The Speed of light might not be the speed limit...

[wizzszz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but E = mc^2 applies to a particle at rest in a given frame of reference. For a particle moving with speed v, the formula is E = (mc^2)/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) right?

No, c² is just a scalar here - basically it's E = M
(meaning MASS is just ENERGY and can be converted in both directions)

That the scalar happens to be c² is not important, and that a mass is not in rest has no effect on how mass is converted to energy and vice versa.


And there is no real "frame of reference", that's what einsteins theory is all about: everything is relative:

Just take a look at how you want to define "speed" here - a ball could either move towards the goal - or the goal (and the planet and everything else) is moving towards the ball - it is undetermined which mass is actually moving (and has additional energy) - the only statement you can make here is "ball and goal are moving towards eachother", and they have some kinetic energy relative to eachother (that bit is important!)- but that doesn't affect their respective masses.

Of course you can pick one side to become the frame of reference, but that will have no effect on the outcome.

And hence, if we believe Einstein, and like our energies to remain finite, only massless particles can travel at c no?

According to einstein, the required energy to accelerate a given mass to c is infinite - which means no mass will be able to travel at c, let alone faster - which already renders the news in the opening post void... i'll stick to what i wrote about neutrinos and place all my bets on "measurement error".

And on a sidenote: Traveling faster than light would mean you travel back in time... there are a lot of funny effects this wil have on tachyons, if someone will ever find them...

 

[Lugzan]

...there are a lot of funny effects this wil have on tachyons, if someone will ever find them...

tachyon - thanks! =)


J.

 

[Immortal]

I think the time is right to state this:

E=mc²

does not imply mass tends to infinity as a particle approaches the speed of light, it implies the amount of energy to accelerate that particle to the speed of light tends to infinity

it also implies mass and energy are interchangeable, in the same way kilometres and miles are interchangeable. The actual mathematics behind Special relativity are ridiculously complex.

It is not new that Special relativity ("classical physics") has a hole. It is no way explains the observations of quantum mechanics. That is one of the reasons CERN et al. are such busy research hubs: piecing together the intricate mysteries of the as yet incomplete picture of our universe.

 

[GoNi]

And hence, if we believe Einstein, and like our energies to remain finite, only massless particles can travel at c no?

Thats maybe the failure.

Einstein assumed that light got no mass, therefor it could move with C (lightspeed)

but what if he is wrong, maybe light got a tiny mass

Neutrinos got very tiny mass too, but if its less than the photons mass, it should be normal that neutrinos can move faster than photons.

Anyone thought about this ???

 

[Jimmy B]

No, c² is just a scalar here - basically it's E = M
(meaning MASS is just ENERGY and can be converted in both directions)

That the scalar happens to be c² is not important, and that a mass is not in rest has no effect on how mass is converted to energy and vice versa.

And there is no real "frame of reference", that's what einsteins theory is all about: everything is relative:

Just take a look at how you want to define "speed" here - a ball could either move towards the goal - or the goal (and the planet and everything else) is moving towards the ball - it is undetermined which mass is actually moving (and has additional energy) - the only statement you can make here is "ball and goal are moving towards eachother", and they have some kinetic energy relative to eachother (that bit is important!)- but that doesn't affect their respective masses.

Of course you can pick one side to become the frame of reference, but that will have no effect on the outcome.

Sorry but what does any of this babble have to do with my post?

c is a scalar, obviously. I never said otherwise.
What do you mean by there is no real "frame of reference"? Pick whatever frame of reference you like, my formula still holds according to the theory.

According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by γmc2, where γ is the Lorentz factor defined above. When v is zero, γ is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E = mc2 formula for mass-energy equivalence. Since the γ factor approaches infinity as v approaches c, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass.

----------------------

And, whilst we are at it, some more gems you've come up with in this thread:

And in general, "faster than light" is nothing new, i.e. see the following:

Cherenkov radiation (matter moving faster than light travels through water, C[water] is 75% of C[vacuum]...)

Completely irrelevant. A mass moving faster than the speed of light through vacuum, would, if confirmed, be huge news. A mass moving faster than light in water is interesting but it breaks nothing in our understanding of physics and has no relevance here.

And last but not least tachyons - their existance still needs to be proven though, but they are nowhere near "new".

The neutrinos in this experiment, if they are indeed found to have exceeded the speed of light (and there are explanations in which the experiment holds correct without c being exceeded, as has been discussed already) would be the first ever discovered tachyon particles. I think that does actually qualify as "new".

Quantum entanglement where two entangled subatomic particles change certain properties at the same time, no matter the distance, hinting they are connected in a way that makes them at least exchange information faster than light (instantly).

