# Mathematically, photons can travel much faster than the speed of light.

## Recommended Posts

I just realized that if photon's really do have rest mass of exactly 0, then they should be able to travel faster than light (yeah, I know photon's are light, but work with me here). Because as I understand, the reason that nothing can travel faster than light (unless it has an imaginary mass, AKA Tachyons) is because as an object approaches the speed of light or C, its mass increases and to actually accelerate to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. This is the forula used;

M= M0 / sqrt (1-V2/C2) Note: The "2"s are squared signs

So if an ordinary object is applied to this formula, at the speed of light it becomes something divided by zero, which is infinity. But if the rest mass is zero (AKA a photon), at the speed of light it becomes zero divided by zero, this is not infinity, it is simply a meaningless mathematical statement. If anyone could explain this to me I would appreciate it.

But if you make V2 greater than C2 for a photon, it becomes 0/n>0. Zero divided by anything is zero, so that should mean that a photon should be able to travel much facter than C without requiring infinite energy.

If my math is wrong, somebody convince me.

##### Share on other sites

Mass is a Lorentz invariant, your equation is not thought well of in relativity circles...

Let's conisder a quick energy problem, which is not 'nice' or rigerous as is implies a relativistic mass, which we all know is BS...

$E = \gamma mc^2$

$\frac {E} {\gamma} = mc^2$

$\frac {E} {\gamma} = 0c^2$

$\frac {E} {\gamma} = 0$

E>0

$\frac {1} {\gamma} = 0 = \sqrt { 1 - \frac {v^2}{c^2}}$

So v=c for massless particles....

##### Share on other sites

But if you make V2 greater than C2 for a photon, it becomes 0/n>0. Zero divided by anything is zero, so that should mean that a photon should be able to travel much facter than C without requiring infinite energy.

If my math is wrong, somebody convince me.

Your math isn't wrong, however, your fizix leaves much to be desired.

The first postulate of special relativity (which you've invoked by writing down your formulae) says that no object can travel faster than the speed of light.

##### Share on other sites

Your math isn't wrong, however, your fizix leaves much to be desired.

The first postulate of special relativity (which you've invoked by writing down your formulae) says that no object can travel faster than the speed of light.

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. Wikipedia.

So we could say with equal conviction that fizix also leaves much to be desired. The speed of light, and indeed all speeds, are relative. No observer observes anything at any speed other than the local speed i.e. relative to the speed of light in the local field.

##### Share on other sites

The postulate of relativity is that light travels at c in all inertial frames (i.e. independent of the motion of the source). The statement that nothing exceeds c is a conclusion, not a postulate.

##### Share on other sites

The speed of light, and indeed all speeds, are relative.

Please point to a an experiment which contradicts the predictions of Special/General Relativity.

##### Share on other sites

Further, I would be interested to see one that shows the speed of light to be relative... aka not invariant in all reference frames.

##### Share on other sites

Please point to a an experiment which contradicts the predictions of Special/General Relativity.

Impossible; how can an experiment be conducted in more than one frame (i.e. between frames)? Special/General Relativity makes a prediction that is uncheckable.

##### Share on other sites

Impossible; how can an experiment be conducted in more than one frame (i.e. between frames)? Special/General Relativity makes a prediction that is uncheckable.

Atomic clocks in satellites are in different frames of reference to ones on the earth, we can compare the two.

Please point to a an experiment which contradicts the predictions of Special/General Relativity.

I would also like to see this, as it would have MASSIVE ramifications in the field of electromagnetism!

##### Share on other sites

Atomic clocks in satellites are in different frames of reference to ones on the earth, we can compare the two.

And that's just ONE example.

Elas - Arguments from incredulity and ignorance won't get you very far.

##### Share on other sites

Impossible; how can an experiment be conducted in more than one frame (i.e. between frames)? Special/General Relativity makes a prediction that is uncheckable.

There are a uniquie (?) set of predictions which follow from SR/GR, NONE of which has ever been falsified. In essence, you are saying that GR is wrong because you don't like it. Very scientific.

PS---I don't know that the predictions of GR are unique, and in fact, I know they aren't. You can build a sufficiently complicated theory of gravity a la Newton by adding epicycles or something, probably.

##### Share on other sites

And that's just ONE example.

Elas - Arguments from incredulity and ignorance won't get you very far.

Are you saying that an object orbiting within the Earth's gravity field is in a different gravity frame. The same effect can be achieved anywhere within the field (including at any depth), it is a speed effect within the same frame not a different frame.

There are a uniquie (?) set of predictions which follow from SR/GR, NONE of which has ever been falsified. In essence, you are saying that GR is wrong because you don't like it. Very scientific.

Wrong, I do not say that the mathematics of SR/GR are wrong, I do say the lack of believable explanation needs dealing with. The constant of light is not an act of magic, nor is it beyond explanation.

