The Clairvoyant Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 What's missing ? How come we haven't worked out how to do this yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 its not a matter of working out how to do it, its a matter of things with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. this is why particle accelerators cannot achieve the speed of light even though with classical mechanics they should have enough energy to be going several hundred times that speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 According to E=mc^2 You need infinite energy to get something to the speed of light unfortunately. So we either invent an infinite energy source, or find a way of breaking the formula. Perhaps like supercavitation of water there is a way of doing this with space time... I personally don't buy into worm hole theories, but folding or warping space time can be demonstrated through maths... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 According to E=mc^2 You need infinite energy to get something to the speed of light unfortunately. So we either invent an infinite energy source, or find a way of breaking the formula. No, no, infinite energy won't help you here even if there was a viable way of getting it (which there isn't, as there isn't any "infinite" anything in the physical universe). The main "problem" with the speed of light is the fact that space-time is connected which means that anything travelling at the speed of light cannot have mass. And if you would have read insane_alien's response before you posted your comment, you'd have seen he answered it already. Perhaps like supercavitation of water there is a way of doing this with space time... I personally don't buy into worm hole theories, but folding or warping space time can be demonstrated through maths... What's your proposed allergory for the "bubble" of gas inside the "medium of space" that supercavitation requires? ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 What's missing ? How come we haven't worked out how to do this yet ? Because for some reason, we haven't managed to build a massless spaceship. Nor one with negative or imaginary mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 What's missing ? How come we haven't worked out how to do this yet ? It's not an engineering barrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 What seems possible in principle is to achieve apparent faster than light travel using wormholes or warp drives. That is one could imagine "tunnels" or "warping" space-time so that you can beat light beams sent from one place to another via a different route. However, such scenarios require exotic matter to support such weird configurations of space-time. So, right now it is not exactly clear if such configurations exists, at least on scales that would allow people to use them. It is possible that microscopic configurations exist as quantum field theory allows for the exotic conditions needed, that is the energy conditions are usually violated. Also, such situations can be engineered into time-machines which opens up plenty of other questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The whole "C is constant from every reference frame" means that not only can you never catch light, but you can never get any closer to catching it than you are right now. If you throw half the energy in the universe into your thrusters, then turn on your headlights, the beams will move ahead of you at the same speed they do from a parked car. You can, however, move at arbitrarily close to C relative to some other object, like the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The whole "C is constant from every reference frame" . In every inertial frame. The speed of light is rarely going to remain at c in a non-inertial frame. This is a common source of confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 It has been postulated that perhaps it is the process of accelaration that makes light speed impossible. If one can instantly travel at light speed (like a photon does) maybe one doesn't 'accumulate' infinite mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 the only way you can do that is to be massless. this poses a problem as human cannot be massless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Clairvoyant Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Is a beam of light massless then ? If so, how come I can see it ? It must have some mass to be visible musn't it ? If the beam of light does have mass then surely it's possible to travel on it or in it isn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Is a beam of light massless then ? If so, how come I can see it ? It must have some mass to be visible musn't it ? If the beam of light does have mass then surely it's possible to travel on it or in it isn't it ? Light is massless. This does not mean it is interactionless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Is a beam of light massless then ? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 It has been postulated that perhaps it is the process of accelaration that makes light speed impossible. If one can instantly travel at light speed (like a photon does) maybe one doesn't 'accumulate' infinite mass. By whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 No, no, infinite energy won't help you here even if there was a viable way of getting it (which there isn't, as there isn't any "infinite" anything in the physical universe). The main "problem" with the speed of light is the fact that space-time is connected which means that anything travelling at the speed of light cannot have mass. And if you would have read insane_alien's response before you posted your comment, you'd have seen he answered it already. What's your proposed allergory for the "bubble" of gas inside the "medium of space" that supercavitation requires? ~moo yes i was putting the infinite energy source out of the question... a supercavitation process could already be naturally happening, resulting in the reason why matter flows through space without obstruction, in the case of an electromagnetic ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Clairvoyant Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes. If it's massless then how come I can see it ? Mass is just a quantity of something isn't it ? If I turn on a torch (A) and face it towards a wall (B) then the beam travels from A to B doesn't it ? Why can't something travel on it or in it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If it's massless then how come I can see it ? Mass is