Faster than Light Travel Question

[Collegeleaf]

Assuming a spacecraft had a propulsion system and sufficient fuel, what stops it from reaching the speed of light and beyond if a constant force is always being exerted on it?

And in the event that it can go beyond the speed of light, will time distortion take place, and the crew on board the ship will live for thousands of years?

Should I accept that I'm too dumb to understand this?

[-SpectraL]

e=mc²

[IIIII]

Two things. According to Einstein no object with mass can reach the speed of light. The elementary particle photon which is responsible for the electromagnetic spectrum moves at the speed of light and have no mass.

Researchers might have disproved Einstein's hypothesis but that has not been confirmed! (Check the hadron collider in CERN for more info)

Time will get distorted and depends on which rate of velocity you're moving. If you were in a space shuttle moving near c your clock will tick slower than the clock will tick on Earth.

I think you might can put it like this, but I am not sure:
Sufficient high velocity = Time will go by slower.

But you already knew that, right.


lol

[dysik]

as spectral said: e=mc^2 or energy = mass x (the speed of light squared)

kinetic energy or "movement energy" E(k) = 1/2 m . v^2 = half mass x velocity squared

v = l / t = length / time

as v approaches the speed of light "c" time approaches zero. (according to the theories of einstein, which may have been recently disproven)

if you divide a number by zero you get the rational number (infinity)

so therefore to travel at the speed of light you would need infinite kinetic energy, which is (as far as we know so far) impossible.

[-SpectraL]

All matter is simply waves at the sub atomic level, and trying to beat a wave with just another wave is futile. The only way to beat it is to manipulate the waves themselves to allow them to move faster than the speed of "reality as we know it" is "moving" at.

[Erorr]

Originally Posted by dysik

as spectral said: e=mc^2 or energy = mass x (the speed of light squared)

kinetic energy or "movement energy" E(k) = 1/2 m . v^2 = half mass x velocity squared

v = l / t = length / time

as v approaches the speed of light "c" time approaches zero. (according to the theories of einstein, which may have been recently disproven)

if you divide a number by zero you get the rational number (infinity)

so therefore to travel at the speed of light you would need infinite kinetic energy, which is (as far as we know so far) impossible.

This might not be the case anymore though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Providing they repeat the experiments consistently and observe the same results each time then Einsteins theory would be proven wrong.

[AdMech]

Originally Posted by Erorr

Providing they repeat the experiments consistently and observe the same results each time then Einsteins theory would be proven wrong.

Not necessarily; if the experiment is flawed, then repeating it will just repeat the flaw. We will need confirmation from other areas or experiments in order to be sure.

[dysik]

Originally Posted by Erorr

This might not be the case anymore though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Providing they repeat the experiments consistently and observe the same results each time then Einsteins theory would be proven wrong.

im sorry did i not fucking explicitly say that in my post?

[dysik]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

All matter is simply waves at the sub atomic level, and trying to beat a wave with just another wave is futile. The only way to beat it is to manipulate the waves themselves to allow them to move faster than the speed of "reality as we know it" is "moving" at.

wow you talk a lot of shit.

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by dysik

im sorry did i not fucking explicitly say that in my post?

Ya can't expect reading comprehension from a drug addict (and a shitty mod).

[Erorr]

Originally Posted by dysik

im sorry did i not fucking explicitly say that in my post?

lol are you that insecure? I wasnt questioning you or bringing hostility and Iam sorry I didnt read the small chunk of that in parenthesis. Instead of feeling threatened just because I quoted your basic explanation maybe you could just enjoy the motions of talking about such an interesting topic.

[dysik]

Originally Posted by Erorr

lol are you that insecure? I wasnt questioning you or bringing hostility and Iam sorry I didnt read the small chunk of that in parenthesis. Instead of feeling threatened just because I quoted your basic explanation maybe you could just enjoy the motions of talking about such an interesting topic.

you quoted me and then offered a counterpoint that was included in my post. maybe you should just learn to read.

[Erorr]

I so sowwy I not weed hoe post an u goat merd. Regardless,


Whats everyones take on that article anyways? What direction does this information take us if its proven to be true?

[SIdt]

Originally Posted by Erorr

What direction does this information take us if its proven to be true?

The universal speed limit is slightly higher than the speed of light. We simply need to make c = 29979458.000006 m/s (Or w/e the actual deviance is). Or we could redefine the metre.

[zuperxtreme]

Stop saying Einstein's theory is wrong. It's been proven time and time again, one experiment under certain conditions will extend/expand/whatever his theory, not disprove it.

If anything, it'll be ammended.

[SIdt]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

Stop saying Einstein's theory is wrong. It's been proven time and time again, one experiment under certain conditions will extend/expand/whatever his theory, not disprove it.

If anything, it'll be ammended.

Just wait until you have to explain that simple fact to someone for the 18th fucking time.

Newton's theory of gravity is, like the rest of physics, an approximation of a higher theory, in this case - Einstein's.
Einstein's theory may be an approximation of some theory of quantum gravity that has yet to be discovered - or it may be all there is and gravity is not quantized and everything has been formulated and is completely correct.

[Gun Lover]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

Stop saying Einstein's theory is wrong. It's been proven time and time again, one experiment under certain conditions will extend/expand/whatever his theory, not disprove it.

If anything, it'll be ammended.

This, for fuck's sake.

[Mullen]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

Stop saying Einstein's theory is wrong. It's been proven time and time again, one experiment under certain conditions will extend/expand/whatever his theory, not disprove it.

If anything, it'll be ammended.

Nigga plz.

