Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Get Warp Speed Extension

Dailytech ^ | October 12, 2012 2:07 PM | Jason Mick (Blog)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

New theory describes faster than light travel, could explain CERN's results

Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Albert Einstein, consider the speed of light a sort of universal "speed limit".  But over the past couple decades physicists theorized that it should be possible to break this law and get away with it -- to travel faster than the speed of light.

I. CERN Results Potentially Described

One of several possible routes to faster-than-light travel was potentially demonstrated when researchers at CERN, the European physics organization known for maintaining the Large Hadron Collider, sent high-energy particles through the Earth's crust from Geneva, Switzerland to INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy.  In a result that is today highly controversial, the team claimed that the particles were observed travelling in excess of the speed of light.

Now physics theory may finally be catching up.  Math researchers at the University of Adelaide -- located in the middle South of Australia -- have developed new formulas to describe the relationship between energy, mass, and velocity (which incorporates length and time) for objects traveling faster than the speed of light.  The formulas modify Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, a fundamental pillar of our understanding of the universe.

_{Einstein formulated his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905. [Image Source: AP]}

Math professor Jim Hill, a co-author of the paper writes, "Questions have since been raised over the experimental results [from CERN] but we were already well on our way to successfully formulating a theory of special relativity, applicable to relative velocities in excess of the speed of light."

He elaborates, "Our approach is a natural and logical extension of the Einstein Theory of Special Relativity, and produces anticipated formulae without the need for imaginary numbers or complicated physics."

The study's other co-author, Dr. Barry Cox, adds, "We are mathematicians, not physicists, so we've approached this problem from a theoretical mathematical perspective... Our paper doesn't try and explain how this could be achieved, just how equations of motion might operate in such regimes."

II. Placating the Critics

The authors obviously recognize the controversy surrounding both experimental and theoretical work regarding challenging the light speed limitation attached to the special theory of relativity.  Write the authors in the abstract, "In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion."

_{Many believe faster-than-light travel may be possible. [Image Source: LucasFilm, Ltd.]}

The paper proposes two sets of equations -- one based on an invariant set of "frame transitions", the other based on a "frame transition" with the invariance limitation removed.  The authors suspect that if faster than light travel is possible, that the physical behavior of the faster-than-light travelling object is described by one of these equations.

Note, such work is relatively independent from forms of faster-than-light travel that do not violate Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, such as warping space via a massive energy source.

The paper was published [abstract] in the prestigious peer-reviews journal The Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Source: RSPA

[Leaning Right]

I'm not against people trying, that's how science advances. But these announcements all follow the same two-step sequence.

Step 1: Researchers announce that they have surpassed the speed of light!

Step 2 (some months later): Researchers find a flaw in their experiment. Speed of light not surpassed after all.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related thread:

2nd test affirms faster-than-light particles

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

**********************************************************

The paper proposes two sets of equations -- one based on an invariant set of "frame transitions", the other based on a "frame transition" with the invariance limitation removed. The authors suspect that if faster than light travel is possible, that the physical behavior of the faster-than-light travelling object is described by one of these equations.

[The Cajun]

2nd test affirms faster-than-light particles

Waiting for the "Oh crap, another bad cable connection found" article to come out.........Just saying.

[Donkey Odious]

But can they make the Kessell run in under twelve parsecs?

[103198]

mark...

[Leaning Right]

The paper proposes two sets of equations...

I hear you. But any equation is highly suspect if it does not have repeatable experimental evidence to back it up.

I'll follow this story with interest, but also with great skepticism. My money is still on Big Al (Einstein, that is).

[OldNavyVet]

From a math major ... Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light.

QED.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[JRandomFreeper]

Relative to WHAT?

I thought the Michelson-Morley experiment put paid to that.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

Disclaimer: I am a cook, not a physicist or math guy.

/johnny

[mikrofon]

"Hunh, I never stopped t' think that it was SPACE that was movin'!"

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

What happens when a spaceship traveling the speed of light turns on its headlights? :-)

[umgud]

I’d like to comment, but I’m just not up to speed on this.

[Utmost Certainty]

Relative to each other.

Any measurement value re: the speed of something, is relative to the speed of the measurement frame.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

To the best of my knowledge, if you are traveling at a velocity (a vector quantity with magnitude and direction) less than the speed of light you cannot exceed the speed of light because your mass will become infinite, i.e., blow up. However, the equation is also quite specific. If your velocity is greater than the speed of light, an object can exist. The question is how to get it going at those velocities.IMHO

[Marine_Uncle]

I put my brain is in the freezer today. Hard to even contemplate on this news. Meanwhile I just got a call from my one brother that is returning from a European vacation and is going to stop by shortly. So guess I’m logging out for the duration.

[JRandomFreeper]

So, what, perzactly is the measurement frame we're talking about?

Michalson and Morley proved that there were no interference patterns for beams going with each other, against each other or at 90 degrees to each other.

Earth orbit was chosen for the experiment because it was pretty darn handy, and everything else wasn't.

Once again, I'm just a cook, exploring the mysteries of physics.

/johnny

[Cboldt]

-- Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light. --

That's Newton's theory of relativity. It is a good approximation for relative speeds under about 100,000 kilometers per second.

[onedoug]

Thanks for thinking of me E_a_t_B.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light."

The reason it's called the "Special theory of relativity" is that your calculation does not hold true. It's physics, not math.

[Utmost Certainty]

Basically it has to do with the conception that everything in the universe is in motion, ergo there is no ‘absolute reference frame’. That is to say, anytime we make a measurement of something the value we get is with respect to the contextual frame of reference we’re measuring from—i.e., we ourselves are also moving at some given rate of speed ourselves.

A straightforward example of this would be to think about what the speed of a car driving 55mph looks like from different reference frames. If you’re traveling alongside them at 60mph, then from your perspective they’re traveling -5mph relative to you. But from the perspective of a stationary (~relatively speaking!) person at the side of the road, that car is driving 55mph.

There are some caveats for the speed of light, however—see here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame

[OldNavyVet]

First note, everything aobut physics involves math ...

Second note ... From the Internet.

Red Shift & Blue Shift A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum.

Adding to that, two objects parting at more than the speed of light would not be visible to each other.

[Utmost Certainty]

Basically it has to do with the conception that everything in the universe is in motion, ergo there is no ‘absolute reference frame’. That is to say, anytime we make a measurement of something the value we get is with respect to the contextual frame of reference we’re measuring from—i.e., we’re also moving at some given rate of speed ourselves.

A straightforward example of this would be to think about what the speed of a car driving 55mph looks like from different reference frames. If you’re traveling alongside them at 60mph, then from your perspective they’re traveling -5mph relative to you. But from the perspective of a stationary (~relatively speaking!) person at the side of the road, that car is driving 55mph.

There are some caveats for the speed of light, however—see here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame

[JRandomFreeper]

Cooks (some anyway) are familiar with Newtonian physics.

And the more spectacular, and useful parts of chemistry, thankyouverymuch.

Does the math on this hold up with the M-M experiments? I guess that's the question I've been trying to ask.

/johnny

[SgtHooper]

No, I don’t believe that is correct.

[SgtHooper]

LMAO!! OH now that is great!!

That’s tight up there with, why do they call it hemorrhoids and not asteroids?

[SgtHooper]

And because of that, it sucks in enormous amounts of funding.

[Utmost Certainty]

Sure, np. :)

As far whether the math holds up with M-M experiments my short answer is: yes, I think so. The M-M experiments are thought to be a decisive contributing factor that later lead to the development of Special Relativity and the proposed assumption that the speed of light is invariant; it’s been awhile since I’ve taken advanced physics classes though, so I don’t have the specifics or the math at the forefront of my memory.

This might fill in some of the details better for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Special_Relativity

[Oldpuppymax]

Old news! Captain Kirk has been traveling at warp 8 and above since the 60s!

[JRandomFreeper]

I'm better prepared to pull a bernaise or hollandaise recipe and technique out of dark memory for Eggs Benedict tomorrow morning than know specifics on the math of special relativity.

Thanks for the link.

/johnny

[steve86]

Related post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2942859/posts

[jeffc]

Figuring out what limits light to 186,000 MPS would go a long way to faster-than-light stuff.......

