Theory of relativity....Any physicists out there?

16 Jan 2005 | Your obedient servant

[plenipotentiary]

What say you?

[plenipotentiary]

PS If I've posted this under the wrong heading, could you move it to the correct one? Thanks.

[Swordmaker]

The theory of relativity basically make exceeding the speed of light impossible by showing that as a particle approaches the speed of light the energy needed to accelerate it any farther approaches infinity.

Your "nudge" would require an infinite amount of energy to change the velocity of the particle.

[Samurai_Jack]

"Your "nudge" would require an infinite amount of energy to change the velocity of the particle."

Okay, the dual slit interference pattern experiment demonstrates that a single particle can be in two places at the same time. The interference pattern a wave and a particle at the same time.

We dont fully understand the nature of light so we cannot really reach any conclusions regarding FTL matter.

(p.s.: Im not a theoretical physicist but I did stay at a holiday inn express)

[plenipotentiary]

I take your point, but the theory of relativity rests on light speed being a maximum, is it not circular to rely on the theory as proof of itself?

[plenipotentiary]

bump

[sirchtruth]

If we do increase the photons speed, it means that matter can travel faster than the current fixed maximum speed of light.

Are you insinuating that light is slowing down?

How dare you...you're going to send some people into a frizzy with that innuendo!

[dirtboy]

Any physicists out there?

Yeah, we've got one here.

[elfman2]

"This in turn nullifies the theory of relativity."

I think your “turbocharged faster than light speed vehicle” broke it first. Why risk a crash with a nudge. Just put the proton in the trunk. ;^)

[snopercod]

So in other words, if you're driving along at the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights, what happens?

[NetValue]

It is the mathematics that actually says nothing CAN travel faster than light because it will take infinite energy to accelerate a particle of matter to that speed.

[snopercod]

A NEW LIMIT ON PHOTON MASS, less than 10^-51 grams or 7 x 10^-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass. Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction. The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China (junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653).

[snopercod]

USA Today article

[snopercod]

Objects with mass, maybe, but apparently energy signals can: Signals Exceed Light's Speed

[plenipotentiary]

"The team synchronized the two beams and sent the electrons head-on into the photons. Occasionally an electron barreled into a photon with immense energy, "like a speeding Mack truck colliding with a ping pong ball," says physicist Adrian Melissinos of the University of Rochester. That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron. In a series of experiments lasting several months the team studied thousands of collisions, leading to the production of more than 100 positrons."(http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747)

Seems to indicate that a photon has mass?

[snopercod]

Maybe a tiny bit, but not "rest mass" as we know it, since photons are never at rest.

[plenipotentiary]

I think anything more than zero mass would be enough.

Suppose a photon was contained in a theoretical photon sized box, with a velocity of zero, I expect it would have some mass.

[SIRTRIS]

If you just think about what you said Re: I think anything more than zero mass would be enough. Imagine traveling to some distant planet at the speed of light(mechanically) versus thinking about it. We can actually travel there faster when thinking about it. I know, weird science.

[expat_panama]

Photons can't be at 'rest' any more than a circle can have corners.  The big problem with faster than light (FTL) travel is that in our current universe we have the idea of 'cause' and 'effect'.   We've found that the first comes before the other-- and that means time exists and can be measured.  (Hang on, we're almost there.)

All our experiments show that the smallest distance is the quantum distance and the smallest time is the quantum time.  No way around it, we live in a digitized universe.   The only way to make a cause that can make an effect  faster than the speed of light is by somehow leaving the digitized universe and switching to an old fashioned analog version. 

I'm thinking that this also explains why older science fiction movies had more FTL travel than newer ones, because they hadn't been digitized. (Important Note: this last sentence is a 'joke'.)

[plenipotentiary]

Well it seems to me that if the direction a photon travels in can be reversed, it must be at rest at some point.