Question is it possible to ove faster than the speed of light? if so than what do you think you'll need?? :bugeye:

:m: :D

Possibly,
Though not in our normal space-time, as the light speed limit is `hardwired` into the universe.

I cannot think of a possible solution to circumvent that `barrier`; which allow particles on `this side` to cross over (and via versa)...
An infinite amount of energy is needed to reach light speed.

Question is it possible to ove faster than the speed of light? if so than what do you think you'll need?? :bugeye:

:m: :D

Yes, you can.

Since the index of refraction is the ratio of speed of light in a vacuum to phase speed in the medium, this means that the phase speed in the medium exceeds the speed of light!

from :

http://physics.njit.edu/~dgary/728/Lecture3.html

The thing is, also according to Einstein, you cannot transfer any *information* going faster than the speed of light. You could not use it to send a faster-than-light signal.

@mercurio
Hum, a easy read version can be found here.
http://plus.maths.org/issue12/news/fasterThanLight/

I would personally regard it as a type of `<b>probability wave</b>`.
Though it must be pointed out that there is <i>no</i> refractive index in a vacuum… Er, because there is nothing there.
However, in some sort of medium with, say, a refractive index larger than the velocity of light, then it is possible for a particle to move faster than the speed of light in that media.

<i>“Cherenkov radiation is emitted whenever charged particles pass through matter with a velocity v exceeding the velocity of light in the medium”</i>

http://rd11.web.cern.ch/RD11/rkb/PH14pp/node26.html

Possibly,
Though not in our normal space-time, as the light speed limit is `hardwired` into the universe.

I cannot think of a possible solution to circumvent that `barrier`; which allow particles on `this side` to cross over (and via versa)...
An infinite amount of energy is needed to reach light speed.

I would have to say that the answer is maybe or maybe not. The infinite energy claim is highly questionable. You see that is based mostly on particle accelerator data and particle accelerators apply the accelerating force where the velocity between the driving source and the particle becomes relavistic.

There is no known case where something that is self propelled i.e. - such as a rocket, where the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load exist and there is no relavistic velocity between them, hence no physical limit on continued force and continued acceleration have been tested or observed.

The particle accelerator creates an illusion of increased mass simply because nothing can be accelerated faster than the driving EM being applied and it is limited to v = c relative to the accelerator. Such that even infinite energy by the accelerator cannot push a particle any faster - even though the particle need not have increased in mass at all.

The only other restriction is the theory of relativity which has not been tested or proven in that regime or manner.

warning warning warning

The following post contains information/ideas that do not conform to accepted scientific principles and are far outside the bounds of mainstream physics. While it is possible (in the sense that anything is possible) that the following information is correct, it is an example of what most scientists would consider to be 'crackpot' science.

I would have to say that the answer is maybe or maybe not. The infinite energy claim is highly questionable. You see that is based mostly on particle accelerator data and particle accelerators apply the accelerating force where the velocity between the driving source and the particle becomes relavistic.

There is no known case where something that is self propelled i.e. - such as a rocket, where the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load exist and there is no relavistic velocity between them, hence no physical limit on continued force and continued acceleration have been tested or observed.

The particle accelerator creates an illusion of increased mass simply because nothing can be accelerated faster than the driving EM being applied and it is limited to v = c relative to the accelerator. Such that even infinite energy by the accelerator cannot push a particle any faster - even though the particle need not have increased in mass at all.

The only other restriction is the theory of relativity which has not been tested or proven in that regime or manner.

For how long?

warning warning warning

The following post contains information/ideas that do not conform to accepted scientific principles and are far outside the bounds of mainstream physics. While it is possible (in the sense that anything is possible) that the following information is correct, it is an example of what most scientists would consider to be 'crackpot' science.

:D Quite a blurb. But I see no technical substance to the assumption. Perhaps you might try to addressing the issues raised in defense of this infalible science.

He is however correct in that this is not what is being advocated by the elite in charge. But that doesn't justify their position by a long shot. Further I would think most can read text books. Are we here to recite them or to think and discuss issues?

