Faster Than Light Travel

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Martimus
Stuff ...

fascinating .. it is philosophy at a higher level than usual

my idea says that as matter approaches light speed it changes .. and it is no longer "purely matter" as we know it .. and it will disappear from our material view/universe as it exceeds light speed and will becomes energy .. and now 'we' are in an 'alternate' place.

Warp 1


and this IS important .. when you consider "accelerating" matter near c, imo

Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy ? in the form of mass ? than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).

Of course it is simply an idea, that depends on the math of energy-matter conversion. Of course, if we can "control" it somehow, it would appear that as you slow down, the energy may return to its original matter state intact .. of course at a different 'place' and possibly at another 'time'

still the stuff of sci-fi here

Well, we already have a name for energy as mass; it is Potential energy. I have always believed that all matter is energy, it just depends on what form it is taking.

The problem is that light should continue accelerating ad infinium in a vacuum, but it does not. It takes no energy to maintain a velocity, only to accelerate; yet light expends energy just staying at a constant velocity. This goes to show that relative speed is governed on two sides, and not just one. We already know what the first governed relative speed is: 0. Obviously an object cannot move slower in relation to you than a stopped position. This is why Einstein postulated that there was a maximum speed limit. He also showed that relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum. This second part is important, because it is often overlooked in the scheme of things. Objects can approach 0 relative velocity, but it is nearly impossible to actually reach that velocity. This leads to problems with trying to reach absolute zero, which would be the lack of kinetic energy.

Here is what is happening as you accelerate: You expend energy to increase your relative velocity by 100kph; if the relation between energy and relative velocity were linear then you would need to expend an equal amount of energy to double your relative velocity, but you will actually increase your relative velocity by less than 100kph. However, to you you are taveling 100kph faster, but to your suroundings you are not going quite that fast.

I'm sorry I got sidetracked, and forgot where I was going with that last paragraph. Maybe I will write something later.

Please do .. i like the way you think .. it is most refreshing to get out of a 'stuffy classroom'

Now look, in my little theoretical experiment, you are pouring a nearly infinite amount of energy and potential energy into an almost infinitesimally small particle .. where does the energy 'go'? Do you think time slowing down and mass increase are the only changes we will notice? Or will this particle at a certain point become pure energy?

We already know what the first governed relative speed is: 0. Obviously an object cannot move slower in relation to you than a stopped position

What if the "stopped position" is actually going backwards?
-what happens to the "speed limit" and the math used to determine it, for example?

relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum.

exactly .. what else changes as it approaches the maximum and what *would happen* if we theoretically were able to exceed it?

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: apoppin

relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum.

exactly .. what else changes as it approaches the maximum and what *would happen* if we theoretically were able to exceed it?

If you were to travel faster than light, it would be a strange occurance. First, from the point where you arrived, you would seem to have gotten to the destination before you left. In fact, there would be two copies of 'you', the one that arrived at the destination, and the one that was going backwards from the point of arrival going back to the origin. Both copies would be just as real to the person at the point of arrival. In fact, the person at the arrival point could interact with both copies of you (if they could also travel faster than light to follow the backwards traveling 'you'). This paradox isn't something that would destroy the universe or anything, so Doc Brown won't have to worry about that, it would just be weird.

 

[apoppin]

not necessarily ... in the transference from matter to energy and back again [if there is a return trip] either the copy or the original would disappear
- no matters .. "you" are now where you wanted to be [hopefully]

Obviously an object cannot move slower in relation to you than a stopped position

Why is it obvious and why must we assume one thing is "fixed" and the other is moving? Your "stopped position" may be moving also, no?
-Why must we be "stationary" while something is moving "away" from us
.. it is "perception" relative to what fixed principle?

Isn't Einsteins premise based on a possibly faulty one? - that you do not know if anything is really "fixed" or not and that the apparent movement toward you may also be distorted by your own - not to mention if you compute the angle of approach wrong

i don't want to argue with his math; no way .. just possible with his perception of what is "happening" from our changing PoV in the universe

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Isn't Einsteins premise based on a possibly faulty one? - that you do not know if anything is really "fixed" or not and that the apparent movement toward you may also be distorted by your own - not to mention if you compute the angle of approach wrong

Actually, the point of the theory is that everything is only relative to the object being measured. So there is no such thing as "moving" or "fixed" positions in space, only moving or fixed objects in relation to another object. In other words, an object moving toward you, or you moving toward that object are exactly the same thing. The perception from both parties are different (you can throw a third party in there as well, and their perception would also be different), yet all are perceiving reality, even though they are all seeing something different.

