If there was time travel, people from the future would have come back for our precious genetic code to find the person with the DNA to cure the deadly X-Virus they unleashed on warring nations in the great war of 20XX. So there.
Light must be pretty bummed right now. He thought he was so cool, being so fast that he could still go the same speed relative to you even if you managed to reach his speed. Not so high and mighty now, are you light? Dick.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
Several reasons, but here's the one that's the simplest to understand:
As you increase your speed, time dilates. This is a fact and has been tested aboard spacecraft vs control tests on Earth using very precise clocks. The faster you go, the slower time passes from your perspective.
An object traveling at C (the speed of light) observes no time. From a photons perspective, it is absorbed the moment it is emitted, no matter how many millions of light years it may have traveled. So if time slows to a stop at C, some theorize that speeds faster than C will put time in reverse.
But here's the problem with that: an object traveling at C observes no time. The moment that spaceship captain hits that Faster-Than-Light button, the very next instant is going to be his ship getting absorbed by some star or planet or something. Not even the computer will be able to intervene, because aboard the ship no time is passing at C.
Quite right.
@Shadow To really explain a lot of this stuff in more detail requires some knowledge of Calculus. Just about all of these equations are asymptotic as they approach c. Do you know some calculus? You could read pretty much anything a non-physicist could want to know on the subject on Wikipedia. There's also plenty of information out there on the experiments performed to verify the ramifications of the theory of special relativity. No one is going to explain it here because the post would be so damn long.
Ah hell, I'll throw you another little bit. The faster an object is moving, the higher its mass (specifically its relativistic mass). This means that every additional unit of velocity requires a bit more energy than the last, since heavier objects have more inertia. As the object approaches light speed, it's mass, and thus its inertia, is approaching infinity. This means that the energy required to increase its velocity is also approaching infinity. Since it is obviously impossible to generate infinite energy, it is impossible to get all the way to light speed. This is why particle accelerators require so much energy. They are accelerating particles up to near the speed of light. If relativistic effects did not occur, than particle accelerators wouldn't work the way they do. Note, that this only applies to objects which have an invariant mass in the first place. Particles with zero mass, like photons, will always have zero mass, but they also always move at c.
I remember learning in a physics class back in college, something along the lines of "if you traveled faster than the speed o light, then theoretically, you'd be going back in time."
I wasn't really a fan of that movie. It got too spiritual touchy-feely, or maybe I'm not remembering it properly. It would have been much better if they got Gary Busey instead of Gary Busey's brother. Hell, they probably should have done the whole movie with Gary Busey.
I have just started to take an interest in science, particularly physics so this is pretty awesome. Forgive my ignorance but didn`t we already break lightspeed though? Maybe I've been confusimg sci fi with fact.
So is this the very first very early step towards FTL technology on starships? Been playing Mass Effect and watching Stargate lately so sci-fi is on the brain
Maybe we'll have cool ships in about 200 years.....
So is this the very first very early step towards FTL technology on starships? Been playing Mass Effect and watching Stargate lately so sci-fi is on the brain
Maybe we'll have cool ships in about 200 years.....
Not even close. Think more like thousands of years.
So is this the very first very early step towards FTL technology on starships? Been playing Mass Effect and watching Stargate lately so sci-fi is on the brain
Maybe we'll have cool ships in about 200 years.....
Not even close. Think more like thousands of years.
Judging just by how fast tech has gone within the last ten damn years, I would say about 50 years for a LEARNING about how FTL works is very likely. Making it would be hard and take the 200 years though.
also, the singularity is supposed to happen within the next 50 years so YAY. We get near infinite knowledge and AI to help our asses out.
@dudeglove: I wasn't really a fan of that movie. It got too spiritual touchy-feely, or maybe I'm not remembering it properly. It would have been much better if they got Gary Busey instead of Gary Busey's brother. Hell, they probably should have done the whole movie with Gary Busey.
Assuming that there isn't an error in the results, would accelerating anything to those kinds of speeds be practical? I mean, knowing that it's possible and actually being able to do it are two entirely different things.
@Subjugation: Yes, that's true, but not really the point. Even if we can't actually do anything with FTL travel, if these results hold, just the mere fact that it exists will force us to reexamine everything we think we know about theoretical physics.
@Subjugation: If this is true, processors are no longer limited by the speed of light. Eventually we might be able to create computers that process information FTL. Not to mention internet speeds could become insane. The cable companies are already using light to transfer data.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Fuck you just gave me the chills. I love hearing about stuff like this, it always gets me excited. I need to get a book or something to learn more about this.
So is this the very first very early step towards FTL technology on starships? Been playing Mass Effect and watching Stargate lately so sci-fi is on the brain
Maybe we'll have cool ships in about 200 years.....
Not even close. Think more like thousands of years.
Judging just by how fast tech has gone within the last ten damn years, I would say about 50 years for a LEARNING about how FTL works is very likely. Making it would be hard and take the 200 years though.
also, the singularity is supposed to happen within the next 50 years so YAY. We get near infinite knowledge and AI to help our asses out.
What the F**K! are you on? FTL requires the ability to warp spacetime. Something we are not even close to dreaming of doing.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Your over complicating things. First only particles with mass can't travel faster than the speed of light, tachyonshave no mass and therefore always travel faster than the speed of light. Objects with mass are limited to the speed of light because the faster an object travels the heavier it become, and if it were to reach the speed of light it would have infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy to move it.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Your over complicating things. First only particles with mass can't travel faster than the speed of light, tachyonshave no mass and therefore always travel faster than the speed of light. Objects with mass are limited to the speed of light because the faster an object travels the heavier it become, and if it were to reach the speed of light it would have infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy to move it.
No, I'm not over complicating it.
Everything is math based and to understand anything really (not just to know it and recite it), you have to know the math.
Anyhow, neutrinos have a non-zero mass and they aren't tachyons. Furthermore, you pretty much answered the original question the same way others have answered it.
"but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof."
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Your over complicating things. First only particles with mass can't travel faster than the speed of light, tachyonshave no mass and therefore always travel faster than the speed of light. Objects with mass are limited to the speed of light because the faster an object travels the heavier it become, and if it were to reach the speed of light it would have infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy to move it.
No, I'm not over complicating it.
Everything is math based and to understand anything really (not just to know it and recite it), you have to know the math.
Anyhow, neutrinos have a non-zero mass and they aren't tachyons. Furthermore, you pretty much answered the original question the same way others have answered it.
"but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof."
This proof lies in the numbers.
Exactly what I though, your trying to look smart. Good luck with that.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Your over complicating things. First only particles with mass can't travel faster than the speed of light, tachyonshave no mass and therefore always travel faster than the speed of light. Objects with mass are limited to the speed of light because the faster an object travels the heavier it become, and if it were to reach the speed of light it would have infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy to move it.
No, I'm not over complicating it.
Everything is math based and to understand anything really (not just to know it and recite it), you have to know the math.
Anyhow, neutrinos have a non-zero mass and they aren't tachyons. Furthermore, you pretty much answered the original question the same way others have answered it.
"but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof."
This proof lies in the numbers.
Exactly what I though, your trying to look smart. Good luck with that.
Sorry, I don't have as big of an e-peen as you do. As for someone who is surely smarter than I am, you sure make a lot of spelling errors. I'm going to stop replying to trolls now.
Good luck with that.
edit: Forget it. Just took a look through your profile and you are really just a troll waiting to get banned.
Sorry, I don't have as big of an e-peen as you do. As for someone who is surely smarter than I am, you sure make a lot of spelling errors. I'm going to stop replying to trolls now.
Good luck with that.
edit: Forget it. Just took a look through your profile and you are really just a troll waiting to get banned.
I love when people call out my spelling, they may as well be waving a white flag.
Hmm, that would make a great homework for the physics lessons...
That will depend on how deep you want to get into it. You can devote you're Ph.D. and you're whole life to the breaking of the light speed barrier and still only know a mere fraction of it's implications.
But yeah, writing a brief paper on it would be great extra credit for a physics class.
So is this the very first very early step towards FTL technology on starships? Been playing Mass Effect and watching Stargate lately so sci-fi is on the brain
Maybe we'll have cool ships in about 200 years.....
Not even close. Think more like thousands of years.
That is a miscalculation as well.
Technology is advancing exponentially. Also remember that we don't need to go faster-than-light or break any fundamental laws of physics for interstellar travel. We just need to learn how to distort space-time (which is possible).
I could go more into it, but I just don't have to time to really do it justice.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Your over complicating things. First only particles with mass can't travel faster than the speed of light, tachyonshave no mass and therefore always travel faster than the speed of light. Objects with mass are limited to the speed of light because the faster an object travels the heavier it become, and if it were to reach the speed of light it would have infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy to move it.
No, I'm not over complicating it.
Everything is math based and to understand anything really (not just to know it and recite it), you have to know the math.
Anyhow, neutrinos have a non-zero mass and they aren't tachyons. Furthermore, you pretty much answered the original question the same way others have answered it.
"but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof."
This proof lies in the numbers.
Exactly what I though, your trying to look smart. Good luck with that.
You are missing the point. You're just saying "went something approaches the speed of light, it approaches infinite mass." That its true, but it doesn't answer Shadow's question. To a layman, that statement doesn't make much sense. Why should an object's mass increase just because it's going fast? It's not inherently apparent as true, why should we accept it as so? The proof requires some real knowledge of physics to properly understand, and that's the issue here. Shadow is frustrated because it's accepted truth, but it has never been clearly explained to him why. The fact is that there is an explanation, it just requires a lot of math to fully get your head around.
You are missing the point. You're just saying "went something approaches the speed of light, it approaches infinite mass." That its true, but it doesn't answer Shadow's question. To a layman, that statement doesn't make much sense. Why should an object's mass increase just because it's going fast? It's not inherently apparent as true, why should we accept it as so? The proof requires some real knowledge of physics to properly understand, and that's the issue here. Shadow is frustrated because it's accepted truth, but it has never been clearly explained to him why. The fact is that there is an explanation, it just requires a lot of math to fully get your head around.
@Shadow: Because according to Einsteins theory when you go faster than the speed of light you have infinite mass which is impossible. But hey maybe he was wrong.
but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof.
To really find out why you must envelope yourself around a lot of literature and spend countless hours shuffling through information. It's not a giant conspiracy to hide this from people - it's just that not many people are able to answer it fully and comprehensibly because it is so long and complex.
And although I can't really explain it, perhaps you should go to a local community college and take a course on physics/general relativity. I'm sure the professor will explain it to you if you ask.
The study of general relativity is extremely tough. You'll cover things that won't be analogous to any real life situations. You'll discover objects that you can't see but you can prove is there. It almost seems like it's from another dimension. Space and time are twined together and gravity distorts both of them. You can look back millions of years back into the past and you can even travel forward in time. And although you'll never experience some of this in person, the math is sound and the observations secure.
It's a question of, if you have the patience and discipline to understand it all.
Your over complicating things. First only particles with mass can't travel faster than the speed of light, tachyonshave no mass and therefore always travel faster than the speed of light. Objects with mass are limited to the speed of light because the faster an object travels the heavier it become, and if it were to reach the speed of light it would have infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy to move it.
No, I'm not over complicating it.
Everything is math based and to understand anything really (not just to know it and recite it), you have to know the math.
Anyhow, neutrinos have a non-zero mass and they aren't tachyons. Furthermore, you pretty much answered the original question the same way others have answered it.
"but why does that make sense? Other than "because Einstein said so", I've never seen a reason why nothing could travel faster other than no one having done it yet and associations that give examples, but not proof."
This proof lies in the numbers.
Exactly what I though, your trying to look smart. Good luck with that.
You are missing the point. You're just saying "went something approaches the speed of light, it approaches infinite mass." That its true, but it doesn't answer Shadow's question. To a layman, that statement doesn't make much sense. Why should an object's mass increase just because it's going fast? It's not inherently apparent as true, why should we accept it as so? The proof requires some real knowledge of physics to properly understand, and that's the issue here. Shadow is frustrated because it's accepted truth, but it has never been clearly explained to him why. The fact is that there is an explanation, it just requires a lot of math to fully get your head around.
The proof is E=MC2. The more energy something has the more mass it has because energy and mass are equivalent. For instance, a photon has no rest mass, but it has mass because it has inertia, it's just all of its mass is energy.
@penINC: Wouldn't it be better for him to do a little research than be ignorant in public?
So rather than really answering his question, you just repeat what others have said, insult him, and brag about your intelligence? I somehow doubt that he is the ignorant one here.
Log in to comment