Guest Frog186 Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hi everyone I have a few questions for anyone or anybody so here they are: Is time travel possible or not possible? Will time travel be in our near future? Was einstein right or wrong that time travel will be possible or not? Are time travelers real or fake? I have heard that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is this true? The speed of light is faster than humans, objects, and animals but what would happen if all three of these subjects you know humans, objects, and animals were faster than the speed of light and one more what would it look like to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Is time travel possible or not possible? Quite possible! you're traveling through time right now. There have been methods proposed to travel into the past, but there is no way we could experimentally demonstrate it. Travel to the future, on the other hand, is feasable. The faster you are moving, the more time dialates. In other words, time appears to be going faster for things that are not moving as fast as you. If you were traveling near the speed of light past earth in a spaceship, and as you flew by you looked at a clock on earth, you would see the clock's hands spinning very fast. People on earth would be scurrying around like ants. Your clock inside your spaceship would be ticking normally though. In essence, you would be travling to the future. Will time travel be in our near future? I doubt it. Was einstein right or wrong that time travel will be possible or not? Experimental data shows he was correct. Are time travelers real or fake? Not sure I understand the question. I have heard that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is this true? Yep, nothing with mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by blike Yep, nothing with mass. No, nothing with mass can accelerate to the speed of light under the laws of mechanics as we *currently* understand them, however if V0 was already >c, then none of these laws are broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 yea yea, but given the simplistic manner in which the questions were stated, I didn't think it warrented a very detailed explanation of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 That's not detailed. If you want detailed, I'll give you detailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone No, nothing with mass can accelerate to the speed of light under the laws of mechanics as we *currently* understand them, however if V0 was already >c, then none of these laws are broken. ahh, and the tachyon paradox states that superluminal travel is impossible. For one, a particle would need infinite energy to travel faster than light. For example, a tachyon would continuously loose its (?)negative energy(?) and go even faster than before. eventually, it would reach transcendence etc. here's a quote: tachyon paradox The argument demonstrating that tachyons (should they exist, of course) cannot carry an electric charge. For a (imaginary-massed) particle travelling faster than c, the less energy the tachyon has, the faster it travels, until at zero energy the tachyon is travelling with infinite velocity, or is transcendent. Now a charged tachyon at a given (non-infinite) speed will be travelling faster than light in its own medium, and should emit Cherenkov radiation. The loss of this energy will naturally reduce the energy of the tachyon, which will make it go faster, resulting in a runaway reaction where any charged tachyon will promptly race off to transcendence. Although the above argument results in a curious conclusion, the meat of the tachyon paradox is this: In relativity, the transcendence of a tachyon is frame-dependent. That is, while a tachyon might appear to be transcendent in one frame, it would appear to others to still have a nonzero energy. But in this case we have a situation where in one frame it would have come to zero energy and would stop emitting Cherenov radiation, but in another frame it would still have energy left and should be emitting Cherenkov radiation on its way to transcendence. Since they cannot both be true, by relativistic arguments, tachyons cannot be charged. This argument naturally does not make any account of quantum mechanical treatments of tachyons, which complicate the situation a great deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 'Imaginary mass'... Dark energy comes to mind... seeing as how we know virtually nothing about it and it makes up 73% of the universe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 imaginary mass? Dark energy? I have never really grasped it. Can you do the honors of explaining it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 The basic idea behind Dark Whatever is that Einstein is correct as far as we can gather. Most evidence shows it. However, among other things, the way that our galaxy exists shouldn't work under General Relativity, so there is theorised something called Dark Matter (or Dark Energy, it doesn't really matter [hoho]) which is providing the 'extra' gravity. Dark because it can't be seen, although that's a bit of a misnomer as it can't be seen because everything passes through it, not because it absorbs it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael12 Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 It's pretty widely theorized among super-string theorists that dark matter is comprised of the super-symmetric partners to the known elementary particles. The properties of these partners are already theoretically determined, but as yet, none have been observed, not even indirectly. Though it is believed that this will happen within a few years. 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