The biggest thing that you need to understand to really understand relativity is that all actions have a reaction. Relativity goes about explaining how that reaction is different depending on your point of view. There is no universal truth that all things react the same way to some action. The way in which each object reacts is reality for that object; but no other object. For example, if I were standing outside of a 10m wide barn with doors on both sides, and I saw an 11m object enter the barn on one side traveling at .575C, close the door behind it, open the door infront of it, then leave the barn; it would look like the 11m object was small enough to fit within the barn and with both doors closed at the same time (it would seem like it was only 9m long to me), but to the 11m object only one door was open at a time. Both situations are reality to each relative object, even though each observation is different.

Here is a good site that explains the math of relativity in simple terms. See, it isn't difficult!

This biggest thing to remember, in my opinion, is that time and relative motion are the same thing. That is why time gets jacked up between different points traveling at different relative speeds; because time is literally diferent between the two. Time is only the measurment of relative motion between multiple objects, so if the relative motion between those objects changes so does time.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
not necessarily ... in the transference from matter to energy and back again [if there is a return trip] either the copy or the original would disappear
- no matters .. "you" are now where you wanted to be [hopefully]

Actually your copy would be traveling in the oposite direction at the speed of light. It would disappear once it got to the point were it caught up to the light traveling from the other direction. To you, nothing would be any different, but you would be able to see yourself traveling away at the speed of light. It is the same as hearing a sonic boom after you slowed down below the sound barrier. The soundwave finally caught up to you. The same would happen if you managed to go past the speed of light, so you would see the light that caught up to you first; which would be the light closest to you, which would be why you would see yourself going backward from the destination. Since nearly everything has a reaction that cannot exceed the speed of light either; that copy would be just as real as you are. You should be able to react with it the same way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Martimus
Well, we already have a name for energy as mass; it is Potential energy. I have always believed that all matter is energy, it just depends on what form it is taking.

The problem is that light should continue accelerating ad infinium in a vacuum, but it does not. It takes no energy to maintain a velocity, only to accelerate; yet light expends energy just staying at a constant velocity. This goes to show that relative speed is governed on two sides, and not just one. We already know what the first governed relative speed is: 0. Obviously an object cannot move slower in relation to you than a stopped position. This is why Einstein postulated that there was a maximum speed limit. He also showed that relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum. This second part is important, because it is often overlooked in the scheme of things. Objects can approach 0 relative velocity, but it is nearly impossible to actually reach that velocity. This leads to problems with trying to reach absolute zero, which would be the lack of kinetic energy.

Here is what is happening as you accelerate: You expend energy to increase your relative velocity by 100kph; if the relation between energy and relative velocity were linear then you would need to expend an equal amount of energy to double your relative velocity, but you will actually increase your relative velocity by less than 100kph. However, to you you are taveling 100kph faster, but to your suroundings you are not going quite that fast.

I'm sorry I got sidetracked, and forgot where I was going with that last paragraph. Maybe I will write something later.

A couple of questions. How can light continue to accelerate when it does not accelerate initially? I was taught that light begins at a value of c. afaik, only mass can accelerate and since a photon has no mass it has no acceleration.

Also, how does light expend energy staying at a constant velocity?

Thanks.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
A couple of questions. How can light continue to accelerate when it does not accelerate initially? I was taught that light begins at a value of c. afaik, only mass can accelerate and since a photon has no mass it has no acceleration.

Also, how does light expend energy staying at a constant velocity?

Thanks.

Good questions. Light has measurable momentum, but no measurable mass. This leads you to beleive that light does have a mass that is too small to measure. Whether that is true or not, isn't important. What is important is that Einstein took this to mean that since light has no mass but acts like it does, it must be a form of pure kinetic energy. This would mean that it accelerates just like any other mass given a force - which gives us the most famous equation around: E=mC^2

Now I shouldn't have written that light expends energy staying at a constant velocity, since I don't know that. What I meant was that even if it accelerated it would remain at the same velocity. Accelerating in its plane of reference (at C) would cause it to increase velocity in its plane of reference, but not in any other plane of reference. A better example would be a satelite traveling at 0.3C (Since talking about things at C is pointless since it isn't going to happen) transmitting a signal at .97C toward another satelite traveling 0.3C in the other direction. To the incoming satelite, that signal is traveling at .99C, to the transmitting satelite the signal is traveling at 0.97C, to someone looking from a relatively stationary position (where those 0.3C measurements were taken) on the ground the signal is traveling at 0.984C. So the signal accelerates to 0.97C from the satelite, but from the two external points it only accelerated to 0.69C from the other satelite and 0.684C from the position on the ground.

The equation I used to calculate that is shown here: http://library.thinkquest.org/...elativity/math/m11.gif

 

[Born2bwire]

Of course light can accelerate, it does so to a strong degree when it strikes a mirror. In addition, its speed is dependent upon the medium if propagation. However, the reduced speed of light in a medium is due to things like phonon interactions and absorption/remission. I am of the mind that the photons, when traveling between events of interaction, still travel at a speed of c.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: apoppin

relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum.

exactly .. what else changes as it approaches the maximum and what *would happen* if we theoretically were able to exceed it?

