Can we be sure that speed of light is unbeatable?

I apologize in advance for not reading this topic but there are already theories about 'faster than light' particles called 'tachyons'.

However, the main (theoretical) problem is that once a particle becomes a tachyon there is no going back to slower-than-light so you can see there is a rather interesting dilemma to be had regarding super-luminal speeds, and especially travelling in such conditions.

"A tachyon (pronounced /ˈtækiˌɒn/; Greek: ταχύς, takhus, "swift" + English: -on "elementary particle") is a hypothetical subatomic particle that travels faster than the speed of light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subluminal speeds."
en.wikipedia.org...

Theoretical Physics is too much like religion sometimes though - you never can tell truth from fiction after a certain point... the deeper you delve the weirder and more unexplainable it becomes, and thus, harder to swallow. Tachyons have not been proven to exist (yet) and so we cannot make any conclusions from a scientific basis, although lots of evidence lies in the mathematics of Relativity etc - but even that is just a theory (albeit, a well-tested and proven theory, but still nothing more).

Hope this helped.

LususNaturae

reply to post by Seapeople

You cannot break the speed of light according to current theory not because it will disintegrate you, but because you have mass.

Accelerating from a starting frame of reference to the speed of light your mass goes to infinity BUT your clocks slow down till they freeze as observed from the original frame of reference. The amount of fuel necessary to autonomously reach the speed of light would go to infinity.

I believe gravity is ultimately a geometric model so there are probably paths that would move you through space time faster than the speed of light. Since this would cause your clocks to run backwards somewhere beyond the event horizon there is a cause and effect paradox that prevents causal communication between frames of reference thats all.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Bordon81]

the book by Joseph P Farrell about the unified field might help you with this.

In some stages of a environment (vacuum space) you can speed up, slow down and bend light. You can do that by changing the vacuum environment of the space which the light travels in.

But the question is. If we can change the vacuum space so that light travels slower. Will we be able to use other elements to go faster in the same vacuum of space? I dont think so.

The element would create light because of the vacuum environment. Its called Black body vacuum (light). That's when a element creates light, because of the friction of free energy in the element you experiment with.

The clue is free energy path. And the quality of the vacuum decides this.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Mapping the vacuum into higher dimensions is not intuitive from most macro world experiences. That is probably where most of the cutting edge researchers who are interested in these kinds of questions put their efforts though. E.G.

www.mpg.de...

There is a superposition of some kind going on here.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Bordon81]

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by spy66

 

Mapping the vacuum into higher dimensions is not intuitive from most macro world experiences. That is probably where most of the cutting edge researchers who are interested in these kinds of questions put their efforts though.

Correct. Because space does not have a constant environment of vacuum space quality pr.square inch.

This is where space weather comes in to. But that is off topic

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by spy66

 

www.mpg.de...

There is a superposition of some kind going on here.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Bordon81]

I bet that they are going to study light in that chamber to test the quality of the vacuum of space. Light is often used to determine vacuum quality. The light spectre can tell a scientists a lot about the quality of a element and the vacuum environment. Its also called a spectre of radiation. Radiation is also observed by its collar spectre.

Again this is caused by: A elements Free energy path in a environment of a specific quality of vacuum space.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

A very interesting thread....

Someone in an earlier post mentioned the "instantanious" aspect of the speed of gravity in relation to light..

That question can be easily explained with current models that state that firstly ; "Mass tells space how to bend," and secondly "space tells matter how to move," so therefore with resect to gravity it is not a chicken or egg debate but provable that the space has to bend first before matter can move through it.... However... Gravity is the weakest of all the forces in the universe but acts over larger distances... This weakness therefore impedes somewhat the speed of light.. Especially in areas where matter is super dense like a black hole for instance... The speed of light therefore is not entirely uniform throughout the universe.. It is relative to mass and density to the object that it passes....
Light also has not always been the same speed.. It has in fact slowed down as the universe has got older.. So for the reasons of the fact that lights speed is relative to the density of the mass it travels past, and the fact that it has slowed down.. Can it therefore be a true universal constant?? I think not....
But as gravity is instant, and that it bends space, then the space shows it how to move, then I think that this is the key to faster than light travel...

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Yissachar1]

The effects of quantum entanglement are faster than the speed of light

This is the method used recently to teleport energy

[edit on 20-2-2010 by suziwong]

[edit on 20-2-2010 by suziwong]

Link Regarding quantum entanglement

LINK

surfup, that's been beat by Theoretical Physics.

Need to update.

Now, there's Ultra/Hyper C speeds. As well as plausable instantaneous.

Hubble observations have yielded light behaving erratically, and there's visuals, not released to the public, that state:

Faster, Slower, and Occurrent. Where particles warp, bend, and appear from nowhere.

