[ 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: 35 KB, 445x321, Speed-Racer-cn03[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3425386 No.3425386 [Reply] [Original]

I've heard it's a natural law that we can't move faster than light.

Is this true, and if so how do we know it?

>> No.3425392
File: 15 KB, 477x256, nypg2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3425392

>>3425386
general relativity

>> No.3425395

>>3425392
Do I really have to understand that entire concept to grasp this one idea?

>> No.3425398

FTL through space thatis

>> No.3425400

>>3425398
Right. I should have said that instead.

>> No.3425413

Because the speed of light emerges from Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. If the magnetic and electric permeability and permitivity of free space are always the same, no matter what your frame of reference is, that is no matter how fast you're moving, then the speed of light most always be the same no matter how fast you're moving. And if this is true, then from the math that follows it, the only available speeds are speeds slower than light.

>> No.3425428

>>3425386
Well, if you are a particle, you could.

>> No.3425431

>>3425413
So, theoretically, if something were accelerating and approaching the speed of light, it would have to stop accelerating before it reached it?

>> No.3425447

I need to make an inforpic for this.
Some smart people took Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism and did some messing around. The found that light (an electromagnetic wave thing) had a specific speed associated with it (namely the inverse of the square root of the product of the permeability of free space and the permittivity of free space). They wondered, "Hey, what does this speed mean? A speed can't mean something with no context, right? The apparent speed of things changes with your perspective, so what perspective is this speed tied to?"
Well, after inventing the luminiferous aether, then doing some experiments and finding out that that was dumb, they discovered that they were wrong and the speed is contextless. Every frame of reference measures a photon traveling the same speed regardless of anything.
Then there was some geometry and Alice and Bob (and sometimes Carl) showed up, and new laws of motion were derived.

>> No.3425454

In Newtonian physics, speed is a number that ranges from 0 to infinity.

In Einsteinian physics, speed is a number between 0.00 and 1.00. It doesn't go any higher. This speed is more comparable to a property of matter then it is an arbitrary number.

Imagine that you have a piece of stretchable rubber. Speed is measured in how far the piece of rubber has been stretched.

Any method of supposed FTL travel basically boils down to clever means of making the rubber do something else, like pulling it and then letting it go and flying across the room.

>> No.3425472

>>3425447
>>3425454
Fine, but how do we know that nothing can go faster? By what logic do we come to this conclusion?

>> No.3425534

>>3425472

If you didn't understand my post, then I have to apologize because I can't explain it any better.

I must suggest that you read up on physics, maybe then it'll make sense.

I know it took me years to understand.

>> No.3425541

No, its false.

Einstein said so because of some bullshit "thought experiment" that he did.

There is no limit for speed.

>> No.3425564

>>3425541

The nobel prize is yours. May I see our new theory though ?

>> No.3425583

>>3425564

It's called Newtonian Physics. The one that put the first man on the moon.

>> No.3425587

>>3425564
we can increase or speed by devising ever smaller units for measuring speed.

Also if a photon is traveling in one direction and a mass travels in the other we can measure that photons speed as -C and therefore the mass is traveling faster than light. i'll take my award in the form of a cashiers check. KTHX

>> No.3425603

>>3425583
But Einstein improved on Newton's physics so Einstein is correct, newton is wrong.

>> No.3425613

>>3425603

Except he didn't. He just stole the Ether theory and called it his own. The original theory was flawed anyway.

>> No.3425621

>>3425472
Actually the speed of light only applies to particles and matter, which means some things (like a radio signal) can go faster than it.

Also another reason you can use for why the speed of light is the way it is now is because the vacuum of space is so think and strong that even light is restricted by it to a degree. So if you managed to find a way to separate an area of space from it's vacuum, you can hypothetically even send light at FTL speeds. But I'm just gabbing off at this point.

>> No.3425623

>>3425541
No, there isn't a limit on speed. But you can give it a measurement.