@mercurio

Though it must be pointed out that there is <i>no</i> refractive index in a vacuum… Er, because there is nothing there.


I know (thanks for the reminder anyway), the quote was talking about plasma, where it applies, since for a plasma (with no magnetic field) the index of refraction is always less than 1.

warning warning warning

The following post contains information/ideas that do not conform to accepted scientific principles and are far outside the bounds of mainstream physics. While it is possible (in the sense that anything is possible) that the following information is correct, it is an example of what most scientists would consider to be 'crackpot' science.

Nasor, I respect what you are trying to do, but I think most people on this forum are either quite aware of crackpottery, or that such crackpottery exposes itself in group discussions anyway.

I don't think it's necessary to attach 'leper bell' postings on a regular basis.

Actually, there is hardly any better way to learn to spot errors than discussing them, instead of labeling them and ignoring them.

Don't forget the true crackpot exposes himself more by 'anti-social' behaviour in the sense of one-sided information, paranoid delusions etc. and not so much by his arguments alone. If it's only a veneer of rationality, people should learn how to spot the cracks in that veneer, too. By discussions.

Not by crossing the street at the sound of a bell.

The infinite energy claim is highly questionable. You see that is based mostly on particle accelerator data

MacM, I was under the impression that it was also suggested as a consequence of applying the law of conservation of momentum to moving objects experiencing time dilation due to relativistic velocities.

No, you can't go faster than the speed of light, or equal to it. Theoretically you could go 99.99999999999% the speed of light but never 100%, it would always remain just out of reach.

MacM, I was under the impression that it was also suggested as a consequence of applying the law of conservation of momentum to moving objects experiencing time dilation due to relativistic velocities.

I was merely addressing the statement made regarding the infinite mass concept. The fact is even mainstream physicists admit that relavistic mass is not a proper way of viewing the issue.

Indeed Einstein even said do not use the mass term but its momentum. Such mass calculation does not produce mass which creates any additional gravitational affect. It is not true mass but a mathematical anomally.

I was hopeful that there might be those here that enjoyed full indepth discussions of science and alternative interpretations but it appears the majority at least would rather parrot the text books even when they are teaching a likely falicy.

So I will bow out with my opologies for having upset rather sensative personalities and will not participate in slanderous personality innuendo.

If you can't address the message scientifically you should not be assaulting the messenger, doing so you are merely exposing your own short comings and capacity to think for yourself.

No, you can't go faster than the speed of light, or equal to it. Theoretically you could go 99.99999999999% the speed of light but never 100%, it would always remain just out of reach.

This too is highly questionable based on current technology findings.

See Here.

However, it would appear intelligent analysis of favored and currently held views is taken as "Crackpot" challenges. I can only suggest those that hold that opinion should attempt to match the veracity of the post with clear valid rebuttal.

But unless I see evidence of such intellect in response, I'm out of here. I'll neither waste time nor tolerate insults by pseudo-intellectuals that rely on fiat and rhetoric in support of their arguements.

Nasor, I respect what you are trying to do, but I think most people on this forum are either quite aware of crackpottery, or that such crackpottery exposes itself in group discussions anyway.I agree. However, MacM made that post in response to a question by ThaVeLLy, who has only made a single post here at sciforums and might not be knowledgeable enough to distinguish the “orthodox” responses from the crackpot ones.

I wouldn’t mind so much if MacM had prefaced his response by saying that what he was about to suggest was far outside the bounds of mainstream physics, or if ThaVeLLy had specifically asked for “alternate” view points in his question.

I agree. However, MacM made that post in response to a question by ThaVeLLy, who has only made a single post here at sciforums and might not be knowledgeable enough to distinguish the “orthodox” responses from the crackpot ones.


I see. Valid point. :)

Anyway, although raising a few points of possible deeper philosophical interest, Elvis has stampeded out of the building again, already... guess we'll never know now whodunnit, shucks.

