General Discussions

**serandfae** · 11-28-2007, 07:18 PM

I'm transplanting the relativity discussion from the Longest Forum Thread. I say faster than light travel is possible because Einstein forgot to carry the two. Your thoughts?

**fastreplies** · 11-28-2007, 07:34 PM

I say yes.

Just because we measure speed in known to us speed of light terms, doesn't mean that whatever we know about speed is by any means universal cosmic standards.

fastreplies

**joder** · 11-28-2007, 07:41 PM

I say the speed of light is the speed limit.

**Learning Newbie** · 11-28-2007, 07:48 PM

The speed of light never made sense to me as an absolute natural limit. I always thought that was bad science.

And quantum physics seems to agree. Particles have been observed to travel at many times the speed of light. In fact, the more dense the material they travel through, the faster they seem to go. Which, unless you don't believe in quantum mechanics, proves that faster than light travel is possible, at least at some levels. A step further tells us that faster than light has been observed with sub atomic particles, but it doesn't tell us it's impossible for larger than atom things.

Oh, and for the record, I do realize quantum comes from quanta, which only means a measurement. Doesn't mean really small. So quantum physics is a bit of a misnomer. We can still take it's example tho.

**serandfae** · 11-28-2007, 07:51 PM

And how many tickets do you have?

So explain to me how when approaching the speed of light mass approaches infinity when matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

**joder** · 11-28-2007, 07:53 PM

No John, there have been no experiments showing faster than light travel. I read a recent blog from a scientist about it. There are a lot of sensational sites that try to

A pair of quantum entangled photons have been sent at the speed of light in different directions. When one's spin was observed, the other spun in the opposite direction. But the information was set at the time they were sent out.

**joder** · 11-28-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

And how many tickets do you have?

So explain to me how when approaching the speed of light mass approaches infinity when matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

No one ever said as an object approaches the speed of light it aquires more matter or energy.

**serandfae** · 08:19 PM

Quantum really means a number, quanta is the plural. A quantum, then, is one particle, subparticle or energy packet(photon). True, light, particle and subparticle physics would be more accurate, but quantum's stuck.

True, subatomic particles have been observed going faster than light, but I was thinking on the larger scale. My argument was that if E=Mc^2 is true then relativity is not. The reasoning is that Energy created from a mass converted completely (measured in joules) is equal to the original mass (measured in kg) multiplied by the speed of light squared (measured as 300.000 km/h in vacuum)^2, or 9.0*10^10 km^2/sec^2.
This describes a relationship--one that's supposedly impossible: Converting a mass completely to energy is like it going not just to the speed of light, but the speed of light times itself. The measurement of joules comes directly from this.

edit: Joder, I'll check out this link an get back to you, and see if I can still find the link for ftl subatomic particles....

**joder** · 11-28-2007, 08:25 PM

Where has it been seen that subatomic particles traveled faster than light? If you have a link to a scientific site that says otherwise, please post it.

EDIT: Sorry . Missed your last sentence.

to me

**serandfae** · 11-28-2007, 09:46 PM

joder--regarding your link:

OK, what they're now saying is that the increase of mass is actually a function of the energy a body holds at increased speed, and is more a function of space/time than the mass itself. But here's the thing--that energy, then, should be potential energy, not energy required to accelerate. And if time at least appears to an outside observer to slow down then apparent speed increases. And if matter and energy bend the fabric of space and time then an increase in mass/energy would do the same. As an object approached the supposed "speed limit" it would be warping space at the same time, because its apparent increase in mass/energy would draw in space/time. The result would be at least an apparent fold in space/time, which would effectively be faster-than-light travel without necessarily breaking the "speed limit".

**joder** · 11-28-2007, 10:07 PM

I didn't get what you did out of the article. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong

My head is starting to hurt

Tell me what is the difference between invariant and relativistic mass.

I am not sure what your getting at by the last sentence. Do you mean that space-time is warped so that the distance from point A to point B is shorter thus making it appear that the speed of light was broken?

**serandfae** · 11-28-2007, 10:19 PM

From what I gathered, invariant mass is actual mass, relativistic mass is something that fit post-Einstein calculations, but can be accounted for by the energy required to accelerate a body, represented as potential energy once accelerated, which we know to be equivalent to mass. At least that's what the Hawking crowd says, to the best of my understanding.

As for my last sentence, yes, that's about what I'm saying. Increase in energy-mass shrinks space and slows time, so to an outside observer the body would actually look like it disappeared. But to the body Points A, B, and probably other points would connect.

**ForrestCroce** · 11-29-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joder

A pair of quantum entangled photons have been sent at the speed of light in different directions. When one's spin was observed, the other spun in the opposite direction. But the information was set at the time they were sent out.

I've never understood why this is considered to be information traveling? Or really information at all? It's more like a type of linkage. When you push a lever and the other side moves, it's not that information was sent and acted on ... it seems like most of the time the word information is used as a metaphor, but I've also seen it used to argue about the speed information could travel, like in the situation you described.

Can you shed any photons on that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

And if time at least appears to an outside observer to slow down then apparent speed increases.

True indeed.

To pull the discussion in a slightly new direction, you can do an experiment with to test this idea. All you need to do is put yourself in mortal danger. I was in the passenger seat years ago when my idiot friend tried to pass somebody in the snow, and hit some black ice. Just before the car flipped, time slowed down in a way you can't imagine. It's just adrenaline kicking in, making your brain work faster, giving you the impression that time is slowing. It's a strange quirk of evolution: a thousand years passed between the point when ****** lost control of the car and the point when I blacked out. But it was like crawling through molasses, given all that time, there wasn't enough to correct the situation.

I wouldn't recommend actually trying that, though. Really not worth the bit of knowledge you get out of the experience.

**NullPointer** · 11-29-2007, 05:05 AM

I'm going to have to go with no on this one, so long as your only talking about simple point to point travel rather than the apparent speed of something traveling through higher deminsional space. I'll believe in faster than light particles when one of you climbs your way out of a black hole, and if you do so in the form of hawking radiation I'll consider that cheating.

But then again I thought I saw a tachyon in my soup the other day.

**AnimeFan01** · 11-29-2007, 05:23 AM

and your suppose to be webmasters....

hahah!

Sounds more like general public forum :P

**joder** · 11-29-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimeFan01

and your suppose to be webmasters....

hahah!

Sounds more like general public forum :P

Look at the title of this forum

I'll help you out. It's General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 11-29-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimeFan01

and your suppose to be webmasters....

hahah!

Sounds more like general public forum :P

What rule says webmasters need to be ignorant about the world they live in? Most of us got involved in the web because we're curious and like understanding things.

**serandfae** · 11-29-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimeFan01

and your suppose to be webmasters....

hahah!

Sounds more like general public forum :P

Like joder said, this particular forum is just that. BTW, if "you're" just going to flame us you should first know you're not "supposed" to, and should at least learn proper English usage if you do. Then, when you get past that you might try to learn a little about what we're talking about in this thread, though I think it's probably a bit above you.

**serandfae** · 11-29-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joder

Where has it been seen that subatomic particles traveled faster than light? If you have a link to a scientific site that says otherwise, please post it.

EDIT: Sorry . Missed your last sentence.

to me

Can't find the exact link anymore, but looking at the work of Henry Stapp would be a good start. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's work, based in part on his, applied to neuropsychiatry, is fascinating as well.

**joder** · 11-29-2007, 08:37 PM

I'll find a more recent one later, but for now, chew on this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/news/ftl.html

Bad Astronomy is one of the "baddest" sites on the web