If you were to travel faster than light, it would be a strange occurance. First, from the point where you arrived, you would seem to have gotten to the destination before you left. In fact, there would be two copies of 'you', the one that arrived at the destination, and the one that was going backwards from the point of arrival going back to the origin. Both copies would be just as real to the person at the point of arrival. In fact, the person at the arrival point could interact with both copies of you (if they could also travel faster than light to follow the backwards traveling 'you'). This paradox isn't something that would destroy the universe or anything, so Doc Brown won't have to worry about that, it would just be weird.

No no no. I see this simple issue overcomplicated all the time. If you were at point A and travel faster than light to point B, nomatter the distance traveled nor the actual speed, to an observer, you would disappear from point A at the speed of light and appear at point B whenever a light source had time to bounce from you to the observer's eyes. The "seeing" part requires light which is has a speed limit of C. Therefore regardless of how fast you are, it still requires light interaction to see anything.

Now we can assume that because time goes slower and slower as you approach the speed of light that at the point of speed of light, time stops. Logically, it follows that surpassing speed of light would take you back in time. But because there is no imperical method to test this, we don't really know that "time travel" would occur. We observed macrophysics and applied logic to quantom physics and boy were we surprised when testing showed that things behave very differently at this scale.

Time, like Martimus said, is just a measurement of relative motion of observer and observee. If everything stopped moving, there would be no time. There would be nothing to measure the passing of time.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Of course light can accelerate, it does so to a strong degree when it strikes a mirror. In addition, its speed is dependent upon the medium if propagation. However, the reduced speed of light in a medium is due to things like phonon interactions and absorption/remission. I am of the mind that the photons, when traveling between events of interaction, still travel at a speed of c.

I realize there are conditions where light can be slowed through a medium (though not necessarily decelerated). For the purpose of my question I was assuming light in a vacuum since that's really the only place where light travels at a constant of c.

To respond to Martimus, I'm not sure the momentum of energy implies that photons have mass. I believe Einstein was showing that momentum was a common property of both energy and mass. If energy does truly accelerate, and removing any external factors such as mass or other forms of energy that might obscure an obervation, that acceleration should be observable and measureable. afaik, all experiments of light in a vacuum though indicate that light in a vacuum is traveling at c the very moment it is emitted.

 

[apoppin]

So is light really 'micro particles' that accelerated to c?
-or energy that can accelerate instantly to c?

why does Light behave differently than anything else?

i get this .. for a long time .. it is very simplistic

http://library.thinkquest.org/...ativity/math/math.html

How do you apply the math to curved space where gravity also acts to bend light through space distortion?


field equations, right?

 

[silverpig]

So much bad physics in this thread

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: silverpig
So much bad physics in this thread

so you are saying it is impossible for you to fix?

this is all theoretical - off the wall - at the very best

are you actually hoping to build a star-drive out of it?
- i think you may be disappointed

maybe in a year or two


cosmologically speaking

and it appears that you have already paid yourself what you are owed to yourself by yourself .. i see a sig

unless you have not yet arrived

EDIT:

Time, like Martimus said, is just a measurement of relative motion of observer and observee. If everything stopped moving, there would be no time. There would be nothing to measure the passing of time.

If everything stopped moving? at the the micro and macro level? ---complete *rest*?
What would happen next? - implosion? reverse big bang?
--time would start moving again
:clock:

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Of course light can accelerate, it does so to a strong degree when it strikes a mirror. In addition, its speed is dependent upon the medium if propagation. However, the reduced speed of light in a medium is due to things like phonon interactions and absorption/remission. I am of the mind that the photons, when traveling between events of interaction, still travel at a speed of c.

I realize there are conditions where light can be slowed through a medium (though not necessarily decelerated). For the purpose of my question I was assuming light in a vacuum since that's really the only place where light travels at a constant of c.

To respond to Martimus, I'm not sure the momentum of energy implies that photons have mass. I believe Einstein was showing that momentum was a common property of both energy and mass. If energy does truly accelerate, and removing any external factors such as mass or other forms of energy that might obscure an obervation, that acceleration should be observable and measureable. afaik, all experiments of light in a vacuum though indicate that light in a vacuum is traveling at c the very moment it is emitted.

My point is that people often/orphan forget that acceleration is a change in velocity, not just a change in speed. Although, one can argue that light isn't accelerating when it is reflecting because the photons are being absorbed and then reemitted. There's the deflection of light due to gravity but then that's due to the fact that light is following the curvature of space-time and so does that still constitute acceleration? Then again we describe the movement of photons in a wave in space and that would denote acceleration.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: silverpig
So much bad physics in this thread

Feel free to expound on that.