Hello,

I'll address the forum in no particular order.


LENGTH, MASS & TIME

All physics is constructed using three fundamental SI units: length, mass and time. We incorporate these into our reality through measurements of: meter, kilogram and second.

It is from these three physical quantities that every other physical measurement is derived. For convenience, the Ampere (charge), Kelvin (temperature), mole (amount of substance) and candela (luminous intensity) are often included as Base SI units.

All seven quantities are dimensionally independent; meaning that the three fundamental qualities describe the entire universe. Thus everything has a quantity of length, mass and time.


LIGHT MUST HAVE MASS

When we say light has "no mass", what we really mean is that light has a quantity of mass equal to zero. It does not mean there is "no" mass, it means that the value of mass is zero. So, if the Higgs boson is confirmed to be what the mathematics predicts (and physicists hope!), to state that something has "no mass" we are actually stating that the Higgs has effected a value of zero but the potential of mass to exist in that something persists.

Mathematically, although m(kg) = 0, f(m) ≠ 0. If something really truly in-every-sense-of-the-word has no mass, then the universe would consist only of time and length and would be rendered unrecognisable.


PHOTONS AND ELECTRONS

Light may be regarded as a form of electro-magnetic radiation; interdependent perpendicular transverse oscillations of an electric and magnetic field. According to quantum theory, light is absorbed in packets of light (quanta) or photons. These theories are complimentary. To study propagation one could use wave theory. To study interactions one must use quantum theory.

Elementary particles are those that (as far as is known), do not consist of smaller particles. We call these leptons, quarks and gauge bosons. The electron is a stable, negatively charged lepton. A photon is a gauge boson. Interactions between quarks and leptons are mediated by an exchange of particles, specifically the photon for electro-magnetic interactions.


QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS (QED)

To model a speed limit, one must use a relativistic framework. QED adheres to the theory of relativity and describes electromagnetic interactions. Charged particles ie. an electron, are described by wave functions. Any interaction between charged particles ie. an electron, requires that the mediating photon exist to maintain symmetry.

Practically, this is observed when electrons jump from a high energy shell orbital to a lower-energy shell orbital: a photon is produced. If a particular orbital absorbs a photon, this is like adding an electron into the orbital structure.

Chemistry is, technically, the macroscopic study of electrons. Atomic electromagnetic interactions but on a grander scale. Strike a match and the energy transforms into light, heat and sound. Electrons are moving around, causing a chemical reaction and releasing energy.The light and heat are part of the em spectrum and are really the result of electrons moving from one shell to another!



Electromagnetic interactions are photon mediated. They are interchangeable. Chemical reactions can generally be described with quantum field theory. Quantum field theory predicts the creation or destruction of particles and anti-particles. A photon for instance, converts into an electron and it's anti-particle, the positron.

Again, we see this interaction in chemistry. Electrons in a state of negative energy are generally unobservable. When a photon boosts the electron into a state of positive energy, it becomes observable (chemical reaction when striking a match). The vacant state of negative energy behaves as a positive particle of positive energy which is observed as a positron (the heat and light is caused by the "creation" of positrons).

So, photons are equivalent to free electrons (!) & thus have the same mass: 9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg

Now that light has mass...

[Light also has momentum (p) and is described by mass x velocity. This is the principle being incorporated into designs for spacecraft that utilise solar winds]


WHY WE USE C

Given that light has mass, then all forms of light, every wavelength of the EM spectrum, must adhere to Einstein's theory of general relativity (provided one cannot disprove his theory or the established theories mentioned above).

If one is to adhere to general relativity, the mathematics defines a universal speed limit in the form of the maximum velocity of electromagnetic radiation, which we call the speed of light, c.

c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 ms^-1 (measured exactly)

This limit is practical because we know of nothing faster in this present universe. We are made of particles whose interactions can be described by quantum field theory, that uses photons as a mediator. The fastest thing we have, is light.

Antimatter particles also adhere to c. As we do not know what exactly dark energy or dark matter is, perhaps c is not the universal speed limit. Perhaps it is only the limit of luminous matter, the stuff we are made of.

The value of c was predicted and then confirmed through investigation. Planck's constant (h), the charge of an electron (e) and speed of light (c) neatly allow for the derivation of other fundamental constants, such as Boltzmann's constant and the fine structure constant. Therefore, c as a constant is used because it makes the mathematics..... elegant.


FASTER THAN LIGHT

Luminous matter will never travel faster than c. Space manipulation and time distortion may allow vast distances to be traversed by what appear to be velocities greater than c (when applying distance/time formulae), but will never actually exceed this limit. Such travel will happen by other means.

