I never could get my brain around why there is a ‘limit’ to the speed of light, so:-
Air-brake analogy:-
One way of designing an air-brake system is to pump air into a container and control the brakes using this stored pressure. You would then have the complications of deciding a limit for the maximum pressure in the container, and safety mechanisms to prevent it exploding.
However, you could reverse the concept and rely on ‘natural’ (atmospheric) pressure to do the work. This way you pump air out of the container, so no longer have to worry about arbitrary pressure limits and safety mechanisms. As long as the container can withstand atmospheric pressure it cannot implode as the ‘limiting’ pressure is now zero.
Proposal:-
The ‘natural state of everything’ is massless and ‘moving at the speed of light’, and your only action allowed on an object is to control the amount of braking (nothing to do with air-brakes any more ).
To slow an object down (creating mass as a side-effect), you apply more braking until it reaches its ‘lower limit’ of being ‘at rest’ (however you define this). Further braking has no effect.
To speed an object up, you apply less braking until it reaches its natural limit of ‘c’. The ‘upper limit’ no longer exists as you cannot apply less braking than zero.
As with all these grand schemes, I’ll leave all the details for someone else to sort out
Phil.
We tend to assume that we are in the ‘natural’ state, i.e. objects with mass, objects moving at speeds less than the speed of light (‘c’). This is understandable as we only experience things from our own perspective, and is similar to our view of how the solar system worked centuries ago, where it was assumed that we (the earth) was the centre of everything. Scientists had to come up with more & more elaborate ‘tricks’ (cosmic spheres, gears, wheels etc.) to explain the weird ‘apparent’ motion of the stars & planets. It was only when someone asked what if the earth went round the sun instead of vice versa, and everything became simpler to understand again.
Here we find there are problems moving objects up to ‘c’, and again having to concoct elaborate ‘tricks’ to explain our observations, such as mass increase, time dilation, length contractions etc. all of which I find difficult to follow.
I’m not concerned with whether or not these explanations are right or wrong as I don’t think there is an ‘absolute truth’. In my opinion, all theories are really explanations which describe the observation in a consistent way so that you can make further predictions and use them as a basis for new theories. There may be several explanations of an observation, but not all are easy to get your brain around, especially if they are very complex or go against ‘common sense’ (e.g. quantum theory). Mathematics usually comes to the rescue as it allows ‘weird’ concepts to be reasoned about and developed, and this is all fine and dandy, but it allows them to drift further away from our grasp (or mine at least ) and the only way of explaining them is via mathematics to other mathematicians!
So back to the original premise: assume the natural state of everything is energy moving at the speed of light, and we and all the things around us are the anomalies (by having mass and moving slowly). If we can come up with a simple explanation of how applying a force to an object in a particular direction is really the same as releasing the brake in the opposite direction, then the 'max. speed limit' is one less thing to worry about (I never really understood what a 'force' was anyway so don't mind having the concept turned upside-down ).
My understanding is that The speed of light - is a theoretical limit.
It is hypothesis based on E=mc2 - that is - we know of nothing faster than the kenetic speed of light visavi Einstiens Theory.
However - interesting things have been observed in recent years regarding claims of teleporting atomic particals short distances instantaneously.
That is - however - moving the goal posts with regard to kenetic speed.
Power - I suppose is the key, and its effects.
We have already broken the Sound Barrier - by several 'Warp' factors.
So we may in the future see Einstiens Equation bracketed by some new variables.
Peace
Ausser.
Will we march only to the music of time...?
Or will we march to the soul-saving music of eternity?
MLK Junior - Strength to Love 1963.
I agree ausser, and there are some fascinating developments in this area.
However, I still find them all too hard to get my head around, so they are of no real use to me trying to get a handle on how things work
So I was trying to avoid all this 'limit' business, theoretical or otherwise, by trying to get us to change how we view speed & forces.
As long as we assume we (and other slow objects) are the norm, we will always have a limit issue when we talk about going faster than light.
My suggestion was to replace all concepts like 'speeding up' with concepts like 'not slowing down' or 'reducing the braking force'.
