Why does everyone assume the speed of light is the fastest we can go?

[Ryme]

There is some very exciting research being conducted to show that neutrinos may exceed the speed of light. source http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ter-than-light

I think that was shown in the end to be some kind of basic error, sadly.

Nasa is also researching 'warp drive' technology. This would warp the space-time around a space craft, giving the craft an 'effective' speed of many times that of light, although it is a bit of a cheat as the craft itself would not be moving faster than light, it would just seem that way to the people on the craft and external observers. This is also the reason that it can be said that some galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, not because the galaxies are actually moving that fast, but because of the expansion of space-time itself. source i. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09...ks_warp_drive/ source ii. http://www.universetoday.com/13808/h...peed-of-light/

They're certainly looking into it, but it's a long ways from abstract thought experiment I would imagine. Like you say, it's also a cheat

Also the scientists at NIST (US National Institute of Standards and Technology) have already broken the speed of light in a practical yet abstract experiment. source http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i17/e173902

Sadly, I did mathematics not physics at university, to that paper is bound to be beyond my level of understanding, if I could even download it! Do you have any other sources of scientific scrutiny upon their paper?

[Deleted]

We already do stuff like that in small scale. It's called Large Hadron Collider.
http://cms.web.cern.ch/sites/cms.web...019-1-nice.jpg
But they smash Protons into each other. Not whole Spaceships. But the protons will each have an energy of 7 TeV, giving a total collision energy of 14 TeV. At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 0.999999991 c, or about 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light

They get shattered so much you can find particles from inside the protons.
http://www.laboiteverte.fr/wp-conten...erience-09.jpg

I've known about CERN for quite a while but two particles colliding at the speed of light is one thing, two space ships is quite another I agree with Semaphore although I think he was under-exaggerating :P

Could you imagine the energy released if the impossible scenario of two stars hitting each other at combined light speed occured?

[kendro1200]

Maybe because it's been established scientifically that it would require an infinite amount of energy to go the speed of light?

No it doesn't. The amount of energy is dependent on the mass that you're trying to move. Our particle accelerators, like CERN, move particles at 99.99 (continuing for quite some time) percent of the speed of light. We can't make infinite energy and CERN functions, therefore your statement is false. To move a person at the speed of light (or even significant fractions of it) does require a large amount of energy, but not infinite. What does happen, when particles move at the speed of light, is theoretically is scary; then, going faster than light is even scarier. Had we really wanted we could make machines to launch protons at c, but the cost to do so outweighs the novelty of it. Yes, if you built one then you could launch stuff at c, but for what reason? Particle collisions? Seeing what happens to stuff at c? Particle collisions won't yield that much of a difference at that very small fractional increase of c, and learning what happens to matter when it travels at c would be a nice gimmick for a few months to gather data, and then be largely useless after that. I say largely useless because that feature to move stuff at c would be helpful for providing a test ground for the patchwork on Einstein's relativity stuff (since we all know it's currently incomplete), but once that is done it's completely useless.

I'm not saying that patching up holes in the theories of physics is useless, or that we shouldn't build something to launch stuff at c eventually. What I am saying is that considering the cost to do so, there are better things to invest in at the moment, such as:

• New medicines as to avoid anti-microbial resistance completely negating a century's progress in medicine.
• Spending more than a handful of million of dollars each year (on average) towards getting fusion down (The rough expenditures are higher than that, but funding goes in and out, thus a lot of equipment is liquidated by one research group to pay off for bills, and then years later when a new group starts up they have to buy equipment all over again).
• Rebuilding power infrastructure so power plants aren't constantly playing a guessing game on how much power is being consumed and then overshooting the mark to make sure they have greater output than the demand (in order to prevent power networks from collapsing).
• New battery technologies. For the most part we're still using the rough equivalent of voltaic cells, seriously, wtf!
• New methods of converting thermal energy into electrical energy. For the most part we're still relying on steam engines with just slightly different fuel sources to heat the water. There is an enormous energy loss through this method, an increase in efficiency, or an entirely new system would be outstanding beyond comparison.

Just to list off a few better uses of resources at the moment.

[semaphore]

There is some very exciting research being conducted to show that neutrinos may exceed the speed of light. source http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ter-than-light

It was already shown to be wrong. This has been mentioned several times in this thread already.

