ÿ

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Chromer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativ

Postby Chromer » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

8==D
Last edited by Chromer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chromer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativ

Postby Chromer » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:58 pm UTC

8===D
Last edited by Chromer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chromer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativ

Postby Chromer » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:11 pm UTC

8===D
Last edited by Chromer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:54 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Klotz
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:27 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Klotz » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:32 pm UTC

meat.paste wrote:@Klotz - Now THATS comedy :P


Yeah, I'm pretty much the best person on this website when it comes to making funny pictures about science.
:cry:

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1255
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Sizik » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:29 am UTC

Mathmagic wrote:You can't talk about scientific theories lacking scientific education without mentioning Neal Adams and his expanding earth theory.

I've had a (nominally) similar idea that, because gravity is acceleration, perhaps the Earth is actually expanding outward at 9.81 m/s. Of course, this would imply that any object with mass is also expanding, albeit at proportional rates. Then, due to the dissimilar rates of expansion between people and the earth, people should be shrinking.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:04 am UTC

Chromer wrote:
1) The interesting idea that the expansion of space is occurring faster than the speed of light itself, much like it would have after the big bang (the idea anyways). http://newswise.com/articles/view/543391/


It isn't actually, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and may one day reach expansion rates similar to those right after the big bang, but it isn't expanding that quickly now.

2) The first article listed in my references

Is about the Alcubierre Warp Drive, which requires things like manipulation of tachyons and negative energy/mass to work on top of the energy equivalent to Jupiter's mass.
3) Actually it came to me when I was asleep in a really boring log cabin. You can imagine there was not really anything to dream about besides what I am interested in, which just so happens to be physics.

Without extensive training in physics, you shouldn't imagine that any breakthrough will come to you in your dreams. Even if you turn out to be the Pierre de Fermat of physics, it will take centuries of refinement and experimental/observational evidence before anything you come up with will look like anything but interesting garbage. (Fermat's last theorem took over 300 years to be proven and even then it took extensive use of computers. There's little chance he could have devised a proof within his lifetime, whether it could be contained by margins or not.)
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby seladore » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:35 am UTC

Chromer wrote:1) The interesting idea that the expansion of space is occurring faster than the speed of light itself, much like it would have after the big bang (the idea anyways). http://newswise.com/articles/view/543391/
2) The first article listed in my references
3) Actually it came to me when I was asleep in a really boring log cabin. You can imagine there was not really anything to dream about besides what I am interested in, which just so happens to be physics.


1) You have this mistaken, I think. The expansion of space is very, very slow. But it also increases with distance, because you have to add up all the little expansion rates across your whole distance. So points separated by huge (> Gpc) distances could have relative velocities > c. Have you read the wikipedia special relativity page? I only ask because you can't seem to shake the idea of absolute speeds, which are the first things to go when you study degree-level relativity.

EDIT to explain 'slowly' - if you are stationary, then the acceleration of the universe won't get to a slow walking pace until you look 12 light years away. That's further than the nearby stars, which would take millions of years to reach with current technology. And that's just to reach a slow walking pace.

2) OK, didn't read that. I'll go and read, then comment.

3) You can't build a cohesive theory of physics in a dream. It takes years and LOTS of mathematical proof. If you have years under your belt already, then dreams may often give you the 'nudge' you need to go in a certain direction. But from a pre-college standing start? No.

eck
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:42 am UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby eck » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:42 am UTC

phlip wrote:You've also had an implicit absolute reference frame, of the Earth, all your life. You can say "meet me here in an hour" to someone, and have it actually make sense. Again, scale up to cosmological scales, and you can't do that. No object can be described objectively as "stationary", no aether exists to give us an absolute frame of reference. And that includes the spontaneously-created particle pairs you so love to bring up.

This has always bugged me. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light...relative to what???
If you have two spaceships and accelerate them up to 0.6c each(relative to the earth). What will happen if you make a head-on collision with these spaceships?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Hawknc » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Relative to the reference frame from which it's being observed (as a simple answer). Velocities don't add together simply like they do at very small speeds because of this fact. For your example, if you use the equation:
Image
and substitute 0.6c for w and v, you would find that each spaceship sees the other at 0.73c, not 1.2c like you might expect with classical motion.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Cynical Idealist » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:02 am UTC

eck wrote:
phlip wrote:You've also had an implicit absolute reference frame, of the Earth, all your life. You can say "meet me here in an hour" to someone, and have it actually make sense. Again, scale up to cosmological scales, and you can't do that. No object can be described objectively as "stationary", no aether exists to give us an absolute frame of reference. And that includes the spontaneously-created particle pairs you so love to bring up.

This has always bugged me. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light...relative to what???
If you have two spaceships and accelerate them up to 0.6c each(relative to the earth). What will happen if you make a head-on collision with these spaceships?

Relative to light. The basic idea of relativity is that every single thing is relative except for one thing: c.

For your example...thank God for google, I don't have the background for this:
Two space ships going 0.6c in the Earth’s frame are approaching each other, traveling along
the x axis. (i.e. one goes in the +x direction, and one in the −x direction.)
(a) What relative speed does the pilot of one ship observe for the other ship?
Consider the ship going in the +x direction, and call its rest frame S'. This frame has
a velocity with respect to Earth of 0.6c. So we can ask what is ux for the other ship?
ux = (ux − v)/(1 − uxv/c2)
with
ux = −0.6c
for the ship going in the −x direction. Being careful with the signs, we find
u'x = (0.6+ 0.6)c/(1+ 0.62) = 0.88c

Hawknc, plugging in the numbers on your equation is giving me .88c as an answer.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:21 pm UTC

It's worth it to note that this has been experimentally verified in super-colliders. Two particles that crash into each other at combined velocities greater than C release energy equivalent to collisions with combined velocities less than C in line witht he equations presented above.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Hawknc » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:51 pm UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:Hawknc, plugging in the numbers on your equation is giving me .88c as an answer.