Interesting for sure, although it is not mass moving at lightspeed. And apparently it is impossible to use this to send information faster than light (since we can't control which state the particle will take when observed). Some interesting reading here that suggests this could be representing a flaw in our understanding of quantum mechanics rather than a violation of information travelling faster than light.

Tunnel effect, where particle "tunnel" through mass and leave the mass even before they enter it: speed>C

I don't claim to know anything about it, but I can't find anything that substantiates this. There is the Hartman effect which suggests the tunnelling time for large barriers tends to a constant, leading to a potential violation of relativity. However, as the wiki article explains, no information can be passed faster than light in this manner, so again there is no violation of relativity.

 

[wizzszz]

Thats maybe the failure.

Einstein assumed that light got no mass, therefor it could move with C (lightspeed)

Light (gamma particles) have no mass, but they have a pseudo-mass due to their momentum - thats why light is "bent" around big masses (see gravitational lens for more info) and can "push things" (see solar sail for more info) - but that they have no mass is definitely not an assumption.

but what if he is wrong, maybe light got a tiny mass

Neutrinos got very tiny mass too, but if its less than the photons mass, it should be normal that neutrinos can move faster than photons.

Anyone thought about this ???

Neutrinos have, in todays standard physics model, a mass of zero, but there is ongoing research about this, so there is no definite answer to this question - some theories predict a mass > zero for neutrinos though, but if so, it is very, very small - however, its mass is definitely not smaller than the "mass" of light...

 

[redshoot]

Intresting
I will be staying tuned to this thread.

 

[wizzszz]

Sorry but what does any of this babble have to do with my post?

Pardon me? I think you adopt the wrong tone here..

Completely irrelevant. A mass moving faster than the speed of light through vacuum, would, if confirmed, be huge news. A mass moving faster than light in water is interesting but it breaks nothing in our understanding of physics and has no relevance here.

I didn't claim that it is relevant, i just listed it to show that "faster than light" is not worth the hype the press usually makes of it - most of the guys writing those articles didn't even have physics at school it seems.

The neutrinos in this experiment, if they are indeed found to have exceeded the speed of light (and there are explanations in which the experiment holds correct without c being exceeded, as has been discussed already) would be the first ever discovered tachyon particles. I think that does actually qualify as "new".

"If..." - this is not going to happen.

I haven't found any "explanations in which the experiment holds correct without c being exceeded" yet, but tbh i didn't even read the hyped media articles - for a simple reason, every year they claim to have "breaking news" and 2 month later you never hear about it again... happens all the time.

Interesting for sure, although it is not mass moving at lightspeed. And apparently it is impossible to use this to send information faster than light (since we can't control which state the particle will take when observed). Some interesting reading here that suggests this could be representing a flaw in our understanding of quantum mechanics rather than a violation of information travelling faster than light.

I have given examples where information does indeed travel faster than light, so what's your point here?

It aint "apparently impossible", not sure where you took that from...

I don't claim to know anything about it, but I can't find anything that substantiates this. There is the Hartman effect which suggests the tunnelling time for large barriers tends to a constant, leading to a potential violation of relativity. However, as the wiki article explains, no information can be passed faster than light in this manner, so again there is no violation of relativity.

... and information traveling faster than light does not violate anything, as information is not even a physical value.

And especially tunneling does not need to violate anything, there is a simple explanation (i will provide when needed), but i will not discuss that in the current tone, sry.


But seriously, the tone you adopt here, completely unprovoked, where you call my post "babble" and it's content "gems" (but you fail to provide any proof whatsoever that i posted something incorrect) is not the way to discuss a scientific matter amongst scientists.


And to bring this to an end:
You try to mix classic physic laws into E=MC²... 2 completely different things. Very small, very huge and very fast stuff doesn't behave like an apple, you know - and what bugs me most about your post is that i though you'd be someone who perfectly knows this.



/Edit:
And i find it especially amusing that you come up with the Lorentz factor, proving my initial point:
E=M*C*C does not account for v

 

[Ace Flyster]

I am more than happy to stand corrected

Rgds

Ace

 

[CrestIV]

I think it is a publicity stunt to get some press, researchers can be quite vain, they know they have a systematic error but just wanted some press anyway.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/neutrinos-travel-faster-than-lig.html?ref=hp

Chang Kee Jung, a neutrino physicist at Stony Brook University in New York, says he’d wager that the result is the product of a systematic error. “I wouldn’t bet my wife and kids because they’d get mad,” he says. “But I’d bet my house.”

