A theory about travelling faster than light ...

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

Postby jinydu » Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:09 am

If the objects are moving away from each other, its just the same situation with some +'s turned into -'s (or vice versa). That is, either u or v (or both) will be negative. If you work it out, you will find that it is still impossible to get faster than c.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 5:42 am

All theoretically speaking... of course.
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 6:14 am

Well, of course. But these effects have been carefully tested experimentally many times over, and the results consistently support the theory of Relativity.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 6:33 am

But, they haven't been proven... and I know you know that. What I am saying is that laws are different in space than on earth... being as there is not NEARLY as much matter in the way stopping us from doing anything we discussed in this forum.. and until we test it in space, we can only assume. That's all I'm saying... as much as it is tested on earth, the results may vary in space... and probably will...
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 6:39 am

There have been tests in space too. I'm sure you've heard of astronomy. So far, results consistently support the notion that the laws of nature are the same everywhere.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 6:54 am

until we have the science to prove that we cannot reach the speed of light, there will always be theories to believe we can, and ones to believe we can't... I'm neither for, nor against either of the two
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 6:57 am

and I have heard of astronomy... but the thing is, I haven't heard anyone prove that we can't get there... its all speculation based on tests... and for now, I am sticking with my thoughts that the Universe is not based on what we know... but what we can imagine. I think that the laws vary from galaxy to galaxy, and universe to parallel universe... based on the idea that each world can be different, in laws and matter (which will not be proven wrong, or right for that matter, at least yet), then so can galaxies and parallel universes
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 7:11 am

Using powerful telescopes, we have been able to observe distant galaxies, and all available evidence says that those galaxies obey the same physical laws as our own.

True, we can never prove that it is impossible for a material object to reach the speed of light. Nevertheless, this prediction has been tested many times, and is well accepted by most scientists. Strictly speaking, there's no way to prove that if I jump out the window, I will fall to the ground; nevertheless, I am highly confident that I would because there's plenty of experimental evidence behind it.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Twix18 » Sun May 08, 2005 7:19 am

they planets may spin the same way as ours but that dosent mean jack about what other laws they have similar or differnet to our own. and you are baseing you reaserch on the ideas of a very small number of people who for all you know could be sitting in a mail room bouncingideas off of one another and knowing that no one can prove them wrong choose the ones that seem the most right and publishing them.
I am a master to the unspoken word... and a slave to what has already been said.

"Somebody should have labled the future some assmebly required"

"the future isnt what it used to be"
Twix18
Dionian
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 5:49 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 7:20 am

Well, in there lies the LAWS of Gravity... so for now, we will assume that you are right... being as there is no proof that you will certainly fall to the ground...
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 7:23 am

Actually, the number of scientists today really isn't that small; its probably more than it has been in any time in history. It takes years of training and hard work to become a scientist, and making up results is definitely considered extremely dishonorable.

Articles in major scientific journals aren't published because they "look right". The journals actually appoint "referees", highly qualified professionals that make sure that the study has been conducted correctly. Even if an experiment was done incorrectly, the experiment would have to be repeated, and the mistake would almost certainly be caught the second, or third time around.
Last edited by jinydu on Sun May 08, 2005 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Twix18 » Sun May 08, 2005 7:24 am

k.. lemme try again. the number of scientist that care enough to sit in front of a power telescope and see other galixes is tiny, compared to the rest of the scinetific population.
I am a master to the unspoken word... and a slave to what has already been said.

"Somebody should have labled the future some assmebly required"

"the future isnt what it used to be"
Twix18
Dionian
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 5:49 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 7:27 am

Twix18 wrote:k.. lemme try again. the number of scientist that care enough to sit in front of a power telescope and see other galixes is tiny, compared to the rest of the scinetific population.


True, but the number is large enough that you couldn't fit them all into a single room like that. The actual number is probably at least in the thousands.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 7:27 am

well, being that they aren't proven wrong, who knows... when they are, it's dishonorable, and if not that, just REALLY embarassing when they are publicly humiliated for making such false and rediculous claims.
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby Twix18 » Sun May 08, 2005 7:35 am

i was speaking figuritivly about them sitting in a room... im a creative wrting major, i understand things in real english. ( this does not mean in any way shape or form that i know how to spell) but thye are the only ones of their kind and with a little comunication can make up whatever they want us to belive... lying and tell ing people that theyve advanceed human knowledged is far easier than acctually advanceing human knowledge
I am a master to the unspoken word... and a slave to what has already been said.

"Somebody should have labled the future some assmebly required"

"the future isnt what it used to be"
Twix18
Dionian
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 5:49 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 7:52 am

Twix18 wrote:i was speaking figuritivly about them sitting in a room... im a creative wrting major, i understand things in real english. ( this does not mean in any way shape or form that i know how to spell) but thye are the only ones of their kind and with a little comunication can make up whatever they want us to belive... lying and tell ing people that theyve advanceed human knowledged is far easier than acctually advanceing human knowledge


Its usually not a good idea to accuse people of lying, unless you have some good evidence behind it. But even if you were to say that all current astronomers are, shall we say, "ethically challenged", new people are entering the field every year. In any case, I find it very difficult to believe that generations of scientists have been out to fool the world.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 7:56 am

.... yeah... he has a point... I don't think the scientists are out to fool us all... that would only make for great movies and tv shows... and I can also see where twix man is comin from. If you had the ability to word phrases so people would believe it, and didn't have the ability to actually pull it off, it would very much be easier to do it that way.... but then again, I don't quite think they would do it that way... cuz there will be someone who will come along and just blow them all away.
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby jinydu » Sun May 08, 2005 8:01 am

brasileiro wrote:.... yeah... he has a point... I don't think the scientists are out to fool us all... that would only make for great movies and tv shows... and I can also see where twix man is comin from. If you had the ability to word phrases so people would believe it, and didn't have the ability to actually pull it off, it would very much be easier to do it that way.... but then again, I don't quite think they would do it that way... cuz there will be someone who will come along and just blow them all away.


I fully agree. Do you think people would spend some many hard years studying, just to fool the public with a bunch of complicated-sounding words? A reasonably diligent high school student could do that without much difficulty.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Mon May 09, 2005 12:33 am

The math that describes relativity (which is literally our current most efficient model of the universe as a whole) directly requires the speed of light to be finite and "a cosmic speed limit". Looking for proof is like looking a word up in the dictionary and then saying "prove to me that this word actually means what its definition says it does". You can't prove a theory, you can only back it up...and so far relativitists have been doing pretty good.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby brasileiro » Mon May 09, 2005 12:39 am

Although you cannot prove a theory true (at this point) unless you make a theory, experiment with it, then come to find the laws that make it that way, you can prove a theory false... but until then, you will have to assume that it is, for the most part, true and back it up with experiments. And I think, that the best way to show that the theory is true, is to try and prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong, no matter what you do, then the more you will believe it to be true.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
~Albert Einstein

If you teach someone in the 2nd dimension, they will live in the 2nd dimension... if you teach them in the 3rd, they will live in the 3rd.
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby houserichichi » Mon May 09, 2005 12:43 am

I'm with you on that one...OR you can try and find a better theory - something that incoroprates the current best and a bit more ... then experiment with the "bit more" to see if it's still worthy of pursuing. General relativity is incomplete at best so we know it will be revamped/replaced eventually but it's been working beautifully for a very long time. Since we know it's incomplete we don't need to prove it wrong, we need to find something better.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby wendy » Mon May 09, 2005 4:22 am

The effects of traveling faster than the speed of light are experimentally known: one gets a bow wave and radiating energy.

A high speed particle, on entering water, would be traveling faster than the speed of light, and since this is observed, we note the outcome from experiment.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby jinydu » Mon May 09, 2005 4:57 am

wendy wrote:The effects of traveling faster than the speed of light are experimentally known: one gets a bow wave and radiating energy.