>> No.3425624
File: 32 KB, 310x322, 1303046148980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3425624

>>3425603
>assume theorie is correct forever
>science
contradiction.pdf

>> No.3425632

>>3425613
>>3425603
It's neither, Einstein just pointed out a few holes in Newton's works (like how gravity is a pushing force and not a pulling force) in relativity and included the corrections.

>> No.3425640

>>3425632
>Gravity is a pushing force

Oh god. Please get out.

>> No.3425636

>>3425621

fullretard.jpg

Einstein's theory explicitly states that no matter, energy or information can travel faster than the speed of light.

That includes radio waves, which are energy.

It's also wrong.

>> No.3425645

>>3425636
>http://www.universetoday.com/33752/device-makes-radio-waves-travel-faster-than-light/

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

>> No.3425649

Geez people, theories are not right or wrong. Einstein is not wrong, Newton is not wrong, Aristotle is not wrong, that doesn't mean anything from a scientific point of view. There are only efficient or inefficient theories. Einstein is efficient at some extent, Newton is efficient at smaller scales, Aristotle is very inefficient, but not wrong.

>> No.3425679

>>3425649

Wrong. You are wrong.

Aristotle was wrong. Einstein was wrong. Newton was right.

Learn to discern between truth and falsity and you might get somewhere in life.

>> No.3425682

>>3425640
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

>> No.3425690

ITT: Trolls or stupid motherfuckers.

I'll just say this to ya'll though, enjoy your death knowing that humanity will at best reach Pluto for god knows why, as other systems are unreachable.

>> No.3425698
File: 24 KB, 410x353, tolololo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3425698

>>3425690
trolololololololo torlolololo

>> No.3425771

>>3425682

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Gravitational_shielding

>> No.3425974

If light gets faster as you go faster, how can you ever reach its speed anyway? Wouldn't that just mean that there's always room for acceleration? (Read as no limit?)

>> No.3425979

>>3425974

As speed is always relative, there is no absolute limit on speed.

Einstein's ether theory is wrong.

>> No.3425996

>>3425698
I don't think you'll ever get to see warp travel become a reality in your lifetime.

>> No.3426015

Lorentz Contraction formula

/thread

>> No.3426016

>>3425996
it's not about my lifetime
thinking we'll NEVER do something is outrageously arrogant.

Yes we know laws of physics
yes we know you can't just fuck those laws and try to break them
what we don't know is there may be a way to workaround them. Maybe it's a totally silly thing that was right here under our noses.

>> No.3426043

You cannot accelerate an object to above the speed of light for one simple reason.

As an object with mass accelerates it increases in mass exponentially

As you get closer to the speed of light the amount of energy required to accelerate even 1 gram of matter one meter per second faster approaches the total amount of energy in the universe.

Basically there isn't enough energy in existence to brute force accelerate an object to light speed

>> No.3426047

Special relativity, like religion, is one of the easiest thing to troll /sci/ with, since there are mostly highschoolers here who don't understand it, thus talking bullshit and enraging those who get it. With trolls then jumping in additionally, it gets a mess.

>> No.3426052

>>3425690
>>3425996

Orion Rocketships can reach Proxima Centauri within 50 years.

Next you're going to say that it's politically impossible for such spaceships to ever be built.

>> No.3426056

>>3426043
>As an object with mass accelerates it increases in mass exponentially

Wrong.

>> No.3426076

>>3425690
>>3425996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Interstellar_missions

>Later studies indicate that the top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c).[2] An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%-5% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light.

At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s2)

>> No.3426077

>>3426056
>Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is found in practice that these particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the “rest mass”.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/mass_increase.html

>> No.3426083

>>3426077
He is probably referring to the "exponentially", i.e. he's nitpicking.


That, OR he is trolling.

>> No.3426090

>>3426083
God forbid he's just wrong

>> No.3426089

=) I actually quite like the ether idea, I've probably messed it around quite a bit though...

