Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Faster than light?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 06:11 AM

Well as I have seen, there has been many debates as to weather or not we, or anything save photons (particles that make up light) can travel faster than the speed of light (186,000 miles per second , 300,000 kilometers per second).

Now here is the basic proof, or rather reason, why we are forever bonded to 185.9999999999' miles per second.

E=mc2

This simple but not simple equation invokes laws of staggering proportions, but I'm focusing on its effect on the speed of objects.

Now the Special Theory of Relativity (not to be confused with General theory of relativity) has MANY implications for physics. But one of them is how mass and energy and space and time are tied together.

mass is energy and time is space.

The implications of a "space-time" are huge, and not in my opinion easy enough to explain on a forum :p

But mass is time. These sinple words created the A-bomb that was dropped on japan. Well both a-boms dropped on japan.
Now the A-bomb is a perfect example for e=mc2. Take a close look at the equation. Energy = Mass times the Speed of light squared. So look at it this way. A small amount of mass is ALOT of energy. Because the speed of light is so fast. (speed=distance/time). So with a single ounce of uranium they were able to blow the fuck out of japan.

Now with that mind set, we can look at the next point. We have to know the laws that govern motion. Now energy has many forms. The form we are going to concintrait on is "kenetic" energy. In order to move an object it takes energy. This is because motion is relative and each object has the same right to consider themselvs stationairy!! So look at e=mc2 again. The more mass an object has, the more energy it takes to move it. So think what happens as we aproach the speed of light. The objects mass increases exponentially and so does its energy! Now stop for a moment. Light has no mass. Photons are what makes up light (Well there is a Thing called particle/wave duality whcih i will explain later). Photons have no mass. So there. The amount of energy to go the speed of light would be INFINITE! And that ladies and gentleman is IMPOSSIBLE.

Now. Take a break. Go jog a mile. I am about to tell you a KNOWN part of science that is going to make your head spin. We are going to take a trip down the road of Quantam Mechanics. The other side of the Unified thoery of everything.
-----------

Here is an experament run by many science classes around the world. ITs purpose? To prove that light travels in waves. You take a card board box, and cut slits in it. put a screen on one side and a single wavlength of light on the other. Now common sense says that there should be to slits of light on the screen, but no. Light is like a pond with pebbles being dropped in. When the light is turned on, the screen shows a patern of dark and light stripes, with the brighest being in the middle of the 2 slits. Now wow, cool. Its pretty awsome. Light is waves. But what is wierd is when the light is slowed down to a single photon. IF you release a single photon one at a time through the holes (and the screen was a ELCD screen that recoreded the hit of each photon with a small dot) The same thing happens. Now think about that! What happens when you throw baseballs one at a time through holes. It makes a pile on the other side. What happens with photons is that a single photon is going through BOTH holes at once and interfering with ITSELF! Now that is some wierd shit. I have to stress that this is FACT. ITs been proven and this experamnet HAS been done, with photons and even whole atoms.

Now take another break. A even wierder "thought experament" is going to hit you.

"A cat is placed in a sealed box. Attached to the box is an apparatus containing a radioactive atomic nucleus and a canister of poison gas. This apparatus is separated from the cat in such a way that the cat can in no way interfere with it. The experiment is set up so that there is exactly a 50% chance of the nucleus decaying in one hour. If the nucleus decays, it will emit a particle that triggers the apparatus, which opens the canister and kills the cat. If the nucleus does not decay, then the cat remains alive. According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved nucleus is described as a superposition (meaning it exists partly as each simultaneously) of "decayed nucleus" and "undecayed nucleus". However, when the box is opened the experimenter sees only a "decayed nucleus/dead cat" or an "undecayed nucleus/living cat." -Edwin Schrodinger

Think about that. According to the Copenhagen interpretation the amount of uncertainty for a complex quantum system is predicteed by quantum decoherence. particles which exchange photons become mixed with each other from the point of view of an observer, meaning that these particcles can only be described acurately relative 2 each other, which decreses the total uncertainty of those particles from the point of view of our observer. By the time one has reached "quantum" levels/ so many particles have become mixed thast it decreases the uncertainty to pretty much zero. at least from the point of view of the observer, any inprobability rwith the cat as a system of quantum particles has disapered due 2 the massive amount of intanglment between all of the particles that make it up. meaning that the cat does not truly exist as both alive and dead at the same time.

