- #36
Zefram
- 147
- 0
I don't want to sidetrack this discussion but could someone please give me a phonetic pronunciation of "João Magueijo"?
Faster than the speed of light
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Light Speed Speed of light
In summary: So it's definitely moving away from us!In summary, according to the Superluminal Recessional Hypothesis, objects that are traveling faster than the speed of light will always move away from us.
- #37
Sciencegenius
In relation to Hawking Radiation does a black hole have to give up the exact amount of energy/mass equal to the energy/mass of the particle being made "real" in accordance with E=MC^2 or is there something else to be considered?[?]
- #38
physicskid
- 75
- 0
Science genius,
These virtual particles are a anti-particle pair. They are created out of nothingness and annihilate each other quickly before interacting with other particles. Their creation are explained by the http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/hep/adventure/virtual.html . Please find out more on quantum mechanics and quantum physics on your own. (all revolving around the Planck's constant h).
Hope you'd be able understand these theories. Ask for help if you have any difficulties.[zz)]
Last edited by a moderator:
- #39
Sciencegenius
Yes but I mean in the case of Hawking radiation when they are unable to anhilliate each other does the black hole have to do any "work" in relation to my question.
- #40
maximus
- 495
- 4
becuase of the well known Law of Energy Conservation, the outflow of energy created by the virtual particle being made into a "real particle" (light, i guess) is balanced with an inflow of energy into the black hole, and thus (in time) dissolving the black hole. is this what you were asking?
- #41
Ploegman
- 14
- 0
Imagine your being being completely made up of consciousness and "thought energy" is what propelled you throughout the universe.
You can then instantly appear anywhere at anytime. As long as your conscious mind is there, then you are. What prevents us from doing this in the physical world, is physical matter.
However, is human thought not faster then light? I can right now think of myself dancing around on the surface of pluto, and I did that within a split second, how fast does it take light to get to Pluto from earth? Yet my consciousness was there instantly.
You can then instantly appear anywhere at anytime. As long as your conscious mind is there, then you are. What prevents us from doing this in the physical world, is physical matter.
However, is human thought not faster then light? I can right now think of myself dancing around on the surface of pluto, and I did that within a split second, how fast does it take light to get to Pluto from earth? Yet my consciousness was there instantly.
- #42
neutroncount
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. When I imagine myself someone else, that's just what it is. IMAGINING! My brain can visualize and create/recreate images, sounds and feelings because of our memories that are triggered from chemical reactions within our brain. Nothing at all is traveling faster than light. I hate to say it folks but our brain is just a piece of meat. A thinking piece of meat but no less a piece of meat. And I have a feeling you're not using yours enough.
- #43
physicskid
- 75
- 0
The mass of the galaxies outside the horizon should decrease too, since the antiparticles 'disolves' them.
But the Milky Way is also outside the horizon of another very distant galaxy traveling FTL speed relative to us, so we should receive antiparticles from it too! So there is an equal exchange of particles between us and the distant galaxy. These anti-particles pair annihilate each other again. So the law of energy conservation is obeyed. [zz)]
- #44
JetBlckNewYr03
- 13
- 0
I thought the speed of light is the speed of light in a vacuum. Isn't there some kind of theory explaining something moving faster than the speed of light (for a vacuum) in a medium. Karismov theory or something like that?
- #45
macm
- 10
- 0
FTL Quasars
I am always leary of those that post "Absolute Statements". I decided to join because I saw this thread. I have never seen a discussion of FTL that took this direction and separated expansion from relavistic velocity. I like that and particularily since the factor 2c fits my own view as well.
The following link claims to provide mathematical proof that nothing goes FTL but I don't accept what is being done. That is not to argue that the mathematics are not consistant but only that they are inappropriate attempts to force reality to conform to the preconcieved idea of Relativity. We should infact be looking for alternative explanations which include observation without manipulation.
The fastest Quasar velocity that I have seen recorded is 5,200 c.
That is a traverse "observed" motion but using the mathematics in the following link they claim it is only an illusion and it is really <c.
I don't buy it. "Y" is the observed traverse velocity. Looking at the diagram you can see that motion along the time frame "t2" which is true velocity would be greater than the 5,200 c "Proper Velocity" being observed.