Also, FTL experiments are measuring what is called "group velocity" or "group speed", and these phenomena do in fact obey Einsteins theory of general relativity. The measurements are of phase speed ie. the speed with which the phase of an oscillation is propagated, and appear to travel faster than c. Advancements in fibreoptic technology are also offering similar results.


QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT
This subject was never offered on my campus.... sorry.

The speed of light is simply the velocity of photons.

Of course it can be beaten but the side effects would certainly be strange - you would see the object at point A but it is actually at point B.

Yes, speed of light can be beaten.

reply to post by surfup

Sadly much of the information posted in this thread is completely wrong. For example, people posting about things traveling faster than light, I have yet to see a peer reviewed paper documenting this. One paper was mentioned which is still in the process of peer review, well let's look again when the peer review is done and it's published.

However I do agree with the post that says the problem is going AT the speed of light, not necessarily faster than the speed of light. As you approach the speed of light your mass approaches infinity so you can never reach the speed of light. But if you could somehow jump past the speed of light, then you might avoid the infinite mass problem.

Another possibility is the warp drive, you don't travel faster than the speed of light locally, so it doesn't violate known physics, it just warps space time in a special way, but again, we don't know how to do that and even if we figure out how someday, it may take more energy than we have available.



[edit on 20-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Yissachar1


I found this interesting explanation concerning the speed of gravity:

phys.ncku.edu.tw...

It seems that the speed of gravity is indeed c, but the orbits are stable even then. This is because gravity attracts you not to the position of a gravitating object where it was, but if the objects speed is constant, it will attract you to where it actually is now.

If the object changes its speed - accelerates, gravity fails to "predict" its future position exactly, and the orbit will destabilize a little, while emmiting gravity waves.

This effect is not ad-hoc, but comes from the equations, and the degradation of orbits was observed in pulsars.
Gravity wave detectors should be able to sense these gravity waves in near future.


It should be possible to make light travel faster by utilizing Casimir effect - that a vacuum between two metallic plates placed a few micrometers apart is "more empty" than ordinary vacuum, because there are less virtual particles able to fit between them.
The speed of light should be a miniscule (10^-36) amount greater in this Casimir vacuum.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Maslo]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Good thought experiment for a five year old might be to think about what happens if you are abducted by aliens and the Saucer they take you for a ride in makes a short cut, by free falling into the gravity well of a black hole. You accelerate to the point that you disappear across an event horizon. How fast are you going when even a powerful beam from the saucer aimed back at the Earth can no longer escape the gravity well?


[edit on 20-2-2010 by Bordon81]

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How fast are you going when even a powerful beam from the saucer aimed back at the Earth can no longer escape the gravity well?

It doesn't matter how fast you're going, you could be going fast or slow, all that matters is which side of the event horizon you're on. If you're outside the beam will reach Earth and if you're inside, it won't, the speed you're moving at is only going to affect the redshift, not the velocity of the light beam. And why for a five year old? I know plenty of adults who can't grasp the concept of the speed of light being constant.

Hi everyone,

The 'speed' of gravity is indeed a fascinating subject matter ( i will studiously ignore the question as it was originally 'framed') and i would appreciate commentary from at least a few of the last posters on the following paper/link:

metaresearch.org...
metaresearch.org...

Regards,

Stelllar

reply to post by StellarX



Hi,

I didn't read the 'GPS' article, but I flicked through the 'Speed of Gravity' paper. Owing to the latter being published over a decade ago, the mathematics is most likely correct but the underlying assumptions are equally as likely to have been falsified.

What Mr van Flandern (author of 'The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say') was proposing was to reintroduce the construct of the 'ether'. This is, generally, a Lorentzian space-time.

The ether is a hypothetical medium thought to fill all of space and be responsible for action at a distance, electricity, magnetism and em transmission, for example. The ether was presumed to pervade all space and matter and, as a corollary, time.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was the catalyst for ditching this idea and taking up Einstein's theories.

In brief, embracing the ether would remove the need to search for a unifying quantum theory of gravity, and other models would be used in it's place. Lorentzian space time allows light to violate Einstein's speed limit.

The modernisation of this question is found in a 2008 paper: bjps.oxfordjournals.org...

The mathematics looks tough to follow (I did not even attempt it!) but the underlying arguments are argued with a much more rigorous logic.

However, the end result is the same: general relativity appears to fail because of certain assumptions, and if you follow the authors' assumptions, perhaps the physics would lead down new paths and hence produce advancement. Both articles offer sound mathematics to persuade the reader to embrace the proposed alternative assumptions.

It's wonderful that established theories are continually being challenged, but unfortunately it requires solid experimental evidence to sway the bulk of theoretical physics into a new direction.