Whats the power required to get something the size of a bb to the speed of light?

[TerryMathews]

I think, unrealistic as it might be, Star Trek presents the only possibility for FTL travel.

Assuming that we accept Einstein's work (and later works on the same topic), it is a physical impossibility to reach the speed of light, and even if you could time would have diliated to the point where you would be no longer able to slow down.

Hence the 'warp drive'. Push yourself into a different dimension, where Einstinean physics don't apply. Inside this universe, you'd have to reduce your mass to 0, or become light a la K-Pax.

You can argue that Einstein was wrong all you want, but no other person (in history, mind you) has come up with another theory that works with all known tests without contradicting itself.

 

[fell8]

The answer to the original question is actually quite simple. Take the mass of the BB spaceship. Now convert it entirely into energy. Measure the energy it gave you. That is your answer.

 

[ReiAyanami]

is that bb the alien's clown car?

 

[BoogieQ]

Yeah the bb is the aliens clown car

I didn't know this topic was beaten to death, so some of the replies were somewhat uncalled for but oh well it's a forum and the internet so I don't really care.

I guess I am more upset that there is not a way to travel to different universes than I am at the fact we can't go faster than the speed of light.

At any rate, thanks to you guys that actually gave me an answer... as I have said, I did not ever have a place to ask these types of questions.

Has any research been done into folding space time and worm holes?

 

[f95toli]

As I said in my above, worm holes are a "hot topic" in science now so there is research going on on "folding space".
.

 

[DKlein]

I've always wondered this: what is the speed of light relative TO? They say light (and anything else for that matter) can only go so fast, but in relation to what? Is it in relation to the center of the universe (or any fixed point in space, I just picked that as the most probably fixed point), a source of gravity, or to us (like the sun )? If it's in relation to a fixed point in space (which is what I'm assuming to be the answer), wouldn't that change what we see the speed of light to be depending on where we're pointing our laser (for determining speed) since the Earth is spinning, moving around the sun, moving around the center of the galaxy, moving away from the center of the universe (at quite some speed I believe) - or is all that movement relatively nothing as compared to the speed of light and thus insignificant in the calculation? Also if it is in relation to a fixed point in space, wouldn't that to some extent prove the existence of a sort of ether or - was it a Higgs particle, the smallest particle of which all other things are made, I can't remember the name though? If there was any way to get past the limitation of relativity it would be to just change where the speed of light was relative to. Anyone, comments?

 

[silverpig]

Well, your TV is what? a hundred watts? maybe 2 or 3? It can accelelerate electrons to ~70% of the speed of light I think. Almost there? Hardly. Those huge freaking particle accelerators (gigawatt order here) can get electrons to 99.999% the speed of light. Just for perspective.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: DKlein
I've always wondered this: what is the speed of light relative TO? They say light (and anything else for that matter) can only go so fast, but in relation to what? Is it in relation to the center of the universe (or any fixed point in space, I just picked that as the most probably fixed point), a source of gravity, or to us (like the sun )? If it's in relation to a fixed point in space (which is what I'm assuming to be the answer), wouldn't that change what we see the speed of light to be depending on where we're pointing our laser (for determining speed) since the Earth is spinning, moving around the sun, moving around the center of the galaxy, moving away from the center of the universe (at quite some speed I believe) - or is all that movement relatively nothing as compared to the speed of light and thus insignificant in the calculation? Also if it is in relation to a fixed point in space, wouldn't that to some extent prove the existence of a sort of ether or - was it a Higgs particle, the smallest particle of which all other things are made, I can't remember the name though? If there was any way to get past the limitation of relativity it would be to just change where the speed of light was relative to. Anyone, comments?

c is the speed of light in a vacuum. We're bound to earth a tiny bit too much to test whether light behaves differently in different galaxies, or different parts/outside of a galaxy.

 

[zhena]

> I've always wondered this: what is the speed of light relative TO?

DKlein, I am afraid you misunderstand a bit what "speed" means.

You are using the common or well lets say "Newtonian Physics" meaning of speed.
Newtonian Physics aren't valid when it comes to high velocities.