***************** 1st Paragraph of the Presentation *********
When we observe Quasar jets from Earth, it is possible that the observed velocity of the jets appears to be greater than the speed of light. Because our current physical models allow for no mechanism that would allow such velocities to exist, we are left to devise some explanation that does mesh with our understanding of physical laws, while also explaining the observed velocities.
********************************************************************
To me this statement qualifies the process as something to "Ignore"
http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm
I am always leary of those that post "Absolute Statements". I decided to join because I saw this thread. I have never seen a discussion of FTL that took this direction and separated expansion from relavistic velocity. I like that and particularily since the factor 2c fits my own view as well.
The following link claims to provide mathematical proof that nothing goes FTL but I don't accept what is being done. That is not to argue that the mathematics are not consistant but only that they are inappropriate attempts to force reality to conform to the preconcieved idea of Relativity. We should infact be looking for alternative explanations which include observation without manipulation.
The fastest Quasar velocity that I have seen recorded is 5,200 c.
That is a traverse "observed" motion but using the mathematics in the following link they claim it is only an illusion and it is really <c.
I don't buy it. "Y" is the observed traverse velocity. Looking at the diagram you can see that motion along the time frame "t2" which is true velocity would be greater than the 5,200 c "Proper Velocity" being observed.
***************** 1st Paragraph of the Presentation *********
When we observe Quasar jets from Earth, it is possible that the observed velocity of the jets appears to be greater than the speed of light. Because our current physical models allow for no mechanism that would allow such velocities to exist, we are left to devise some explanation that does mesh with our understanding of physical laws, while also explaining the observed velocities.
********************************************************************
To me this statement qualifies the process as something to "Ignore"
http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
- #46
Funkee
After a while I've been compiling more ideas together for a different universal model, incorporating higher dimensions.
Since all matter as we know it has mass, then it must be moving. But direction and speed are technically impossible to determine without an external reference position. Once the KE reaches zero, the mass of an object will become zero. Then consider what we know of that has no mass. Few things there are we can observe that have no mass, but one comes to mind quickly. Light.
Photons have no mass. Suppose that the photons in the light beam have zero KE, they are not moving, at least not in our observable 4D. But that would make no sense. But then recall Kaluza-Klein, who said that light is a vibration in the 5th Dimension. Perhaps light may very well be vibrating in the 5th Dimension. It may be moving in the 5th dimension, collapsed as how it is, nevertheless, and yet motionless in our 4D. Since the light beam is not restricted to moving in only the 5th dimension, being parallel to our 4D, will mean we never notice it. But it does move through 3 (4) dimensions. But we observe it not to be moving within the 3. Then perhaps, we may use light, which is stationary as a reference point for absolute space and time.
If the light is stationary how is it that we see this beam of light moving at 300,000 km/sec. But consider the situation if we are the one's moving at that rate. The object emitting the light, which is matter, is moving with the rest of the universe at 300,000km/sec, and in result we have light traveling at that speed.
Due to entropy, the absolute paths to a stationary reference is chaotic. If we increase entropy, we are increasing KE, meaning we are increasing our mass, and traveling into the future. This is where the idea of traveling into the past comes up. To do so, we would have to reduce our movement, but to do so, we have to define the path of our bodies in relation to that fixed point to determine the absolute direction and speed. It is possible, but to do so would be far too difficult to imagine, consider the chaos of entropy as it is now.
And here again comes the point where you may not travel faster than light. Since the matter is moving away from the light at 300,000km/sec, and to observe the light beam moving away from us, we must in fact be moving away from it.
If you could imagine our space-time as a solid line, with the light beam intersecting it as such:
...\
...\
....\
_________\_____________
...\
....\
......\
The point of intersection is the reference point. We are moving in this --> direction, at 300,000km/sec. If we attempt to catch up to this light beam, our movement through space-time will decrease, time will pass us slower. Once we reach the light beam traveling away from us, we are at a stand still. But since our motion through space-time is essentially the entropy of the universe, our attempt to catch up to the light, by going faster simply adds additional KE to the chaotic movement of our bodies. So if we were to lower our KE in respect to absolute position, the light beam would move away from us at a slower rate. Once we reach zero KE, where we are at a stand still with space-time, we will catch up to the speed of light. To surpass light, we would need negative KE, which is a separate discussion in itself.
