Jump to content

Faster than light


MajinVegeta

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I heard once that if one travels at the speed C, the will expand and "become" the universe, in a manner of speaking. Is this true?

 

No. If you *accelerate* to c, you have infinite energy but that isn't possible as far as we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fafalone

Position in space-time is defined as s(t) = x(t)i+y(t)j+z(t)k, and velocity is ds/dt.

 

How can this be constant if a <> 0, let alone be constant at c?

 

I looked around at the bookstore and asked around on this issue and I found out that I am right. We are always travelling through spacetime at C. The problem with your statement above is dt. dt with respect to who? According to einstein time is relative.

 

We'll start with what you have: position in spacetime is p=(t, x, y, z)

 

We'll denote p as the 4-vector position in spacetime and q as the 3-vector spatial dimensions (x,y,z). V is the velocity of the 3-vector (x,y,z)

 

p = (t, q)

 

In classical mechanics velocity would be the dertivative of q (x,y,z) with respect to time, v = dq/dt

 

However, time is relative to so we need to use a time that everyone will agree on: :tau:.

 

So now we have v = ( dt/:tau: , dq/:tau: )

 

We can establish a relationship between :tau: and the coordinate time with the time dialation formula..

 

dt/d:tau: = :gamma: = (1- (u/c)^2)^-1/2 where u is the classical speed.

 

Now, applying the chain rule to the velocity formula yields:

 

v = ( :gamma:, dq/dt * dt/d:tau: )

v = ( :gamma:, :gamma: * V )

 

The magnitude of a vector in relativity is given by

 

p^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2

or

p^2 = (ct)^2 - q^2

 

When applied to velocity we get

 

v^2 = (c^2:gamma:^2) - (:gamma:^2 V^2)

 

or

 

v^2 = :gamma:^2 (c^2 - u^2) [where u is the classical velocity denoted by V^2]

 

remember that :gamma: = (1- (u/c)^2)^-1/2

 

so substituting that for :gamma: yields:

 

v^2 = ((1 - (u/c)^2)^-1/2) ^ 2 * (c^2 - u^2)

 

v^2 = c^2

 

The square magnitude of the velocity vector is equal to c squared.

 

See the attached image for Prof. Greene's explanation. His is a bit more complex, and makes assumptions that there are certain things you already know about the formulas.

 

Motion through the three spatial dimensions takes away from our motion through the fourth dimension, time. However we are alway moving at C, split up among the dimensions. Its from this line of reasoning that when we're moving through space at C, theres no way we can be moving through time AT ALL without changing our velocity through spacetime (why the time dialation approaches :inf: as velocity approaches C). This is what prompted my statement about photons being ageless.

___________________________________________

sources: Hurkyl, dave, Briane Greene

ok.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be handled differently because of its relativistic properties. Notice that time is handled differently in the 4-vector. This is straight out of physics books. Check out relativistic kinematics.

 

This was einstein's idea, and lorentz also toyed with it. I can cite sources for all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by blike

I bless you with another homemade graphic.

 

We're always traveling through spacetime at C, though most of our motion is through time.

 

I agree with Fafalone. You seem to have no knowledge of Lorenz transformations in particular. Yes, we are traveling at c, and we are not. It depends on your frame of reference. Each perspective is relative; to us, we are not traveling fast. From an external observer's point of view, we are traveling fast.

Another thing to consider is that traveling at c is paradoxical because if you start traveling at c (esp. c+), you will return before you left.

I have a solution to this paradox. If anyone's willing to here it, I'll be more than happy to type it up(not a long solution, I assure you).

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

I agree with Fafalone. You seem to have no knowledge of Lorenz transformations in particular. Yes, we are traveling at c, and we are not. It depends on your frame of reference. Each perspective is relative; to us, we are not traveling fast. From an external observer's point of view, we are traveling fast.

Another thing to consider is that traveling at c is paradoxical because if you start traveling at c (esp. c+), you will return before you left.

I have a solution to this paradox. If anyone's willing to here it, I'll be more than happy to type it up(not a long solution, I assure you).

:D

 

You're misunderstanding me. Spatial motion is not always C. But the sum of all our motion is always C. This is why time contracts as motion through space(xyz coords) increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

I have a solution to this paradox. If anyone's willing to here it, I'll be more than happy to type it up(not a long solution, I assure you).

:D

 

I'd like to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fafalone

Just for clarification, blike hasn't even taken physics 1, and is by no means knowledgeable in physics.

 

You're right, I havn't taken physics one. I should assume this makes it all the more embarassing for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by NSX

I'd like to hear it.

 

Multiple History theory is the key to my solution. When you leave now, and you return before you left, you are not returning to the same history, but another one because when you come back, you are changing the past. This directly calls for a new history to arise. (history=parallel universe. I think history is more of a discriptive word). So provided you return in a different history in the past, it is not paradoxical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is being right embarassing? Relativistic effects are perfectly accountable for without separating space from time. I strongly doubt Einstein said we exist anywhere other than space-time, since he basically came up with space-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fafalone

Why is being right embarassing? Relativistic effects are perfectly accountable for without separating space from time. I strongly doubt Einstein said we exist anywhere other than space-time, since he basically came up with space-time.

 

Eh, no one is separating space and time. They are interwoven, hence the reason for all that math. If space and time were seperate, then time NOT be relative and this whole discussion wouldn't be taking place. Where did I say einstein said we exist outside of spacetime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since space-time cannot be separated, your q and V vectors are meaningless. Just because a book says something doesn't make it true... don't forget that not all math people show is correct. Think back to the people who came here proposed GUTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fafalone

Since space-time cannot be separated, your q and V vectors are meaningless. Just because a book says something doesn't make it true... don't forget that not all math people show is correct. Think back to the people who came here proposed GUTs.

 

q and V vectors must be separated from time because they can be handled in a classical manner and time cannot [hence einstein, relativity, and this discussion].

 

If you would like them to be handled the same, I hope you would enjoy living in a newtonian universe! This is so fundamental to special relativity I don't see how someone can claim to fully understand the implications and yet ignore the very thing einstein was pointing out. This is not "one book" that I've scoured through. Every physics book dealing with relativistic kinematics will agree, I guarantee it. This is out of einstein's notes, its not something some lone author pulled out of the air.

 

I challenge you to find me a legit source that will say otherwise. I also challenge you to provide a mathematical model to find velocity in 4vector coordinates which will work for all observers regardless of their graviational field or velocity and does not apply any special relativistic principles to time [hint, ds/dt won't work].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they cannot be handled classicly as you claim. Motion of objects is dependent on not only the relativistic effects of time, but also of gravity.

 

You're completely misinterpreting what you've read. The very fact that your fingers are moving relative to something else proves my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not misinterpreting, trust me, thats the first thing I suspect. I've had like 15 people that I've emailed respond affirming this. I've read books that explain it in laymans terms. I've plugged through books that explain it mathematically. I provide you a model (and yet another from an Oxford professor) and the best you say is that "space and time cannot be separated"?? (which if they were separated, time would not even be included in the vector). Seriously this stuff is in the first chapters of books explaining relativity.

 

Don't be so foolish to believe that I would seriously contradict you without triple checking everything. Again, my challenges stand. Until then my only recommendation is that you read up a little. I can sit here and say with a straight face that you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.