If I said that two cars are traveling towards each other at 50kph, what?s the speed of one car relative to the other?
You would answer 100kph. Or if I asked how long would it take for one car to travel 50km you would say 1 hour.
This is true according to Newtonian Physics. As long as you stick to small velocities.

To make a long story short, the lame answer without much explanation is Newtonian Physics aren't valid at high velocities.
First off there is no space. There is a space time continuum. So the idea of something going from point A to point B isn?t 100% valid. At high velocities things change, space/time/mass etc?

The speed of light in a (vacuum) is a constant in our universe. It doesn't matter what angle you view it from and it's not relative to anything.
Now what does that mean? Well take my car example. (Ignoring the obvious) if I say the cars were both traveling at say .75c you would say that the speed of one car relative to the other is 1.5c or faster than the speed of light. That?s not so, you can't use standard Newtonian Physics when it comes to this.

One object can?t go faster than the speed of light, even relatively compared to another object.

The speed of light is like a postulate--its a constant of the universe--like the fact that gravity exists-- 300kps in a vacuum
not relative to anything, if you measure it from a stationary object or from a moving object it will always come out the same.

Kinda freaky if you think about it.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: zhena
> I've always wondered this: what is the speed of light relative TO?

Any observer, be it you or some detection machine, irrelevant of how 'fast' it seems to be moving.

The speed of light is like a postulate--its a constant of the universe--like the fact that gravity exists-- 300kps in a vacuum
not relative to anything, if you measure it from a stationary object or from a moving object it will always come out the same.

Kinda freaky if you think about it.

God invented padded walls and strait jackets for a reason...

 

[RossGr]

The speed of light is like a postulate--its a constant of the universe--like the fact that gravity exists-- 300kps in a vacuum

Everytime I see a comment such as this, I feel it my duty to point out that the reason Einstein was able to POSTULATE a constant speed of light is because Maxwell predicted it and the Michelson Morley experiment verified it, this all happened in the last half of the 19th centrury. The concept of a universal constant speed of light created a rift in Physics, why did massive objects seem to follow different rules then light? This was known as Maxwell's Cundrum and the problem of how to tie it all together was finally solved by Einstein in 1905.

In other words Einstein was able to POSTULATE (that means state without proof) that the speed of light was constant because it had been predicted and verified. It was an excepted (but not liked) fact when he wrote his paper.

 

[zhena]

RossGr you are right, but i don't see your point? is there anything incorrect about what i said?

 

[RossGr]

I have no issues with what you said. The point is that Einstein did not, as many seem to believe, dream up the constancy of c. It was a well known fact when he postulated it. Which is why he could simply postulate it without having to address it directly.

In the last 100 years, since Einstein first published, the physical basis for the constant speed of light seems to have been neglected in favor of the effects which are a physical result of it.

So when people argue against a constant speed of light, they are not arguing with Einstein, but with Maxwell.

The fact that the GPS system works is yet another testimony to our understanding of the propogation of Electro magnetic waves, and light of course is simply a form of a electro magnectic wave.

 

[Bozz]

Here's a question that I thought of while reading zhena's post.

Lets take a vehicle travelling at 100km/h with its headlights on. Where does the theory of the speed of light stand with this?

 

[f95toli]

The speed of light is c according to an observer in the car and it also c according to a person on the sidewalk observing the car.
It doesn't matter how fast the car is going. Even if the speed is 0.99c relative to the road, a measurement of the speed of light in the car would still give the answer c.

 

[zhena]

exactly what f95toli said...

 

[Arcanedeath]

Tachyons is the name given to some FTL particles, it's only a postulate they might exist and researchers are trying to prove they actualy exist, but in theory FTL is possible, here's a Scientific American article about Tachyons Learn something about Tachyons

 

[DKlein]

One object can?t go faster than the speed of light, even relatively compared to another object.

My understanding was this: if you have a car going the speed of light, then shine a flashlight off of it, there would be no actual light coming out of the flashlight, correct?

The speed of light in a (vacuum) is a constant in our universe. It doesn't matter what angle you view it from and it's not relative to anything.

