[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 95 KB, 1276x906, Light_echo_movie-gr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2252352 No.2252352 [Reply] [Original]

why cant we travel faster than light? i think its just a barrier we created for ourselves, had we evolved on a planet far from its sun and couldnt perceive light in any wave length would we still belive this to be true, also if you could travel faster than light what would you see? images mirrored of your self? what does the back of a photon look like?

>> No.2252354
File: 148 KB, 631x481, IJ2IZ2SNVHEKCZZIJGFK5QMWGTLZKBRU.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2252354

pic related

>> No.2252363

I'm saging because this is a really stupid question.
We can't travel faster than light, because light in a vacuum is the fastest thing on the universe, if you could >>APPROACH<< it, you would be slowing time down, if you reach it you slow time, and if you overcome it, you would be a time traveler, since the moment you reach speed of light, you stop time and therefore you're not moving, and then you start traveling through time, so even if you could surpass light, you couldn't see anything light related, since you broke the time/space continuum.

Yet again, you can't even get near to the speed of light, sublight travels might be plausible.

>> No.2252365

0/10

>> No.2252367

but why are light and time interconnected and how do you know they are? what does what we see have to do with time

>> No.2252374

time and c are interconnected. There is a difference. If light travelled slower than c, which it does in atmosphere, relativity is unchanged.

>> No.2252372

We can't travel fast than light, but we can warp spacetime to change the distance we need to cross.

>> No.2252384

but light is just light if we (for arguments sake) existed in a universe cold , dead without light all energy in a solid stable form would that speed limit still exist?

>> No.2252388

The back of a photon looks exactly like its front, they are spherical.

>> No.2252394

not to mention snake there are no stupid questions in science as science is not a religion, and without questioning what we know, thats exactly what science WILL become

>> No.2252402
File: 10 KB, 235x214, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2252402

>>2252388

>> No.2252431

>>2252394
I say it is a stupid question because every TV program, or astrophysics book says that light is the fastest force in the universe, and nothing can surpass it. It's like common knowledge, this was more a reminder than a real answer to a well founded question.
>>2252384
The limit is universal, nothing is faster than light, even in alternate dimensions, in most of them, the speed limit would be c.
I mean most, because there might be a dimension where there is no light, but the Big Bang emitted light, so yeah, there is always light.

>> No.2252444
File: 21 KB, 240x240, \head%20explode.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2252444

>>2252431
>I say it is a stupid question because every TV program, or astrophysics book says that light is the fastest force in the universe, and nothing can surpass it.

>> No.2252450

don't tacheons sometimes travel faster than light or am i mistaken?

>> No.2252453

>>2252450
Do tachyons exist, mate?

>> No.2252459

>>2252372
there is no solution to general relativity that shows warp travel is possible, the alcubierre metric has been shown to be completely infeasible and unworkable

>> No.2252469

though its not totally impossible for this universe to have no light because if you imagine most energy as solid matter, black holes would have to appear under such immense gravity sucking said light into them and possibly out of our universe

>> No.2252476

>>2252469
Err, something that "Falls" in a black hole never really dissapears or gets annihilated, but I would take a long time to ellaborate, besides I don't know exactly how to explain it, since English is not my mother language.

>> No.2252492

let me get this straight are you people suggesting in a universe filled with light, that matter cant travel faster than light because light is both a wave and particle and that there is some kind of resistance like swimming through water?

>> No.2252506

>>2252363
In all honesty, how the fuck are light and time connected? Are you saying that because light is the fastest thing it "sets the boundary" for the overall rate of time in the universe?

>> No.2252509

ok i have done some reading it seems light has some kind of pushing force transmited from the particles as it hits the surface of whatever my question is this is the universe constantly expanding or will it eventually contract ? what is stronger, gravity pulling things towards the mass creating the force or light being emited and pushing matter outwards?

>> No.2252513

i agree betty it doesnt make any sense

>> No.2252514

>>2252506
Anyone who has studied general relativity would know the answer to your question.
Get the fuck off of /sci/, is what I'm really saying.

>> No.2252516

>>2252506
Uhh, I don't know how to articulate properly, but let's say that, if you surpass light, you... "tear" time, you would be "scratching" te "fabric" of time as a fourth dimension, let's say than FTL travel would allow you to move through the fourth dimension.