I think that it is possible to attain speeds greater than 300,000km/sec, as those quasars that have been recorded. There is no limit in that direction as to your top speed, it's the minimum speed that sets the limit. In fact we will never catch up to the speed of light by going faster. If an observer was able to record the absolute speed of light as you moved faster through time, without being affected by time (which is technically impossible since velocity requires time), but suppose one could, that was not affected by time, traveling at such a speed to determine the velocity of the light beam in reference to absolute position, we would find that the light moves faster from us as we increase our speed. The fact that our travel through time and our speed is an inversely related, the product will always be a constant, which is in fact the speed of light. The distortion of time with a change in speed will keep the light beam moving from you at 300,000km/sec.
My idea. I'm only 15, forgive me if I may have contradicted some things or point me in the right direction regarding any mistakes. I've yet to take an official course in physics, but I've indulged myself pretty deep into this crazy theoretical stuff without knowing any of the math, so thanks for any insights and bothering to read all that.
Since all matter as we know it has mass, then it must be moving. But direction and speed are technically impossible to determine without an external reference position. Once the KE reaches zero, the mass of an object will become zero. Then consider what we know of that has no mass. Few things there are we can observe that have no mass, but one comes to mind quickly. Light.
Photons have no mass. Suppose that the photons in the light beam have zero KE, they are not moving, at least not in our observable 4D. But that would make no sense. But then recall Kaluza-Klein, who said that light is a vibration in the 5th Dimension. Perhaps light may very well be vibrating in the 5th Dimension. It may be moving in the 5th dimension, collapsed as how it is, nevertheless, and yet motionless in our 4D. Since the light beam is not restricted to moving in only the 5th dimension, being parallel to our 4D, will mean we never notice it. But it does move through 3 (4) dimensions. But we observe it not to be moving within the 3. Then perhaps, we may use light, which is stationary as a reference point for absolute space and time.
If the light is stationary how is it that we see this beam of light moving at 300,000 km/sec. But consider the situation if we are the one's moving at that rate. The object emitting the light, which is matter, is moving with the rest of the universe at 300,000km/sec, and in result we have light traveling at that speed.
Due to entropy, the absolute paths to a stationary reference is chaotic. If we increase entropy, we are increasing KE, meaning we are increasing our mass, and traveling into the future. This is where the idea of traveling into the past comes up. To do so, we would have to reduce our movement, but to do so, we have to define the path of our bodies in relation to that fixed point to determine the absolute direction and speed. It is possible, but to do so would be far too difficult to imagine, consider the chaos of entropy as it is now.
And here again comes the point where you may not travel faster than light. Since the matter is moving away from the light at 300,000km/sec, and to observe the light beam moving away from us, we must in fact be moving away from it.
If you could imagine our space-time as a solid line, with the light beam intersecting it as such:
...\
...\
....\
_________\_____________
...\
....\
......\
The point of intersection is the reference point. We are moving in this --> direction, at 300,000km/sec. If we attempt to catch up to this light beam, our movement through space-time will decrease, time will pass us slower. Once we reach the light beam traveling away from us, we are at a stand still. But since our motion through space-time is essentially the entropy of the universe, our attempt to catch up to the light, by going faster simply adds additional KE to the chaotic movement of our bodies. So if we were to lower our KE in respect to absolute position, the light beam would move away from us at a slower rate. Once we reach zero KE, where we are at a stand still with space-time, we will catch up to the speed of light. To surpass light, we would need negative KE, which is a separate discussion in itself.
I think that it is possible to attain speeds greater than 300,000km/sec, as those quasars that have been recorded. There is no limit in that direction as to your top speed, it's the minimum speed that sets the limit. In fact we will never catch up to the speed of light by going faster. If an observer was able to record the absolute speed of light as you moved faster through time, without being affected by time (which is technically impossible since velocity requires time), but suppose one could, that was not affected by time, traveling at such a speed to determine the velocity of the light beam in reference to absolute position, we would find that the light moves faster from us as we increase our speed. The fact that our travel through time and our speed is an inversely related, the product will always be a constant, which is in fact the speed of light. The distortion of time with a change in speed will keep the light beam moving from you at 300,000km/sec.
