is it even posible? would you not think that you would hit something. i mean how are you going to turn away from something whin your going fast enoughf to travle from the sun to earth in 8 min. ive wondered about this for a while now. got any ancers. o ya speed of light not worp speed i under stand how that works.
traviling at the speed of light?
- Thread starter jswjimmy
- Start date
Well, according to a lot of Einstein's work it's impossible to actually travel at the speed of light. However, you could get arbitrarily close to it, so it's still a valid question.
Presumably you could only travel at such high speeds in areas consisting of mostly vacuum; you are correct in that hitting *anything* of substantial mass ('substantial' being denser than gas or dust, essentially) at that speed will destroy pretty much anything we're capable of building. Fortunately, most of 'space' is, well, empty space, or filled with only low-density gas (which doesn't present much of a problem). Several science fiction writers (and many astrophysicists) have actually thought about this; some have suggested coating the front of your ship with ablative shielding (such as water ice, which is cheap and easy to manufacture), and replacing it after each trip. 'Star Trek' does away with this by having fantastic energy shielding, something that is unfortunately not an option (at least today) in the Real World (tm).
Presumably you could only travel at such high speeds in areas consisting of mostly vacuum; you are correct in that hitting *anything* of substantial mass ('substantial' being denser than gas or dust, essentially) at that speed will destroy pretty much anything we're capable of building. Fortunately, most of 'space' is, well, empty space, or filled with only low-density gas (which doesn't present much of a problem). Several science fiction writers (and many astrophysicists) have actually thought about this; some have suggested coating the front of your ship with ablative shielding (such as water ice, which is cheap and easy to manufacture), and replacing it after each trip. 'Star Trek' does away with this by having fantastic energy shielding, something that is unfortunately not an option (at least today) in the Real World (tm).
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
LMAO! Question about travelling at the speed of light, but.... you understand how warp speed works.
Pulsar
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2003
- 5,224
- 306
- 126
If you truly understand "warp" speed, than let us in on it.
BTW, putting on my geek hat, warp speed had EXACTLY the problem you mention, until some kind of freaky computer system was created that was integrated with the navigational systems and hyperaccurate star charts. Dison? Distrom? Dystrom? That was the guys name in the Star Trek Universe who created the system that could account for everything moving through the area of space you were traveling through.
The real problem is getting several ships all going at once and somehow mananging to not allow them to collide. I get a kick out of the Star Trek episodes where they "chase" someone at warp speed. What happens if the guy just ahead of them suddenly decides to hit the breaks? /grin
BTW, putting on my geek hat, warp speed had EXACTLY the problem you mention, until some kind of freaky computer system was created that was integrated with the navigational systems and hyperaccurate star charts. Dison? Distrom? Dystrom? That was the guys name in the Star Trek Universe who created the system that could account for everything moving through the area of space you were traveling through.
The real problem is getting several ships all going at once and somehow mananging to not allow them to collide. I get a kick out of the Star Trek episodes where they "chase" someone at warp speed. What happens if the guy just ahead of them suddenly decides to hit the breaks? /grin
we'll never go the speed of light int he traditional sence, but thru some loop hole in physics we will. perhaps thru wormhole's, or some sort of gravety drive the curves space (ala Event Horizon).
Given our current understanding of high-speed interstellar travel, and the difficulties of propulsion, that the location/creation and stabilization of an Einsten-Rosen bridge (wormhole) may be where the future lies. It is proposed that finding a way to stabilize an Einsten-Rosen bridge would be one way to bridge the distances without need for high speed travel. How, when and where is the issue that you would have to predict though.
I always wondered about damage from particles to a near-light-speed vehicle. Since the vehicle in question would approach infinite mass at near light speed, and since the physical object remains unchanged, the density would also approach infinity (I beleive I remember this correctly, but it's been decades:confused, the damage of impact from dust sized particles would cause less and less damage (virtually infinite density is tough!). Even this may possibly be lessened via laser or microwave generated plasma field on the leading edge of the vehicle.