Jung, who is spokesperson for a similar experiment in Japan called T2K, says the tricky part is accurately measuring the time between when the neutrinos are born by slamming a burst of protons into a solid target and when they actually reach the detector. That timing relies on the global positioning system, and the GPS measurements can have uncertainties of tens of nanoseconds. “I would be very interested in how they got a 10-nanosecond uncertainty, because from the systematics of GPS and the electronics, I think that’s a very hard number to get.”

 

[Stave]

If he is so certian that theres an error why doesnt he show where the error is?

After all, the whole point of them announcing it was to get independant scientists checking their work wasnt it?

To get the job done, the OPERA Collaboration joined forces with CERN metrology experts and other facilities to establish absolute calibrations. There cannot be any error margin in parameters between the source and detector distances – and the neutrino’s flight time. In this circumstance, the measurements of the initial source of the neutrino beam and OPERA has an uncertainty value of 20 cm over the 730 km. The neutrino flight time has an accuracy of less than 10 nanoseconds, and was confirmed through the use of highly regarded GPS equipment and an atomic clock. Every care was given to ensure precision.

 

[Menace]

Holy CRAP! 8 pages in a day and it has NOTHING to do with an EU exploit or whine?!?!?! Damn this game is FULL of geeks!

Very cool thread though... +REP!

Menace

 

[Ed Ward]

E=mc^2 sumarize all what happens at low speed and high speed for those understanding what this all about.

I won't develop more here as i decided to not speak anymore to people in need of press lights and not even a mid player (150 hp) lol

(not scientists that are in need of media recognitions, rather some trollers)


Anyway, going further, noone has proven it is impossible to get a negative mass under some conditions. what's behind black holes, etc? As long as truth is not established, all viable theories are to be considered.

Real scientists (not pseudo scientists like some trollers hehe) are learning that along their life: not believe what they been told when they were at school learning physics

 

[JohnCapital]

And on a sidenote: Traveling faster than light would mean you travel back in time... there are a lot of funny effects this wil have on tachyons, if someone will ever find them...

Load of sock crap. No speed increase at all can let you travel back in time.

At best, you get a second chance to view something, although only from a farther distance. Interaction w/ that which has already occurred is impossible.

 

[Jimmy B]

Pardon me? I think you adopt the wrong tone here..

I'm glad you picked up on that, I agree. There is no need for that kind of tone in a discussion about matters of science. And yet:

FFS Ace

You should have, but you didn't - instead you displayed that you did not understand einsteins most simple formula...

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

Now would you please admit that not my post was wrong but yours? Tyvm.

----------------------

I didn't claim that it is relevant, i just listed it to show that "faster than light" is not worth the hype the press usually makes of it - most of the guys writing those articles didn't even have physics at school it seems.

Perhaps. But hype can have a good side too, it can get people interested in science. Even if this whole neutrino thing turns out to be nothing, it has got people taking an interest in and discussing physics, and that in my opinion is a good thing.

"If..." - this is not going to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. By what means did you reach this conclusion? Or are you just going on blind faith?

I haven't found any "explanations in which the experiment holds correct without c being exceeded" yet

My first post in this thread has a link to one possible such explanation.

I have given examples where information does indeed travel faster than light, so what's your point here?

My point is that you didn't. Apart from the irrelevant one where you actually mean 'light' rather than 'the speed of light in vacuum'. I feel I gave a decent explanation of my points in my previous post, and provided links for further information, and you haven't responded to those points so I don't feel any need to respond further.

But seriously, the tone you adopt here, completely unprovoked, where you call my post "babble" and it's content "gems" (but you fail to provide any proof whatsoever that i posted something incorrect) is not the way to discuss a scientific matter amongst scientists.

Yes, and my reason for the tone was you had dived in with that exact tone in your responses to earlier posts to other people. You appear to take great offence at the suggestion you may be wrong. That has no place in science. If someone suggests you're wrong incorrectly, you can just explain why they in fact are wrong.

I also remember another thread recently on a maths topic where the thread starter used an interesting approximation approach to solve a simple problem. Whilst she made a few flawed arguments, your aggressive tone in response effectively closed down what was prior to that an interesting thread.

Btw, I did in fact give explanations and links to go with my arguments.

You try to mix classic physic laws into E=MC²... 2 completely different things. Very small, very huge and very fast stuff doesn't behave like an apple, you know - and what bugs me most about your post is that i though you'd be someone who perfectly knows this.

And i find it especially amusing that you come up with the Lorentz factor, proving my initial point:
E=M*C*C does not account for v

If I have made a mistake please do point out where. But I have not knowingly mixed up Newtonian laws with relativistic laws. Very small, very huge and very fast stuff certainly doesn't behave like an apple, please tell me where I have suggested otherwise.

