Some problems with light speed barrier.

That is exactly what is contended: Mass becomes infinite.

That is fine. However, there is little to no proof of the following, which is what we are discussing here:

1. Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.
2. Time stops at the speed of light.

Hence, we cannot accept the light barrier as absolute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Didn't u read my post?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh ok. But it's quite deceiving tough...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So... if that is right, then light has an infinite amount of mass, since light travels in the speed of light, right? If the mass of light is not infinite and it is travelling in the speed of light, then that theory is incorrect.

Doesn't it depend on the observer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These experiments deal with group velocity and not phase velocity. It is only phase velocity that can carry information, so no information is transmitted at FTL speed. The very scientists who have performed these experiments will tell you that they do not violate Relativity or the c speed limit.

If you are refering to the expansion of space, then this falls well within the the Realm of GR of which SR is a special case, so again, there is no implied violation of Relativity involved.

Again, no actual information can be sent via quantum entanglement, despite the popular belief otherwise. Once more, even the experimenters in quantum teleportation make it very clear that it does not involve any exchange of information at FTL speeds.

The operative word here is "may", which just indicates wishful thinking on your part. It is extremely more likely that it does travel at c.


Your other statements betray a deep lack of understanding of the foundations upon which Relativity rest. There are some very deep fundamental reasons why c is an absolute speed limit for material objects.

For instance, it is known that unless you apply the Lorentz transformations (the formulas that predict the slowing of time and length contraction of relative moving objects.) to the Maxwell equations (those equations describing the behavior of Electromagnetic waves), Electromagnetic waves can not be transmitted between moving objects. IOW, an Electromagnetic wave transmited by one object would not exist to an object moving relative to the first. A practical example of would be that a radio broadcast from a fixed station could not be picked up by a moving car. But in fact, we can pick up radio broadcasts in a moving car. Thus the Lorentz transformations are demonstratively valid as are any conclusions derived from them (Such as the kinetic energy of a material object approaching infinity as the objects velocity approaches c.

If anything, the case for Relativity has been strengthened since the Time of Einstein

 

Exactly truth seeker.

If light can act as a particle and a wave, and it can travel at the speed of light without infinite mass, then clearly relativity is wrong. Now, someone will say, light has no rest mass, when in fact we have been able to bring light to rest.

Einstein also said nothing travels faster than the speed of light. That is also wrong.

There are gaping holes in the theory of relativity, and simply because mathematically it has been made to work, doesn't mean squat to me. You can travel back in time due to mathematical loopholes, something that is often derived from relativity, if you travel faster than light; you go backwards in time.

We should not take this "light speed barrier" of relativity seriously, until it is proven.

 

Light has no mass. At least not the mass you're talking about.

Some things in relativity do but as I said, most do not.

 

We WILL never be able to bring light to rest

Read my post. He probably didn't say this.

So far,scientists are actually taking this idea very seriously (unlike yourself). Why? Because GR allows it to some extent and GR has been so incredibly good at predicting results in the past that scientists are unwilling to believe it could be wrong even about this incredible phenomenon.

No we do not know enough yet but time travel is STILL a possibility. Take a look at this quote:

"Now back to the paradox of the Father killed by his son. In five dimensions we can finally lay to rest our paradox as follows. The man travels back in time. In doing so he enters a reverse time, mirror image, of our Universe. When he starts moving forwards in time again, the same direction as ourselves, he is in an alternative Universe. There he is at liberty to kill the man who would have fathered not him, but his alternative in that Universe. There is then no paradox: his father, unmurdered, inhabits an entirely different Universe, some distance in the fifth dimension from the one in which the murder is committed. If there is a cosmic censor, his task now is simply to prevent time travelers getting back to their home Universes.

However, the cosmic censor can be put out of his job completely if we consider certain implications of quantum mechanics. It is possible that all particles may behave as fermions in relation to the temporal dimension, in which case we can refer to them as termions. If a particle is a termion then according to the space-time extension of the Pauli exclusion principle, no two termions with the same quantum numbers can exist in the same universe (strictly speaking the same time frame, which is basically the same thing). So to keep time travelers from getting back to their own Universes and causing no end of mayhem, you have to ensure that when time travel occurs all termion quantum numbers are changed and then the particles that make up the time travelers body cannot occupy the same universe again. If a time traveler ever approached his own universe with termion quantum numbers equal to those of another object in that universe then the Pauli time invariant exclusion force would push him or her through the fifth (or higher) dimension to a different universe, consistent with his or her termion quantum numbers. Even if repeated time travel events occur, the change in termion quantum numbers effectively mask out every universe than you ever come from. Further study will show that termion quantum numbers always change if you travel through the light barrier - we say they are exclusively time variant i.e. always change as opposed to Lorentz invariant quantities."

 

No, light has not been brought to a rest. In those experiments what happens is that the light is absorbed by atoms, which then store the information about the light. These atoms are then later triggered and emit a photon with the same properties as the original photon it absorbed. but between these times, the light does not exist as photons, just as recorded information.
derived from relativity, if you travel faster than light; you go backwards in time.

 

One of the laws of GR says that the velocities don't add. So if GR is correct, group velocity shouldn't go further then c!

That's also wrong. For the universe to be as big as it is nowdays, there must have been an "inflationary era" in which space-time expanded faster then the speed of light.

As the present expansion goes, then it is definetely not expanding faster then light.

I don't know anything about entanglement, so I won't asnwer that one...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is Quantum entanglement anyways...?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Only because this case is proven to be true, that doesn't mean that there might be exceptions.