>> No.2252518

>>2252509
Technically, it is accelerating, by unknown forces. But I believe that eventually it will contract.

>> No.2252519

>>2252506
It's a set boundary first. Light propagates at that speed limit because...well, geometry.

>> No.2252520

well i never really liked time any ways, whatever !

>> No.2252522
File: 31 KB, 660x291, spacetime.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2252522

>>2252506
Yes. Space-time is curved which creates gravity. It takes light 8 minutes from the sun to reach the Earth. What does this mean? If the sun randomly disappeared, then it would take 8 minutes for us to actually see the effect.

Welcome to relativity.

>> No.2252525

>>2252476
That isn't exactly resolved, it's still a bit of an open debate. The black hole information paradox.

>> No.2252532

>>2252525
I remember that the inmense gravity pull of the black hole bends time the closer you get to the "center", the closer you get, the slower the time advances, technically you never fall, you would get to a point where the time is stopped, being this a fate wore than death.

Still, just a theory.

>> No.2252533

i understand it would take 8 min to see it but that doesnt change the fact it happend 8min before so it still doesnt explain how time and light are connected

>> No.2252536

>>2252514
>come to /sci/ for knowledge
>get shuned
this is why everyone hates you guys.

>> No.2252542

>>2252533
Incorrect.

You are thinking in absolute terms, and what we are thinking of is relative terms. That is exactly what Einstein envisaged it to be, and he was right.

See, absolutely the sun disappeared 8 minutes ago. Relatively, we feel the effect 8 minutes after, because light puts a speed limit on gravity, making the effect not instantaneous on us, hence making the effect relative to the entire universe.

Also,
>>2252536
>shuned
>SHUNED
Go read a textbook. Seriously, this is probably even on Wikipedia.

>> No.2252544

you cant ask a text book questions duche

>> No.2252547

>>2252384

>but light is just light if we (for arguments sake) existed in a universe cold , dead without light all energy in a solid stable form would that speed limit still exist?

First we would not exist in such a universe as life is impossible

Second, there is photons everywhere, they pop out of nowhere and disappear again shortly after. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I do not sage, this is probably a troll, but at least one that asks for science and not religion

>> No.2252550

>>2252544
Is that a que--- what the fuck am I reading?

>> No.2252551

just because we only see or feel it later it still doesnt change the fact it actually happened 8 min ago time is time

>> No.2252552

>>2252551
For fuck sakes.
I just explained how it's RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER.

I can't explain any more. There is no simpler way to explain that.

>> No.2252553

What if things did move faster than the speed of light all the time, but they appear not to? We wouldn't be able to measure their actual speed, and our theories modeling what happens when you approch/surpass the speed of light would be off.

>> No.2252554

>>2252553
>what if
nope

>> No.2252555

op here not a troll just curious and i said for arguments sake {as in just imagine}

>> No.2252560

>>2252553
What is this, I don't even...

Captcha: The Dambsted

>> No.2252561

>>2252555
Okay, sure. Then we would make a new theory to fit the observations.

This is how science works.

Are we done now?

>> No.2252564

i dont care about relativity i originally asked why you cant go faster than light i understand light travels at c and that you wont be able to see or feel something till later because of lights speed limit i get this , but why cant you go faster than that, i understand light may possibly be the fastest natural product of this universe but that doesnt explain why we couldnt create something faster

>> No.2252566

>>2252564
First of all, you do care about relativity. This is the exact topic that relativity and Einstein addressed.

The speed of light (c) is a physical constant. If you were to go any faster than that you would be a tachyon (and there is no proof they even exist) and you would have to be massless.

That's why. Because you would have to be massless. There, are we okay now?

>> No.2252570

>>2252564
No one (who knew what they were talking about) said it wasn't possible to travel faster than light. It is, however, impossible to accelerate such that you end up moving faster than the speed of light.

This may seem like a matter of word choice, but it isn't. First some background: motion and time are relative.