Light (gamma particles) have no mass, but they have a pseudo-mass due to their momentum - thats why light is "bent" around big masses (see gravitational lens for more info) and can "push things" (see solar sail for more info) - but that they have no mass is definitely not an assumption.

The wiki page on photons seems somewhat less certain of that.

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[19] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside superconductors.

---
{removed}

 

[Ace Flyster]

This was a fun thread untill wizz showed up!

Reminds me of Sheldon in the Big Bang theory (taking the fun out of things...i mean)

Rgds

Ace

 

[Ed Ward]

{removed}

More on topic, if measurements are corrects, what you think research direction will be next?

- describe how are things after light speed? (negative mass, negative flow of time, mostly taking place in black holes, that would explain why we don't see them, if the flow of time is reversed, there is actually no future to look at inside black holes, etc)
- shortcuts via multi dimention (5th, more)

What other theories would you think about?

 

[wizzszz]

Load of sock crap. No speed increase at all can let you travel back in time.

At best, you get a second chance to view something, although only from a farther distance. Interaction w/ that which has already occurred is impossible.

Well, it is a side-effect of einsteins theory - that times passes with different speed in different levels of gravity has been proven already, if you take this to the extreme you inevitably arrive at the possibility of things travelling back in time...

Based on the "If something travels faster than light", which you wholeheartedly agreed with in the post before this, you'll have to accept the consequences... still convinced the speed of light is no ultimate barrier?

I'm glad you picked up on that, I agree. There is no need for that kind of tone in a discussion about matters of science. And yet:

Well, just claiming "You are wrong" without any proof or any evidence, just regurgitating the wrong stuff that has been posted before is not exactly the main entry point to a scientific discussion now, is it?

Perhaps. But hype can have a good side too, it can get people interested in science. Even if this whole neutrino thing turns out to be nothing, it has got people taking an interest in and discussing physics, and that in my opinion is a good thing.

Agreed.

Maybe, maybe not. By what means did you reach this conclusion? Or are you just going on blind faith?

Simple deduction:
Reaching C would already require infinite energy, which is impossible.
Reaching speed beyond C requires even more...

My first post in this thread has a link to one possible such explanation.

Not the first post addessing me - did you post earlier in this thread? I havent read all...

My point is that you didn't. Apart from the irrelevant one where you actually mean 'light' rather than 'the speed of light in vacuum'. I feel I gave a decent explanation of my points in my previous post, and provided links for further information, and you haven't responded to those points so I don't feel any need to respond further.

I gave two examples of information travelling faster than light, the tunnel effect and quantum entanglement.
Both are subject to further studies, but pretty much everything we are talking about here are mere theories (more or less credible) - not sure what you aim at here.

Yes, and my reason for the tone that was you had dived in with that exact tone in your responses to earlier posts to other people. You appear to take great offence at the suggestion you may be wrong. That has no place in science. If someone suggests you're wrong incorrectly, you can just explain why they in fact are wrong.

I have no problem with someone hinting that i may wrong, as long as this is followed by something substantial - a pure "you're wrong" without further reasoning is nothing but bullying - and yes, such bullying posts do piss me off, because they leave the factual level far behind and serves no real purpose other than to disguise the facts.

I also remember another thread recently on a maths topic where the thread starter used an interesting approximation approach to solve a simple problem. Whilst she made a few flawed arguments, your aggressive tone in response effectively closed down what was prior to that an interesting thread.

Oh you missed the funny part then? This thread was closed on the OPs request - right after the OP admitted that he just C&P'ed this "splendid unusual approach" and that i was spot on from my first post: That someone is just trying to look smart who has no real clue of anything, let alone the current topic (just look at Ed Wards posts - that's exactly the same)

So, it was not me who caused the thread to be closed - the OP wimped out after i cornered him and request it to be closed.

If I have made a mistake please do point out where. But I have not knowingly mixed up Newtonian laws with relativistic laws. Very small, very huge and very fast stuff certainly doesn't behave like an apple, please tell me where I have suggested otherwise.

You did no mistake - the formula you posted does take the speed of the mass into account, the plain "e=mc²" does not - which was my initial point, and you helped proving it. Why i had to expand on why i posted some examples to point out that "faster than light" is not-so-exciting and is merely abused as a buzzword in the press, well, no idea, i think you know that very well.

 

[Ed Ward]

no comment and lol at post right up ^^

 

[Jimmy B]

More on topic, is measurements are corrects, what you think research direction will be next?