This would have the same observed effect in that the object would appear to go faster, but really it is just tending towards its natural speed of 'c'. The concept of 'faster than light' is no longer meaningful as I'm suggesting that 'c' is its natural state and you've removed all the braking forces so there's no more to remove (by definition); there is therefore no longer a 'limit' on which to speculate
The trick is to come up with an explanation of what exactly a 'force' is in 'braking' terms as opposed to 'speeding up' terms. Look at how a difference in viewpoint changed the concept of centrifugal force, which was believed to exist but wasn't really explainable, to the opposite centripetal force which was.
As far as I can gather, forces are meant to be due to the exchange of force particles, and this explains repulsion by particles jumping from an object and giving it a kick in the opposite direction. But I've not seen an explanation for attraction.
Maybe we only need a slight change in perspective by staying with the force particle idea but imagining them keeping an object 'in check', so that when they interact, the braking effect in that direction is reduced and the object moves off towards its natural state of 'c'.
Or maybe something more radical is required; over to you guys (Marc included)
I'm not a physicist, but I've learned some things about it, so I can at least try to answer the question as to why you can't go faster than the speed of light (or even AT the speed of light). Real physicists are welcome to correct my laymans knowledge of the subject.
First, this is about objects with mass, the "why" of which will become apparent shortly.
As you increase your speed, your mass increases. I'm not precisely sure of why this is, but it does, in fact happen. At the low speeds we normally go, the increase in mass is so small as we speed up that it isn't apparent. But as we move faster and faster, up towards light-speed ranges, it becomes measurable.
It takes energy to make something with mass go faster. The more mass you have, the more energy it takes. And since the faster you go, the more mass you accumulate, the energy required to move you even faster also keeps increasing. If you plot the "speed vs mass" on a graph, you can see that as you approach lightspeed, your mass starts to approach infinity, and thus the amount of energy required to reach lightspeed also approaches infinity.
For example (and these numbers are NOT correct, but they do illustrate the principle) lets say it takes one "unit" of energy to get a one pound object up to .5 lightspeed. Now that it's traveling that fast, it's mass has doubled. Because the thing has more mass, it now takes two units of energy to get it half again closer to lightspeed (.75 lightspeed). But now its mass has doubled again, so to get it half again closer to lightspeed it takes four units of energy. But its mass has doubled again at that speed, so it now it takes eight units of energy to get it half again closer. But its mass has doubled AGAIN, so it now takes sixteen units to move closer again by half. And so on. Each time you move closer it takes more and more energy to get it even faster. You keep getting closer and closer to lightspeed, but the mass keeps increasing exponentially - it can't ever quite get there because you never have quite enough energy to push it "over the top".
So, to bring an object (with mass) up to lightspeed requires an infinite amount of energy. But there isn't an infinite amount of energy to draw on. Even if you drew upon all the energy in the universe, it's still a limited amount (although quite enormous). But a limited amount isn't what's required - an infinite amount is what's required. And there isn't that much energy available. Thus: it is impossible for an object with mass to move at the speed of light. If you can't move AT the speed of light, you also can't move faster than the speed of light (because in order to go faster than it, for at least a moment you'd have to move at it, and you can't).
So, if all that's true, then how come LIGHT can go at lightspeed? That one's pretty easy: light particles (photons) have no mass. Zero. As a light particle increases its speed, its mass doesn't increase because it doesn't have any mass to start with. 0 times anything (even infinity) is still 0. Therefore it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to get it to lightspeed (in fact, it takes no energy at all for photons to reach lightspeed - mass is a real drag, and photons simply don't have to deal with it).
So, what if you were moving at very, very, very close to the speed of light? At 99.999999999999% of lightspeed. Wouldn't you be able to match speeds with a lightbeam and basically pace it? You might not be able to catch it, since you can't match its speed, but maybe you could follow right behind it and practically touch it?
It's a good plan, but nope. Because of the other oddity about high speeds: the faster you go, the slower time goes for you. If you are traveling just 1 mile per hour slower than light, time will be moving sooooo slowly for you that in just one of your seconds, the light you are trying to match will have moved away from you by... 186,000 miles. And 186,000 miles per second is lightspeed. And that's why lightspeed is a constant. It doesn't matter how fast you move, light will always move away from you at 186,000 miles per second, even if it has to redefine what a "second" is, by slowing time down, in order to do it.