just a quantity of something isn't it ? If I turn on a torch (A) and face it towards a wall (B) then the beam travels from A to B doesn't it ? Why can't something travel on it or in it ? you can hear sound though it has no mass in itself because it is just energy... though you could be forgiven for thinking that sound is made up of air particles (or whatever medium it travels through) bombarding your ear drums, if you were not able to measure the particles the medium is made if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Clairvoyant Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 you can hear sound though it has no mass in itself because it is just energy... though you could be forgiven for thinking that sound is made up of air particles (or whatever medium it travels through) bombarding your ear drums, if you were not able to measure the particles the medium is made if. So energy has no mass then ? (Apols, i'm not being argumentative, just trying to get my head round it ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 So energy has no mass then ? (Apols, i'm not being argumentative, just trying to get my head round it ) No it doesn't, no more than sound waves are air particles. IMHO, energy in the case of light is simple propogation of energy through a very dense electromagnetic field... it was called ether 100 years ago, now it is called the Zero Point Field... there are lots of other names for it too LOL The only thing that has mass is matter. It seems to me that mass is something that has a) inertia, resistance to change in direction b) volume c) gravitational field We know mass is made up of these things called fermions, or point particles, which have no volume apparently, but the various types combined together as a system make the universe what it is. I feel that gravity is the result of how these fermions interact. I think that the nucleus of atoms draw in the energy of space as fuel, similarly to how flames use air to emit light and heat. At the micro level this drawing in of fuel gives matter its volumetric and inertial properties whereas at the macro level it results in its gravitational properties. My only other thoughts on this are that the burn rate of atoms is based on how much fuel is available to them... and this is where E=mc^2 comes in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I must remind everyone that even though this is titled "Speculation" forum, speculation is not empty random googligook. Speculations require some sort of evidence and support, otherwise they are not speculation but rather a rant. Please take the time to go over the Speculation policy: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13 as well as our official rules of conduct: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=14 sanandra, if you want to be taken seriously, start treating yourself and us seriously, and start reading our rules. This isn't a recommendation, it's a requirement which you agreed to when you signed up. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Are you saying that I haven't carefully considered what I am saying? Here are the facts. Mass attracts mass at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Currently science describes this as the "effect" mass has on the space-time continuum. I am not suggesting that E=mc^2 change or any other formula that currently predicts what is happening to the nth degree, what I am suggesting is that the reasoning behind these formulas can teach us new things. I think science was correct to remove Ether when it did because it was only a confusion, but quantum physics have re-introduced ether under another guise and perhaps it needs to be considered at the macro level if people are serious about a grand unified theory. 100 years ago Lorentz and Einstein battled it out based on speculation and throwing constants and transforms all over the shop, it was an exciting time, but unfortunately today there is too much inertia and rigidness around and in my opinion it has slowed progress in this area. Ether exists lads, whether we like it or not and you all agree that one way or another, you can call it dark energy (quintessence), spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, vacuum energy or whatever you choose, it exists. It's only a matter of time (geddit) before quantum physics and relativity are combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are not free to hijack other discussions with your own alternative physics. This is a clear violation of rule 2.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I feel that gravity is the result of how these fermions interact. I think that the nucleus of atoms draw in the energy of space as fuel, similarly to how flames use air to emit light and heat. At the micro level this drawing in of fuel gives matter its volumetric and inertial properties whereas at the macro level it results in its gravitational properties. If this was the case then inertial mass and gravitational mass for things like protons and neutrons would differ surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Phoenix Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) According to E=mc^2 You need infinite energy to get something to the speed of light unfortunately. So we either invent an infinite energy source, or find a way of breaking the formula. Perhaps like supercavitation of water there is a way of doing this with space time... I personally don't buy into worm hole theories, but folding or warping space time can be demonstrated through maths... Interesting. Light itself travels at the speed of light. Are you saying that our sun itself, sol is an infinite energy source? For that matter a light source such as a flashlight moves light at the speed of light and this can be done with a 1 volt battery. Perhaps what it really has to do with is the size and type of mass you are trying to move through space. How big are light particles? ( photons right?) What properties of light particles make them able to travel at these speeds? If you had a light particle the size and mass of let say a human how fast would it move through space? Would it still retain the same properties it used to travel at light speeds? In other words.. is there anything really special about photons themselves besides their size and mass that make them able to travel this fast? Aren't there other particles the same size or smaller that do not travel at light speeds? if so.. it must be some unique property of light itself. Edited September 3, 2009 by John Phoenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now