I'll make a new question which embodies the old: if you are floating in space, in Earth's orbit and look at a photon, it is going the speed of light. Now if you were travelling half the speed of light faster than you were in the same direction as the photon, would it still be going the speed of light, or would it be going half the speed of light relative to you (if you could somehow measure it's speed)? I was thinking it would be 1/2c to you in such a situation. If that is so, I was wondering at what speed/direction relative to you in Earth's orbit would it be exactly c?

 

[f95toli]

A photon is ALWAYS traveling at the speed of light relative to the object that emitted the photon, if you shine a flashlight of a car going at the speed of light (or lets say 0.99999c) the photons emitted from the flashlight would still be traveling at the speed of light¨relative to the car.
That is the basic point one has to accept: Of you measure the speed of light in vacuum the result will ALWAYS (NO exceptions) be c.

 

[zhena]

No it would NOT be 1/2c.
It would still be c.

As I said before... for the example you are thinking of to work you are using Newtonian Physics which are not valid at high velocities. It would be valid if we are talking about an asteroid. If its going at a certain speed x and you are traveling in the same direction at sped x/2, then yes the speed of the asteroid relative to you is also x/2. But thats because the asteroid is traveling at low speeds (relative to c or even c/2).

When I say Newtonian Physics aren't valid at high velocities, basically they aren't valid at small velocties either, its just the ERROR is so small it becomes insignificant.

Originally posted by: DKlein

One object can?t go faster than the speed of light, even relatively compared to another object.

My understanding was this: if you have a car going the speed of light, then shine a flashlight off of it, there would be no actual light coming out of the flashlight, correct?

The speed of light in a (vacuum) is a constant in our universe. It doesn't matter what angle you view it from and it's not relative to anything.

I'll make a new question which embodies the old: if you are floating in space, in Earth's orbit and look at a photon, it is going the speed of light. Now if you were travelling half the speed of light faster than you were in the same direction as the photon, would it still be going the speed of light, or would it be going half the speed of light relative to you (if you could somehow measure it's speed)? I was thinking it would be 1/2c to you in such a situation. If that is so, I was wondering at what speed/direction relative to you in Earth's orbit would it be exactly c?

 

[User1001]

so when it goes through materials it goes slower. So if you think theoretically (or rather mathematically) a theoretical object (I think it would need a negitive mass, which is impossible or undefined) could make light go faster.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: User1001
so when it goes through materials it goes slower. So if you think theoretically (or rather mathematically) a theoretical object (I think it would need a negitive mass, which is impossible or undefined) could make light go faster.

Not true. Scientists have sent electro-magnetic radiation through metal objects, and through a phenomena known as quantum tunneling, have gotten he radiation to travel faster than light. I believe the highest velocity so far was 4.7c. This is a known property of quantum dynamics. Something that goes through a quantum tunnel has the ability to travel faster than light. This has been proven, and no one in the quantum field disagrees. The disagreement comes into play when you talk about sending signals through. According to Quantum Physics, the quantum tunnel's occur randomly so no data can be transmitted through. One scientists disagrees with that, and believes he has sent a signal faster than light (I believe it was Beethoven's symphony). The name of the scientist escapes me right now, I will try to find it.

 

[zhena]

different sub atomic particles CAN travel faster than light.
but these particles also can't be thought of regular particles.

 

[f95toli]

First of all it is wrong to describe tunneling as faster-than light transport. Tunneling is just a consequency of the wave-particle duality of matter and needs to be descibed using wave-functions, you can not think of it in terms of "speed".

Quantum teleportation which is what krazikid is refering to is not a tunneling-phenomena at all. There is no way to transfer information using this method and the physicist (german, I don't remember the name either) is simply wrong. The math behind QT is actually not very complicated and it is relatively easy to show that "teleporting" music is impossible, it is a standard exercis in courses in quantum mechanics.

 

[capybara]

"A good introduction is here

Mr = M0 /sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

This formula describes how the relativistic mass compares with the rest mass dependent on the speed of the body, v
c is the speed of light.

as v approaches c, v^2/c^2 approaches 1 from below, so sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) gets incredibly small and so Mr gets incredibly big."
ok, this is a good start, realistically we would wanna start at 0.1 c, and then if successful, gradually work our way up to .5 and then .9 c
M sub r = 0.1 gram / sqrt (1- 0.1^2/c^2)
are the parenthesis corrrect in that ?