What this means, is that if the cat and the "decayed nucleaus" are 100000000000 light years away, then how fast do the probabilty waves travel. If we open the box with the nucleus and we find it decayed then we know the cat is dead. How fast do the waves travel to get to the cat telling it, its dead? Which brings us to a big question. Do probabilty waves travel faster than light? Are they instantanius? According to e=mc2 and einstin the answere is no. But how can they not be? Damn, Quantam mechanics hurts. lol.

There are a gazzilion other implications of QM, but many I do not even fully understand. But what you have to know is that these situations have been tested. Infact you may call this info "old hat". Its been known for quite awhile. Actually Quantum electro-dynamics "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter," by Richard Feynman was published in 1985 and it contained all and more of this info. Check it out. Its a little out of date, but still a great read.

Anyway, most of you would not bother to finish reading all that, but feel free to post your opinions on ths speed of light and if we can ever hope to achieve it.

#2 Zero DeLocke

Zero DeLocke
  • 2087 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 10:31 AM

If at any point anything transends the speed of light, they then begin to travel parallel to time itself. You would be anywhere at any time ahead of yourself. You would live forever in an instant. Make any sense? After the speed of light, you start messing with time travel for lack of a better term.

I'm willing to talk forever on time travel, believe me.

Edited by Zero DeLocke, 27 June 2006 - 10:32 AM.


#3 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 11:01 AM

If at any point anything transends the speed of light, they then begin to travel parallel to time itself. You would be anywhere at any time ahead of yourself. You would live forever in an instant. Make any sense? After the speed of light, you start messing with time travel for lack of a better term.

I'm willing to talk forever on time travel, believe me.


Yea thats on of the features of the SPECIAL theory of relativity, and Quantam mechanics for sure. But there is still that problem. We cannot accelerate PAST the speed of light. Well unless we made our position so absolute, but then again that is thought impossible because position is relative.....

#4 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 11:02 AM

Hmmm... That was some interesting reading. :D
I don't think that we will ever be able to achieve the speed of light though, well not in our fully human state. Human beings, or anything for that matter have the potential to travel at the speed of light, but it's highly unlikely. It would actually be similar to teleportation. If it is ever achieved, there are going to be errors and mutations, because we will never be able to fully map a human body, but the only chance of traveling at the speed of light is to break up the human body to the point that it is almost = to or = to photons of light. That means taking apart the human body to the point of atoms, then past atoms to protons, neutrons and electrons, then past those to quarks, then past that to the unknown. That final stage is the only hope of being able to break the light barrier, because only then would mass be infinite, and able to travel at the speed of light.

This is all depending on the ring theory though. :p

#5 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 11:41 AM

Hmmm... That was some interesting reading. :D
I don't think that we will ever be able to achieve the speed of light though, well not in our fully human state. Human beings, or anything for that matter have the potential to travel at the speed of light, but it's highly unlikely. It would actually be similar to teleportation. If it is ever achieved, there are going to be errors and mutations, because we will never be able to fully map a human body, but the only chance of traveling at the speed of light is to break up the human body to the point that it is almost = to or = to photons of light. That means taking apart the human body to the point of atoms, then past atoms to protons, neutrons and electrons, then past those to quarks, then past that to the unknown. That final stage is the only hope of being able to break the light barrier, because only then would mass be infinite, and able to travel at the speed of light.

This is all depending on the ring theory though. :p



Well there is some interesting points with black holes. With random teloportation. Its a lengthy topic so google it if your interested. "anti-particles, black holes"

Or read Stephen Hawkings essay on the subject "Black holes and baby universes"

If at any point anything transends the speed of light, they then begin to travel parallel to time itself. You would be anywhere at any time ahead of yourself. You would live forever in an instant.

I'm willing to talk forever on time travel, believe me.


I took another look at that. Actually light is not instantanius, so yes you would age less slower than someone on earth. But then again TIME is relative. Think about this. Someone standing on a water tower ages faster than someone on the ground because gravity warps time. So does acceleration.

#6 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 11:42 AM

Let's limit this discussion to controlled phenomena. :)

#7 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 11:50 AM

Let's limit this discussion to controlled phenomena. :)



Lol i just fogot. The "baby universe" theory would suck if it was true. It would mean we could not accuartly judge the amount of matter in the universe and then the universe could end in a "big crunch"

#8 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 12:11 PM

Exactly... and we don't want to face what we can't control. xD So do you think we could travel at the speed of light by splitting up even quarks, into the rings of light, which would be the essence of what we needed to be to travel at that speed. The only problem would be slowing down... It would be difficult to reassemble the human body from rings to quarks to electrons/protons to atoms to cells to tissue to organs to the complete human body. xD

#9 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 12:18 PM

Exactly... and we don't want to face what we can't control. xD So do you think we could travel at the speed of light by splitting up even quarks, into the rings of light, which would be the essence of what we needed to be to travel at that speed. The only problem would be slowing down... It would be difficult to reassemble the human body from rings to quarks to electrons/protons to atoms to cells to tissue to organs to the complete human body. xD



Well not even quarks travel at the speed of light. Only those massless little photons that electrons give off and absorb

#10 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 05:25 PM

I didn't say when we're broken down to quarks, you could travel at the speed of light, I said broken down one level beyond quarks, to rings of light. O.o It's based on the ring theory which suggests that quarks are made up of different vibrating rings of different sizes, and each ring makes up a different type of quark depending on how it is vibrating and its size. If we broke down the human body to those, then we have a chance of breaking the light barrier. O.o

#11 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 08:36 PM

I didn't say when we're broken down to quarks, you could travel at the speed of light, I said broken down one level beyond quarks, to rings of light. O.o It's based on the ring theory which suggests that quarks are made up of different vibrating rings of different sizes, and each ring makes up a different type of quark depending on how it is vibrating and its size. If we broke down the human body to those, then we have a chance of breaking the light barrier. O.o



Hummmm. little rings of light? Wait. Im confused. Quarks are rouphly smaller than photons......

#12 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 10:07 PM

That's where it gets complicated... It's like mini black holes, yet not mini black holes... There are some external forces that I forgot that push those photons of light together, as in the protons of a mini black hole, but since light has no actual mass, it's not able to be forced into a black hole since it has no gravitational pull (black holes could be created by external forces). So all the photons are able to do is get compressed. This explains the difference in wavelengths and sizes for each ring as well, since all light has a constant wavelength, but since it becomes compressed, it's behavior changes, and that provides for the different types of rings...
That's the ring theory in a nutshell. :)

#13 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 12:51 AM

That's where it gets complicated... It's like mini black holes, yet not mini black holes... There are some external forces that I forgot that push those photons of light together, as in the protons of a mini black hole, but since light has no actual mass, it's not able to be forced into a black hole since it has no gravitational pull (black holes could be created by external forces). So all the photons are able to do is get compressed. This explains the difference in wavelengths and sizes for each ring as well, since all light has a constant wavelength, but since it becomes compressed, it's behavior changes, and that provides for the different types of rings...
That's the ring theory in a nutshell. :)


External forces...... Thats the issue. Wtf are they?
Im not sure you have this ring thoery all planned out. And if you do I think its out dated. Light is waves and particles. Hence the term Wave-particle Duality.

And I thought it was Vacum fluxuations that made light stay in the wave form. The electrons absorbing and putting out new photons....

#14 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2006 - 02:43 AM

This is hilarious.
You innaccuracies are stunning.
Not necessarily the topic maker, that was a reasonably well structured and coherent read. I was also impressed by your differentiation between accelerating to and travelling at the speed of light, since they are of course two very different things.

This is all depending on the ring theory though. :p

First of all, the term is STring theory. And they aren't rings/strings of light, they are rings/strings of pure energy.
What you said later, about their vibrations determining the properties of the particles they form when "joined together" was correct, however.

Well there is some interesting points with black holes. With random teloportation. Its a lengthy topic so google it if your interested. "anti-particles, black holes"

Just a guess, and not a knock, here, but are you talking perhaps about using particles with antimass to hold open wormholes?

Lol i just fogot. The "baby universe" theory would suck if it was true. It would mean we could not accuartly judge the amount of matter in the universe and then the universe could end in a "big crunch"

Technically, we can't accurately guess it... there are inconsistencies in every measurement we've taken... so leading to the hunt for elusive dark matter and dark energy. Fun xP

So do you think we could travel at the speed of light by splitting up even quarks, into the rings of light, which would be the essence of what we needed to be to travel at that speed. The only problem would be slowing down... It would be difficult to reassemble the human body from rings to quarks to electrons/protons to atoms to cells to tissue to organs to the complete human body. xD

Technically speaking, we are already formed of this energy, so we wouldn't have to split ourselves up. However, the problem we face is not really mass, but momentum.

Hummmm. little rings of light? Wait. Im confused. Quarks are rouphly smaller than photons......

You seem to be fairly knowledgeable, so I'm not inclined to rip right into you. However, as far as I'm aware, photons have no measurable size...
Perhaps you meant a quark is smaller than a proton? About half the size, in fact, despite a proton being made of three of them ;)

since light has no actual mass, it's not able to be forced into a black hole since it has no gravitational pull (black holes could be created by external forces). So all the photons are able to do is get compressed. This explains the difference in wavelengths and sizes for each ring as well, since all light has a constant wavelength, but since it becomes compressed, it's behavior changes, and that provides for the different types of rings...
That's the ring theory in a nutshell. :)

This is obscenely incorrect. All of it :p
Light does not have measurable mass. But it does have momentum, and it is affected by gravity. Why do you think black holes are called black? It's because even light cannot escape from them.
Black holes cannot be created by external forces. A black hole is a singularity in space time: a point (or ring) of near-infinite mass. A black hole in created exclusively by gravity, which is a "pull" force, at least on normal matter, and thus a black hole must be created by a force inside it.
Light does not have a constant wavelength. No. No. No. What exactly do you think colours are? Different flavours? No, fella, different wavelengths, as I believe Mr Newton conclusively proved several hundred years ago.
And yes, as I said, Strings are not light, but pure energy, according to the theory, at least.

Im not sure you have this ring thoery all planned out. And if you do I think its out dated. Light is waves and particles. Hence the term Wave-particle Duality.

It is a fairly modern theory, perhaps a year or so old...
It is, of course, purely hypoethetical, and as yet, totally unverifiable.

Edited by Joe, 28 June 2006 - 02:45 AM.


#15 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 02:58 AM

Technically, we can't accurately guess it... there are inconsistencies in every measurement we've taken... so leading to the hunt for elusive dark matter and dark energy. Fun xP


To tell you the truth, I have little knowlege of the whole subject of dark matter. But physiccts can guess at the amount of dark matter in the universe by its effects on other bodies. meaning they have a close idea to tha amount of matter in the universe. But if matter can hide in these "baby universes" then we know alot less. Anyway metaphysics and theological physics is no good without observations....soooo well lets wait and see.

Anyway. Don't be to hard on them. I did a little research to check my points, well a few of them. But its just info off the top of their heads. Some also may have been corrupted by bad resources. You know, those really strange thoerys..

Oh, and wave-particle duality has been around since feymans days...... ITs not really a new theory, they have just recently proved it with some hi-tech prism experiment. I dont know much about it. Just glanced at it in a science journal.

I really do hope i end up studying astophysics in college. I cant seem to learn much with just library books, and the used book store. High school sucks...

#16 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 10:46 AM

First of all, the term is STring theory. And they aren't rings/strings of light, they are rings/strings of pure energy.

Really? O.o *the trust for my chem teacher fades*... <_<

Technically speaking, we are already formed of this energy, so we wouldn't have to split ourselves up. However, the problem we face is not really mass, but momentum.

How is mass not an issue? Light has no actual measurable mass, and in order to match it's speed we have to make ours equal to it. You make our mass equal to the mass of light, you the problem of momentum at those speeds. Therefore, easier travelling, mate. ;)

Light does not have measurable mass. But it does have momentum, and it is affected by gravity. Why do you think black holes are called black? It's because even light cannot escape from them.

I never said light wasn't affected by gravity, and I know why they're black and such. xD

Black holes cannot be created by external forces. A black hole is a singularity in space time: a point (or ring) of near-infinite mass. A black hole in created exclusively by gravity, which is a "pull" force, at least on normal matter, and thus a black hole must be created by a force inside it.

First of all... a black hole can be created by external forces, it's called a primordial black hole. The only known way that they could have been created was the moment after the Big Bang happened. Look it up. ;) What is needed to create a black hole, is a point of extreme density. The reason larger stars form black holes where smaller stars don't is that the more mass you have, the less density is needed to create a black hole. That is why the gravity of those stars are able to collapse the star into a black hole.
A primordial black hole is formed by compressing 10^36 protons into the area that usually one proton would occupy. Once these protons are compressed together, the weak gravitational force becomes more powerful than the strong repulsion forces between the protons, thus forming a miniature/primordial black hole.