You are almost certainly correct, I was wondering why my numbers seemed small. Geez, one year out of uni and I'm already forgetting relativity. :P

User avatar
Ashi
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:50 am UTC
Location: New York, USA

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Ashi » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:03 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:
Mathmagic wrote:You can't talk about scientific theories lacking scientific education without mentioning Neal Adams and his expanding earth theory.

I've had a (nominally) similar idea that, because gravity is acceleration, perhaps the Earth is actually expanding outward at 9.81 m/s. Of course, this would imply that any object with mass is also expanding, albeit at proportional rates. Then, due to the dissimilar rates of expansion between people and the earth, people should be shrinking.


In order to be on equal footing with the acceleration due to gravity, wouldn't you need 9.81m/s2? Pretending that the earth would need to accelerate against itself, that is. Just, to, you know, get nit-picky and pretend like I can contribute to this thread >.>
(Taking my first year of physics this year in HS, on top of a bit of reading; I'm pretty ignorant)
BomanTheBear wrote:Do not go looking for the stupidest thing ever said on the internets.

You might find it. Then it will be too late to help you.

Klotz
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:27 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Klotz » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:31 am UTC

Yes, you've fit in well with the pedantry of this forum by pointing out an obvious typo and expanding on it as if the author were wrong.

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby seladore » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:20 am UTC

Klotz wrote:Yes, you've fit in well with the pedantry of this forum by pointing out an obvious typo and expanding on it as if the author were wrong.


Well, to be fair the author was wrong.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Tass » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:07 am UTC

I know this has been answered allready, but:

eck wrote:This has always bugged me. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light...relative to what???


Relative to anything else. The rules of time, space and velocities in relativity seems counter-intuitive but it really does work.

bcoblentz
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:28 am UTC
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby bcoblentz » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:12 am UTC

I think it's pretty cool that a 16 year old with no real physics training was able to come up with a totally consistent theory that can be described completely by some pictures of cubes which explains the universe better than the silly things Einstein (a so-called "trained physicist") pulled out of his ass.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Hawknc » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:03 pm UTC

Sure, 'scept it doesn't. Not to disparage independent inquiry, because that's what science is all about, but Einstein's work has held true in the face of pretty much every observation made when it comes to relativity. Supporting evidence is the difference between a hypothesis, such as in the OP, and a theory.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby oxoiron » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:40 pm UTC

seladore wrote:
Klotz wrote:Yes, you've fit in well with the pedantry of this forum by pointing out an obvious typo and expanding on it as if the author were wrong.
Well, to be fair the author was wrong.
Making Ashi technically correct--the best kind of correct. I hereby promote him/her/it to grade 37.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
thecommabandit
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby thecommabandit » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:08 pm UTC

Chromer wrote:You haven't disproved my case.

Ack! That means nothing. You could argue that the smallest asteroid in the universe speaks French and is made of strawberry jam and no-one would be able to prove you wrong. It doesn't, however, make you right. Or credible. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Image

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby wst » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:43 pm UTC

Right, as this appears to be quite an argument, my physics teacher reckons that basically a velocity/mass graph is basically the asymptote at sub-c speeds, and then the graph's reflected along c, so as you reach really high speeds, you find it harder to slow down, because if you slow down, you gain mass and .: momentum.
He called that stuff tachyons, which sounds good, as I've heard that word before, but on the other hand, he's slightly mad, so is there anything in what he said?
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:03 pm UTC

Tachyons generally refer to theoretical particles with negative or imaginary mass which as a result must travel faster than the speed of light in much the same way that objects with real positive mass must travel at less than the speed of light and objects without mass must travel at exactly the speed of light.

Tachyons may or may not exist, and if they do exist, they probably don't act like they do with regards to normal particles except in very special circumstances.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby seladore » Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:40 am UTC

oxoiron wrote:
seladore wrote:
Klotz wrote:Yes, you've fit in well with the pedantry of this forum by pointing out an obvious typo and expanding on it as if the author were wrong.
Well, to be fair the author was wrong.
Making Ashi technically correct--the best kind of correct. I hereby promote him/her/it to grade 37.


I believe schilm / schler is the correct terminology.

User avatar
Tachyon
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:00 am UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Tachyon » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:24 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Tachyons generally refer to theoretical particles with negative or imaginary mass which as a result must travel faster than the speed of light in much the same way that objects with real positive mass must travel at less than the speed of light and objects without mass must travel at exactly the speed of light.

Tachyons may or may not exist, and if they do exist, they probably don't act like they do with regards to normal particles except in very special circumstances.


yaaaay
I DON'T WANT NO PART A YO TIGHT ASS COUNTRY CLUB YA FREAK BITCH
~Buster

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Cynical Idealist » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:52 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Sure, 'scept it doesn't. Not to disparage independent inquiry, because that's what science is all about, but Einstein's work has held true in the face of pretty much every observation made when it comes to relativity. Supporting evidence is the difference between a hypothesis, such as in the OP, and a theory.

I think that what you're responding to there was sarcasm.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Chromer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativ

Postby Chromer » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:49 pm UTC

8===D
Last edited by Chromer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:54 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tronald
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby Tronald » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:29 am UTC

i just want to point out your idea of moving space around an object is a concept Of Futureama
There is no good or evil just better or worst.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Faster than the Speed of Light-Without violating relativity

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:45 am UTC

no, Futurama's idea of moving space around an object was a concept of Einstein
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests