Speed of light

giggs-beckham · 14th August 2008, 18:07

I love this stuff, so i long for a star trek future. it wont happen in my life time though, shame

Raven_Blade · 14th August 2008, 20:25

I would like to see us reach light speed. It would make travel so much easier.

rimaldo · 14th August 2008, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by giggs-beckham

I love this stuff, so i long for a star trek future. it wont happen in my life time though, shame

help me fix my machine and you will.

my speed of light machine is broked :(

vijay · 14th August 2008, 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by poisson

I have a question.

Can an object reach the speed of light??

I've heard that in some experiments, as an object was approaching about 95% the speed of light, its mass started to increase, so as a result it slowed down!

How the fuck do you explain that??

so its impossible to reach the speed of light?

Its impossible.

As the time factor starts to lag behind

UnitedRed · 14th August 2008, 20:50

It is theoretically both possible and impossible, seriously.

It depends how you view infinity and it's possibilities.

With an infinite energy, an object could reach the speed of light.

jveezy · 14th August 2008, 21:11

Here's a thought.

Some people say light is a particle. If it's a particle, then it has to have mass doesn't it? If so, then shouldn't the mass be affected by gravitational forces. So theoretically if a photon enters say the earth's gravitational field, shouldn't it accelerate thereby increasing its speed and causing it to travel faster than the "speed of light". Is the value for the speed of light just some sort of average then? My head may explode if I don't get any answers.

vijay · 14th August 2008, 22:09

jveezy...try out Dr CV Raman's theory about particle physics. Your answer lies there.

giggs-beckham · 14th August 2008, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by jveezy

Here's a thought.

Some people say light is a particle. If it's a particle, then it has to have mass doesn't it? If so, then shouldn't the mass be affected by gravitational forces. So theoretically if a photon enters say the earth's gravitational field, shouldn't it accelerate thereby increasing its speed and causing it to travel faster than the "speed of light". Is the value for the speed of light just some sort of average then? My head may explode if I don't get any answers.

Steven hawking failed to prove the unified field theory, so what chance do we have?

Alex · 14th August 2008, 22:56

You can travel faster than 'c' you just have to bend time, which is actually quite easy

Dreaded · 14th August 2008, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

You can travel faster than 'c' you just have to bend time, which is actually quite easy

I've got a plastic watch and it bends real easy

Wit Tanker · 15th August 2008, 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jveezy

Here's a thought.

Some people say light is a particle. If it's a particle, then it has to have mass doesn't it? If so, then shouldn't the mass be affected by gravitational forces. So theoretically if a photon enters say the earth's gravitational field, shouldn't it accelerate thereby increasing its speed and causing it to travel faster than the "speed of light". Is the value for the speed of light just some sort of average then? My head may explode if I don't get any answers.

Im not too sure about that, but i think light is just an electromagnetic wave which possesses properties of both waves and particles.

Alex · 15th August 2008, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorcanjc

I've got a plastic watch and it bends real easy

Impressive, must be made in China

BahamaRed · 15th August 2008, 00:31

This just came out today........

Physicists: Faster-Than-Light Travel Might Be Possible

Thursday, August 14, 2008
By Jeremy Hsu

AP

Warp factor seven, Mr. Scott.

Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light.
We're talking about the very distant future, of course.
The idea involves manipulating dark energy — the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion — to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics.
"Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light."

In theory, the universe grew faster than the speed of light for a very short time after the Big Bang, driven by the dark energy that represents about 74 percent of the total mass-energy budget in the universe.
Dark matter constitutes 22 percent of the budget, and normal matter (stars, planets and everything you see) makes up the remaining 4 percent or so.
Strange as it sounds, current evidence supports the notion that the fabric of space-time can expand faster than the speed of light, because the reality in which light travels is itself expanding.
Cleaver and Richard Obousy, a Baylor graduate student, tapped the latest idea in string theory to devise how to manipulate dark energy and accelerate a spaceship.
Their notion is based on the Alcubierre drive, which proposes expanding space-time behind the spaceship while also shrinking space-time in front.
String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time.
The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings.
A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension.
Manipulating that additional dimension would alter dark energy in terms of height, width, and length, Cleaver and Obousy theorize.
Such a capability would permit the altering of space-time for a spaceship, taking advantage of dark energy's effect on the universe.
"The dark energy is simultaneously decreased just in front of the ship to decrease (and bring to a stop) the expansion rate of the universe in front of the ship," Cleaver told SPACE.com. "If the dark energy can be made negative directly in front of the ship, then space in front of the ship would locally contract."
This loophole means that the spaceship would not conflict with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which states that objects accelerating to the speed of light require an infinite amount of energy.
However, the Baylor physicists estimate that manipulating dark energy through the extra dimension requires energy equivalent to the converting the entire mass of Jupiter into pure energy — enough to move a ship measuring roughly 33 feet (10 meters) by 33 feet by 33 feet.
"That is an enormous amount of energy," Cleaver said. "We are still a very long ways off before we could create something to harness that type of energy."
The workaround solution may leave fans of Einstein pleased. But for now, faster-than-light travel remains, like Oz, a pleasant fantasy

link

vijay · 15th August 2008, 00:42

Let me sum up a metaphysical reply...

To be faster than light a particle should have zero mass.

Basically an electomagnetic wave..may be our thoughts.

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 00:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wit Tanker

Btw here is a question none of the physicians can answer atm.

When matter is created from radiation, 2 particles are created, namely matter and antimatter, which is a proven fact. So when the universe was created, half the stuff should have been matter and the other half antimatter. But where is all the antimatter?

I asked my physics teacher at A levels and he was right confused, and trying to come up with explanation but couldn't. So he rounded it off by saying that its outside the scope of my A level syllabus.

Supposedly was a quantum fluctuation back in the first blinks of the universe that resulted in a mater/anit-matter discrepency of something one part in a billion. As the matter/anti-matter pairs eliminated themselves, just that matter discrepancy was left.

There have been theories about mass antimatter concentrations in other parts of the universe, but I think this is considered doubtful as ongoing interactions with matter would be throwing out radiation in the extremely energetic range (gamma ray), but this isn't being seen.

Anyway, I'm really stretching my recollection on this stuff. Feel free to call my bluff.

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiYuan

Visible light is an electromagnetic wave.

Depends on how you observe it. You can craft your observational apparatus to see it either as a wave or a particle (2 slit experiment).

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by poisson

iS NOBODY ELSE FASCINATED BY THIS???

YES! Enthralled. Most of the time I can't get me head around it, but it's the same with women.

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by poisson

I have a question.

Can an object reach the speed of light??

I've heard that in some experiments, as an object was approaching about 95% the speed of light, its mass started to increase, so as a result it slowed down!

How the fuck do you explain that??

so its impossible to reach the speed of light?

It's not that the object slows down, but that it requires hyperbolically (lliterally) more energy to accelerate it.

Wit Tanker · 15th August 2008, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad-dyrak

Supposedly was a quantum fluctuation back in the first blinks of the universe that resulted in a mater/anit-matter discrepency of something one part in a billion. As the matter/anti-matter pairs eliminated themselves, just that matter discrepancy was left.

There have been theories about mass antimatter concentrations in other parts of the universe, but I think this is considered doubtful as ongoing interactions with matter would be throwing out radiation in the extremely energetic range (gamma ray), but this isn't being seen.

Anyway, I'm really stretching my recollection on this stuff. Feel free to call my bluff.

Theres a few theories floating around but no firm evidence as yet. I read this on beeb just today.

" Particle physicists think that this excess matter was left because antiparticles might not be the exact opposite of particles. This was first discovered in the early 1960s by James Cronin and Val Fitch, who won the Nobel Prize for their work on a certain type of particle called the kaon.Physicists now think that kaons might live longer than antikaons, but they're still not sure if this accounts for the triumph of matter over antimatter in the Universe."
LINK

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiYuan

Dark matter is created when the stars get too heavy for their own sustenance energy and sink into a theoretically endless hole in the space.

That or something else.

"Something else" is about right. Basically theorizing on what the detected missing mass could be made of. It's all about the mass and how there seems to be too little (visible) of it about to account for certain phenomena like how the arms in a spiral galaxy are spinning too fast relative to their distance from the galactic center.

They still fight about what dark matter is. A stew of non-interacting (except for gravity) particles seems to be more popular these days, but larger objects like non-luminescing stars used to be bandied about.

Dark energy is a totally different matter. Basically a construct created to explain why seriously distant objects actually seem to be accelerating away from us, which doesn't make a stich of sense given the attractive nature of gravity which should be slowing the expansion.

Sorry to blather on about this stuff, but it's fascinating stuff. Up the LHC!

giggs-beckham · 15th August 2008, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad-dyrak

"Something else" is about right. Basically theorizing on what the detected missing mass could be made of. It's all about the mass and how there seems to be too little (visible) of it about to account for certain phenomena like how the arms in a spiral galaxy are spinning too fast relative to their distance from the galactic center.

They still fight about what dark matter is. A stew of non-interacting (except for gravity) particles seems to be more popular these days, but larger objects like non-luminescing stars used to be bandied about.

Dark energy is a totally different matter. Basically a construct created to explain why seriously distant objects actually seem to be accelerating away from us, which doesn't make a stich of sense given the attractive nature of gravity which should be slowing the expansion.

Sorry to blather on about this stuff, but it's fascinating stuff. Up the LHC!

Glad to see someone who knows their stuff on this aswell as me. thought dark matter was the sub particles in between stars, 90% of the universe like i posted on page 1 i think.
Cool thing i recently found out is that we rotate around the galaxy every 250m years. and that our solar system bobs in and out the plane of the galaxy every 30m years if you can picture that (imagine a frying pan full of peas and our pea the sun rises in and out the pan every 30m years

) and, as we enter the dense plane of the galaxy we travel 'close' to black holes and other stars pushing meteors and stuff that are far out of the edge of the solar system and fling them at us. we are 1m years just coming out of the frying pan but those big rocks can take a million years to reach us, so

Extinction events in the past have coincided with this constant 30m year movement.
Never knew that till recently, mad.

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by giggs-beckham

Biggest load of bollocks ever.

Planets and stars can only get heavier if stuff crashes into them meteors etc.
Thats called ecretion methinks.
The sun is ejecting millions of tons in mass solar ejections all the time - everyone knows that.
when the sun approaches its end it will in 4bn years it will expand to swollow all the near planets including earth. but it wont get heavier how will it get heavier.

Right. It's not that the sun gets heavier per se. When the sun hits it's next fusion phase, it's energy output will grow and the sun itself will swell, making it actually less dense. The planets are slated to fall into the sun becaus as the sun swells, it will be sort of expanding its solar atmosphere, throwing out a bunch of matter. That stuff that wind up in the orbital plane of the planets will slow the velocity of the inner planets. Once that happens they will spiral in soon enough. I suppose technically it would incorporate the planets, but they are absolutely miniscule compared to the sun.

As for the notion of something turning into a black hole and thereby sucking in more stuff. This is a bit misleading. When something becomes a black hole, it's no heavier, just denser. The idea that once it reaches black hole status it will now start hoovering up it's large scale environs doesn't work. True its focus of gravity will be more concentrated, but over anything but the very short distances it will not make a difference. Not to take away from how cool black holes are. Anything that is able to trap light is going to have some amazing consequences.

brad-dyrak · 15th August 2008, 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by giggs-beckham

Glad to see someone who knows their stuff on this aswell as me. thought dark matter was the sub particles in between stars, 90% of the universe like i posted on page 1 i think.
Cool thing i recently found out is that we rotate around the galaxy every 250m years. and that our solar system bobs in and out the plane of the galaxy every 30m years if you can picture that (imagine a frying pan full of peas and our pea the sun rises in and out the pan every 30m years

) and, as we enter the dense plane of the galaxy we travel 'close' to black holes and other stars pushing meteors and stuff that are far out of the edge of the solar system and fling them at us. we are 1m years just coming out of the frying pan but those big rocks can take a million years to reach us, so

Extinction events in the past have coincided with this constant 30m year movement.
Never knew that till recently, mad.

That's a new one on me. What do they say got the bobbing started, or is it just leftover settling from when the galaxy condensed?

giggs-beckham · 15th August 2008, 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad-dyrak

That's a new one on me. What do they say got the bobbing started, or is it just leftover settling from when the galaxy condensed?

Not sure how it got sarted. mabey gravitational interaction is a viable explanation.

Alex · 15th August 2008, 01:50

If I were a photon I could travel the speed of light

The Hairdryer · 15th August 2008, 01:51

There's two schools of thought of the subject poisson.

In the Star Trek universe it is impossible to reach the speed of light, so the warp engines collapse space in front of them instead. This has one major benefit, that time does no speed up or slow down whilst travelling.

On the downside it is believed that collapsing space to quickly (over warp five) can rip holes in the fabric of space (space-time continuem).

In the Star Wars universe they also believe that travelling the speed of light is impossible. So instead they travel party in alternate dimension where it is possible.

This is a pretty good system, there's no limit to how fast they can travel and there's little effect on the fabric of space, though hyperspace engines are horribly unreliable and need constant maintenance and often only astro droids can fix them.

giggs-beckham · 15th August 2008, 01:54

Im watching start trk right now its the one where the people from the 21st century get picked up in their cryo tubes and ask where am i?

Thats one option to time and space travel, freeze yourself like they do on alien. you wake up 5 mins later and youve travelled far through space and time but you are no older. it would be a lonley existence and you would have to get along with the others cus everyone else you know will be dead.

DoctorEvil · 15th August 2008, 01:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

If I were a photon I could travel the speed of light

You could. In fact, you would not have much of a choice. Photons are the 'particles' which make out light. In vacuum, they all have the same speed, which we call the speed of light.

As a side remark, the speed in matter is lower due to the interaction between the light and the charges around. Then t

14th August 2008, 18:07	#81 (permalink)
giggs-beckham Reserve Team Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,312	I love this stuff, so i long for a star trek future. it wont happen in my life time though, shame

14th August 2008, 20:25	#82 (permalink)
Raven_Blade Attention Whoring Common Crow Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In Man Utd's Defence. Posts: 18,219	I would like to see us reach light speed. It would make travel so much easier.

14th August 2008, 20:50	#85 (permalink)
UnitedRed KTTAG Winner 2008 Join Date: May 2008 Location: Centre Forward Posts: 2,679	It is theoretically both possible and impossible, seriously. It depends how you view infinity and it's possibilities. With an infinite energy, an object could reach the speed of light.

14th August 2008, 21:11	#86 (permalink)
jveezy Youth Team Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Luis Obispo, CA Posts: 460	Here's a thought. Some people say light is a particle. If it's a particle, then it has to have mass doesn't it? If so, then shouldn't the mass be affected by gravitational forces. So theoretically if a photon enters say the earth's gravitational field, shouldn't it accelerate thereby increasing its speed and causing it to travel faster than the "speed of light". Is the value for the speed of light just some sort of average then? My head may explode if I don't get any answers.

14th August 2008, 22:09	#87 (permalink)
vijay Im rude and disprespectful to the ladies of the forum,though Im happy to cruise Jason and Suresh Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Entertainment Fourm: Winding up the Gaming Gimps Posts: 13,480	jveezy...try out Dr CV Raman's theory about particle physics. Your answer lies there.

14th August 2008, 22:56	#89 (permalink)
Alex Spam Alert! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Californication Posts: 21,224	You can travel faster than 'c' you just have to bend time, which is actually quite easy

15th August 2008, 00:31	#93 (permalink)
BahamaRed Legend Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 10,452	This just came out today........ Physicists: Faster-Than-Light Travel Might Be Possible Thursday, August 14, 2008 By Jeremy Hsu AP Warp factor seven, Mr. Scott. Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light. We're talking about the very distant future, of course. The idea involves manipulating dark energy — the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion — to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics. "Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light." In theory, the universe grew faster than the speed of light for a very short time after the Big Bang, driven by the dark energy that represents about 74 percent of the total mass-energy budget in the universe. Dark matter constitutes 22 percent of the budget, and normal matter (stars, planets and everything you see) makes up the remaining 4 percent or so. Strange as it sounds, current evidence supports the notion that the fabric of space-time can expand faster than the speed of light, because the reality in which light travels is itself expanding. Cleaver and Richard Obousy, a Baylor graduate student, tapped the latest idea in string theory to devise how to manipulate dark energy and accelerate a spaceship. Their notion is based on the Alcubierre drive, which proposes expanding space-time behind the spaceship while also shrinking space-time in front. String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time. The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings. A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension. Manipulating that additional dimension would alter dark energy in terms of height, width, and length, Cleaver and Obousy theorize. Such a capability would permit the altering of space-time for a spaceship, taking advantage of dark energy's effect on the universe. "The dark energy is simultaneously decreased just in front of the ship to decrease (and bring to a stop) the expansion rate of the universe in front of the ship," Cleaver told SPACE.com. "If the dark energy can be made negative directly in front of the ship, then space in front of the ship would locally contract." This loophole means that the spaceship would not conflict with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which states that objects accelerating to the speed of light require an infinite amount of energy. However, the Baylor physicists estimate that manipulating dark energy through the extra dimension requires energy equivalent to the converting the entire mass of Jupiter into pure energy — enough to move a ship measuring roughly 33 feet (10 meters) by 33 feet by 33 feet. "That is an enormous amount of energy," Cleaver said. "We are still a very long ways off before we could create something to harness that type of energy." The workaround solution may leave fans of Einstein pleased. But for now, faster-than-light travel remains, like Oz, a pleasant fantasy link

15th August 2008, 00:42	#94 (permalink)
vijay Im rude and disprespectful to the ladies of the forum,though Im happy to cruise Jason and Suresh Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Entertainment Fourm: Winding up the Gaming Gimps Posts: 13,480	Let me sum up a metaphysical reply... To be faster than light a particle should have zero mass. Basically an electomagnetic wave..may be our thoughts.

15th August 2008, 01:50	#105 (permalink)
Alex Spam Alert! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Californication Posts: 21,224	If I were a photon I could travel the speed of light

15th August 2008, 01:51	#106 (permalink)
The Hairdryer Crikey that stung Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Never argue with a fool. They'll just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience Posts: 11,941	There's two schools of thought of the subject poisson. In the Star Trek universe it is impossible to reach the speed of light, so the warp engines collapse space in front of them instead. This has one major benefit, that time does no speed up or slow down whilst travelling. On the downside it is believed that collapsing space to quickly (over warp five) can rip holes in the fabric of space (space-time continuem). In the Star Wars universe they also believe that travelling the speed of light is impossible. So instead they travel party in alternate dimension where it is possible. This is a pretty good system, there's no limit to how fast they can travel and there's little effect on the fabric of space, though hyperspace engines are horribly unreliable and need constant maintenance and often only astro droids can fix them.

15th August 2008, 01:54	#107 (permalink)
giggs-beckham Reserve Team Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,312	Im watching start trk right now its the one where the people from the 21st century get picked up in their cryo tubes and ask where am i? Thats one option to time and space travel, freeze yourself like they do on alien. you wake up 5 mins later and youve travelled far through space and time but you are no older. it would be a lonley existence and you would have to get along with the others cus everyone else you know will be dead.