You cannot "move" alone, only in relation to something else. In a car, going down the road, you are stationary relative to the car. The car is moving past houses and trees and such at 50 mph (or, just as accurate, the trees are moving past the car at 50 mph) The trees are stationary relative to the Earth. The planet, and everything on it, is moving much faster relative to the Moon, Sun, etc. Got a speeding ticket for going 65 MPH? Tell the judge you were going several million miles per hour. You were.

Time, however, is a function of relative motion. The faster you move relative to another object, the slower your time moves relative to the time at that object. As you approach the speed of light, this effect intensifies, making it harder and harder to go faster and faster. Remember: to move you must push on something. Your car pushes off the road to move forward (or to move the road back), a rocket thrusts exhaust back to move forward. The energy needed to accelerate increases as your speed approaches the speed of light.

And, as my dad used to say, "There's always one more @#$%er than you counted on." As you approach the speed of light, your mass increases. The more mass you are trying to move, the more energy you need to move it. At the speed of light, your mass theoretically becomes infinite, requiring infinite energy to move it any faster.

The universal speed limit. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

>> No.2252574
File: 38 KB, 230x230, Fry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2252574

>> No.2252575

>>2252570
op here as an agnostic i cant just take what you said as thats the way it is full stop but damn thats the best explanation i have ever heard kudos to you mister

>> No.2252576

I'm terrible at explaining so I'll use wikipedia links sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
Read that first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds
Then This
Hope this helps.

>> No.2252580

>>2252553

then we wouldn't fucking care as there is no interaction with us, what if there would be a pink elephant riding every particle in universe that we could not see ? WE WOULDN'T FUCKING CARE as the pink elephant has no effect on our daily life, or how we see, perceive the universe

>> No.2252579

>>2252566
How can you believe in Relativity when it is only a theory (a geuss)?

>> No.2252585

>>2252579
Fuck off troll.

>> No.2252596

>>2252579
inb4 religion is not, and so the debate begins

>> No.2252600

As much as people want to bullshit you, we can't know why. It's an impossible question.

The proof that we can't surpasses the speed of light is in special and general relativity. Time dilation dictates that you would require and infinite about of time to approach the speed of light, general relativity requires an infinite amount of energy.

T` = t / SQR( 1 - (v ^ 2 / c ^ 2))

and

Total energy = (mc^2 / SQR(1 - (v^2 / c^2))) - mc^2

Both of these equations could be wrong. What you're asking, however, is what is causing the speed of light to be the absolutely fastest thing in the universe (look up light group partials, light in a vacuum is slightly slower then as group photons). There's no answer to that.

Why do humans think? What is a thought? Why do masses attract each other? What makes you love the wierd shit you do?

There is no specific, scientific classification behind these answers. You can't quantify this shit, and asking a physicist why is a very dangerous thing.

>> No.2252615

>why cant we go faster than light?
>BECAUSE. DURP
>But why?
>BECAUSE dont ask stupid questions HURRRR

Lol, noone in this thread has a fucking clue, but some pretend to be smart by calling OPs question "stupid".

OP you are wasting your time asking this question, because NOONE actually knows why we cant travel faster than light. NOONE.

>> No.2252622

>>2252615 NOONE
I am noone.

>> No.2252626

>>2252600
Although you're somewhat correct, your argument went in circles. There reason why c is the maximal possible velocity for a massless particle lies in the fact that c is observed as the SAME in every reference frame. Using some nifty maths, you can show that this equals to c being the upper limit.

This is the spot where Einstein started doing his work and derived all of special relativity using the upper fact (which he took as a fact, since every experiment back then seemed to indicate this) and the assumption that physics has to be the same in all frames of reference.

This framework now gives us a bunch of new rules, but we still don't know for shit why light is so special and why it doesn't seem to change when we change our reference frame.

One might argue that this surely can't be everything there is to, why should we simply accept that c is that miraculous upper limit of velocity? Unfortunately millions of experiments involving special relativity in one way or another have "proven" it's correctness to quite some degree - which makes it also hard to believe there are a lot of backdoors allowing us to travel faster than the speed of light.

>> No.2252628

>>2252570

That is very well put. Good day sir.

>> No.2252630

>>2252622
good for you.

>> No.2252632

>>2252626
Is the point of science to never leave a question answered? Just because prior experiments have shown light to be the upper limit doesn't mean they're right.

