|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Speed of Light Barrier | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RCS Member (Idle past 2608 days) Posts: 48 From: Delhi, Delhi, India Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
kuresu writes:
Actually, the expansion of the universe itself can be said to be faster than light.
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024