[ 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: 348 KB, 475x556, 1302817758849.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173189 No.3173189 [Reply] [Original]

If supersonic speed is possible, surely superluminal is as well. Theorize about what the trick is.

>> No.3173210

Maybe we just need to troll hard enough?

>> No.3173208

>>3173189

Though you're obviously trolling, I'd like to turn this into an actual science thread via genuine inquiry.

Question /sci/:

Is there actually something that explicitly shows that something cannot travel faster than light, or is it just the lack of anything that does in nature?

I think I remember hearing/reading something that says your mass increases as your speed increases... or vice versa, but is there something saying that that is impossible to circumvent?

>> No.3173232
File: 29 KB, 282x400, picard2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173232

>>3173210
The universe is trolling us and not the other way around.

>> No.3173260

>>3173208
Not an expert but as far as I've read (wikipedia, textbooks, etc), your mass increases as your speed increases as dictated by
<span class="math">m = \fract{m_{0}}{\sqrt{1-\fract{v^{2}{c^{2}}}}}[/spoiler]

So, if v, your speed, reaches c, you're dividing by zero. If v is more than c, you're square rooting a negative.

It just can't theoretically happen (with this simple knowledge).

>> No.3173263

>>3173260
Goddamn that's meant to be rest mass multiplied by the Lorentz factor...

>> No.3173266

>>3173208
>Is there actually something that explicitly shows that something cannot travel faster than light, or is it just the lack of anything that does in nature?
Yes, there are numerous things that make it a *fundamental* limit.

It is not just inductive reasoning from "well, I've never seen anything go faster than c".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

It comes down to what invariant transformations the universe obeys. Turns out Maxwell had it right - both the Maxwell equations and the equation of motion obey a Lorentz transformation.

>> No.3173268

>>3173208
It is impossible for any object with mass to travel at the speed of light.
It is also impossible for any particle (with or without mass) to travel faster than the speed of light.
It is also impossible for light to travel faster/slower than the speed of light.
This has all been demonstrated.

>> No.3173271

>>3173268
And it's demonstrated as a necessary and fundamental consequence of the theory, which has many predictions that are all confirmed so far, and not just something we haven't seen violated yet.

>> No.3173272
File: 128 KB, 640x524, trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173272

>>3173232
We are the universe so the universe is trolling itself.

Internal contradiction much? Problem universe?

>> No.3173274

to get those one things to do that.

>> No.3173279

>>3173189
If a hamster can outrun a snail, surely a hamster can outrun a cheetah too. Theorize about what the trick is.

>> No.3173280
File: 35 KB, 640x480, 1297732318865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173280

>>3173272
>>3173272

>> No.3173285
File: 63 KB, 300x300, Smiley =D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173285

>>3173279
> take hamster on a plane
> mfw hamster is much faster than cheetah

>> No.3173303

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2758

>> No.3173310

>>3173303
It sounds like deBrogle-Bohm theory. Which does not violate the universal speed limit. If you thought that part about nonlocal interactions meant you could have object motion or information transfer faster than c, you're mistaken.

>> No.3173316

>>3173285
This poster is right. There are wiable ways to do FLT.
You just need to manipulate space, in a similar way than the hamster examples plane.

>> No.3173331

>>3173310
It is deBrogle-Bohm theory. The point is that you can have superluminal signalling in Bohmian mechanics *if* you have better knowledge of the initial conditions than the distribution predicted by the Born rule.

>> No.3173361

>>3173316
Then it's not faster than light. Any way you manipulate space to get somewhere fast, the light can still get there faster than you.

>> No.3173369

>>3173361
Bitches don't know bout my Alcubierre drive

>> No.3173373

>>3173331
>The point is that you can have superluminal signalling in Bohmian mechanics *if* you have better knowledge of the initial conditions than the distribution predicted by the Born rule.
This sounds an awful lot like being nearly omniscient.

>> No.3173379

>>3173369
He's right though. Light would get through faster than you. Manipulating space doesn't change the fact that light is faster than you on that space.

>> No.3173388

Guys quit getting trolled.

>> No.3173391

>>3173373
You don't need to be omniscient. All you need to do is find a pattern in something that ought to be random according to standard quantum mechanics.

>> No.3173399

>>3173391
And that just sounds like disproving QM.

I don't mean to imply that deBroglie-Bohm theory isn't worth investigating - it might be correct. And it WOULD mean disproving mainstream QM, even though they are very similar - right?

>> No.3173435

>>3173399
Yes, that would be disproving QM.

deBroglie-Bohm is equivalent to standard QM if the initial conditions are chosen randomly following the Born rule. If we drop that requirement, we get a distinct theory.

Our current best theories of physics say that superluminal signaling is impossible. If we eventually get around that, it will be by discovering a more accurate theory in which the restriction does not apply.

Of course, it might well be that superluminal signaling is impossible, in which case we're just plain out of luck.

>> No.3173442

>>3173361
>>3173379
>Implying that it matters
FTL is about getting to your destination before light from the starting point gets to there in regular conditions.

Also tachyons and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cerenkov_radiation

>> No.3173606
File: 5 KB, 184x144, 1292188667365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173606

>>3173268

O RLY?!?!?!

http://www.livescience.com/790-light-travels-faster-light.html

http://www.livescience.com/86-light-packets-slow-jet-speed.html

>> No.3173670

>>3173388

Getting trolled by who?

>> No.3173743

>>3173260
So the mass changes so that you literally cannot go any faster according to the laws of physics? Shit.

But seriously, as impossibru as it looks now, in a few hundred years humanity may look back on our dismissal of ftl travel as we look back on our disbelief of being able to fly.

>> No.3173756

The trick is to keep adding kinetic energy.

>> No.3173765

about tachyon

inb4 we talk

>> No.3173825

Superluminal information/travel would violate causality. If you could send yourself or information faster than light you could essentially transmit data and objects into your past. Makes no sense.

>> No.3173860

>>3173765

lol oh you

>> No.3173955

>>3173606

Neither of those shows what you think they show. No-one ever claimed light always propagates at c, only that it dos so when in a vacuum.

>> No.3173979

>>3173765

Shut up, cunt.