[dysik]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

Stop saying Einstein's theory is wrong. It's been proven time and time again, one experiment under certain conditions will extend/expand/whatever his theory, not disprove it.

If anything, it'll be ammended.

true that, if anything it will just change much of the lorentz transformational interpretations.

e=mc^2 can be proven in many ways, nuclear reactors, hiroshima, nagasaki, sodium + UV etc etc.

[dantheman72]

speed of dark is faster than speed of light when light gets to its destination, dark is there waiting for it....

[Haiti's Space Agency]

Originally Posted by dantheman72

speed of dark is faster than speed of light when light gets to its destination, dark is there waiting for it....

damn son that some heavy shit you just touched on

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by dantheman72

speed of dark is faster than speed of light when light gets to its destination, dark is there waiting for it....

since dark is nothing but the brain perceiving a lack of, those electrical impulses which produce such reaction travel much slower than the speed of light

[dantheman72]

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

since dark is nothing but the brain perceiving a lack of, those electrical impulses which produce such reaction travel much slower than the speed of light

my theory was just a random thought..science believed the sound barrier would never be broken by man and was the 4 minute mile was impossible tom break till it was broken...the theory of teletransporting is said to be physically impossible...,alien worlds dont need our physics laws and theories so they are able to do what is only sci-fi to us..a billion years of a headstart on us shows we arent that smart..lightspeed is is a speed not a speed limit..it may be possible to go faster we just arent there yet

[Oral B]

Originally Posted by Collegeleaf

Assuming a spacecraft had a propulsion system and sufficient fuel, what stops it from reaching the speed of light and beyond if a constant force is always being exerted on it?

You cannot travel faster than light, c is the universal speed limit. That is a huge part of what makes our universe behave in the way that it does.

Originally Posted by Collegeleaf

And in the event that it can go beyond the speed of light, will time distortion take place, and the crew on board the ship will live for thousands of years?

Theoretically time will begin to move backwards, and things would start to get whacky at that point.

Originally Posted by dantheman72

my theory was just a random thought..science believed the sound barrier would never be broken by man and was the 4 minute mile was impossible tom break till it was broken...the theory of teletransporting is said to be physically impossible

The speculation surrounding traveling faster than sound was much different. We did know that it was possible, but we didn't think we would ever be able to do it. That is not the case with light at all.

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by dantheman72

alien worlds dont need our physics laws and theories so they are able to do what is only sci-fi to us..a billion years of a headstart on us shows we arent that smart..lightspeed is is a speed not a speed limit..it may be possible to go faster we just arent there yet

laws are universal, not subjective to our planet.

the speed of light is in fact a speed limit to all particles with mass. Neutrinos might go faster but they are useless because they can't transport material, nor are they even practical for sending messages

[AdMech]

Originally Posted by dantheman72

speed of dark is faster than speed of light when light gets to its destination, dark is there waiting for it....

I thought you were just crackin' wise, but you appear to be serious. Darkness is a lack of light, not a thing in itself; there's nothing actually traveling. Consider a room with a lit lamp in it; now imagine that lamp being turned off - darkness would "follow" the light at exactly the same speed: c.

[Pathfinder]

CERN used GPS to determine the speed of the neutrinos that were said to be traveling faster then the speed of light...That's like telling a carpenter he doesn't know what he is doing and then asking him to barrow his hammer.

[AdMech]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder

CERN used GPS to determine the speed of the neutrinos that were said to be traveling faster then the speed of light...That's like telling a carpenter he doesn't know what he is doing and then asking him to barrow his hammer.

The problem is that there have been many, many other measurements of neutrino velocity, all of which agree with each other and not with CERN. It's quite possible - even likely - that CERN's experiment has a flaw somewhere; we need confirmation with other methods of measuring neutrino velocity before we accept their conclusions.

[threat]

I read that if the neutrinos did travel faster than c, there would have been a decay of the particle into other particles. The second round of tests showed no evidence of decay. I have extremely high doubts that CERNs conclusions are correct.

Anyways about c. I though that light was both a particle and a wave, regardless it does have an energy and can be affected by gravity. So when people say that only objects without mass can travel at c I get confused. Can someone clarify this for me?

[AdMech]

Originally Posted by threat

Anyways about c. I though that light was both a particle and a wave, regardless it does have an energy and can be affected by gravity. So when people say that only objects without mass can travel at c I get confused. Can someone clarify this for me?

Massless objects, like photons, are still affected by gravity (think of the bowling-ball-on-a-trampoline analogy: the very path the light travels on is bent).

My understanding is that light energy can be considered equivalent to a certain amount of mass added to a system in which the photons are contained, but this is only because they are moving. When it is said that photons are massless, this refers to their rest mass; they do have "relativistic mass". That is, they have an amount of energy (and thus an associated amount of mass) which is dependent on their velocity, but if somehow we were to slow them down to stillness (though that's impossible even in theory), their energy would decrease until it finally reaches 0 units as they cease moving.

Edit: And if you're asking about why an object should need to be massless to reach c, dysik provides a good explanation (some assembly required). Put a bit more clearly (maybe): the factor by which time is slowed approaches infinity as velocity approaches c*; since multiplying an object's rest mass (and c²) by the time-dilation factor (Lorentz factor, γ) calculates its total energy, this would mean that any object with a positive rest mass would end up infinitely energetic and thus infinitely massive... and how can you accelerate something with infinite mass? You'd need an infinite energy source!

*If you want to know why γ should approach infinity as velocity approaches c, look at how it relates to velocity: γ = (1 − v²/c²)^−1/2

And why should this relationship be so? ...No idea. A physicist could probably tell you more, but as far as I know, the universe just works like that.