A high speed particle, on entering water, would be traveling faster than the speed of light, and since this is observed, we note the outcome from experiment.


This is known as Cherenkov Radiation, and it has been confirmed experimentally:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... ation.html

Note that this does not violate Special Relativity, since the massive particle exceeds the speed of light in water (or some other optically dense medium), which is lower than the speed of light in a vacuum.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Mon May 09, 2005 5:38 am

When referring to superluminal effects they require light to be travelling in a vacuum. Cherenkov radiation happens when light travels through another medium...thus it is an example of a neat effect but it's not what the general inquiry on superluminal speeds would be referring to.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby wendy » Mon May 09, 2005 11:09 am

One has to understand what relativity is.

To begin with, it's a set of equations that makes electromagnetism invariant to frames of reference. Part of the implications of this involve the notion of space-time on the Minkowski geometry.

I do understand what is written on the subject, but i don't exatly understand what is implied by the relativity.

Firstly, understand that the waves propagate from a source is dependent on the medium, (because of the electric and magnetic constants), and therefore c ought vary (relativity-wise), for all media, not just vacuum.

It is only that the sorts of distances where we see enough extent is a vacuum.

Thus, something travelling through water faster than the local speed of light, really is travelling faster than light even in the relativistic way. That is, when it is travelling faster than light, it is also travelling faster than EM waves do.

This is what makes all it more interesting...
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby houserichichi » Mon May 09, 2005 1:34 pm

The light itself is still travelling at c when passing through any medium; it's the processes happening at the quantum level that "slow light down". Electrons absorb the photons, time passes, then the photons are re-emitted - this all takes time but within the "spaces" between absorbtion/emission the light is still travelling at c.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby wendy » Thu May 12, 2005 12:26 am

Light really does travel slower in water than it does in vacuum. Light, is after all, a wave of vectors E and H. However, the transfers of energy between these two vectors is dependent on the diaelectric and diamagentic constants of these media.

We then have D = eE/c, and B = mH/c, where e and m are the electric and magnetic constants of these media, and the ability to render D and B from E and H is pretty much what defines the speed of light. So what happens, is the wave-equation is created in terms of a constant em/c^2,
which means the waves propegate at a velocity of c/sqrt(em).

That is, the speed of light is retarded by the ambiant field that exists inside the medium, rather than interactions of the medium.

Mind you, one can calculate the angle of defraction, and also the path of shortest travel by means of boundary conditions: that is, light takes a sharp bend, because it _really_ does travel slower in water than air. The speed in air ~ 980,000,000 ft/s, in water, ~ 750,000,000 ft/s

A very fast cosmic particle hitting a large quantity of water at 950,000,000 ft/s, and this being faster than light, would really be travelling faster than light. But the effects are so slight that one has to hide lots of water underground, and set up lots of sensors. But it's still going 200,000,000 ft/s over the "speed-limit".

Where there is a lot of absorption, the medium appears opaque, the colour being a cumulation of re-radiation. Clear media do not absorb lots of light, none the less, the medium slows down.

It's more that space is essentially empty, that we can treat c in the einstein equations as a constant.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby RMac2k5 » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:50 am

Could the use of antimatter reduce the weight of a vessel enough to send it past C in a vacuum?
When in doubt, God did it.
~Mac~
RMac2k5
Mononian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Howard Payne University

Postby jinydu » Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:20 am

Antimatter is simply matter with opposite (electric) charge. Therefore, antimatter has positive mass.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:41 pm

The use of tachyon particles (which haven't been observed ever) would reduce the weight and send the vessel in vacuo to speeds of necessarily greater than light. Keep in mind that the entire ship itself would have to be composed of tachyons entirely, nothing else.

Perhaps someone can correct me but the problem would lie with getting a person inside that ship since no tachyon can be slowed down beyond the threshold of light speed...and I supposed the other thing about never actually finding evidence for them probably wouldn't help get the ship built either. :)
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron