Re: Faster than the speed of light : Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:13 am  

This is nothing particularly new IIRC, it's been postulated for a few years that "just because matter breaks down at C, that doesn't mean it's a limit".
Just remember that science has very few facts and many, many theories, both sides of this being examples.

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:25 am  

I'm pretty sure tbf that the paper published by Hill and Cox is the first time this extension of the maths of Einstein's theory has been done.

What interests me is that if the theory holds good at sub-light speeds and faster than light speeds, then it seems to me infinitely (sorry!) more likely, all of a sudden, that although the theory breaks down when objects approach at relativistic light speeds, that the theory could be developed and refined to describe the overlap period crossing the light barrier.

Once you realise that the speed of light is not in fact the ultimate speed limit, then to me it seems illogical that of all speeds, there's just one at which it isn't possible to travel.

Or maybe there is a barrier, and maybe the stuff careering about at greater-than-light speeds is forever doomed to do so, and maybe that's why we can't see it, maybe that's the dark energy and/or dark matter that comprises 95% of the Universe?

What with dried riverbeds on Mars, this, and the recent published research indicating that most likely the Universe is in fact infinite, it's a weirdly exciting time if you are interested in such things.

[Kosh]

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:34 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But many scientists assumed you could not break the sound barrier, or if you did, Bad Things Would Happen.

I am no expert on Einstein, but if I get the point correctly, it isn't quite that mass "is infinite", but that if you follow the theory to its conclusion (assuming that the speed of light was the "conclusion" then that would be the apparent result, but such a result is not a real result in the sense that that state cannot be described by the laws of physics.

Also the entire universe doesn't collapse in on you at the speed of light. Ask any photon, or enquire outside the event horizon of any black hole!

Photons don't achieve infinite mass. Largely because they are massless under most conditions. Trust me - any object that achieves infinite mass will have the Universe collapsing in on it.

You're not far off in your interpretation actually. The increase in mass as an object closely approaches the speed of light is not mass as we normally understand it but a consequence of the immense amount of energy that object is accumulating. If you were stood on (or in) the object the mass would be unchanged. This is commonly referred to as relativistic mass although Einstein himself hated the term. The 'universal collapse' idea stems from the fact that for an observer at rest the object would appear to attain infinite mass and as the rest of the mass in the Universe would effectively be at rest compared to the moving object it would theoretically behave as if the object had infinite mass and therefore infinite gravity. There's a fair degree of differing opinion over this and I think that current thinking is that no such effect would occur. I'm a bit out of touch with the cutting edge though.

The sound barrier is a terrible analogy as we already knew that objects could cross it with no ill effects - bullets being the prime example, but also the tips of whips, the tips of propellers... you get the idea. The concerns were pretty much all to do with engineering an airframe that could deal with the shockwave.

[Kosh]

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:42 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'm pretty sure tbf that the paper published by Hill and Cox is the first time this extension of the maths of Einstein's theory has been done.

What interests me is that if the theory holds good at sub-light speeds and faster than light speeds, then it seems to me infinitely (sorry!) more likely, all of a sudden, that although the theory breaks down when objects approach at relativistic light speeds, that the theory could be developed and refined to describe the overlap period crossing the light barrier.

Once you realise that the speed of light is not in fact the ultimate speed limit, then to me it seems illogical that of all speeds, there's just one at which it isn't possible to travel.

Or maybe there is a barrier, and maybe the stuff careering about at greater-than-light speeds is forever doomed to do so, and maybe that's why we can't see it, maybe that's the dark energy and/or dark matter that comprises 95% of the Universe?

What with dried riverbeds on Mars, this, and the recent published research indicating that most likely the Universe is in fact infinite, it's a weirdly exciting time if you are interested in such things.

All they've done is demonstrate the the underlying maths of relativity still functions if you feed it numbers for velocity greater than c. It's sound theoretical work but doesn't indicate that velocities above c are actually attainable. And having c as an upper limit is perfectly logical - as Einstein explained in his theory.

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:35 pm  

So could someone answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question...

"Does E=mc2?"

Or is it not as simple as that?

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:19 am  

Kosh wrote:

Photons don't achieve infinite mass. Largely because they are massless under most conditions. ...

Heheh you'll need to definitively show what a photon actually even IS before you can start that discussion. Interesting though if something can have zero mass but then suddenly acquire a mass, and presumably then be able to just as easily lose it. Maybe photons are related to my kids.

Kosh wrote:

Trust me - any object that achieves infinite mass will have the Universe collapsing in on it....

Rubbish. What if one million objects achieved infinite mass all at the same time?

Kosh wrote:

All they've done is demonstrate the the underlying maths of relativity still functions if you feed it numbers for velocity greater than c. It's sound theoretical work but doesn't indicate that velocities above c are actually attainable. ...

All I understood it to say is that it turns out, if you extend the maths, Einstein's theory does not exclude faster-than-light speeds; of course it doesn't indicate that such speeds "are actually attainable". All it could ever do is exclude the possibility. And it turns out that it doesn't.

We already know that, in terms of things the human eye can see, the universe is filled with light. This light is doomed to forever travel, vacuum permitting, at light speed. That's what it does. There wasn't always light, it must have originated somewhere, but since then it just goes on non-stop until any given bit is absorbed by, say, your retina. (And of course "new" light is continually "created" by stars etc.)

What's to say that expansion of the early universe didn't also create super-photons which are forever doomed to zoom around at faster than light speeds, for which reason we can never see them?

[Kosh]

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:28 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Heheh you'll need to definitively show what a photon actually even IS before you can start that discussion. Interesting though if something can have zero mass but then suddenly acquire a mass, and presumably then be able to just as easily lose it. Maybe photons are related to my kids.

Simples. It's a quantum of electromagnetic radiation, innit.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

All I understood it to say is that it turns out, if you extend the maths, Einstein's theory does not exclude faster-than-light speeds; of course it doesn't indicate that such speeds "are actually attainable". All it could ever do is exclude the possibility. And it turns out that it doesn't.

That's more or less what I said. They've managed to exclude an interpretation of relativity that nobody has ever made.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What's to say that expansion of the early universe didn't also create super-photons which are forever doomed to zoom around at faster than light speeds, for which reason we can never see them?

What's to say that the expansion of the early Universe didn't create goblins and werewolves? Current theory and observable phenomena.

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:52 pm  

Einstein a gogo.

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:50 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What with dried riverbeds on Mars, this, and the recent published research indicating that most likely the Universe is in fact infinite, it's a weirdly exciting time if you are interested in such things.

Better call for ' Buzz ' then

Re: Faster than the speed of light : Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:33 am  

Kosh wrote:

Simples. It's a quantum of electromagnetic radiation, innit.

That doesn't tell you much though. Maybe it's a moving two-dimensional field, alternately a free standing electrical field and then a free standing magnetic field, each mutually generated by each other?

Kosh wrote:

What's to say that the expansion of the early Universe didn't create goblins and werewolves? ..

Can I phone a friend?