- describe how are things after light speed? (negative mass, negative flow of time, mostly taking place in black holes, that would explain why we don't see them, if the flow of time is reversed, there is actually no future to look at inside black holes, etc)
- shortcuts via multi dimention (5th, more)

What other theories would you think about?

My guess is that there is a pretty good chance people will find holes in the experiment and the results not get replicated. But it'd be pretty exciting if they're confirmed.

In that case my guess would either be the nice topological explanation with extra spatial dimensions, or some tweaking to relativity as v approaches c. But probably the final explanation would be more weird and interesting than anything we come up with now!

 

[ghita]

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

 

[Ed Ward]

I think the same, v and c relations may well change approaching c...

Just a reminder, most that is written/thought about E=mc^2 concerns atoms, electrons, etc. It does not account facts like the length of a mass decreasing in the dimension of travel for example, which would imply if the speed of light can be broke, that a length would become negative, depending on theories that would apply.
Bringing electrons to the speed of light, or other particules, that we know. What we don't know is how dense matter reacts at those speeds, it's only extrapolations how a macro system would interact, based on micro analysis, as long as am right.
(Hubble not seen a bus at light speed 13 billion years ago)

 

[Jimmy B]

Reaching C would already require infinite energy, which is impossible.
Reaching speed beyond C requires even more...

Well, only as we currently understand things. It could be that there is something wrong with relativity, or that there is an explanation of the results which does not violate relativity.

but pretty much everything we are talking about here are mere theories (more or less credible)

Indeed, and that should be made clear.

You did no mistake - the formula you posted does take the speed of the mass into account, the plain "e=mc²" does not - which was my initial point, and you helped proving it.

OK. I see. I would tend to think it's OK to use relativistic mass (by which I mean rest mass * Lorentz factor) in the E=mc² equation. And whilst rest mass is a fixed quantity for the particle, this relativistic mass would indeed approach infinity as speed approached c. And then there is not much wrong with Ace's argument except that he should have stated he meant m to be the relativistic mass rather than the rest mass. Although, yes, accelerating to c requiring infinite energy is a better way to think about it than worrying about infinite relativistic mass.

How do you get ² by the way? Is there an Alt code for it?

 

[Ace Flyster]

{removed}

Wasnt it Asimov or someone that came up with geostationary orbits before we sent satellites up?

Rgds

Ace

 

[Jimmy B]

Wasnt it Asimov or someone that came up with geostationary orbits before we sent satellites up?

Rgds

Ace

His rival/friend Arthur C Clarke

 

[AlphaGeek]

His rival/friend Arthur C Clarke

Which is why the geosynchronous orbit "sweet spot" is sometimes referred to as "The Clarke Belt".

 

[Talania]

Depends on when the scientists did the coordinates reading but if they didn't redo the reading the moment the test was done it is possible tectonic plates of the earth moved enough to throw the test off a tiny bit.

 

[JohnCapital]

Well, it is a side-effect of einsteins theory - that times passes with different speed in different levels of gravity has been proven already, if you take this to the extreme you inevitably arrive at the possibility of things travelling back in time...

Based on the "If something travels faster than light", which you wholeheartedly agreed with in the post before this, you'll have to accept the consequences... still convinced the speed of light is no ultimate barrier?

No, it's a theoretical side-effect of a flawed theory. There's a big difference. The gravity issue is a non-sequitur, or at most, just another part of the flaw. And no I stand by what I said, thanks.


**Personal plug: I wrote an article about time-travel years ago. In case you're bored enough to read it a copy of it is here. Feel free to prove any of it wrong.

--mod hat on--
Those involved in personal disputes here need to leave each other alone on this forum.

Thank you for your cooperation
--/mod hat off--

 

[Ed Ward]

take actions then, Wizz always send neg rep and flawed opinions. Moreover, he never listens what mods says to him and wrote textually he doesn't want to abide forum rules, but you deleted those posts am talking about.

 

[Ed Ward]

Oh you missed the funny part then? This thread was closed on the OPs request - right after the OP admitted that he just C&P'ed this "splendid unusual approach" and that i was spot on from my first post: That someone is just trying to look smart who has no real clue of anything, let alone the current topic (just look at Ed Wards posts - that's exactly the same)

2.3 - Personal Disputes
Personal issues between individuals or societies should NOT be debated in the public forum areas and are not permitted. Such threads will be removed without notice, since they often promote an escalation of rudeness, insults, and flaming. If you feel that another member has attacked you unfairly, send a private message to a forum moderator or administrator. If you feel that an Entropia Universe participant has wronged, defrauded or harassed you, file a support case at PlanetCalypso.com

Post not edited/deleted