|
Author
|
Topic: Speed of Light Barrier
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 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 |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 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 |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 93 of 178 (501098)
03-04-2009 9:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by Taz
03-03-2009 11:53 PM
|
|
Actually, the expansion of the universe itself can be said to be faster than light. There isn't any physical object that's actually moving faster than light speed in the expansion. Galaxies appear to excede light speed, but the galaxies themselves aren't actually moving very quickly through space, it's the space itself which is expanding away, and the galaxy is being carried along with it. As long as the galaxy doesn't try to move quickly through space, no physical laws are broken.
"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 90 by Taz, posted 03-03-2009 11:53 PM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by Taz, posted 03-04-2009 5:46 PM | | onifre has replied | | | Message 105 by RCS, posted 03-05-2009 6:35 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 97 of 178 (501159)
03-04-2009 6:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by Taz
03-04-2009 5:46 PM
|
|
Because the ship isn't technically going through space, the ship could be exceeding the speed of light without actually breaking the light barrier. I think it's better stated that the ship itself would arrive at a certain location in space faster than light would, but certainly it would not exceed light speed, right?
"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 94 by Taz, posted 03-04-2009 5:46 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 99 of 178 (501166)
03-04-2009 7:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
03-04-2009 7:40 PM
|
|
That is a sensible way of describing the situation.
Thank you good sir. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by cavediver, posted 03-04-2009 7:40 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: FTL
so say a 1000 years to get to that stage, and then another 1000 to fit it into your car Yes, but a few hundred years before that, we'll use it as a weapon.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by cavediver, posted 03-04-2009 7:45 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 110 of 178 (501225)
03-05-2009 9:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by RCS
03-05-2009 6:35 AM
|
|
Whether you drive or are driven, it is the same thing: you move. Nothing is moving. Relative to us, galaxies appear to be moving at faster than (c) - light speed. But in fact, they are not moving much, it only appears that way to us because the space between the galaxies is expanding.
Lots of semantics to save relativity. Save it from what, your take on it? You are simply wrong in your understanding of this subject.
"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 105 by RCS, posted 03-05-2009 6:35 AM | | RCS has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
My question, and this was a question of some interest before I dropped out of my physics major and switched to philosophy, is what about the laws of the Universe make the speed of light the ultimate barrier. The laws of cause and effect.
"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 117 by Perdition, posted 03-23-2009 5:58 PM | | Perdition has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Hi DA, Just to add...
There is speculation of faster than light zero-mass particles/energy called tachyons (yes, Star Trek borrowed this idea from main stream science). However, this idea is purely hypothetical with no evidence yet supporting it. Tachyons would still not be able to send information at faster-than-light speeds.
From wiki:quote:
Even if tachyons were conventional, localisable particles, they would still preserve the basic tenets of causality in special relativity and not allow transmission of information faster than light, contrary to conventional scientific thought and what has been written in many works of science fiction. Today, in the framework of quantum field theory, tachyons are best understood as signifying an instability of the system and treated using tachyon condensation, rather than as real faster-than-light particles, and such instabilities are described by tachyonic fields. According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existing. By that theory, faster than light information transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible on both grounds: they are non-existent in the first place (by tachyon condensation) and even if they existed (by Feinberg's analysis) they wouldn't be able to transmit information (also by Feinberg's analysis).
"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
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 128 of 178 (505196)
04-08-2009 6:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by Michamus
04-08-2009 11:15 AM
|
|
Hi Michamus,
So is the statement "The speed of light" a misrepresentation The "speed of light" does represent an actual number see here: speed of light So, when physicist use a tool to measure a photon in a vacuum it does render an actual, measurable speed.
as LS is a constant? Yes it is. When measured, using an istrument to measure with, in a vacuum, the speed of a photon is constant (c). In an effort to make sense of it a bit more for you, I would say that "speed", also, only makes sense to the person observing the object in motion. A photon heading toward Earth at (c) is said to be traveling at light speed toward us, from our frame of reference. But, from the frame of reference of the photon, it is the Earth that is traveling toward it at (c). In other words, to the photon, it is not moving at all. Yet, when we, on Earth, look at the photon in our frame of reference we are stationary and it is moving at a defined speed. I hope this helps a bit. Just a student myself in this subject.
"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 127 by Michamus, posted 04-08-2009 11:15 AM | | Michamus has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: photon frame?
There is separation of the point of departure and point of arrival in our frame, but I wouldn't think there would be in the photon's frame, if such a frame can even be discussed. The example of the frame of reference of the photon was meerly analogous. However, even when there are no observers and no measurement taking place, the photon is not alone. Other particle exist, even in a vaccum, virtual particles for example. These make up a frame of reference too, so the photon is always locked in to (c).
"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
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 132 of 178 (505290)
04-09-2009 8:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by Taq
04-09-2009 6:49 PM
|
|
My photon example was only an analogy.
We don't actually observe a photon moving. From the observer’s point of view, the photon moves with measurable velocity, measurable frequency, measurable energy. The time experienced by the photon is still zero from start to finish of its journey, but the observer still knows it is moving at a particular pace and also vibrating as it goes. When it is said that a photon is "observed" I don't mean visually followed, I mean measured.
We simply measure the time it takes to get from point A to point B. Well, it's a bit more defined than that. See: Cartesian coordinate systems In between point A and point B it can be in any number of places... ...within a vector.
So might it be more accurate to describe the speed of light as the speed of the propogation of light? Sure, or the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum. - (electromagnetic constant)
"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 129 by Taq, posted 04-09-2009 6:49 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 136 of 178 (505347)
04-10-2009 12:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by cavediver
04-10-2009 12:32 PM
|
|
You can only determine the photon's properties by its effect when it interacts with something. By that time it no longer exists. You cannot observe/measure/experiment-on photons in transit. Thanks, cave.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by cavediver, posted 04-10-2009 12:32 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2