Space Travel
James Colvier
traveling faster than the speed of light. I studied E=mc2, but if I
understand it correctly, that doesn't actually state that it isn't
possible. If it were possible, what would it require, and how would it
operate?
-James Colvier
James Colvier
Mike Dworetsky
news:a8505ae0-cb7b-46c2...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
This isn't really the right group for such a question. Try
rec.arts.sf.science or sci.physics.
If you are thinking about why relativity would prevent reaching or exceeding
the speed of light, E = mc^2 isn't the only equation to study, you need to
think long and hard about the equation m = m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as well. The
closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy you need to increase
the speed even a tiny bit. And without infinite energy, you can't
accelerate a mass up to the speed of light.
Postulated particles called tachyons can only travel faster than the speed
of light. No one is sure they even exist. In the above equation, they
would have imaginary mass.
There are theoretical ways to warp space locally so that a spacecraft could
exceed c as seen from far away while not violating the above locally. But
you would need a huge "negative" mass to do this, and we don't have any idea
how to create such a thing, as even antimatter still has "positive" mass.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
J. J. Lodder
It requires new laws of nature that we don't know about yet.
You estimate the chances,
Jan
Guido
faster than the speed of light. And even if such particles existed
there's still the problem traveling faster than c, in other words, of
transporting your body - which exists of ordinary, "slow" particles -
with a speed greater than c.
AC
The problem is that the closer to C you get, the more massive you become,
thus the more energy required to accelerate further. What it boils down to
is that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to C.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
Steven L.
> James Colvier wrote:
>> I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the possibility of
>> traveling faster than the speed of light. I studied E=mc2, but if I
>> understand it correctly, that doesn't actually state that it isn't
>> possible. If it were possible, what would it require, and how would it
>> operate?
>>
>> -James Colvier
>>
> It would require new physics. No known elementary particles can travel
> faster than the speed of light.
If we could develop a quantum theory of gravity, we might be able to
bend the laws of special relativity to exceed the speed of light. See,
for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
which postulates a ship moving inside a "bubble" of normal space as it
travels through warp space.
And a quantum theory of gravity is not only possible, but an active area
of current research.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
AC
That's not quite correct. It's conceivable to have particles that travel
faster than light. That in and of itself does not violate physical laws.
What is impossible is accelerating to C.
Guido
semantics. Apart from that I fully agree.
J. J. Lodder
> "James Colvier" <jamesc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a8505ae0-cb7b-46c2...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the possibility of
> > traveling faster than the speed of light. I studied E=mc2, but if I
> > understand it correctly, that doesn't actually state that it isn't
> > possible. If it were possible, what would it require, and how would it
> > operate?
> >
> > -James Colvier
> >
> >
>
> This isn't really the right group for such a question. Try
> rec.arts.sf.science or sci.physics.
>
> If you are thinking about why relativity would prevent reaching or exceeding
> the speed of light, E = mc^2 isn't the only equation to study, you need to
> think long and hard about the equation m = m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as well. The
> closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy you need to increase
> the speed even a tiny bit. And without infinite energy, you can't
> accelerate a mass up to the speed of light.
>
> Postulated particles called tachyons can only travel faster than the speed
> of light.
They can't go slower than light.
They need an infinite amount of energy to slow down to c.
At zero energy their velocity is infinite.
Makes interaction kind of hard.
> No one is sure they even exist. In the above equation, they
> would have imaginary mass.
Better to say that for tachyons
E^2 = p^2 - m^2
rather than the usual
E^2 = p^2 + m^2
for tardyons.
Dragging is imaginary numbers here
is nothing but doing difficult and mysterious
for no good reason at all,
Jan
Guido
not see why quantum gravity should be involved. The wikipedia article
seems to be about classical general relativity.
J. J. Lodder
If found, yes.
What is meant is obviously that the special theory of relativity
would't need to be adapted, in case.
In fact the SRT predicts the possibility,
Jan
Geoff
No problem. Open up ANWR.
Robert J. Kolker
Master Yodah says: Do not, your breath hold, Young Colvier, until faster
than light go we through space, else blue turn you will.