Huuumm... I'm not so sure about this. In the beginning, yes, but we are dealing with far more challenging things right now. For instance, what the heck is dark energy or dark matter? Why can't we see them? I think the second question would be far more interesting to answer then the first one, wouldn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, if you travel faster then light you go backwards. However, no there are no gaps in the GR or SR. They are proven to be true. However...

It is proven. But the fact that it is proven doesn't make it an absolute truth! There are always exception that can be made, and we often find out that the universe is quite different then we had previously thought. For example, long time ago, we thought that the universe was composed of 73% of Hidrogen, 25% of Helium and 2% of others. In the latest research we got 70% of dark energy, 25% of dark matter and 5% of everything else! So it changed quite dramatically!

So, in summary, just because something is proven to be true, that doesn't mean that that is an absolute truth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you even know what group velocity is? It has nothing to do with the addition of velocities.

We are talking about the expansion of space, which is totally different from the prohibition set down by SR. And yes, it does fall within the the realm of GR.

I have never seen it said that the exsitance of dark matter or energy violate either GR or SR. In fact, dark energy appears to fill the role of the cosmological constant which Einstein included in his field equations.

 

Please don't put words into Einstein's mouth. Einstein was very specific is what he said, and so far you have failed to give even one instance that actually refutes it.

Name one. (One not based on gross over-generalizations or popular misconceptions)

Case in point, a popular misconception. SR does not say that you go backwards in time if you exceed c. Time does not become negative when v>c, it becomes imaginary (A number expressed as the square root of a negative number).

 

quote:
"Name one. (One not based on gross over-generalizations or popular misconceptions)"
==============================================================

Dark Matter. Neither the Standard Model nor General Relativity predicted Dark Matter
and neither give any indication of what it could be. It was postulated to exist to
prevent the inverse square method of calculating gravitational attraction from failing.
Can you explain it using GR's original postulates?

 

I don't think it is appropriate to use word 'postulate' here. A postulate is a basic principle from which a further idea is developed. We don't normally investigate the validity of postulate during development of a theory. Postulate shall be accepted as correct and of course, it must be correct in the first place. Suggestion of dark matter to explain a discrepancy of observation and theory prediction need not be seen negatively as a way of saving a well established theory. You can compare such dark matter suggestion to, for example, the prediction for possibly existance of new planet that led to Neptune discovery. Such prediction similarly as dark matter suggestion is not a postulate, as it is not the basic principle for the theory (Newtonian gravitation theory or GR) development.

 

From Merriam-Webster:
1 : DEMAND, CLAIM
2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)
==============================================================
a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary. It was assumed to exist because it was necessary to prevent the collapse of gravitational theory. It is quite
common to use the term as I have. Many examples are available, but here is one from
a published paper in Phys.Rev., D66:
"Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D66 (2002) 081301

Cosmological observations suggest the existence of two different kinds of energy densities dominating at small ($ \lesssim 500$ Mpc) and large ($\gtrsim 1000 $ Mpc) scales. The dark matter component, which dominates at small scales, contributes $\Omega_m \approx 0.35$ and has an equation of state $p=0$ while the dark energy component, which dominates at large scales, contributes $\Omega_V \approx 0.65$ and has an equation of state $p\simeq -\rho$. It is usual to postulate wimps for the first component and some form of scalar field or cosmological constant for the second component."
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205055

 

Nasor,

Fine, then lets forget chemical rockets and go with a matter/anti-matter reactor. As the mass of the ship approaches infinity so does the matter/anti-matter fuel. You now have infinite energy to push an infinite mass.

 

quote by Nasor:
"This isn’t just some arbitrary rule that physicists made up; it’s an inevitable result of the laws of physics. The phenomenon of mass increasing with velocity has been experimentally verified, so it isn’t just conjecture."
===============================================================

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that MASS-ENERGY increases with velocity.
The objection of some is that it rises to infinity before 'c' can be reached. For example,
at FERMILAB, a particle's mass-energy at 99.99875% the speed of light is said to be
200 times its rest mass. That is in a cyclotron-type accelerator where the particle
is accelerated around a circle, a continous turn at near light speeds. How much does
this contribute to its kinetic energy? Energies are not as high in linear accelerators,
for example at CERN. And of course, a particle with mass CANNOT be accelerated to
the same speed as the EM force used to push it.

 

You know what? I’m not even going to bother trying to argue with the crackpots here anymore. If someone asks a legitimate question I’ll be happy to try to answer it, but there’s absolutely no point in trying to correct these guys who read ‘A Brief History of Time’ and look over a few web pages and then come to sciforums to try to ague about well-established physics principles. If you don’t want to believe that there’s plenty of experimental evidence that mass approaches infinity exactly as predicted by relativity, that’s fine. Believe whatever you want. I have better things to do than try to teach argumentative people who’ve already made up their mind about advanced physics principles despite the fact that they’ve never actually read a physics textbook and don’t know a matrix from a partial differential equation.

Oh lord

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Has probably known I am always optomistic, there is something worth pondering, if our Universe is rotating at light speed because there is nothing to anchor to, and we are in a cluster of Universes spining at light speed around themselves, no anchor, and they have caused the cosmos to spin, then the max speed is light speed times light speed times light speed, or zero cosmic inertia is 22,000 times the speed of light speed times light speed away, (calculator would not go any higher than this calculation). I don't advocate it to be true, but we would only have to harness a fraction to achieve decca light speeds.

 

I interpreted it by what crazymikey said...
So what is it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I'm talking about th same thing... :bugeye:

I wasn't talking about dark energy in this context. All that I was saying is that only because something is proven to be true, that doesn't mean that it i abolute. Dark energy was just an example.