[MasterGunner01]

I seem to remember that there was much talk about how the Sound Barrier was an absolute that could not be broken and the aircraft that tried would go out of control and disintegrate. Then, Chuck Yeager flew to Mach 1.07 on 14 October 1947 and the myth was debunked.

Who says we cannot go faster than light? The Light Barrier is an absolute? It is just another obstacle to be broken and a challenge to conventional thinking. We’ve got to think outside the box; say “yes it can be broken” and then figure out how to do it.

[djf]

AFAIK, SOL is determined by the relative permeability of empty space to the electric field and the magnetic field.

Maxwell type stuff.

It’s predictable from numbers we can measure, but we can’t measure those numbers to any greater/less accuracy than we can measure the SOL.

Sort of like people ask if we live in curved space or flat space.

There is really no difference because straight lines in curved space are the same thing as curved lines in flat space.

[norwaypinesavage]

"everything aobut physics involves math ... "

Very true. However, in math, things can be calculated that are not possible in physics. For example, 186,200 miles per second times 2 equals 372.4 miles per second ;0)

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest.

---

---

· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

---

[AFPhys]

Dear math major:

Unfortunately, that math is not accurate at speeds on the close order of the velocity of light.

[AFPhys]

First, a spaceship with mass can NOT move “at the speed of light”. Its mass approaches infinity as it approaches the speed of light. Only massless “things” can go the speed of light.

When it is going as fast as it can, and turns on its lights, it observes the light flying away from it at the speed of light. A “stationary” observer in front of him ALSO would measure the light traveling toward him at c, “the speed of light”. An observer “behind” the ship would ALSO see the beam of light progressing away from him at c. All of this due to the “curvature of space-time”.

Weird, but borne up by many experiments in particle accelerators and particle colliders.

[AFPhys]

Hmm... cook... that reminds me that I am supposed to be looking up recipes for preparing celeriac.

[samtheman]

Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light.

No they aren't. That's exactly the kind of scenario Einstein included in his special theory of relativity.

If recent developments have come up with a particle that can go faster than the speed of light... then recent developments have broken new ground on this question.

Your statement is not new ground; it is old ground. It is ground that was basically covered by Einstein in 1905.

[JRandomFreeper]

Dear Lord...

Good knife (seriously).

Heavy cream and butter at the finish. Peppercorns. Chicken stock. Hours and hours in the kitchen.

It turns into a little bit of heaven.

I used to use the tops in stock, as a younger man. Careful you don't mis-identify fennel for it.

/johnny

[AFPhys]

The point of the mathematics of Relativity is NOT that the speed of light absolutely can NOT be broken, but that we can not break that barrier by adding more and more energy to the object, as with a jet plane. This is due to the observed FACT that as we add energy, the object gets increasingly heavy.

Particles in the most advanced accelerators have so much energy that “at top speed” they weigh in excess of 10,000 times their stationary mass, and are traveling on the order of 0.9999995 times the speed of light. Adding ten times the amount of energy will make them 100,000 times more massive, and their speed will become on the order of 0.999999995 times the speed of light. Rapidly diminishing returns.

[AFPhys]

A spaceship turning its lights on is a VERY ancient example used in physics texts. See my post#40 for the reality of what is observed.

[AFPhys]

Hmmm... OK ... chicken stock, eh? I have some bullion that will have to do, and some leftover gravy. Check on the butter and sour cream. I did save the tops after chopping them off.

[JRandomFreeper]

It's obvious that God loves you. I can't reach to you.

Heavy cream is not sour cream. Double creme is not heavy cream.

Make stock with the tops.

I'm not going to offer any more advice. ;)

[ctdonath2]

Anyone notice that the AP photo is a gratuitous “photoshop”?

[JRandomFreeper]

Having sat through that movie so many times I can lip-sync it... It's pre Photoshop.

That's the best that Lucas et al could do back then.

Extra points for figuring out where they were starting from, based on the star field.

Yes, I was that exactly bored.

/johnny

[Jack Hydrazine]

Chuck Norris made the Kessel Run in less than 10 parsecs!