MORE TESTING PLEASE!!111

>> No.2252637

>>2252615
I don't have a degree on astrophysics, but I do know scientific facts and the reason behind thos which really take my interest, like light. I know that light is the upper limit, some anons here have posted some better ellaborated answers than mine, I just provided a small insight, whilst they provided the entire answer, and still people didn't get it, they explain it the best way they can and people still don't understand what they mean.

So, who's problem is this?
I, at the very least, learned the true behind this question and it's answer.

>> No.2252639

>>2252632
Well, yeah .. but so far every fucking experiment done on this matter has revealed that c is constant. Of course, maybe you're the lucky one and experiment 1000000000000001 will show differently - but since most of us here are confined to only one lifetime, my bet is simply that c is that special thing, for whatever reasons. I guess smarter people than me have been trying to get behind this .. so I'll just stick to my own little petty research.

>> No.2252647

>why cant we travel faster than light?

what exactly is light? (another "stupid" question).

>> No.2252653

>>2252536

OP had said "Hey /sci how does relativity work?" then you might have a point. Instead, he came here rambling on about how he thinks it's possible to move faster than light without having taken the most basic steps to educate himself on the matter.


There's a difference between asking for help and making an ass out of yourself.

>> No.2252658

>>2252647

Uhhh particles that illuminate? Particles of energy? PS: I would imagine that we can't go faster than light because light is just the fasting moving matter we know? of course if we discover something that somehow does something before light, it would be in darkness, so we wouldnt know it happened, right?

>> No.2252657

>>2252647
It's not stupid, very few people know what is light.

Light is composed by Photons, particles that behave like a wave, thus having an spectrum, they move at a high speed.

>> No.2252669

>>2252658
Well, light is the fastest moving matter, photons are a particle with very little mass, they fit into the "matter" group, so to speak, if something would move faster than light, it would traveling through time, not inmersing it into darkness, but making it a body that moves trough the four dimentions, something so fast that travels through time would be very hard to measure.

>> No.2252672

>>2252669
Please don't listen to this man. Not trying to be an ass here, but this information is simply wrong.

>> No.2252677

>>2252669
>>2252672

yeah that doesnt make sense to me. If I move in the 4th dimension, it means I'm moving in XYZ and in time. In XYZ (3rd dimension, coordinates etc) light is the fastest moving object... So it wouldn't make sense for a faster moving object to be there. The only thing thats faster than light has to be some sort of dark insertcoolwordhere that exists beyond what we see of the universe or potentially beyond everything completely.

>> No.2252682

When I try to picture a photon, all I can think of is a small round ball. Of course we can represent photons using symbols and language, but it is truley hard to grasp (in our minds) the real nature of photons, and other particles that make up our universe.

>> No.2252685

>>2252682

And when someone tries to picture you, all they can picture are your small round balls.

>> No.2252697

>>2252682
Think of it as a small spherical ball of light.
>>2252677
I meant that, as it moves through time, it changes it's position constantly, both on time and space.

>> No.2252711

There once was a boy called Wright
Who could travel faster than light
He left one bright day
In just such a way,
And arrived the previous night.

>> No.2252768

>>2252697

So If something moves faster than light it would move in both space and time... So light is the fastest of 3 dimensions, but isnt there uhhhhh like 10? theres some vid detailing the 10th dimension... I gotta wonder if at some point each moving particle is a universe with its dimensions and so on and so on.......

>> No.2252793

>>2252711
"There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She left one day
In a relative way,
And returned home the previous night! "

>> No.2252902

>>2252768

That's string theory

>> No.2252913

There are things that travel faster than the speed of light, but using Einsteins maths faster than light is impossible to calculate but his maths is not 100% correct.

>> No.2252930

The speed of light is based on how long it takes a photon to travel a distance.

EX
You are traveling to your mom's house it takes you 2 hours and the distance that you covered was 120 miles there for you traveled at 60miles per hour. Your speed is dependent on both the time and distance that you under go.

the speed of light is exactly like my example

the speed of light is 186,000 mi/sec

You can not go faster than the speed of light because light is a form of energy and energy which has no mass.