Lightspeed

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

:m:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@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

 

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.

 

For how long?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

This too is highly questionable based on current technology findings.

See [post=752958]Here[/post].

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.

 

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 see. Valid point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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.

 

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)

(2)

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
- 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?