It would require infinite energy and travelling backwards in time. Do
not expect this to happen any time soon or even later unless it alread
has happened.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> If we could develop a quantum theory of gravity, we might be able to
> bend the laws of special relativity to exceed the speed of light. See,
> for example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
>
> which postulates a ship moving inside a "bubble" of normal space as it
> travels through warp space.
>
> And a quantum theory of gravity is not only possible, but an active area
> of current research.
Quantum Gravity has proven to be a major league flop. Along with String
Theory and Brane Theory and "M" Theory. See Lee Smolin's latest book
-The Trouble with Physics-.
Quantum Gravitation cannot be properly renormalized.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> If found, yes.
> What is meant is obviously that the special theory of relativity
> would't need to be adapted, in case.
>
> In fact the SRT predicts the possibility,
>
SRT also predicts that ordinary massive matter cannot be accelerated
from rest to a speed of C. It would require infinite energy. Where
would we get it?
Bob Kolker
Perplexed in Peoria
"AC" <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrnfsbcvh.dq3....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
More precisely, it is impossible for something with non-zero mass to accelerate
to velocity c with respect to anything else of non-zero mass.
So, I'm pretty sure what you need to do is to wrap your spaceship with an
equal-but-opposite quantity of negative-mass 'stuff'. Then the whole package
has zero mass and it is going to go at light-speed whether you like it or not.
Of course, negative mass stuff may be hard to come by and even harder
to manipulate.
Tim Tyler
> Guido <NOguyh...@PLEASExs4all.nl> wrote:
>> James Colvier wrote:
>>> I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the possibility of
>>> traveling faster than the speed of light. [...]
>> It would require new physics. No known elementary particles can travel
>> faster than the speed of light. And even if such particles existed
>> there's still the problem traveling faster than c, in other words, of
>> transporting your body - which exists of ordinary, "slow" particles -
>> with a speed greater than c.
>
> That's not quite correct. It's conceivable to have particles that
> travel faster than light. That in and of itself does not violate
> physical laws. [...]
Actually, it is quite correct.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [about tachyons]
> > If found, yes.
> > What is meant is obviously that the special theory of relativity
> > would't need to be adapted, in case.
> >
> > In fact the SRT predicts the possibility,
> >
>
> SRT also predicts that ordinary massive matter cannot be accelerated
> from rest to a speed of C.
Sure.
> It would require infinite energy. Where would we get it?
Not.
And was has that to do with the SRT
allowing for the possibility of tachyons?
Jan
Jews are good folks too
There will be a book published soon on this subject:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385520697/ref=pe_5050_8265010_pe_snp_697
--
JP
John Locke
<jamesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a pretty good summary of various FTL scenarios:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#1
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Tim Tyler
> Guido wrote:
>> It would require new physics. No known elementary particles can travel
>> faster than the speed of light.
>
> If we could develop a quantum theory of gravity, we might be able to
> bend the laws of special relativity to exceed the speed of light. See,
> for example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
>
> which postulates a ship moving inside a "bubble" of normal space as it
> travels through warp space.
That's what you get when physicists smoke pot.
Robert J. Kolker
x>
> Not.
> And was has that to do with the SRT
> allowing for the possibility of tachyons?
Tachyons have never been observed. A tachyon can never travel at less
than the speed of light so how would it interact with ordnary massive
matter?
Tachyons also travel backwards in time. A tachyon moving from A to B
arrives at B before it left A.
Tachyon's if they exist at all, would not be observable by systems which
move at less than light speed.
Bob Kolker
>
> Jan
>
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> x>
> > Not.
> > And was has that to do with the SRT
> > allowing for the possibility of tachyons?
>
> Tachyons have never been observed. A tachyon can never travel at less
> than the speed of light so how would it interact with ordnary massive
> matter?
The Higg's boson is an example of an interacting tachyon.
However, the interaction makes a tardyon out of it.
AFAIK the general question of interacting tachyons
remaining tachyons is open.
> Tachyons also travel backwards in time. A tachyon moving from A to B
> arrives at B before it left A.
That's silly Feynmanology that has verbal significance only.
> Tachyon's if they exist at all, would not be observable by systems which
> move at less than light speed.