Just a question for him to ponder out in his self-imposed retreat to Disgraceland: who would you say was right about the rotating bucket of water, Newton, Mach, or Einstein? Is the 'particle' pushing against the accellerator or against the rest of the Universe?

As I was reading MacM's curious post, I wondered about the part where he claims that relativistic mass increase has never been observed. Does anyone have a comment about that?

I agree. However, MacM made that post in response to a question by ThaVeLLy, who has only made a single post here at sciforums and might not be knowledgeable enough to distinguish the “orthodox” responses from the crackpot ones.

I wouldn’t mind so much if MacM had prefaced his response by saying that what he was about to suggest was far outside the bounds of mainstream physics, or if ThaVeLLy had specifically asked for “alternate” view points in his question.


Fair point regarding the issue of "mainstream" but I suggest it is not fair to make the assumption that it is Crackpot. Only proof of some error in my statement could support that.

I did feel it was qualified in that I said "maybe or maybe not" but I agree it could have been made more clear.

As I was reading MacM's curious post, I wondered about the part where he claims that relativistic mass increase has never been observed. Does anyone have a comment about that?

A note of caution at this point. Changing mass is a matter of interpretation. What you see is an increase in energy required to continue acceleration. That is interpreted as mass increase, even though no physicist worth his salt will any longer discuss relavistic mass but speaks of momentum.

My point has to do with the fact that the increased energy requirement might well be due to "Decreased Energy Transfer Efficiency". That explains why this supposed mass which is totally a function of the observers relative velocity, doesn't affect the moving bodies gravity force etc.

MacM:

(1)
I would have to say that the answer is maybe or maybe not. The infinite energy claim is highly questionable. You see that is based mostly on particle accelerator data and particle accelerators apply the accelerating force where the velocity between the driving source and the particle becomes relavistic.

(2)
There is no known case where something that is self propelled i.e. - such as a rocket, where the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load exist and there is no relavistic velocity between them, hence no physical limit on continued force and continued acceleration have been tested or observed.


1) I understand particle accelerators to operate by using a series of superconducting magnets to apply impulses to charged particles such that the velocity of the particle is increased with each impulse (similar to linear accelerators used for MagLev transpotration). The ultimate speed being dependent on the amount of energy you care to supply to the particle. The speed of the particle would then be relativistic compared to the stationary magnets providing the impetus. Speeds equal to or in excess of c cannot be acheived in this way, either practically or in theory. This is observed.

2) Anything that moves by action-reaction (i.e all objects in our universe) relies on a speed difference between something pushing on something else
- Propeller pushes on air, dragging plane forward, pushing air backward
- Tires push against ground, moving car forward, earth in the opposite direction (verrrry little, yes? ;))
- Rocket expels heated gas, pushes rocket forward, gas backward.

In all cases a relative diference in velocity between mover and moved must be acheived. As a rocket approaches c (antimatter rocket?), its exhaust gas will be moving in the opposite direction at a v approaching c. How, in any qualitative or quantitative way, is this different from the particle accelerator? It's all Newtonian action-reaction. How would you go about testing or observing motion in any other way?

Thanks Superluminal, good post.

MacM:

1) I understand particle accelerators to operate by using a series of superconducting magnets to apply impulses to charged particles such that the velocity of the particle is increased with each impulse (similar to linear accelerators used for MagLev transpotration). The ultimate speed being dependent on the amount of energy you care to supply to the particle. The speed of the particle would then be relativistic compared to the stationary magnets providing the impetus. Speeds equal to or in excess of c cannot be acheived in this way, either practically or in theory. This is observed.

Not sure you realize it but this is exactly what I said. What is missing is the realization that this being the case, the inability to further accelerate the particle has no bearing to any possible increase in mass but is due to the decrease in energy transfer efficiency to the force of propulsion.

No amount of energy output by the accelerator will further accelerate the particle. Hence the view that mass has become infinite.

2) Anything that moves by action-reaction (i.e all objects in our universe) relies on a speed difference between something pushing on something else

- Propeller pushes on air, dragging plane forward, pushing air backward

- Tires push against ground, moving car forward, earth in the opposite direction (verrrry little, yes? ;))

- Rocket expels heated gas, pushes rocket forward, gas backward.

Good up to here but then your view seems to fail.

In all cases a relative diference in velocity between mover and moved must be acheived. As a rocket approaches c (antimatter rocket?), its exhaust gas will be moving in the opposite direction at a v approaching c.

Not so. It is not necessary that the exhaust gas achieve the equivelent of initial rest (hence relavistic in relation to the rocket). The rocket is propelled by the shear rejection of matter in the -v direction. The increase of rocket speed being due to the force of rejection (acceleration of the exhaust gas in the opposite direction - even at 10 Mph, not some relavistic speed due to the forward motion of the rocket to some remote observer.

Rembember the rocket, engine and fuel all consider themselves as being at rest, at all times. Physics is the same in all inertial frames. The reaction of the engine to the exhausted burnt fuel is the same at any point along its accelerated velocity relative to any other object in the universe. You are not pushing against a column of at rest gas, you are accelerating the gas relative to the rocket.

How, in any qualitative or quantitative way, is this different from the particle accelerator? It's all Newtonian action-reaction. How would you go about testing or observing motion in any other way?

In the hypothetical case of a relavistic rocket (actually any rocket at any speed) the acceleration of the exhaust in the opposite direction is in part a deceleration of the gas relative to the initial rest position. The force (thrust) is a function of changing the velocity of the gas relative to the rocket and not some hypothetical velocity relative to any number of observers moving with a variety of velocities relative to the rocket. Thrust of the rocket will not be affected physically by any observers view of its velocity. Only the relative velocity between the rocket and the exhaust causes thrust.

The exhuast plume can therefor have a velocity +v = 0.9c to you but still be 0.05 c relative to a rocket with a velocity of 0.95 c to you. It is the 0.05 c relative velocity to the rocket which creates thrust by F=ma.

It can be seen that for a rocket at 0.999c relative to you, the rocket can still have the same 0.05 c exhaust relative to itself, and the same thrust regardless of your view of its velocity.

It certainly isn't relavistic but think about the space shuttle. Do you think the exhaust thrust decreases as the rocket accelerates forward? No. The thrust is exhaust relative to the rocket and not its velocity relative to the earth.

Ok MacM, point taken regarding exhaust velocity.
However, in nature, some things are accelerated with immense energies. A supernova explosion propels material with incredible energy. Jets accelerated from the poles of pulsars can reach very close to c. With the energy available to these processes, why do we not see matter (say incandescent particle streams) moving faster that c? (I have seen (apparently) superluminal jets explained to my satisfaction as relativistic geometric oddities).

Ok MacM, point taken regarding exhaust velocity.
However, in nature, some things are accelerated with immense energies. A supernova explosion propels material with incredible energy. Jets accelerated from the poles of pulsars can reach very close to c. With the energy available to these processes, why do we not see matter (say incandescent particle streams) moving faster that c? (I have seen (apparently) superluminal jets explained to my satisfaction as relativistic geometric oddities).

So have I but unfortunately I have seen a indepth study of the issue and the "Illusion Solution" can only explain about 1/2 of 1% of such observations.

The solution requires that the mass be moving in a narrow angle along the line of sight for the illusion to occur. That is sub-luminal velocity appearing to be FTL.

One major issue is the fact that most such observations do not show the required red or blue shift to be such illusions. Masses moving orthogonal to the line of sight which appear FTL are not explained by that solution.

Due to Lorentz contraction one would never see anything actually going FTL along the line of sight. But objects not moving along the line of sight have been calculated to have a relative velocity to some other object which is FTL.

I guess the best position is to think the issue is still not proven either way.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/motion/proper.html

Okey Dokey.

Okey Dokey.