Because it consumes the observers total energy. Because the observer is not the past points of observation (anymore) the restriction does not apply to the Observers body/spaceship. This is one of the minor changes in Physics the UFT introduces;-)
Marc wrote:If you are traveling at the speed of light can you see anything?
Marc
The point is - according to the theory - you can't travel at the speed of light.
Then how come when I run with a flashlight the beam stays at a constant distance relative to my forward motion and when it hits an object I can catch up to it?
Marc wrote:
Then how come when I run with a flashlight the beam stays at a constant distance relative to my forward motion and when it hits an object I can catch up to it?
Marc
You're catching up to the object, not catching up to "light". If the object is blocking the forward progression of the light particles then your brain is tricking you into thinking the light has stopped.
I don't think the faster you go the more mass you get, but I can see the more weight you have (since mass is constant and weight is a property of your mass times an external force, and Newtons Law says an object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by an external force - so to catch up to light you will have to be acted upon by such a force and hence you will weigh more. Relative to what depends on your point of reference.
I can verify though that travelling faster does not slow down time. A trip of 3 hours at a certain speed doesn't take 4 hours if you go faster, unless you're detained by the highway patrol while they search for drugs, things to defect on your car, weapons of mass destruction and chimps freed from experimental labs. Or anything else that makes their miserable lives feel better by making yours miserable.
actually, time dialation is under debate but is widely accepted truth.
but at normal speeds, you won't notice it. not even for example traveling on concord (maybe if you traveled on concord at mach 1.5 all your life you might gain an extra second).
when time slows down, it will appear to you to take less time than it actually does.
traveling to the nearest star at half the speed of light (not saying this is the exact proportional way it works), will take 4 years from an observer's perspective, but only 2 years from your perspective. because time passes more slowly for you, it takes LESS time.
think of it as two oscillators at different frequencies, the higher one will reach 180deg phase before the lower one.
so they have both covered the same phase... scratch that, its difficult to explain.
these are examples and figures are not at all accurate, but you get the point.
X-Trade wrote:when time slows down, it will appear to you to take less time than it actually does.
traveling to the nearest star at half the speed of light (not saying this is the exact proportional way it works), will take 4 years from an observer's perspective, but only 2 years from your perspective. because time passes more slowly for you, it takes LESS time.
Nice. So if, hypothetically, at the age of 20, you had children but then you suddenly decided you wanted to embark on a 25yr solo rocket journey around the galaxy at half light-speed, as you do. When you'd come back your kids would be 5yrs older than you!
You: 20+25 = 45
Your children = 2x25 = 50.
Add a decade or so to your journey and they'd be old enough to be your parents (and drawing out their pension)!
yeah, i guess so. not saying that the numbers are at all right though. i don't know what the gradient is for time dialation, but i expect with many things in nature that it may be exponential.
i've thought about it it many times with regards to producing physics models for space computer games, science fiction, etc.... i believe also the concept was used in part of the story line for the original planet of the apes
Timo wrote:
Nice. So if, hypothetically, at the age of 20, you had children but then you suddenly decided you wanted to embark on a 25yr solo rocket journey around the galaxy at half light-speed, as you do. When you'd come back your kids would be 5yrs older than you!
You: 20+25 = 45
Your children = 2x25 = 50.
Add a decade or so to your journey and they'd be old enough to be your parents (and drawing out their pension)!
This certainly adds a whole 'nuther meaning to planned parenthood
We came.
We saw.
We decided to conquer another day...
i don't know what the gradient is for time dialation, but i expect with many things in nature that it may be exponential.
It is proportional, such that no matter how fast you are traveling, light will always appear to recede away from you at 186,000 miles per second.
If you are traveling at exactly .5c, and turn on your flashlight, a stationary observer will see that it takes 2 seconds for the leading edge of the lightbeam to separate from you by 186,000 miles. However, from your vantage point it will take only one second.
If it were possible for them to see you waving at them as you streaked by, they would see you waving at half-speed. At .5c the universe is now aging twice as fast as you are.