My idea. I'm only 15, forgive me if I may have contradicted some things or point me in the right direction regarding any mistakes. I've yet to take an official course in physics, but I've indulged myself pretty deep into this crazy theoretical stuff without knowing any of the math, so thanks for any insights and bothering to read all that.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #47
Ploegman
- 14
- 0
But is "true thought" and thinking done through this "piece of meat" as you so amazingly put it? Or is there more to that?
To be honest, I have very special abilities ... however will only speak privatley with a person about them, not over the entire internet for millions of people to read.
I will leave it at that.
- #48
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Hey, there's that guy who'll pay you a million bucks
if you prove'em to him ! Go for it dude !
- #49
neutroncount
Oh, so you're mentally ill? Yeah, that's something I wouldn't give out publicly either, to be honest. I will leave it at that.
- #50
DR OF DEATH
the amount of times i have aired an opinion on this topic is unbelievable, you know i just don't care anymore
Last edited by a moderator:
- #51
physicskid
- 75
- 0
Big Bang Singularity
The matter and energy present in this universe may come from the black hole radiation from the big bang singularity!
The matter and energy present in this universe may come from the black hole radiation from the big bang singularity!
- #52
HBar
- 67
- 0
This question goes back to the first couple of posts.
-HBar
I don't understand how this is possible. I always believed that anything with mass could not travel at or over c. Isn't it true that its mass will increase to infinity when it reaches c? Mentat offered an explanation stating that it could be observed traveling >c using the redshift. I know what the redshift is, but how does that make it possible for something to travel >c?
-HBar
- #53
maximus
- 495
- 4
we're only moving 2c relative to people oppostite us in the galaxy. we're still moving far below c relative to c itself. (which is the constant) and so are they.
- #54
ObsessiveMathsFreak
- 406
- 8
If you put a laser on a turntable, and spin it around really fast then the 'dot' on a far away wall can be made to appear to travel faster than light.
Similarly if you look up at the night sky and spin around then the stars in the distance will appear to travel faster than light.
The 'trick' in both of these cases is the concept of an inertial frame. In both cases the 'objects' are accellerating but no forces are acting on them. For the stars your not in an inertial frame and for the 'dot' it is because the dot isn't actually a thing. it's all in your head.
I suppose if space is expanding then its definately NOT an inertial frame.
P.S.
Don't the electric and magnetic forces individually act instananiously at a distance.
Similarly if you look up at the night sky and spin around then the stars in the distance will appear to travel faster than light.
The 'trick' in both of these cases is the concept of an inertial frame. In both cases the 'objects' are accellerating but no forces are acting on them. For the stars your not in an inertial frame and for the 'dot' it is because the dot isn't actually a thing. it's all in your head.
I suppose if space is expanding then its definately NOT an inertial frame.
P.S.
Don't the electric and magnetic forces individually act instananiously at a distance.
- #55
Tail
- 208
- 0
I liked your post, Funkee!
However, I don't quite get it about the light. True, it has no mass, but it has energy, and isn't mass just a certain state of energy? I certainly wouldn't consider it to be fit for this case...
However, I don't quite get it about the light. True, it has no mass, but it has energy, and isn't mass just a certain state of energy? I certainly wouldn't consider it to be fit for this case...
- #56
physicskid
- 75
- 0
Special Relativity(SR) states that all observers should observe light traveling at c by contracting making time faster. If someone travels >c, he should contract to minus length and time becomes negative, which means that you form a body of antiparticles.
But if you travel at c, which requires infinty energy, would contract to zero size and time would be infinitely fast, which is equals to zero time. This would prove that infinty and zero are the same. [?]
Reply to tail: I'd give you a clue. A photon has a mass at rest that is zero.
But if you travel at c, which requires infinty energy, would contract to zero size and time would be infinitely fast, which is equals to zero time. This would prove that infinty and zero are the same. [?]
Reply to tail: I'd give you a clue. A photon has a mass at rest that is zero.
Last edited:
- #57
Tail
- 208
- 0
Wrong, as there are no photons at rest.
'Rest mass' is a term not used very often nowadays, as it implies something that is not.
