Breaking the light barrier

If you could get to light speed, and personally I thing you could with enough energy concentrated, I believe it would be because you'd pumped so much energy into your locality you have raised the average energy density above a critical threshold about 10^33 kelvin and caused a phase change in an area of local spacetime that has moved you away from a relativistic frame of reference to one ruled by quantum gravity.

0 Replies

Yeah G-day,

I have run into the same problem. Confused

Time doesn't stop, it merely goes quantum.
Light, blue shifted considerably, merely goes quantum.

At the point that time stops and light red shifts towards infinity it goes quantum.

Noting naturally that the speed of light is dependent on the speed of time to the observer.

Noting again that the speed of time-relative to light is dependent upon mass, which may not necessarily go quantum (but probably does). BUT if gravity disapears in a quantum universe we gotta think some more Exclamation

Best of luck, Mech

It certainly does get interesting Exclamation

0 Replies

If you travel at the spead of light or near the spead of light you would age the same as if you were on earth. For time is only a human invention, also chemichal reactions that occur in your body ignore time so would not slow down.

0 Replies

Sorry DDT,

It doesn't quite work that way. Time does exist in some fashion.

Our purely arbitrary notion of dividing some portions of eternity into discreet units of time is purely relative to our particular needs. I might point out that our needs have changed somewhat in the last few billion years Smile

And time, whatever it is, is probably relative only to an observer.

If you wish we can have another go-around by attempting to describe time in such a manner that fits all observations in the universe.

However I am a bit discouraged. I have spent quite a lot of time Smile

, relatively speaking, on this problem and don't seem any closer to a satisfactory solution. Confused

0 Replies

O. Well that goes out the window Sad

well the guy who sugested the experement for checking if you gain weight by traveling closer to the spead of light, it might be easyer if you do it on an airplain in level flight? Also about time slowing down whilst approaching the speed of light, it does happen i have just read some information about it. Apparently an experement was conducted with two atomic clocks one was in London and the other was placed on an aircraft. After the long dictance flight the times on the clocks were compared and, time on the clock on the airplain had slowed down. But that still doesent explain the ageing thing Razz

0 Replies

o and by the way my inexperiance shows im only 17 Sad

0 Replies

DDT,
There are quite a few theories about time that don't quite explain things sufficiently or satisfactorily.

You could go for a Phd in "time" alone if you were interested.

Steven Hawkings, "A Brief History of Time" and "Black Holes and Baby Universes" would be a good place to start.

Our popular notions of time affect most of our philosophies, from "Creationism" to "Big Bangism".

Also search "Black Holes", "Red Shift" and "Relativity Theories", "The Harvard Tower Experiment, and books by Paul Davies.

Don't neglect to ask questions in this forum, or others.

Best of luck in your "Quest" Smile

0 Replies

Kool

0 Replies

Also DDT look at CERN, a powerful linear accelerator that pushes charged particles with non zero rest mass close to lightspeeds then crashes these particles into gold foil in a liquid helium bath with very high speed cameras synchronised for the collisions. The collisions leave traces of bubbles in the liquid helium. Because the helium is in a very strong electomagenetic field, by studying the bubble trails you can say what nuclear particles collided with what and wht properties they displayed.

Now some exotic particles only exist for a few ten millions of a second or less before they deteoriate into different, more stable particles. You can identify these particles readily by the tracks they leave in your helium bath. However as relativity predicts they can last a few thousanths of a second when travelling at extreme speeds (so more than a thousand times their lifespan) because of relativity diliating time for them relative to our stationary timestream observing them.

CERN regularily saw and captured relativistic effects greatly supporting Einstein's predicitions.

0 Replies

Re: Breaking the light barrier

Milfmaster9 wrote:

Well E=MC2 is what Einstein said but he also claimed it was impossible to travel faster than light. Because the closer you approach the speed of light, the more energy is required to speed you up. Is it possible to ever travel faster than light and what kind of crack pot solutions would there be around this if it holds true. Warp - Drive and Black Holes??/

I don't think that's the problem. Obivously from the standpoint of a single observer two objects could each be approaching a fixed midpoint of some sort at 2/3 C and you'd think they'd be approaching eachother at 4/3 C.

The problem (if there is one) is the notion of deformable time.

0 Replies

Hi Gunga,

In the case of when a wave front dooes not travel at 300,000,000 meters per second it presents two questions.

1. Is the wave no longer light?
2.Is a second not a second?

Or do we define a second of "time" as the change in events whilst a wave front travels 186,000 miles?

I sure dunno--Any ideas. M.

0 Replies

Re: Breaking the light barrier

gungasnake wrote:

Milfmaster9 wrote:
Well E=MC2 is what Einstein said but he also claimed it was impossible to travel faster than light. Because the closer you approach the speed of light, the more energy is required to speed you up. Is it possible to ever travel faster than light and what kind of crack pot solutions would there be around this if it holds true. Warp - Drive and Black Holes??/

I don't think that's the problem. Obivously from the standpoint of a single observer two objects could each be approaching a fixed midpoint of some sort at 2/3 C and you'd think they'd be approaching eachother at 4/3 C.

You are correct, but no observer will ever clock a single material object as travelling at or faster than the speed of light.

0 Replies

What is the "substance" that you require "travel" faster than c? If one settles for the less stringent definition of "information", then experiment has already proven this to occur. Labratory experiments have supported the famous Einstein_Podolsky_Rosen Paradox. Following in the mood of the latter posts, EPR becomes even more interesting when you apply the very simple probability inequality given by Bell's Theorem to the thought experiment. As of now its implications are better left to the philosopher. I for one find myself persuaded by the works of David Bohm on the matter.

0 Replies

Berkmath wrote:

What is the "substance" that you require "travel" faster than c? If one settles for the less stringent definition of "information", then experiment has already proven this to occur. Labratory experiments have supported the famous Einstein_Podolsky_Rosen Paradox. Following in the mood of the latter posts, EPR becomes even more interesting when you apply the very simple probability inequality given by Bell's Theorem to the thought experiment. As of now its implications are better left to the philosopher. I for one find myself persuaded by the works of David Bohm on the matter.

Cite you're source. I think you're wrong.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Berkmath wrote:
What is the "substance" that you require "travel" faster than c? If one settles for the less stringent definition of "information", then experiment has already proven this to occur. Labratory experiments have supported the famous Einstein_Podolsky_Rosen Paradox. Following in the mood of the latter posts, EPR becomes even more interesting when you apply the very simple probability inequality given by Bell's Theorem to the thought experiment. As of now its implications are better left to the philosopher. I for one find myself persuaded by the works of David Bohm on the matter.

Cite you're source. I think you're wrong.

He might be talking about entanglement, but I'm not sure that qualifies as a break in causality, depending on the definition of "information", as Berkmath states.

0 Replies

Since "light" apparently "red shifts" due to a gravitational field then there is obviously some light that travels faster than the same light at some other location.

If "c" is then location dependent then that opens up another can of worms which so far has escaped me.

I suspect that our view of "time" has something to do with it.

Keep thinking Very Happy

, It keeps us out of meaness Exclamation

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Since "light" apparently "red shifts" due to a gravitational field then there is obviously some light that travels faster than the same light at some other location.

Red shift is a frequency change, not a speed change.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Since "light" apparently "red shifts" due to a gravitational field then there is obviously some light that travels faster than the same light at some other location.

If "c" is then location dependent then that opens up another can of worms which so far has escaped me.

I suspect that our view of "time" has something to do with it.

Keep thinking , It keeps us out of meaness

Doppler shift does not alter the speed at all.

0 Replies

Hi Ros and Brandon,

I am talking about the "shift" that is due to gravity.

Since this has been shown to happen, in South Africa about 1929, The observations of "Einstein Crosses", The magnifying (light gathering) effect of galaxies on more distant objects and the red shift of sunlight due simply to the suns mass. (these show that gravity has an effect on light)

So mechanically speaking Very Happy

How do you change the frequency (wave length) without changing the speed assuming all distances are constant.

If somebody is interested in chasing this around ie. the effects of masses on light we could get serious and start referencing things etc.

Someone suggested that the "speed" of time itself changes. Darned if I know Exclamation

Any ideas

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Hi Ros and Brandon,

I am talking about the "shift" that is due to gravity.

Since this has been shown to happen, in South Africa about 1929, The observations of "Einstein Crosses", The magnifying (light gathering) effect of galaxies on more distant objects and the red shift of sunlight due simply to the suns mass. (these show that gravity has an effect on light)

So mechanically speaking How do you change the frequency (wave length) without changing the speed assuming all distances are constant.

If somebody is interested in chasing this around ie. the effects of masses on light we could get serious and start referencing things etc.

Someone suggested that the "speed" of time itself changes. Darned if I know

Any ideas

Hi Aka,

I'm familiar with Einstein Crosses the bending of light around gravitational sources. But I don't know of any color (frequency) change, or speed change associated with the bending effect. Can you point to a reference which cites this?

"Red Shift" is normally associated with the expansion of space, which results in a change of EM frequency. But again, there is no change in the speed of the light.

Propogation of light "through" materials changes (usually slows) the speed of light, but this is a propogation delay, not a true change in the speed of light in a vacuum.

0 Replies

Breaking the light barrier

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know