Can the speed of light be considered infinite?

[silverpig]

Oh, and about those other particles someone asked about, Hawking radiation was explained quite well just a few posts above this one, and tachyons are only theoretical at this point.

And about gravity being instantaneous, well no experimental proof has been gathered, but an instantaneous gravitational effect would violate GTR. It is thought that gravity is quantized and it's effects are felt by the interaction of gravitons (just as light is quantized by photons), but gravitons have not been resolved so far, mainly because the gravitational force is so weak that it would require incredibly precise measurements.

There is a theory that gravity is a 4 dimensional force, and can be felt along a 4th dimensional axis. A good test would be to plot the drop off curve of the gravitational force of an object at distances less than 1 mm. If the drop off is of the order 1/x^2, then gravity is 3D, if goes like 1/x^3, then it's 4D. Distinguishing between these two curves at such small distances with such small masses with our current technology is impossible however...

 

[silent tone]

Aren't the state changes of entangled particles instantaneous over an arbitrary distance? So you could transmit the state of a set of particles(your body) to another set somewhere else creating or teleporting another you.

 

[silverpig]

I'm not too sure about that one. I'm still trying to understand entangled pairs, so I couldn't say for sure...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Maybe light isn't what's moving, the rest of the universe is, and light is the only thing that is perfectly still.

 

[S0me1X]

<<Can the speed of light be considered infinite?>>

3x10^8 meters/second doesn't look like infinity

There are many cases where the highest theoritical value is a finite value.

 

[Elledan]

<< Aren't the state changes of entangled particles instantaneous over an arbitrary distance? So you could transmit the state of a set of particles(your body) to another set somewhere else creating or teleporting another you. >>


Yes, evidence seems to support this.

But as with every part of science, don't be surprised to see things change rapidly all of a sudden. At the end of the 19th century, for example, it was widely believed that just about anything which could be invented had already been invented and explained, except for black body radiation. Needless to say, Planck's discovery on black body radiation kind of turned the whole scientific community upside-down

 

[Elledan]

<< Maybe light isn't what's moving, the rest of the universe is, and light is the only thing that is perfectly still. >>


Impossible. If this would be true, then any objects which would interact with light would slow down, so if you had two objects and placed one in the sun, and the other in the shade, the one in the sun would suddenly move faster than the one in the shade

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Well, with the two (or four) nacelles placed behind the ship, the field has to be much larger than is necessary to surround the ship. I don't see how it would affect shield-generators either, or any other systems, for that matter.

Also, more nacelles == greater redundancy. If one fails, you've got a bunch more to take things over. According to your logic, a computer would be more reliable with less HD's and absolutely no RAID or tape-drive >>



True, but maintenance of those nacelles would be extremely difficult. The savings you would get by having slightly more optimal warp-field would be lost to the additional cost of those extra nacelles and the recources it takes to maintain them. Also, the energy-consumption COULD be higher. Instead of having two powerful nacelles, you would have few dozen smaller nacelles. It could be that using those smaller nacelles to generate warp-field would take more energy that generating slightly bigger ward-field using just two nacelles. >>

With two large nacelles, you've to create a much larger field, which requires a lot more energy and is potentially more unstable.
Although with many small nacelles you would possibly use more energy than with just two nacelles, the increased reliability and redundancy would most certainly be worth it .

As for maintenance, I imagine that it would be easier to just simply replace a nacelle in case of failure than trying to repair it on the spot. Try that with your gigantic nacelles



<< And while having several nacelles would increase redundancy, it would also make the overall design much more complex. More complexity = more maintenance = more problems. In the end, increasing the number of nacelles becomes too costly when looking at the gains. I think having 2-4 nacelles is a nice balance between redundancy and simplicity. >>


I disagree.
Although the design would get more complex, the redundancy would be far greater, maintenance would be easier because in case of a malfunction or failure you can just shut down one nacelle and let the others take over, during which you can replace the broken nacelle.

For a ship the size of a Galaxy-class starship, I would estimate that 10-15 nacelles would be sufficient. I'm by no means an expert on this matter, though

 

[skace]

If something has speed and is travelling then wouldn't calling it infinite be an oxymoron?

 

[Nemesis77]

ELLEDAN:

Dammit.... Just wait few weeks, and I'll think of a good comeback .

Besides, you know it, and I know it, that the reason why Enterprise has two nacelles is because it looks good .

 

[Elledan]

<< ELLEDAN:

Dammit.... Just wait few weeks, and I'll think of a good comeback . >>





<< Besides, you know it, and I know it, that the reason why Enterprise has two nacelles is because it looks good . >>


True, and it increases the possibility that the ship gets into a dangerous situation, like when in a fight, which is also a good thing for the series

Remember the episode "second chances", where the Enterprise gets one of its nacelles ruptured when another ship appeared from a temporal distortion and 'scratched' the nacelle? Such a thing would not be possible if the Enterprise had multiple nacelles spread all over the ship.

 

[FreeAgent]

Thats not within the relm of human understanding but who cares.....I beleive light never stops traveling much like those pesky life insurance salesman. They r also infinite.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Fifteen hundred years ago everyone knew the world was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, eveyone knew the earth was flat, and fifteen mintues ago you KNEW we were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.- Tommy Lee Jones(Men In Black)

 

[BigNeko]

I need to watch Cosmos again.

 

[Tarobap]

NO . . . any other questions

It's all relative

I'm suppose to be reading these threads as a study break . . . and here you guys are talking about this . . .

 

[Elledan]

<< NO . . . any other questions

It's all relative

I'm suppose to be reading these threads as a study break . . . and here you guys are talking about this . . . >>


You realize what this place is, no?

BTW, no one is forcing you to read this thread

 

[BChico]

Speed of light is 6.022 x 10^23 m/s...

 

[Omegachi]

hmm...according to E=MC^2. and the equation C^2=E/M . Does that mean if you have enough energy to travel at the speed of light, your mass will need to be smaller?

 

[skylark]

About FTL (faster than light) velocities:

You end up going backwards in Time.

 

[skylark]

<< hmm...according to E=MC^2. and the equation C^2=E/M . Does that mean if you have enough energy to travel at the speed of light, your mass will need to be smaller? >>



LOL! Massless.. Theoretically, the ship itself will need a mass of a photon to reach SOL (speed of light).

 

[Venturi]

I'm not fat, I'm just travelling too fast.

 

[Jerboy]

Answer is simple: No.

The distance between galaxies, planets and whatevers in the space are measured in terms of light years. One light year compares to distance light travels in one year period. Some are so far apart they're hundred of million light years away. If it was infinite, the time it takes for light to reach anywhere in the universe is zero second.

 

[misterj]

i like the other topics this question brought about, but wtf was the initial question even asked? didnt we learn what the speed of light was in 4th grade?

 

[wfbberzerker]

<< Speed of light is 6.022 x 10^23 m/s... >>

isnt that avogadros constant?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fyi
Gravity waves travel at the speed of light.

It is possible to have action at a distance at infinite speed. In fact it is well documented. The example here is a system of 2 particles in an entangled state. What happens to one particle affects the other immediately. Before you get too excited, this cannot be used to transmit information . Sorry about that.