#17 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2006 - 01:07 PM

You need to be more precise with your phrasing.
A primordial black hole is created with forces on the protons compressing them into a spatial singularity. Which then forms a black hole.
A singularity alone is not a black hole.

"since light has no actual mass, it's not able to be forced into a black hole since it has no gravitational pull"
That is what you said. Those are your words.
To me, that says either light is not affected by gravity, or a black hole has no gravitational pull.
Like I said... more precision ;)

#18 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 01:15 PM

O wtf...
I said that?
xD
:blush:
lol

#19 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2006 - 01:22 PM

Lol. No worries. We all make daft mistakes like that in long paragraphs.
I know I do :p

#20 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 29 June 2006 - 08:38 PM

Really? O.o *the trust for my chem teacher fades*... <_<

How is mass not an issue? Light has no actual measurable mass, and in order to match it's speed we have to make ours equal to it. You make our mass equal to the mass of light, you the problem of momentum at those speeds. Therefore, easier travelling, mate. ;)

I never said light wasn't affected by gravity, and I know why they're black and such. xD

First of all... a black hole can be created by external forces, it's called a primordial black hole. The only known way that they could have been created was the moment after the Big Bang happened. Look it up. ;) What is needed to create a black hole, is a point of extreme density. The reason larger stars form black holes where smaller stars don't is that the more mass you have, the less density is needed to create a black hole. That is why the gravity of those stars are able to collapse the star into a black hole.
A primordial black hole is formed by compressing 10^36 protons into the area that usually one proton would occupy. Once these protons are compressed together, the weak gravitational force becomes more powerful than the strong repulsion forces between the protons, thus forming a miniature/primordial black hole.


Dont watch so much discovery channel. Thats not real physics.

No black holes were created at the big bang. Shortly after the big bang stress of extream expansion cause "mini" black holes.

And just by you not knowing that black holes release energy in the form of anit-particle pairs tells me you don't know much. Black holes die out and an exponetal rate.

Really, Im tired and hungry. Go read a REAL book on physics. PM me and i can recomend hundreds.......Till then. Don't make yourself look dumb.

#21 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 02 July 2006 - 06:01 PM

Black holes die out and an exponetal rate.

I think you meant at an exponential rate, and it isn't possible for a black hole to die out over time, no matter what it does, because of the singularity. Space and time stop at the singularity. I would like to know how it would die out, if time isn't an affecting matter at the singularity, which is the main component of a black hole.

#22 sonic

sonic
  • 3452 posts

Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:14 PM

I think you meant at an exponential rate, and it isn't possible for a black hole to die out over time, no matter what it does, because of the singularity. Space and time stop at the singularity. I would like to know how it would die out, if time isn't an affecting matter at the singularity, which is the main component of a black hole.



Alright.
I have had enough.
I'm going in cirlces with you!
I just spent like an hour typing up a response for you.
READ IT.
Quit talking out of your ass.

http://www.neocodex....showtopic=52354

#23 fonkeymonkey

fonkeymonkey
  • 894 posts

Posted 03 July 2006 - 06:29 AM

We are already at the speed of sound... ofcourse we can make it to the speed of light. SOLAR POWER!

#24 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 July 2006 - 08:18 AM

We are already at the speed of sound... ofcourse we can make it to the speed of light. SOLAR POWER!

I don't know if you noticed, but the debate forum is, generally speaking, a place for informed, sensible and rational discussion.
Not idiocy.

If you have a view, express it. Otherwise stay out of these topics.

#25 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 08:32 AM

What about telepathy? Remote viewing? The speed at which images come into peoples minds is instant.

There was a time that the earth was flat simply because there was nothing out there that could prove it wrong, it made sense.

Maybe the speed of light is the same way?

I completly believe that there are other realms of existance (possibly areas to which our spirit travels?) that we havn't touched upon yet. Perhaps in these areas our thoughts can travel faster.

As humans. . . I can't give an answer either way as to if I think we'll ever move faster than the speed of light. For humans on a higher level of existance, I'm all for it.

I had this discussion with my grandma and grandpa like a month ago, it was fun.

Edit: After further reading I saw sonic made a post about dark matter and how scientists can use it to judge the ammount of matter in the universe.

I thought we havn't even come close to measuring dark matter? It's a very recent discovery and we are just learning more about it and what it really is. Or am I confusing it with something else?

Edited by Raillery, 06 July 2006 - 08:36 AM.



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users