- #58
Funkee
What about quantum tunneling? They recorded data onto a laser beam and induced it to travel at 5c via quantum tunneling. I had always assumed that tunneling would surpass time, happening "immediately". But how come it stops at 5c?
And suppose we had a film with a frame rate high enough to view the particle, if we could see it that is, going by, and that if we slow down the film we could see the particle at a position between the starting point and the destination, although quantum tunneling, as I understand it prescribes one particle can just as easily tunnel to a point 100 billion light years away, which is the supposed benefit and possible use for tunneling for time travel, yet even at 5c or a limited speed, it would take far too long to get there.
Or is this "speed" just a measure of how long it will take to "tunnel" its way? It would take a second to tunnel 1,500,000 km? (5 x 300,000). Why the delay? And why this exact delay? Can it be altered? Can it be bent and stretched with a gravitational force proving that it indeed moves through space time, but if the path is unaffected can we suppose that it has simply created a wormhole in spacetime?
And suppose we had a film with a frame rate high enough to view the particle, if we could see it that is, going by, and that if we slow down the film we could see the particle at a position between the starting point and the destination, although quantum tunneling, as I understand it prescribes one particle can just as easily tunnel to a point 100 billion light years away, which is the supposed benefit and possible use for tunneling for time travel, yet even at 5c or a limited speed, it would take far too long to get there.
Or is this "speed" just a measure of how long it will take to "tunnel" its way? It would take a second to tunnel 1,500,000 km? (5 x 300,000). Why the delay? And why this exact delay? Can it be altered? Can it be bent and stretched with a gravitational force proving that it indeed moves through space time, but if the path is unaffected can we suppose that it has simply created a wormhole in spacetime?
- #59
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
Whatever you have seen in the news, and whatever you may have assumed, no experiment has been done which has anything traveling at faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum. Either the experiments worked with non standard media where their definition of "speed" or even "travel" is not what you think, or they confused phase and group velocity, or the reporters flatly misrepresented the experiment.
- #60
Funkee
Really now? That the experiment in Cologne, headed by Nimtz encoded Mozarts 40th symphony onto photons and produced the signal that travelledat nearly 5c. 4.7c to be precise
Here are all the Faster Than Light experiments to date including the mentioned:
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html
Here are all the Faster Than Light experiments to date including the mentioned:
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html
- #61
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
- #62
Funkee
Well that simply goes back to my question regarding quantum tunneling. Whether or not it is a transposition of a particle, or one "wormhole-like" surpassing time.
There was another study that I can't locate regarding separated entangled electrons and their spins, in that reversing a spin of one, will also reverse that of the other. Are these electrons communicating at a certain speed, such as c, taking 1 second to change if they are 300,000km apart? Or does it surpass time, happening immediately regardless of distance? If so how, but if it takes time, and we supposedly had an atom where two electrons would be such a distance apart, what effect does it have on the atom if for 1 second the electrons in the orbital are spinning in the same direction? Then we can apply thisw to the microscopic scale, where for an unimaginably but existent small period of time, the 2 electrons spin in the same manner. Does it possibly change the interaction of one atom with another, or does anyone have an idea onto what'll happen within that period of time?
There was another study that I can't locate regarding separated entangled electrons and their spins, in that reversing a spin of one, will also reverse that of the other. Are these electrons communicating at a certain speed, such as c, taking 1 second to change if they are 300,000km apart? Or does it surpass time, happening immediately regardless of distance? If so how, but if it takes time, and we supposedly had an atom where two electrons would be such a distance apart, what effect does it have on the atom if for 1 second the electrons in the orbital are spinning in the same direction? Then we can apply thisw to the microscopic scale, where for an unimaginably but existent small period of time, the 2 electrons spin in the same manner. Does it possibly change the interaction of one atom with another, or does anyone have an idea onto what'll happen within that period of time?
- #63
Funkee
Well my own question was answered by a friend of mine. For those of you unaware, it is Bell's theorem.
It states that due to the uncertainty of the position of an electron, it could be a light year away, and not affect any delay in a reaction, Einstein calling it "Spooky Action At A Distance."
It states that due to the uncertainty of the position of an electron, it could be a light year away, and not affect any delay in a reaction, Einstein calling it "Spooky Action At A Distance."