Faster Than Light

[Adam Jensen]

This is more of a speculation thread than anything.

Given that acceleration passed the speed of light (c) requires infinite energy and a host of other problems, our current understanding of physics is that it is impossible to accelerate past c though things that are already passed c (such as the hypothetical tachyon) can exceed the speed of light but not decelerate slower than c.

So my question is, do you believe acceleration passed c is completely impossible? Or that it is possible but mankind simply doesn't yet understand how to perform such a feat?

I personally hope for the latter. I'd love to live in a world like Star Wars where traveling to distant planets across the galaxy becomes a reality.

[schwarzkopf]

Acceleration through 'c' is not possible, however we are still operating on the understanding that speed must increase in a continuous way.

Once we get over that little limitation in understanding (obviously not by blowing more stuff out the back of ships) then we should be able to move from 0.99c to 1.01c theoretically.

However - the amount of Energy to even get to 0.99c is so huge, that I suspect our current problem isn't getting above 'c' but getting anything significant anywhere near it.

[staart]

Simple answer, no. But there are ways to "avoid" the speed limit, through quantum teleportation and bending of spacetime (think wormholes), but it will be a long long time untill we master that.

[Larynx]

Assuming a certain German-born theoretical physicist was correct, no. Though there are ways to travel from point A to point B faster than light without breaking science, but those are hypothetical and it's not anything we'll achieve in a long time. ^^

And +1 for using accelerate by the way.

[schwarzkopf]

but it will be a long long time untill we master that.

I think it will be a long time before we even 'novice' that

---------- Post added 2012-04-19 at 01:52 PM ----------

Assuming a certain German-born theoretical physicist was correct, no.

Which one?

I know Einstein doesn't preclude faster than light travel with his theories... curious to know which physicist does?

[Larynx]

Which one?

I know Einstein doesn't preclude faster than light travel with his theories... curious to know which physicist does?

I'm pretty sure special relativity does. But if not, whoever did.

[Deleted]

The light is not the last and most evolved element in the universe, I mean it's a reaction and can't be the last one, because stars aren't the last step of the universe's evolution. Actually, Gaïa is more complex than a star, but we have decapitated the crown of her flower, her canopy, she is still a tiny fetus.

We are blind because we are linving in, we can't see beyond.

Space is evolving into Time, you can't be faster than Time.

[staart]

Which one?

I know Einstein doesn't preclude faster than light travel with his theories... curious to know which physicist does?

Yes he did, at least for normal acceleration

[Larynx]

The light is not the last and most evolved element in the universe, I mean it's a reaction and can't be the last one, because stars aren't the last step of the universe's evolution. Actually, Gaïa is more complex than a star, but we have decapitated the crown of her flower, her canopy, she is still a tiny fetus.

We are blind because we are linving in, we can't see beyond.

Space is evolving into Time, you can't be faster than Time.

Moving on then.

[schwarzkopf]

I'm pretty sure special relativity does. But if not, whoever did.

Actually - the issue is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Notice that the only major issue occurs when v=c, other more 'containable' issues occur when v>c.

---------- Post added 2012-04-19 at 01:58 PM ----------

Yes he did, at least for normal acceleration

And that is because normal acceleration requires that each speed between 0 and v be passed through - meaning that the original statement I made stands, that travel AT the speed of light is prohibited.

[Trigg]

hmm, i'm going to go with what i believe and say why do we need to? Why work on a way of getting between point A and point B across a flat distance when we could work on a way of getting from point A to point B by bringing B to A? Warp factor 5 Mr Sulu!

[staart]

Actually - the issue is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Notice that the only major issue occurs when v=c, other more 'containable' issues occur when v>c.

And that is because normal acceleration requires that each speed between 0 and v be passed through - meaning that the original statement I made stands, that travel AT the speed of light is prohibited.

What do you mean with 'containable'?

[Sylla]

It isn't a matter of finding a way to do it, it is a literal impossibility because you would need infinite energy. Even starwars etc doesn't try to say that their ships go faster than light, they go into 'hyperspace' where everything works with crazy space magic and even though they are going at normal speeds relativistically when they pop out they have gone thousands of light years. So something like that or wormholes might be possible sometime way into the future, which would for all intensive purposes be 'faster than light travel'... but I doubt we will find a way to generate infinite energy and actually go at light speed any time soon.

[staart]

Actually - the issue is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Notice that the only major issue occurs when v=c, other more 'containable' issues occur when v>c.
And that is because normal acceleration requires that each speed between 0 and v be passed through - meaning that the original statement I made stands, that travel AT the speed of light is prohibited.

A velocity over the speed of light is indeed theoretically possible, but disputed (I believe they call particles that are constantly above the speed of light (and cannot decelerate under it) tachyons), but acceleration over the speed of light is theoretically impossible.

[schwarzkopf]

What do you mean with 'containable'?

Taking the square root of a -ve number isn't something which would fit in with our current understanding of acceleration, where as dividing by zero is straight not allowed.

That is the expression is just flat out invalid when v=c, where as it is just somewhat beyond our understanding for v>c.

---------- Post added 2012-04-19 at 02:11 PM ----------

but acceleration over the speed of light is theoretically impossible.

Actually, the formula basically predicts that putting energy into a particle travelling faster than the speed of light would slow it down ... so it does get a little bizarre

[Reeve]

I think there is far far more to this universe than we've seen so far, and human beings as a whole are smart enough to figure out how to do just about anything if we survive long enough as a species and don't run out of resources.

[Monolith of Mazes]

Taking the square root of a -ve number isn't something which would fit in with our current understanding of acceleration, where as dividing by zero is straight not allowed.

That is the expression is just flat out invalid when v=c, where as it is just somewhat beyond our understanding for v>c.

Even if we could gain some new understanding of the physics to allow for complex numbers ( sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] for v>c), there is still the problem of getting to those speeds. Like you said, for v = c, we are dividing by zero. You can't expect to get to v > c unless you cross v = c.


Edit: sorry, I'm new here, I have no idea how to quote
Edit2: maybe that fixed it

[ptwonline]

I'm going to say yes but with one caveat: likely not through the normal time and space as we know it.

[Shoridayo]

So, I've been reading the Ender series and they've been trying to figure out faster than light travel at the part I'm at.

Basically they just figured out that the alternate reality(4th dimension, or whatever you want to call it) has everything, always, at all times.
So like, you could go into 'outspace' and reappear instantly back 'in space'.

It's incredibly difficult to explain what the fuck any of that means, but if you've read the books, it'll make sense.
And honestly, it's not a bad theory when you understand it.

If you research the paranormal at all(Astral projection, etc), you can see that in the other 'dimension' you can move place to place nearly instantly from thought. So, if you could hypothetically use that 'technology' to travel...?
Crazy theories, sure, but then again, is faster than light travel anything but crazy?

[staart]

Taking the square root of a -ve number isn't something which would fit in with our current understanding of acceleration, where as dividing by zero is straight not allowed.

That is the expression is just flat out invalid when v=c, where as it is just somewhat beyond our understanding for v>c.

Actually, the formula basically predicts that putting energy into a particle travelling faster than the speed of light would slow it down ... so it does get a little bizarre

You know that division by zero is just not defined, it's not 'impossible' or anything, it's just undefined, just like taking the square root of a negative number was undefined before, and then they defined it as i^2 and used it to calculate things.

Mathematics is just used as a trick in physics