Just keep in mind that nearly everything that people are talking about in here now would have been considered crazy 200 years ago and 200 years in the future will probably be considered ignorant.

In 200 years it'll likely still be one blind guy feeling the elephant's tail while the other blind guy is touching the trunk as well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Of course light can accelerate, it does so to a strong degree when it strikes a mirror. In addition, its speed is dependent upon the medium if propagation. However, the reduced speed of light in a medium is due to things like phonon interactions and absorption/remission. I am of the mind that the photons, when traveling between events of interaction, still travel at a speed of c.

I realize there are conditions where light can be slowed through a medium (though not necessarily decelerated). For the purpose of my question I was assuming light in a vacuum since that's really the only place where light travels at a constant of c.

To respond to Martimus, I'm not sure the momentum of energy implies that photons have mass. I believe Einstein was showing that momentum was a common property of both energy and mass. If energy does truly accelerate, and removing any external factors such as mass or other forms of energy that might obscure an obervation, that acceleration should be observable and measureable. afaik, all experiments of light in a vacuum though indicate that light in a vacuum is traveling at c the very moment it is emitted.

My point is that people often/orphan forget that acceleration is a change in velocity, not just a change in speed. Although, one can argue that light isn't accelerating when it is reflecting because the photons are being absorbed and then reemitted. There's the deflection of light due to gravity but then that's due to the fact that light is following the curvature of space-time and so does that still constitute acceleration? Then again we describe the movement of photons in a wave in space and that would denote acceleration.

Does it denote acceleration through our frame of reference or that of the photon? Doesn't a photon always travel in a straight line (from the photon's frame of reference) even through curved space-time?

 

[apoppin]

Now how are photons affected by Black holes; there is no change in c is there? Gravity should only trap them at Event Horizon, right?
But that is not right is it? they slow down, or is it just relative to an observer?
.. When we see a star go Hyper-nova for example, we see light ejected just ahead of the gamma ray particles .. and stay just a couple of thousand of miles an hour faster than the Gamma particles

 

[KIAman]

The gravity in a blackhole distorts space so much that depending on the tragectory of the photon, it either orbits the black hole in the event horizon or spirals in until it gets absorbed by the singularity. At that point, it is no longer a photon at all therefore no need to preserve C.

I haven't heard about a supernova shooting off visible light before gamma rays but my guess is that gamma rays require a lot more energy to generate than visible light because of its frequency and high energy.

 

[apoppin]

At that point, it is no longer a photon at all

NOW we are finally getting somewhere .. it changes?

--to *what*? .. a 'particle' when it's time/velocity is slowed?
. . . a "tired photon" .. slow light energy?


:Q

if so, if we can [somehow] speed up a particle to c [using the same engine that can also slow it down] it *becomes energy* and the rules should change also .. not just "time" and gravity - 'form' changes, no? .. matter into energy - and hopefully back when you are nearing and using Event Horizon for your "brakes"]

silly theory but ...


. . . my baby
:heart:

if it works, of course you need an 'anti-matter drive' inside your "particle" to mimic the Black Hole and to keep your velocity and accelerate also

"steering" might be a problem however

. . . along with 'everything else' .. this is the stuff of a mediocre sci-fi novel
--[i actually started writing a book btw - yesterday .. very somewhat unrelated .. not science and not math nor even sci fi - honest! - UNrelated mostly
i just don't want to look totally stupid .. half-stupid is OK with me, my ego can handle that, NP]

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: apoppin
--to *what*? .. a 'particle' when it's time/velocity is slowed?
. . . a "tired photon" .. slow light energy?

Well, scientists don't exactly know what composes a singularity but the best guess is a sort of "quark soup." Defining a point of infinite density is hard. Or possibly something smaller (if there is such a thing) or possibly yet something else considering a new laws of physics might apply, that we have yet to determine.

But light that does not get emmited directly vertical from the surface of the black hole will eventually arc back towards the singularity or spiral back, either way becoming part of it.

 

[apoppin]

So we really don't know .. it is the realm of singularity speculation .. beyond hard .. that would be some "higher" math dealing with infinite variables to make logical predictions

*good, i'm safe*
- metaphysics .. my own specialty now; i am on familiar ground again
Warp travel completed ... analysis complete .. i am back but insane .. me or my shadow? .. but ..
.. thanks!

i'll let you know if it is published - there will be resistance i think, as it takes on organized religion and is not terribly kind to it.
[it is the metaphysical ToE that unites everything .. by June, i think --if i can finish translating Crowley by then; talk about 'chaos explanations'; Dr Tim lsd Leary would have loved it - except he wanted to leave and thought there was no way to fix it; there is]

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Well, scientists don't exactly know what composes a singularity but the best guess is a sort of "quark soup." Defining a point of infinite density is hard.

??; wandering stars to whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever.?