Nasa is also researching 'warp drive' technology.

That's more or less media hype. They're basically playing with lasers at the moment.

Also the scientists at NIST (US National Institute of Standards and Technology) have already broken the speed of light in a practical yet abstract experiment.

That's different. Basically if you sent out a beam of light, the front of the beam still travels at c; but the peak of the light can arrive slightly faster. Sort of a loophole.

[Ryme]

wait what.. how do u view it that way... ?
ugh.. all im saying in all my posts on this thread is that we dont know everything. so we cant be 100% sure there is nothing beyond speed of light... which is the freakin topic..!!!

We can't be 100% sure that I am not in fact a giant pink elephant who has developed super telekinetic powers and is operating this keyboard with my gloriously powerful mind. Doesn't mean it's an idea worth entertaining.

[Demontjuh]

We can't be 100% sure that I am not in fact a giant pink elephant who has developed super telekinetic powers and is operating this keyboard with my gloriously powerful mind. Doesn't mean it's an idea worth entertaining.

indeed and cus we dont know a 100% u could be a giant pink elephant with tk powers typing faster than the speed of light...

and cus ur typing this on the other end of the universe, and we dont have the tech yet to measure ur typing speed.. we cant say for sure..
but once we do we can check if u are indeed faster.. or not

/topic

[Laize]

Actually the speed of light is a hard limit on all matter in the Universe, even getting close to it is impossible. However there are several theoretical methods of bypassing the speed of light with out hitting the upper limit.

1. Warping time and space, you don't have to go fast at all and still get from point A to B faster than the speed of light.
2. If you have two objects traveling in opposite directions faster than 1/2 the speed of light than based on the perspective they would be going the speed of light.

the speed of light is ~670,616,629 mph

So all you need is two space craft capable of traveling 335,308,316 mph going in opposite directions to achieve faster than light travel.

Or if you want sit in an office swivel chair and look at the moon and spin around quickly, from your perspective the moon will be traveling faster than the speed of light.

In either example, light still moves at the same speed regardless of the relative speeds of each other.

Lorentz transformations see to that.

The dimensions of space and time will warp to accommodate the Universal speed limit. In one of the ships, the other will appear to be moving slower than the speed of light, but over a shorter distance in more time.

The Moon/chair experiment is called the Ehrenfest Paradox and it has not been completely resolved due, mostly, to the presence of accelerations in the system.

Einstein took the opinion that Lorentz contractions were not literal and were only apparent whereas the simultaneity of events would cause those apparent observations to be true.

Einstein's position actually resolves the Ehrenfest paradox nicely by noting that even though a given length (the circumference of the Moon) might APPEAR contracted, it would not actually be so.

[Dezerte]

Except no one knows what it, or dark matter, is. It's just a placeholder name for astrophysicists to give "spooky stuff we don't understand yet."

Yup, which is why it's called "dark".

[Rukentuts]

99.99 (continuing for quite some time) percent of the speed of light.

It doesn't matter. Because it becomes exponentially more expensive to achieve that remaining speed to match the speed of light. Look up the definition of a limit.

[mahananaka]

Even with the general scientific consensus around the limitations of regular speed in the universe there are some known issues. I believe they have observed particles that come from our sun that have such a quick half-life that in the time it takes light to get to earth they shouldn't be observable. Thus somehow these particles travel faster than light. Additionally this limitation around the speed of light is based on your velocity equaling the speed of light. That is why in science fiction currently all means involve side stepping this. Like a warp drive. You're not moving, space around you is moving. Or using a technique to warp space time to fold it and create a worm-hole that you travel between (turn your 4 year journey into a 4 mile trip). Some are currently more far fetched than others. In the mass effect franchise the mass effect relay's creates a bubble around your ship and the bubble lowers the mass of things inside the bubble to zero thus avoiding the E=MC^2 issue.

Very likely our understanding of speed of light travel could be inaccurate as well, we constantly learn new things. Example of something I just read that is interesting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0104143516.htm This article talks about an atomic gas they created in a lab that can achieve a negative kelvin temperature. This is odd because kelvin is a measurement in the movement or activity in atoms. At 0 kelvin or absolute zero there in absolutely no movement anymore. So the weird comes in that how does something have less activity than absolutely nothing. Its like trying to travel a negative distance, you just can't do it. if you move 10 yards left, then 10 yards right, you may have returned to your starting position but you moved 20 yards not 0.

[Laize]

No it doesn't. The amount of energy is dependent on the mass that you're trying to move.

Lemme stop you right there.

m₁ = m₀/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

The faster you go, the greater your mass. Therefore, the greater force required to accelerate you.

[Reeve]

I've known about CERN for quite a while but two particles colliding at the speed of light is one thing, two space ships is quite another I agree with Semaphore although I think he was under-exaggerating :P

Could you imagine the energy released if the impossible scenario of two stars hitting each other at combined light speed occured?

Stars can get near the speed of light, through gravitational acceleration near black holes, so it's possible to imagine 2 stars coming at a black hole at different angles colliding and causing such a scenario.

[semaphore]

I agree with Semaphore although I think he was under-exaggerating :P

Not really sure how to do the calculations, but if decently sized ship crashed into Earth at 50% of c, it would probably leave a crater the size of Florida and wipe out all life on Earth in a fiery blaze of fire.

Interstellar wars are soooo not as fun as movies make it out to be.

[Deleted]

I never give it a second thought, I have more important things to trouble my mind with.

[Kryos]

Could you imagine the energy released if the impossible scenario of two stars hitting each other at combined light speed occured?

No, I could not imagine. It would be billion times the energy of the biggest H-bombs ever created.

[Laize]

Even with the general scientific consensus around the limitations of regular speed in the universe there are some known issues. I believe they have observed particles that come from our sun that have such a quick half-life that in the time it takes light to get to earth they shouldn't be observable. Thus somehow these particles travel faster than light. Additionally this limitation around the speed of light is based on your velocity equaling the speed of light. That is why in science fiction currently all means involve side stepping this. Like a warp drive. You're not moving, space around you is moving. Or using a technique to warp space time to fold it and create a worm-hole that you travel between (turn your 4 year journey into a 4 mile trip). Some are currently more far fetched than others. In the mass effect franchise the mass effect relay's creates a bubble around your ship and the bubble lowers the mass of things inside the bubble to zero thus avoiding the E=MC^2 issue.

No, that problem was solved the same way as detection of muons from out upper atmosphere. Their decay time is so short that they, in theory, shouldn't be able to reach the surface to be detected.

Thanks to time dilation, they can.

Thus special relativity makes science look amazing.

[Reeve]

No it doesn't. The amount of energy is dependent on the mass that you're trying to move. Our particle accelerators, like CERN, move particles at 99.99 (continuing for quite some time) percent of the speed of light. We can't make infinite energy and CERN functions, therefore your statement is false.

CERN doesn't accelerate the particles to the speed of light, so it doesn't need infinite energy. The reason you need infinite energy is because the mass of an object increases as it gets closer to the speed of light, so the force needed to accelerate it increases also. The slope of the increase grows to the vertical as you approach c, making the energy requirements infinite.

Just because CERN gets within a few percentage points of the speed of light doesn't mean we can get those particles all the way there with enough energy.

[Rukentuts]

No, I could not imagine. It would be billion times the energy of the biggest H-bombs ever created.

Black Hole inc

[semaphore]

No, I could not imagine. It would be billion times the energy of the biggest H-bombs ever created.

Oh, it will be a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion times more.

[Reeve]

Even with the general scientific consensus around the limitations of regular speed in the universe there are some known issues. I believe they have observed particles that come from our sun that have such a quick half-life that in the time it takes light to get to earth they shouldn't be observable. Thus somehow these particles travel faster than light. Additionally this limitation around the speed of light is based on your velocity equaling the speed of light. That is why in science fiction currently all means involve side stepping this. Like a warp drive. You're not moving, space around you is moving. Or using a technique to warp space time to fold it and create a worm-hole that you travel between (turn your 4 year journey into a 4 mile trip). Some are currently more far fetched than others. In the mass effect franchise the mass effect relay's creates a bubble around your ship and the bubble lowers the mass of things inside the bubble to zero thus avoiding the E=MC^2 issue.

If you apply force to a massless object, how quickly does it accelerate? F = ma, but if m = 0, shouldn't that make it impossible to exert a force upon it, since at any acceleration, F would equal 0 as well?