Ether always appears to be moving with whatever is being observed... Is this really the problem, or a solution?
Could just a portion of space move? Eg for every possible speed and direction of an object some ether is also moving in that direction?
Essentially the Frame's argument with something physical in place of a Frame?

...Also ether particle // aka Higgs Boson (?) I'd imagine is the humble photon.... =)

...which is probably why they will never find the higg's boson.... its already found ;)

>> No.3426096

>>3426090
God forbids someone elaborates instead of posting nothing but "Wrong."

>> No.3426102

>>3425386
The spped of light isn't per se the maximum velocity allowed.
IT's the other way around : light is massless so it can reach the highest speed allowed by our universe.

>> No.3426103

>>3426077
>>3426083
>>3426090

Wow, it's harder to accelerate a particle to a higher speed than a lower one.

Big fucking surprise.

What these people don't realise is that their electric fields are also moving faster relative to the particles, so naturally stronger electric fields are required for the same acceleration.

>> No.3426109

>>3426102

>highest speed allowed by our universe
>allowed by our universe

"Our universe" is not God by any chance, is it?

>> No.3426115

>>3426109
Seems like you need more precise wording.
Allowed by the laws of nature.

>> No.3426123

>>3426115

I was not aware that nature imposed an arbitrary speed limit.

>> No.3426128

>>3426103
M = m/(1 - v^2 / c^2 )^1/2

If you dont understand this equation Ill explain it too you.

IF your velocity is equal to the speed of light, your mass is infinity.

>>3426123
You are now

>> No.3426136

>>3426123
That's not arbitrary at all.
THat's empircal evidence. Doesn't mean we're 100% right,. it just means we can't know better for now and assuming something can go faster is only wishful thinking, not Science.

>> No.3426143

We know light speed is constant cause it always travels at the same speed. They only way this is possible is time dilation. Time dilation means you cant actually travel faster than the speed of light

>> No.3426141

>>3426123
You weren't aware nature was made of constants, constraints and limitations?

Poor thing.

>> No.3426153
File: 39 KB, 469x428, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3426153

>>3426143
>We know light speed is constant cause it always travels at the same speed.
What about when it's traveling through a medium like air?

>> No.3426166

>>3426153
>constant in a vaccum

>> No.3426167
File: 259 KB, 463x462, mybodyisready.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3426167

>>3426166
Thats right you bitch correct yourself like a naughty slut

>> No.3426179

...Could also explain universe expanding faster?
Eg might have been rather bright lately, > Extra photon pressure > all of space expands to accomodate new space (photons)...

>> No.3426189

Y'ALL'S DUMB.

>> No.3426190

>>3426153
yeah i ommitted a bunch of crap just incase OP really is retarded

>> No.3426214

>>3426128
>M = m/(1 - v^2 / c^2 )^1/2
And where is the physical proof that this equation is accurate?
>>3426136
>empircal evidence.
Where is the evidence?
>Doesn't mean we're 100% right,. it just means we can't know better for now and assuming something can go faster is only wishful thinking, not Science.
Wishful thinking is accepting the claim that nature imposes an arbitrary speed limit without any evidence to back it up.
>>3426141
>You weren't aware nature was made of constants, constraints and limitations?
Prove that speed is one of these limitations.
>>3426143
>We know light speed is constant cause it always travels at the same speed.
Wrong.
>Time dilation means you cant actually travel faster than the speed of light
Time dilation is false.

>> No.3426260

>>3426214
Not its isn't.
Time is not what you think it is. Time isn't something you can't touch or feel or see. At close to c, everything starts slowing down, your electron spins, chemical exchange, electrical etc.
So, tehcnically, it's not TIME, it's space and matter that goes slower.. hence "time" (the notion, the concept, the abstract) is affected.

Just like entropy isn't a thing, entropy is the lazck of something. Time is a ratio.

>> No.3426269

>>3426214
You don't understand physics.
Yoiur concepts are obviously flawed, you're confused. Read more about relativity, about mass, light, time ...