I always wondered about damage from particles to a near-light-speed vehicle. Since the vehicle in question would approach infinite mass at near light speed, and since the physical object remains unchanged, the density would also approach infinity (I beleive I remember this correctly, but it's been decades:confused
, the damage of impact from dust sized particles would cause less and less damage (virtually infinite density is tough!). Even this may possibly be lessened via laser or microwave generated plasma field on the leading edge of the vehicle. The faster you go, the greater your mass becomes and the slower time goes. Therefore, at about >99% the speed of light, your mass would be approaching that of a neutron star, and from our point of view at rest, time would be progressing at <1% normal speed for you. And from your point of view, in your space ship, we would be travelling at many times normal speed. If you were then to survive this and slow down, when you travelled back to earth it would be the distant future.
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
this sounds good and stuff, but its still not proven that your situation is actually what happens. sure, e=mc^2 states that mass increase with speed, but time travel is a whole different concept. no, i wont claim to fully understand it, but read some of hawking's books if you really want to know. time dialation (sp?) is not this simple.
breakingthespeedlimit is correct.
Time dilation in special relativity is actually quite straightforward and is well understood and there are actually a few applications where the effect becomes important.
In particle physics there are many examples where time dilation is important, the lifetime of the muon is one well-known example.
Time dilation in special relativity is actually quite straightforward and is well understood and there are actually a few applications where the effect becomes important.
In particle physics there are many examples where time dilation is important, the lifetime of the muon is one well-known example.
I don't think it's possible to go the speed of light. The theory of relativity confirms that: e = mc2. If you subsitute e (the amount of energy) for 1, then the other side of the equation must be 1, therefore the energy required to sustain light speed is directly related to the mass of the object that is traveling. This proves that an object travelling the speed of light must be infinitely heavy and have an infinite amount of energy - which just isn't possible.
TGHI
TGHI
What do you mean by "assumption"?
The following experiments have actually been performed (and works):
*Take two atomic clocks, leave one on the ground and take the other with you on a Concorde (or anopther reasonably fast airplane), fly around for a few hours and then land. Compare the two clocks, they will NOT show the same value since the clock that was on the plane has been "exposed" to time dillation. The experimental data was in perfect accordance with special relativity.
*If you need very accuratee GPS data you actually need to compensate for effects that are due to time dilation in diffrent gravity fields (thats general relativity)
*In particle accelerators particles are accelerated to speeds very close to c, when you calculate the life time you need to take time dilation into account.
*Some modern atomic clocks are so accurate that you can actually detect how the ground moves up and down due to seismic activity just by comparing how fast the clock is running compared to another clock (that is on more solid ground), this is again due to variations in the gravity field (general relativity).
I could go on for a while, there are MANY experiments that show that time dilation exists and are in perfect agreement with theory.
The following experiments have actually been performed (and works):
*Take two atomic clocks, leave one on the ground and take the other with you on a Concorde (or anopther reasonably fast airplane), fly around for a few hours and then land. Compare the two clocks, they will NOT show the same value since the clock that was on the plane has been "exposed" to time dillation. The experimental data was in perfect accordance with special relativity.
*If you need very accuratee GPS data you actually need to compensate for effects that are due to time dilation in diffrent gravity fields (thats general relativity)
*In particle accelerators particles are accelerated to speeds very close to c, when you calculate the life time you need to take time dilation into account.
*Some modern atomic clocks are so accurate that you can actually detect how the ground moves up and down due to seismic activity just by comparing how fast the clock is running compared to another clock (that is on more solid ground), this is again due to variations in the gravity field (general relativity).
I could go on for a while, there are MANY experiments that show that time dilation exists and are in perfect agreement with theory.
Warp speed? Easy. Its not scientific. It just starts with a few assumptions. Space is a substance. Like substances, space has properties. Let one of these properties be deformation. If you deform space, points in that space are able to become closer. Of course, I can't prove any of this. You just got buy into it like religion.
Getting something to travel at the speed of light is equivelent to converting it to light.
On the same vein, from the point of view of said object, everything else is simply radiation.
On the same vein, from the point of view of said object, everything else is simply radiation.
