Why we can't reach the speed of light?

[toddler]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Glennmac,
try this link too. the train example is a neat one. it says that if I'm standing on the ground and see lightening hit both ends of your train at the same time, as you drive by, you won't see the events as occuring at the same time. and we're both right.
gotta love that. that's why kubota make the best tractor, john deere makes the best tractor, and new holland makes the best tractor./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Todd
http://suhep.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

 

[kubmech]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Cool, tractor physics, I new this thread would eventually lead to something........

(related to tractors that is)

 

[toddler]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

You know Patrick, I was thinking about this, and I think that would count as accellerating to greater than C. If I appear half as long to you at .86c, and shrink further the faster I go, then at c or greater, you can't see me anymore. So if you use the gravity of the two singularities to accellerate beyond C, and clearly it might be possible since their gravity is such the escape velocity is greater than C. Then what would happen is you would become 2d, flat, right? At least from my perspective. So if your v is > c perpendicular to my perspective and any perspective where the vector of your speed perpendicular to it is >c. I guess I couldn't C you do it /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif. So you'd just disappear from view, and reappear at some point beyond where light would have travelled to as your speed dropped below C due to the gravity of the two singularities now behind you.

The cooler question would be, what would you see during that time?

Hmm, I think I may have solve the problem, at least theoretically. Do I get a cookie for this?

Todd

ps) you'll notice I sent you down the center of the sigularities' orbit. I'm not that crazy.

 

[glennmac]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

The only thing that says we can't exceed the speed of light is the theory of relativity. The reason we may be able to exceed the speed of light is, very simply, that there is a reasonable chance that the theory of relativity is wrong.

There have been three great theoretical conflicts in the history of physics. The first conflict concerned the puzzling properties of the motion of light. According to Newton's laws of motion, if you run fast enough you could catch up with a departing beam of light, whereas James Clerk Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism said you could not. Einstein resolved this conflict with his theory of special relativity in 1906.

The second conflict arose out of the theory of special relativity, which stated that no object or force could travel faster than the speed of light. Newton's theory of universal gravitation, however, held that changes in gravitational forces would be felt throughout the universe instantaneously. Einstein resolved this conflict in 1915 with his theory of general relativity.

General relativity and its space-time equations have been confirmed to work on the largest of scales--the cosmic distances of stars, galaxies and the universe itself.

However, the 20th century developed another theory, which has been experimentally confirmed by every experiment to date. This is the theory of quantum mechanics, which explains all the workings of the universe on the smallest of scales--molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles such as electrons and quarks.

Ever since 1915, the deepest and darkest secret of physics it that the theories of general relativity and of quantum mechanics, and their respective equations, are mutually incompatible. As they are currently formulated, the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics both cannot be right.

Einstein realized this, and spent the rest of his life trying to develop a "unified field" theory. He failed. Physicists are currently still searching for the TOE--the Theory of Everything. The current canditate to reconcile everything is something called superstring theory.

If the TOE cannot be found, that means either the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity (with its speed of light limitations) is wrong--or that both theories are wrong.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by glennmac on 08/05/01 10:09 PM (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[patrickg]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Glenmac said: The only thing that says we can't exceed the speed of light is the theory of relativity.
The reason we may be able to exceed the speed of light is, very simply, that there is a
reasonable chance that the theory of relativity is wrong.

Uh yaw, and Planc's constant might be a variable and the red shift is caused by the slow time varying value of Planc's constant. Hmmm, ever hear any substantiated claims or repeatable results from physicists working with high energy accelerators that show a particle having exceeded the SOL? Seems that there is GOOD experimental confirmation that more and more energy is required for each incremental increase in speed, very close confirmation of that part of relativistic theory. Relativity may be a hugely or mostly flawed theory B U T not that part, as it has received too much experimental confirmation (sci fi writers notwithstanding). I am ever hopeful that there will be a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that holds up to peer review.

GM said: There have been three great theoretical conflicts in the history of physics.