>> No.3426276

>>3426260
>Not its isn't.
Nice grammar
>Time is not what you think it is.
Interesting.
>Time isn't something you can't touch or feel or see.
A double negative that is also wrong.
>At close to c, everything starts slowing down, your electron spins, chemical exchange, electrical etc.
And where is the proof for this?
>So, tehcnically, it's not TIME, it's space and matter that goes slower.. hence "time" (the notion, the concept, the abstract) is affected.
You're making less sense as you go along.
>Just like entropy isn't a thing, entropy is the lazck of something.
Lack of order? Order isn't a thing either.
>Time is a ratio.
Amazing logic. Care to explain?

>> No.3426282

>>3426276
GPS satellites orbiting earth have to adjust a micro delay several times a week in order to keep synchroneous. Time is slowed down for its internal clock.
I know, it was a shock for me too to realize we had concrete examples of the seemingly absurd theory.
Just deal with it.

>> No.3426318

Light is a form of electromagnetic wave, as are radio waves, microwaves,x-rays, gamma rays, etc. A wave is pretty much an alternating field. In addition to this, all matter is made up of particles, which themselves might as well just be electrical fields for many purposes. So nothing can move faster than fields.

>> No.3426430

>>3425679
>>3425679
retard, go kill yourself

>> No.3426435

>>3426056
Shut the fuck up, and get the fuck out. This is true. It has been proven on particle accelerators. Again, shut the fuck up.

>> No.3426466

>>3426430
Ran out of arguments? Just as I expected.
>>3426435
Wrong. More energy needed to accelerate a particle does NOT mean that the particle has gained mass.

>> No.3426676

>>3426466
Mass doesn't exist either. Mass is delay.

>> No.3426693

trolled i guess?

arent these things theories? lol

>> No.3426741

try this one:

No matter how fast you are going, light will still seem to go the same speed. Therefore, if you were to go the speed of light, actual light, would go 2x the speed of light

I AM only in 9th grade so I could be wrong.

>> No.3426773

>>3425395

Yep.

>> No.3426778

>>3426466
>More energy needed to accelerate a particle does NOT mean that the particle has gained mass.

That's actually exactly what it means. If it hadn't gained mass it would not require additional energy to maintain the same acceleration.

>> No.3426783

>>3426741

The light doesn't go any faster. Your perception of time dilates so you always perceive it as going at the same speed.

>> No.3426789

Light being the universal speed limit is a result of some very simple principles, which turn out to make correct predictions.

Basically, the Maxwell equations are right, Newton only had an approximation, and the laws of physics obey a Lorentz transformation instead of a Galilean one.

We were forced into this by nonsensical results and contradictions from trying to apply older theories to results from the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein had a key insight, did the may to see what it implied, and experiment has shown him to be right. The theory has advanced since then, and relativity is still our best theory for understanding time and space.

>> No.3426803

>>3426778
The confusion is between rest mass, which is well-defined, and relativistic mass, which often is not, especially in GR. The wikipedia articles go into some depth about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity

>> No.3426820

>>3426778
I respect you.

>> No.3426821

>>3425386

I watched the Steven Hawking documentary on time travel. He says that when you approach the speed of light, time slows down and this prevents you from going any faster.

He used a train as an example, going near the speed of light. If a passenger gets out of their seat and runs to the front of the train, time will slow down and prevent the passenger from going faster than light.

>> No.3426824

BASICALLY..

no matter how fast YOU are travelling, the photons reflecting off you wil always travel at c (a variable that represents the speed of light)

so this means you can't reach c, as light will always be travelling faster than you. so you can't reach it.

>> No.3426838

>>3426821

For anyone interested in watching the time travel episode.

http://www.letmewatchthis.ch/watch-555921-Into-the-Universe-with-Stephen-Hawking

>> No.3427070

>>3426824
Nope.