Can you prove that?
Jan
--
"There is only one electron, but it's -very- busy." (Feynman)
Robert J. Kolker
x>
>
> Can you prove that?
It would require infinite energy to slow a tachyon down to less than
light speed to interact with "ordinary" matter. That is why there are
no matter-tachyohn interactions even if tachyons exist.
Bob Kolker
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> x>
> >
> > Can you prove that?
>
> It would require infinite energy to slow a tachyon down to less than
> light speed to interact with "ordinary" matter.
That's not a theory, just your words.
Jan
Robert J. Kolker
Not so. Check out formula for relativistic mass.
Bob Kolker
>
> Jan
>
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>x>
> >>
> >>>Can you prove that?
> >>
> >>It would require infinite energy to slow a tachyon down to less than
> >>light speed to interact with "ordinary" matter.
> >
> >
> > That's not a theory, just your words.
>
> Not so. Check out formula for relativistic mass.
Irrelevant.
That doesn't say anything about interacting particles.
Jan
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Irrelevant.
> That doesn't say anything about interacting particles.
Any sort of non-uniform motion is does by interacting particles. Where
do you suppose we get forces?
So far no tachyons. They have never been observed. They exist only as a
mathematical possibility. Ordinary matter cannot be accelerated from
rest to light speed. Why? It would require an infinite amount of energy.
See definition of relativistic mass.
Bob Kolker
Grandbank
> I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the possibility of
> traveling faster than the speed of light. I studied E=mc2, but if I
> understand it correctly, that doesn't actually state that it isn't
> possible. If it were possible, what would it require, and how would it
> operate?
>
It requires a Carrera 4S.
KP
Kermit
>
> --
> JP
Kewl - Michio Kaku. I have a couple of his books. He is a respected
physicist and has written several decent pop science books on
physics.
Kermit
Bad Idea
Prof. Mucho Kaka has proven that String Theory can be quite
successful. He makes a great deal of money by telling the suckers
what they want to hear.
Nic
Good point. There could be some ready-made tachyons, just as there
are some particles that naturally travel at exactly the speed of
light.
Seriously though, I think special relativity precludes tachyons in the
most elegant of ways (preventing their logical possibility, and not
just their physical possibility). I could be mistaken, but I think if
you drew the world line of a tachyon and didn't label it "tachyon",
you would have drawn the world line of a body moving at sub-light
velocity but in the opposite direction.
The original poster seemed to think that E=mc2 leaves this matter
open. He may be right - mass/energy equivalence could be tacked-on
law rather than a consequence of geometry. But which would you hope
for (i.e. what level of design ability would you hope for in a god)?
Nic
> Jan
Bad Idea
Professor Mucho Kaka has proven that String Theory can be very
successful. He makes a lot of money by telling the suckers what they
want to hear.
Walter Bushell
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Tachyon's if they exist at all, would not be observable by systems which
> > move at less than light speed.
>
> Can you prove that?
>
> Jan
What is not forbidden is compulsory in quantum physics. Tachyons are
possible so therefore they exist. The fact that we don't see them proves
they exist. Actually the transactional interpretation of quantum
mechanics depends on tachyons.
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1id2gio.125...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > > Tachyon's if they exist at all, would not be observable by systems which
> > > move at less than light speed.
> >
> > Can you prove that?
> >
> > Jan
>
> What is not forbidden is compulsory in quantum physics.
That isn't a law of physics.
> Tachyons are
> possible so therefore they exist. The fact that we don't see them proves
> they exist. Actually the transactional interpretation of quantum
> mechanics depends on tachyons.
Would make a nice existence of god proof too,
Jan
Robert J. Kolker
>
> What is not forbidden is compulsory in quantum physics. Tachyons are
> possible so therefore they exist. The fact that we don't see them proves
> they exist. Actually the transactional interpretation of quantum
> mechanics depends on tachyons.
No tachyon has ever been detected. The ways to prove something exists is
1. To observe it consistently.
2. To show that the assumption of existence leads to testable and
verified predictions.
Tachyons fail on both counts. Write us when someone detects a tachyon,
would you?
Bob Kolker