Yeah, at least three! I am partial to the "Maveric" Galileo Galilei who was heard to mutter as he left his audience with the Pope where his friends prevailed on him to recant his beliefs regarding the motion of the earth around the sun in order to avoid execution, "it moves".

I assume the "history of physics" was rhetorical in nature and not intended to posit a philosophy or be particulary personally instructive. Hint: I started out as a physicist before pursuing electronics engineering and then finding true religion - computer science and software engineering (I still read journals but since they don't let me use sharp objects I can't cut out the good parts to save.)

I don't know if anyone but glenmac (if that is true) reads this far into such a post as this but...

True confession follows... I originally opened this discussion with a broadside couched in terms and phraseology to cast myself as an antediluvian thinker and candidate Ludite. This artifice was intended to elicit a range of responses from the readership that would reveal the current "vox populi" regarding the topic. It did. Thanks everyone. I'll just take off the haloween mask now and dodge any already launched, hence non-recallable, veggies. It is comforting to hear indications that there is more to the general understanding than pseudo-science as imagineered by scifi script writers. Hope no one was offended and that many more than I enjoyed seeing the spectrum of responses. Additional note: I am an unabashed Trekie and do enjoy reading scifi. I do claim to know the difference between good scifi and "Mission Mars" (old "B" movie with lower production values than "Amazon Women on the Moon").

Patrick

 

[toddler]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Hmm,
I think that means no cookie.
Todd
/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

 

[GrantMO]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Patrick,

I go back to my question of how to measure travel that is faster than the speed of light. I think of this in simple terms like the speed of light is the top number on my car's speedometer, say 180. My car will only go 120, if that, and as currently configured will not even approach 180(lightspeed). But to continue this analogy, say I add a supercharger, nitrous and some really good tires and can actually go faster than lightspeed. I could get to work hours before I left, work 10 hours then be home before I went to work in the morning and just fool around with the tractor all day. I guess my only question would be, is the time billable?

 

[glennmac]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Patrick,

I am a fallen physics major, which I have eternally regretted. The physics history lesson was cribbed from Prof. Brian Greene's recent book, "The Elegant Universe", which is an exposition of superstring theory.

I agree that relativity's speed of light limitation is unlikely to be disproved. However, relativity equations do break down when analyzing the initial femtoseconds of the Big Bang and the collapsed singularities at the center of black holes.

By the way, it is often but erroneously believed that the center of a black hole has a harsher climate than Oklahoma in August.

 

[patrickg]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

More on prop driven aircraft exceeding SOS. As I recall it did briefly as it broke up. A cheap and dirty answer: Rotary wing aircraft actually hang on a large prop and are propelled by that same prop. Rotary wing aircraft have been powered by ramjet engines. Ramjets work best supersonic but airfoils don't work so good with part of leading edge sub and part supersonic so best shot was to mount the ramjet on the rotor tip and let it operate just barely supersonic with the rest of the wing (rotary wing) just subsonic. See any of these flying around lately? Fair fuel economy and great power to weight ratio of powerplant but yet another not so good idea.

Patrick

 

[patrickg]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Grant, et al, Why is it that everyone assumes that exceeding the speed of light implies something special regarding time? (All the scifi script writers say so - it must be true.) IF you could go twice the speed of light (I F !!!) then you could go a light year of distance in a tad over 6 months. Of course, since faster than light travel is not defined the preceeding was a flight of fancy.

Ever see a graph of the tangent function. (Appropriate since this thread is a tangent) As the angle increases the tangent tends to plus infinity, then just an infintesimal bit more angle and the value of the tangent is coming back from negative infinity. Approaching the same angle from each side, from a larger angle getting smaller or a smaller angle getting larger gives two different results, i.e. the tangent of that angle is either plus infinity or negative infinity depending on which direction you arrive from.

Why doesn't this cause great consternation among the marginally innumerate and fuel scripts for scifi teleplot versions of Soma gas?

Patrick