Edited by swansont
multiple post merged; fix quote tag
##### Share on other sites

Are you saying that an object orbiting within the Earth's gravity field is in a different gravity frame. The same effect can be achieved anywhere within the field (including at any depth), it is a speed effect within the same frame not a different frame.

There are a uniquie (?) set of predictions which follow from SR/GR, NONE of which has ever been falsified. In essence, you are saying that GR is wrong because you don't like it. Very scientific.

Wrong, I do not say that the mathematics of SR/GR are wrong, I do say the lack of believable explanation needs dealing with. The constant of light is not an act of magic, nor is it beyond explanation.

But gravities range is infinite, so everything is in everything elses gravity well...

Edited by Klaynos
##### Share on other sites

There are a uniquie (?) set of predictions which follow from SR/GR, NONE of which has ever been falsified.

There do exist various competitors to GR, several of which make predictions nearly indistinguishable from SR/GR. To be viable, they of course have to be nearly indistinguishable from SR/GR because of the mountain of evidence that agrees with SR/GR. Gravity Probe B falsified some of these alternatives, but not as many as it should have.

Are you saying that an object orbiting within the Earth's gravity field is in a different gravity frame. The same effect can be achieved anywhere within the field (including at any depth), it is a speed effect within the same frame not a different frame.

WTF is a "gravity frame"?

##### Share on other sites

There do exist various competitors to GR, several of which make predictions nearly indistinguishable from SR/GR. To be viable, they of course have to be nearly indistinguishable from SR/GR because of the mountain of evidence that agrees with SR/GR. Gravity Probe B falsified some of these alternatives, but not as many as it should have.

Agreed. One has the TeVeS (Tensor, Vector, Scalar) theories, Modified Newtonian Dynamics, etc etc. I wouldn't so much call these theories "competitors" as most people don't take these theories too seriously. Sure they're possible, but they don't have a lot of support in the community, as far as I can tell.

##### Share on other sites

I called them competitors rather than theories because calling them theories is a bit premature. GR, on the other hand, is theory at its best.

##### Share on other sites

I've been trying to tell people round here that under special conditions, the photon can travel faster than light. Not only can Hawking make them move faster than light using the uncertainty principle, two German scientists a few years witnessed a photon travel at superluminal speeds.

##### Share on other sites

Reference, please? This sounds like one of the cases in which no information was transferred, but something did "travel" at greater than c.

##### Share on other sites

Or faster than the speed of light in that material...

##### Share on other sites

Caps,

Its a general misunderstanding by treating information, tha tangible and the non as something all vey different. Matter and energy are not only forms of disortions, they are also bound information. A photon, for instance, cannot dissappear from the universe, not only because its energy cannot be destroyed, but because the information is contains cannot simply be diminished.

Here is the ref.

Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible?

Updated: 05:51, Thursday August 16, 2007

Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light.

Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is supposed to be completely impossible.

Einsteins mistake, was that he considered ''c'' as the ultimate speed, of anything. Now with relativity explaining spacetime is in fact the same thing as matter-energy, and with spacetime rushing away dragging its creases (matter) with it as v>c, then it must be concluded that relativity is not only wrong, but it is inconsistant with quantum mechanics.

I'll be back in two hours friends. Hold back too many questions.

##### Share on other sites

Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible?

Updated: 05:51, Thursday August 16, 2007

Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light.

Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is supposed to be completely impossible.

Einsteins mistake, was that he considered ''c'' as the ultimate speed, of anything. Now with relativity explaining spacetime is in fact the same thing as matter-energy, and with spacetime rushing away dragging its creases (matter) with it as v>c, then it must be concluded that relativity is not only wrong, but it is inconsistant with quantum mechanics.

I'll be back in two hours friends. Hold back too many questions.

okay, you posted something obviouslt copy& pasted but never provided a link. how can we verify the validity of your source? also, we can not tell where the reference ends and where you begin.

also, i think you may be reffering to the experiment where the group velocity was observed at 300c but the photons were still going at c, no information was transmitted faster than c and GR/SR held true. an interesting trick but nothing useful.

##### Share on other sites

Here is the ref.

Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible?

Updated: 05:51, Thursday August 16, 2007

Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light.

Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is supposed to be completely impossible.

Well, we need to work on this a little. A reference should include the name of the publication and sufficient information to find the article (names and dates), preferably with a link. From the look of this, I'll give odds that it's a press release or pop-sci article, which is NOT what people are asking for when the ask for a reference.

##### Share on other sites

Einsteins mistake, was that he considered ''c'' as the ultimate speed, of anything.

This is a result of special relativity not an assumption of it.

##### Share on other sites

I'm guessing it's this

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1280079,00.html

A pop-sci article. Doesn't even give the name of the scientists, nor what journal their research was to be published in. It mentions "New Scientist" which isn't peer-reviewed.

##### Share on other sites

At least newscientists tends to give references to peer reviewed stuff if it can...

## Create an account

Register a new account