# Lightspeed "barrier"

## Recommended Posts

On the general science forum there was a thread about if we can go faster than light speed or not. I wanted to reply posting why it isnt a barrier but the thread was closed. I think no matter if it is like other threads, I come here to talk if not I will spend time on the library in silence.

The point is: we can travel faster than light speed?. Yes.

Speed/aceleration is acumulative, it depends on mass and energy. The lightspeed is only the barrier of the "showed" speed, faster than that is not noticiable so we dont know what move faster than light.

• Replies 97
• Created

#### Popular Days

On the general science forum there was a thread about if we can go faster than light speed or not. I wanted to reply posting why it isnt a barrier but the thread was closed. I think no matter if it is like other threads' date=' I come here to talk if not I will spend time on the library in silence.

The point is: we can travel faster than light speed?. Yes.

Speed/aceleration is acumulative, it depends on mass and energy. The lightspeed is only the barrier of the "showed" speed, faster than that is not noticiable so we dont know what move faster than light.[/quote']

This is not the case, you do not understand why lightspeed is a 'barrier', investigate special relativty and you'll find out why.

##### Share on other sites

Exlpain yourself, I know about some theories about, but when aplicated their are wrong.

The fact is that a lot of publications, (that I will find the correct source so I can foward you) explain that lightspeed can be doubled, even go 10 times its speed, by the simply concept that is not the limit of speed.

##### Share on other sites

Exlpain yourself' date=' I know about some theories about, but when aplicated their are wrong.

The fact is that a lot of publications, (that I will find the correct source so I can foward you) explain that lightspeed can be doubled, even go 10 times its speed, by the simply concept that is not the limit of speed.[/quote']

Special relativity underpins nearly all of modern physics and it is one of the mosted tested theories in physics, it says in no unceratin terms that aan object with real rest mass must travel at less than c in any inertial frame.

You must first famalirize yourself with the framework of relativity, before declaring it incorrect.

##### Share on other sites

Matter with mass cannot travel at light speed.

##### Share on other sites

We dont have proof to check is there is something faster than light, since if something is faster than light, it became invisible. As sound speed isnt a barrier, light speed is not a barrier aswell.

Show me proof that a photon dont have mass. No one is sure if it have or not.

##### Share on other sites

It becomes invisible? What?

Due to relativity, any mass approaching lightspeed has its time slow down, and its mass increase. The amount of energy required to speed it up reaches infinite, and even if you did hit light speed time would stop.

Therefore a photon can't have mass or it wouldn't hit the speed of light.

##### Share on other sites

Show me proof that a photon dont have mass. No one is sure if it have or not.

Is the pdg limit of < 6 x 10-17 eV not good enough for you?

##### Share on other sites

It becomes invisible? What?

I think he is meaning that if something is travelling faster than light it cannot have interactions with normal matter (otherwise it would destablise the vacuum - I mentioned this in the tachyon thread)....

...but then if it doesn't have interactions with matter, it doesn't exist by definition.

##### Share on other sites

We dont have proof to check is there is something faster than light' date=' since if something is faster than light, it became invisible. As sound speed isnt a barrier, light speed is not a barrier aswell.

[/quote']

you can hear supersonic aircraft. try agian. i am still waiting for your explaination of why speed of light isn't a barrier.

##### Share on other sites

And if you do like to Sitt in the silence reading books in the library! Be Shure to pick upp Einsteins own and only pulikation the the Special and General relativity mater! I'll bet u then will come to understand what we all mean here!

##### Share on other sites

And if you do like to Sitt in the silence reading books in the library! Be Shure to pick upp Einsteins own and only pulikation the the Special and General relativity mater! I'll bet u then will come to understand what we all mean here!

Well here is my explanation about.

For sure many of you use this formula to tell me that a photon dont have mass, lets check:

m = m0 / √(1-(v/c)²)

The Relativity is based on that Einstein took the most fast speed that the universe show, the light speed. So if you think the photon dont have mass, why when the light find a massive object, like an star, it got deviated?

About if there is something faster than light lets check the following:

Let say the blue wave is a light wave and the black line a surface. The light wave move at light speed, velocity a, and collide to the surface at the same speed. The velocity b is called "phase speed" or "phase velocity", that speed is higher than the light speed, so in theory, light speed can beat itself.

About a supersonic aircraft, yourdadonapogos you dont hear the aircraft when it pass over you, the sound comes later.

##### Share on other sites

The velocity b is called "phase speed" or "phase velocity"' date=' that speed is higher than the light speed, so in theory, light speed can beat itself.

[/quote']

Phase velocity is irrelevant. No information is transferred at the phase velocity.

"Nothing goes faster than c" is an ill-formed distillation of relativity.

##### Share on other sites

In my limited capacity the problem is simple. At the speed of light time stops and therefore speed is infinite for the object at the speed of light. Go faster than infinite speed. I don't see how you could. The fact is proved by light speed being said speed no matter what your speed is.

##### Share on other sites

In my limited capacity the problem is simple. At the speed of light time stops and therefore speed is infinite for the object at the speed of light. Go faster than infinite speed. I don't see how you could. The fact is proved by light speed being said speed no matter what your speed is.

if time stopped, speed would be 0, not infinite.

##### Share on other sites

maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the premise behind special relativity was that the speed of light is constant for all observers... period. Einstein based this upon the conclusions of earlier astronomers who concluded the same thing. What he did was point out the inconsistency that this created with classical mechanics and show that, for this to be true, things like time and mass can't be assumed constant.

Flak, you're arguing that something can travel faster than the speed of light using Newtonian principles and that's the whole point of relativity... that doesn't work! You can't just dump more energy into something to make it move ever faster. In fact, time and mass adjust to make sure that it doesn't work (as was stated earlier, all of this has been proven). And anything that is traveling at the speed of light must have a zero rest mass.

I thought that even all of this junk about the "slowing" and "stopping" of light doesn't actually violate this... most of it is just producing materials with ridiculous indices of refraction so we make the photons interact with so many particles (well, their electrons) that they never make it very far without being absorbed and spit out again. Although I keep some physicist friends (one of which was involved in research in this area and quoted in a few articles), I only studied it myself for a few years at a collegiate level so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. I like to know when I'm wrong.

The comparison to a sound wave is, unfortunately, also incorrect. The speed of sound wasn't, isn't, and never will be considered constant for all observers. There's no rule saying that you can't travel at it or pass it. We don't slow down like some matrix parody everytime somebody shouts from a train just so it's constant velocity is preserved. It's just a pressure wave traveling through a material, man.

##### Share on other sites

The sound barrier is so-named only because it was once a barrier to human engineering. It has nothing to do with relativity and anyone who says "if the sound barrier can be broken, the light barrier can too" clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

##### Share on other sites

E=gmc^2

where g=1/(Sqrt 1-V^2/C^2)

Giving g= infinity at a point where V=C (travaling with a velocity = the speed of light)

and unless m (rest mass) = 0 Eand therefore mass = Infinity.

So therefore what you orginally said of 'we' traveling above the speed of light actually refers to beings with mass and therefore M & E= Infinity; so answer No. Unless you want a massless particle to travel ABOVE the speed of light; in which cas you get

For e.g. V=2C

1/ Sqrt 1-2

1/Sqrt -1

##### Share on other sites

The sound barrier is so-named only because it was once a barrier to human engineering. It has nothing to do with relativity and anyone who says "if the sound barrier can be broken, the light barrier can too" clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

Exactly. The sound speed was a barrier to human technology and now it is not more a barrier. Light speed is a barrier aswell now and some day it wont be anymore.

About the formula, ed84c, the Relativity is based with the light speed as a limit.

Time is not stoped by lightspeed. If on astronomy you check the bright of an star 90 years light of distance this is because the photons took 90 years to reach here.

##### Share on other sites

I wonder how many of you (all of you) HAVE finished school.

I am wondering just because such conversation is far from being interesting.

You r saying things known to every teen (or i mean things that SHOULD be familiar to every teen).

I am surprised really, for i expected a kinda dicussion on some new points of modern theories (and there ARE lots of them, mostly based on pure maths + some efforts to involve 'sense', but still being contradictory)

Come on, i am dissappointed... But if some of you is up to some work in this very field of theoretical physics - let me know. (Sorry, if i offended anyone - i really didn't mean to)

##### Share on other sites

Please, why you dont tell us what things are wrong acording to your studies?

##### Share on other sites

Exactly. The sound speed was a barrier to human technology and now it is not more a barrier. Light speed is a barrier aswell now and some day it wont be anymore.

About the formula' date=' ed84c, the Relativity is based with the light speed as a limit.

Time is not stoped by lightspeed. If on astronomy you check the bright of an star 90 years light of distance this is because the photons took 90 years to reach here.[/quote']

WRONG! the 'lightspeed barrier' is not a technological barrier, it is a theoretical barrier.

##### Share on other sites

Yes you right , finally someone say it right.

It is little technologicaly aswell because we dont have clue, even to reach that speed.

##### Share on other sites

I wonder how many of you (all of you) HAVE finished school.

I am wondering just because such conversation is far from being interesting.

You r saying things known to every teen (or i mean things that SHOULD be familiar to every teen).

I am surprised really, for i expected a kinda dicussion on some new points of modern theories (and there ARE lots of them, mostly based on pure maths + some efforts to involve 'sense', but still being contradictory)

Come on, i am dissappointed... But if some of you is up to some work in this very field of theoretical physics - let me know. (Sorry, if i offended anyone - i really didn't mean to) [/Quote]

3 things;

1. I havent finished school and therefore prosume others have not either (a small minority maybe...) and can also point out that to every teen (at 15 anyway) a very small percentage of us take the time to learn the theor(ies) of relativity.

2. I dont quite seem the point in that post and i prosume that as you appear to be new you havent got to 'learn the ropes' yet as it were. I suggest that people could get offended by such statements, and you are suggesting that people such as saynora^3 with 7000+ posts are doing something wrong? Even with my humble effort of 302 i should suggest similar comments may by some people not be taken in the no offensive context in which they were intended.

But i am in no way telling you what to do mind, or being hot headed, just my opinion.

##### Share on other sites

But if some of you is up to some work in this very field of theoretical physics - let me know. (Sorry, if i offended anyone - i really didn't mean to)

Trying to take an intellectual highground usually doesnt work if you use grammar such as 'some of you is interested....'. Lol

## Create an account

Register a new account