If you are actually interested in this sort of information you might try this article:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf

If you are actually interested in this sort of information you might try this article:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf

Interesting. It also points out some 'minor' difficulties in determining information, though, and only gives a tentative hint at a solution that MAYBE would NOT let information-passing drop well below lightspeed, which was the point.

Transluminal signals or physical movement, that's what we'd like to see. :)

Interesting. It also points out some 'minor' difficulties in determining information, though, and only gives a tentative hint at a solution that MAYBE would NOT let information-passing drop well below lightspeed, which was the point.

Transluminal signals or physical movement, that's what we'd like to see. :)

The following is only an example. I do not think it is actually FTL however in that they use the term "apparent". Nor do they discuss the "Blueshift" issue, so it is hard to tell.

The point is when such motion is observered without blueshift the illusion solution is not correct and in some cases they state "Proper Motion" and do not claim "Apparent Motion". (See Proper Motion above), which is not motion causing the illusion.

I'll be looking for examples and the study discussion about these FTL findings.

http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/m87.html

Here is an example of one that is the illusion solution and it properly identifies the red/blue shifted components of the observed light motion.

************************* Extract ************************

http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw71.html

The light from an approaching source will also be shifted to higher frequencies because of the Doppler effect. The approaching source will also appear brighter because Lorentz contraction produces a forward "beaming" of the light from the source, a relativistic effect. In other words, the apparent faster-than-light velocities of superluminal objects can be explained by relativity and geometry, provided we assume that quasars have a high probability of spitting out energetic blobs of hot gas in our direction. However, quasars are denizens of the early universe and are separated from our galaxy by an appreciable fraction of the diameter of the universe. Their superluminal fireworks show is very far from us in time and space.

Within our own galaxy, the record for the fastest speed of travel by matter has been held by the object called SS433, a famous galactic source of radio jets. A study of the spectral lines in the visible light from SS433 showed that it had three light components, a normal component, a red-shifted component, and a blue-shifted component. This, along with the elongated radio image of SS433, led to a model of the object as a central massive core that was emitting twin jets of hot matter, one moving rapidly away from us and producing red-shifted light and the other moving toward us and produced blue-shifted light.

*********************************
An interesting article from Cornell about redshift and expansion and FTL.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/expan.html
************************************

The "Illusion Solution"

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm

Lorentz Transformations are not the only answer to constant light velocity. Superluminal velocites are considered possible.

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e98/PAPERS/WEP50C.PDF

I am still looking for the study which breaks down the FTL issue into (8) different catagories which shows the "Illusion Solution" to be a minor affect in the overall scope of FTL observations.

The following is only an example. I do not think it is actually FTL however in that they use the term "apparent". Nor do they discuss the "Blueshift" issue, so it is hard to tell.

I'll check out those links, thanks.

Thing to remember with these experiments is that if the Earth would move at lightspeed around the Sun, we ourselves, or whatever's left, would be moving at greater than lightspeed half the day, because of the rotation of the Earth. It would not do anyone any good though, in the FTL 'business' sense.

On inertia: what would happen, you think, if there were two stones tied together by a rope, and there'd be NOTHING else inside that universe, would the rope be taut, and the stones circling each other, or not, and why... ? I'd really like to hear your answer on that one...

On inertia: what would happen, you think, if there were two stones tied together by a rope, and there'd be NOTHING else inside that universe, would the rope be taut, and the stones circling each other, or not, and why... ? I'd really like to hear your answer on that one...

Not being difficult but I think that would depend on:

1 - The masses of the stones.

2 - The length of the rope.

3 - The rate of co-rotation of the stones.

Centrifugal force and momentum would cause them to tend to move apart keeping the rope taught, assuming that those forces were not over powered by local gravity between them and pulling them together.

At least that is what I imagine just from you scenario.

Not being difficult but I think that would depend on:

1 - The masses of the stonses.

2 - The length of the rope.

3 - The rate of co-rotation of the stones.

Centrifugal force and momentum would cause them to tend to move apart keeping the rope taught, assuming that those forces were not over powered by local gravity between them and pulling them together.

At least that is what I imagine just from you scenario.

I see you're not familiar with the experiment and ensuing Gedankenexperiment - here's a bit of background:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Newton_bucket.html

Don't you find it a bit strange, too, how Einstein sides with Mach (whom he greatly respected, btw) in one experiment, and 'prefers' Newton in the other? They seem intuitively to be opposites, I my view.

I ask all this because I think inertia is of major importance in this discussion, as I hope you will agree.

I see you're not familiar with the experiment and ensuing Gedankenexperiment - here's a bit of background:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Newton_bucket.html

Don't you find it a bit strange, too, how Einstein sides with Mach (whom he greatly respected, btw) in one experiment, and 'prefers' Newton in the other? They seem intuitively to be opposites, I my view.

I ask all this because I think inertia is of major importance in this discussion, as I hope you will agree.

From my perspective I can agree with Newton without hesitation. The others seem to make assumptions unsupported by either evidence or logic.

Intriguing. My bet would have been you'd side with Mach, strangely.

But then again, Newton and Einstein with their absolute time and space / absolute spacetime respectively, are making the assumptions, it would seem, while Mach says it all depends on the rest mass in the Universe... hmm.

So how would you explain 'frame dragging' if space is absolute (immutable)?

Intriguing. My bet would have been you'd side with Mach, strangely.

But then again, Newton and Einstein with their absolute time and space / absolute spacetime respectively, are making the assumptions, it would seem, while Mach says it all depends on the rest mass in the Universe... hmm.

So how would you explain 'frame dragging' if space is absolute (immutable)?

Not to give the wrong impression, I am only agreeing with Newton in respect to this question, not as to his view of gravity being some property of matter.

I totally disagree that it is a function of all other mass in the universe and I do not accept Einstein's interpretation of light and the resulting concept of Special Relativity.

A note of caution at this point. Changing mass is a matter of interpretation. What you see is an increase in energy required to continue acceleration. That is interpreted as mass increase, even though no physicist worth his salt will any longer discuss relavistic mass but speaks of momentum.

My point has to do with the fact that the increased energy requirement might well be due to "Decreased Energy Transfer Efficiency". That explains why this supposed mass which is totally a function of the observers relative velocity, doesn't affect the moving bodies gravity force etc.
Again we we see eye to on he overall principle of the affect on mass due to increased energy, oe descrease energy exchange efficiency. This is a topic whose tiem has come and needs some develepment to bring it into the field of 3rd millenium consciousness. Maybe one should consider a ripe thread for such a discussion . . . .
Geistkiesel

Again we we see eye to on he overall principle of the affect on mass due to increased energy, oe descrease energy exchange efficiency. This is a topic whose tiem has come and needs some develepment to bring it into the field of 3rd millenium consciousness. Maybe one should consider a ripe thread for such a discussion . . . .
Geistkiesel

I could agree but suggest that sombodyelse should start the thread. :D

Not to give the wrong impression, I am only agreeing with Newton in respect to this question, not as to his view of gravity being some property of matter.

I totally disagree that it is a function of all other mass in the universe and I do not accept Einstein's interpretation of light and the resulting concept of Special Relativity.

Just leaves me to wonder what you DO think, which was why I asked.

Anyway, if you cannot produce/point to true FTL movement or signalling, and are unclear/reticent about the rest, end of thread for me. Have fun. :m:

Just leaves me to wonder what you DO think, which was why I asked.

Anyway, if you cannot produce/point to true FTL movement or signalling, and are unclear/reticent about the rest, end of thread for me. Have fun. :m:

Your perogative. I am not here to prove anything, nor to argue. If people choose to ignore the facts around them and parrot unsupported conclusions based on faultly assumptions that is their business.

I am merely pointing out certain realities which are generally ignored.

I am merely pointing out certain realities which are generally ignored.

Which can, and already have been summarised as: yes, you can go faster than light, and no, it does not do you any good for any real-life purposes.

The rest is just regurgitation. Fun, but only if you do it yourself, really.

:D