speed of light? I've heard two explanations but I am not sure which one is right.
There could be a third explanation: Lack of engines to break the barrier. Remember, as long as jet propulsion was not there, speed of sound too was an unbreakeable barrier. As you move faster, more energy is required to maintain the acceleration. You might interpret it the Special Relativity way ie the mass increases or the one by the classical fluid mechanics ie piling up of the waves in front of you.
If light waves are piling up in front of you, you too would feel the same effect. But at relativistic speeds, energy can be perceived as converting into mass. Effect is the same.
But a powerful engine can break the sonic barrier. Could powerful engines break the light barrier?
Remember, velocity of light as the CEILING is not founded on solid theory, so speeds faster than c can be there.
The first explanation is that mass increases as matter approaches the speed of light, so it would take more and more force to further accelerate an object as it approaches the speed of light. This seems wrong to me for some reason. One's mass doesn't objectively (from all reference frames) increase, does it? Only from a second observers. So why would the fact that there is a second observer affect how I can accelerate?
Mass does not increase objectively. But then the mass of the rocket as it approches sonic barrier too does not increase.
The second is the reason I think is correct, but I'm having trouble articulating it. Basically, it's a fundamental property of space-time. Velocities aren't additive according to special relativity. In order to add velocities, you use the equation:
u= (v1 + v2)/(1+ v1v2/c^2)
So from your referece frame you may add 2000 m/s on to your original velocity, but the second observer won't see it add that way due to the above equation.
Piling of the light waves does explain a lot. But then it points to:
1. Speed of light maybe a crossable barrier.
2. Special Relativity rule of addition of velocities is defective.
3. Something called ether may still be there, notwithstanding the Michelson Morley experiment. If you apply Doppler effect, the results would be as M-M got.
Relativity, btw, does not rule out ether.
Einstein derived his equations, which can easily fit the sound wave relativity.
Edited by RCS, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 07-10-2005 1:15 PM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 8:37 AM RCS has not replied
 Message 87 by onifre, posted 03-03-2009 9:23 AM RCS has not replied
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 03-03-2009 4:56 PM RCS has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 178 (500911)
03-03-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RCS
03-03-2009 5:32 AM


You replied to Message 1, and there were 84 messages after that. Have you read the entire thread and still feel the same as what you posted here? Or are you trying to reset the discussion back to square one?
--Pecy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RCS, posted 03-03-2009 5:32 AM RCS has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 87 of 178 (500913)
03-03-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RCS
03-03-2009 5:32 AM


But a powerful engine can break the sonic barrier. Could powerful engines break the light barrier?
If (E = mc2) then an object with rest mass could never reach (c). The faster you go the more your mass increases, the more the mass increases the more energy is needed to propel you. At (c) - speed of light - the energy needed would be infinite.
Remember, velocity of light as the CEILING is founded on solid theory, so speeds faster than c can be there.
There is only one hypothetical particle that is said to go faster than (c), tachyons,
However, a lot of physics professors do not believe that such a particle will be found, nor does it actually break (c).
I'll wait for you reply to Percy to answer the rest.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RCS, posted 03-03-2009 5:32 AM RCS has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 88 of 178 (500977)
03-03-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RCS
03-03-2009 5:32 AM


Remember, as long as jet propulsion was not there, speed of sound too was an unbreakeable barrier.
Of course, there's an important difference between the speed of light and the so called sound barrier.
There are numerous examples of objects in the universe that break the speed of sound. The earth, for example. Asteroids and comets. Electromagnetic radiation.
Nothing, however, is observed to travel faster than light. There is, as far as I'm aware, no serious proposal for being able to travel faster than light.
In other words, the difference between the sound barrier and the speed of light (in terms of being able to exceed those speeds) is that the sound barrier was one of technological limitation, whereas the speed of light is physical limitation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RCS, posted 03-03-2009 5:32 AM RCS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 03-03-2009 5:10 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 90 by Taz, posted 03-03-2009 11:53 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 103 by RCS, posted 03-05-2009 6:21 AM kuresu has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 89 of 178 (500981)
03-03-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kuresu
03-03-2009 4:56 PM


Hi Kuresu,
In other words, the difference between the sound barrier and the speed of light (in terms of being able to exceed those speeds) is that the sound barrier was one of technological limitation, whereas the speed of light is physical limitation.
There would also be that tricky part, when you try to stop.
Nothing that has mass can reach (c), coincidently, nothing traveling at (c) can ever stop.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 03-03-2009 4:56 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 90 of 178 (501067)
03-03-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kuresu
03-03-2009 4:56 PM


kuresu writes:
Nothing, however, is observed to travel faster than light. There is, as far as I'm aware, no serious proposal for being able to travel faster than light.
Actually, the expansion of the universe itself can be said to be faster than light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 03-03-2009 4:56 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2009 1:24 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 9:12 AM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024