Propulsion is at that time one of the problems.
Do you have electrical systems in the ship? Electricity does not travel at such a high speed, so those systems will fail.
Conventional propulsion will not suffice to push you faster, as it will not manage to break the speed of light which it needs to push you harder.
The 'fastest' propulsion we have at the moment is pushing with a laser, which will take ages to even approach half the speed of light.
It might be possible to move at a higher speed at some point in the future, but we do not have the knowledge nor the intelligence to understand how at this point.
Using a black hole to see if that can do the trick is something which you do not want to even contemplate at this point, as the part closest to the black hole will get ripped away from the rest due to the extreme forces at that point.
Do you have electrical systems in the ship? Electricity does not travel at such a high speed, so those systems will fail.
Conventional propulsion will not suffice to push you faster, as it will not manage to break the speed of light which it needs to push you harder.
The 'fastest' propulsion we have at the moment is pushing with a laser, which will take ages to even approach half the speed of light.
It might be possible to move at a higher speed at some point in the future, but we do not have the knowledge nor the intelligence to understand how at this point.
Using a black hole to see if that can do the trick is something which you do not want to even contemplate at this point, as the part closest to the black hole will get ripped away from the rest due to the extreme forces at that point.
I think you should study the teory of relativity.
Speed is always RELATIVE something else (the exception being c which is a constant). As long as you are not accelerating there is no way to even measure how fast you are going, everything will seem to normal on the ship even if it is traveling at 99.999% percent of c.
Speed is always RELATIVE something else (the exception being c which is a constant). As long as you are not accelerating there is no way to even measure how fast you are going, everything will seem to normal on the ship even if it is traveling at 99.999% percent of c.
Btw, thanks to the movement between (and in) atoms and molecules if you get close to the speed of light some energy will already be exceeding the speed.
Unless the 'internal' movement comes to a total stop.
Unless the 'internal' movement comes to a total stop.
What do you mean? You can NOT add speeds and say that something is approaching the speed of light like that.
The whole point of the special theory of relativity is that in a system that is not accelerating there is no way of telling at what speed you are traveling at whithout using some outside reference, The fact that the speed of light is constant is simply a consequence of this (it it was not constant you would be able to tell at what speed you were travling by measuring the speed of light and getting a result > or < than c), everyhing else (time dilation etc) can be deduced from this simple fact.
So you are wrong, no energy will ever exceed the speed of light (btw, EM interaction energy IS light and travels exactly at c).
The whole point of the special theory of relativity is that in a system that is not accelerating there is no way of telling at what speed you are traveling at whithout using some outside reference, The fact that the speed of light is constant is simply a consequence of this (it it was not constant you would be able to tell at what speed you were travling by measuring the speed of light and getting a result > or < than c), everyhing else (time dilation etc) can be deduced from this simple fact.
So you are wrong, no energy will ever exceed the speed of light (btw, EM interaction energy IS light and travels exactly at c).
Can you replicate this by attaching an atomic clock on a large rotor and spinning it fast enough to achieve a linear velocity equivalent to Concorde? I don't know if this is possible realistically, so I mean in theory.
I don't know. The problem is that since you are accelerating (you are rotating) the special theory of relativivty is not valid anymore, you need to use the general theory of relativity.
I understand the special theory quite well but my knowledge of general theory is limited to what I read so I simply do not know.what would happen.
I understand the special theory quite well but my knowledge of general theory is limited to what I read so I simply do not know.what would happen.
Is this not somewhat off topic?
Nevermind.
Upon achieving the impossible, travelling at c, you would... well... suddenly experience the end of the universe, given that time dilation would be infinite. There would be no way to decelerate since nothing in this hypothetical thing that is letting you travel so fast can move before the end of the universe.
So it would be pretty boring really.
Nevermind.
Upon achieving the impossible, travelling at c, you would... well... suddenly experience the end of the universe, given that time dilation would be infinite. There would be no way to decelerate since nothing in this hypothetical thing that is letting you travel so fast can move before the end of the universe.
So it would be pretty boring really.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter