Eienstein Defeated?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:50 pm

To the speed of light can't be broke may want to read more on the subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... eed116.xml

A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled \"instantaneously\" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.

The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:27 pm

There was some experiment I heard about long ago, where they changed the spin in one electron, and another in aseperate containter flipped at the same time. This was 10 years ago or so. Wonder if it's the same thing?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:11 pm

Quantum tunneling is not new and Einsteins laws of relativity have not been broken. I read this already and I will find a link but its all a matter of how you interpret their results....

Bee

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:13 pm

Thats theory of relativity, Einstiens ideas about travelling faster than light are fundementally flawed because of a limited knowledge of the universe, his simplistic equations are only a small part of the much bigger picture that he wasn't able to fully see, thus leading to conclusions that weren't nessicarily incorrect but rather incomplete and therefore misleading.

Infinite fuel to travel faster than 186,000mph is absurd. Just like when they said the sound barrier couldn't be broken, Its the same thing, just the next step higher on the difficulty scale.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:24 pm

Capm wrote:Thats theory of relativity, Einstiens ideas about travelling faster than light are fundementally flawed because of a limited knowledge of the universe, his simplistic equations are only a small part of the much bigger picture that he wasn't able to fully see, thus leading to conclusions that weren't nessicarily incorrect but rather incomplete and therefore misleading.

Infinite fuel to travel faster than 186,000mph is absurd. Just like when they said the sound barrier couldn't be broken, Its the same thing, just the next step higher on the difficulty scale.

x2

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:42 am

So, to prove it we need to get some guy named Kocrine to develop the Warp Engine..... Theoretically it would take a HUUUGE amount of fuel to make a object go even close to the speed of light. I think we're just limited by how much fuel (of types we know of) vs. how much energy it needs to put out to accelerate said object. And unless we can develop Warp drive or Trans Warp Slip-streams...

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:03 am

Capm wrote:Infinite fuel to travel faster than 186,000mph is absurd. Just like when they said the sound barrier couldn't be broken, Its the same thing, just the next step higher on the difficulty scale.

Then it should be much easier to get information to travel faster than light. Something that has yet to be achieved as well.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:44 am

The effect predicted by the theory of relativity, namely that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light, has already been verified. The most important part in this is that light has a finite travelling speed, it is not instantaneous. This has nothing to do with relativity.

Regarding quantum tunneling and other things that supposedly travel faster than light, they are not possible under the theory of relativity. It's just that scientists hold a result from relativity theory (speed of light is a maximum) against a result from a different, quantum theory (entanglement based on the uncertainty principle). Yes, both results may be true in their own context, but uniting them to yield a contradiction and then saying \"yay!!1 i travel faster than light!!!1one\" is horse crap. Until we have a quantum theory of gravity, the gap between quantummechanics and its results cannot be bridged with relativity and its results.

One can only remain inconclusive after such experiments (which doesn't make things less interesting to examine, though).

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:23 am

Bet51987 wrote:Quantum tunneling is not new and Einsteins laws of relativity have not been broken.

Tricord wrote:The effect predicted by the theory of relativity, namely that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light, has already been verified.

x2! Relativity has been verified over and over and over and over, even as far back as 1919 (Eddington, deflection of light from the Sun).

As Tricord said, a quantum mechanics result can't be used as a claim that relativity and its results are "broken". Even if this experiment is verified, it doesn't mean relativity is "false" or "broken".

There's no "Einstein is defeated" here.

Capm wrote:Infinite fuel to travel faster than 186,000mph is absurd. Just like when they said the sound barrier couldn't be broken, Its the same thing, just the next step higher on the difficulty scale.

Doesn't matter whether you think it's "absurd" or not. It's true.

[From your quote about "fuel to reach the speed of light", my guess is that you aren't fully understanding how energy and time works near c. It's not about "how much fuel", it's about what happens to time (and thus velocity & momentum) near that limit.]

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:46 pm

What I'm saying is, while it may appear to be verified you're still only verifying an incomplete view of the picture. Quantum mechanics must still follow the laws of physics, therefore, you cannot \"break\" or \"bend\" them. However, if you don't know what all the laws are, and we don't, then all you are doing is assuming based on a limited view and you can have a verification but that verification will still be wrong or misleading no matter how many times you do it... because you are missing part of the equation!

Neo · Post by **Neo** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:31 am

This is old, guys. =P

How do I know? Because I saw it on TV already. =P

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:35 pm

the thing is, the article uses photons, or light particles, they actually haven't broken the speed of light, as they haven't tried to move anything other than light faster than light.

DigiJo · Post by **DigiJo** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:41 pm

speed of light is not 186000 miles per hour , its 186000 miles per SECOND. that would be 669600000 mph (in vacuum). einsteins theory only said that something with mass would need infinite energy to travel at the speed of light, and that is verifyed.

mass is energy and energy is mass, you can convert energy to mass and mass to energy. scientists did that already and created mass from energy, probably there is the secret to travel faster then light?

and if i read some of the weird effects that happen in quantum mechanics, looks like we can still expect some surprises in the future when it comes to physics.

Sedwick · Post by **Sedwick** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:24 pm

fliptw wrote:the thing is, the article uses photons, or light particles, they actually haven't broken the speed of light, as they haven't tried to move anything other than light faster than light.

It could still mean advancements for communications and data transfer?

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:58 am

indeed, with emerging telepresence technologys - if communication can travel faster than light (perhaps instantaneous) then we may not want nor need our bodys to travel faster than light.

We can just send telepresence robots everywhere*, and \"plug in\" to wherever we want to be in the universe.

*more likely we'll send self-replicating factorys everywhere that can (on command) produce telepresence robots for us to use remotely.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:40 am

AVATARS

gg

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:23 pm

DigiJo wrote:speed of light is not 186000 miles per hour , its 186000 miles per SECOND. that would be 669600000 mph (in vacuum). einsteins theory only said that something with mass would need infinite energy to travel at the speed of light, and that is verifyed.

mass is energy and energy is mass, you can convert energy to mass and mass to energy. scientists did that already and created mass from energy, probably there is the secret to travel faster then light?

and if i read some of the weird effects that happen in quantum mechanics, looks like we can still expect some surprises in the future when it comes to physics.

I meant seconds I just wrote it wrong. Okay, light moves at the speed of light and has mass, but doesn't require infinite energy to do so. Like I said, you can verify the theory all you want, if your equations are incomplete you will still come up with the SAME wrong answer, every time. Let me rephrase.. More accurately, the statement is: You will still get the same correct answer to the wrong question every time.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:29 am

Capm wrote:... Okay, light moves at the speed of light and has mass, but doesn't require infinite energy to do so. ...

Where do you get that from?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:05 am

Capm wrote:... Like I said, you can verify the theory all you want, if your equations are incomplete you will still come up with the SAME wrong answer, every time. Let me rephrase.. More accurately, the statement is: You will still get the same correct answer to the wrong question every time.

Sure, it's certainly true that there are aspects of the theory we have yet to discover. However, until we find and verify any "exceptions to the rule", we have to stick with our current understanding of the universe.

So, one of the things that directly follows from what we currently know is: particles can't travel faster than light (see: relativity), and neither can information (see: causality). I can't ignore those results, just because someone says the possibility exists that we don't fully understand it.

-------------------
Another way to say this:

You keep crying "the theory could be incomplete!" as a way to discount the limitations that relativity describes.

Fine, I'll admit that we don't know everything. So does that mean we should just ignore our current understanding, and accept every idea out there (telekinesis! warp-drives!) because it's possible our knowledge is incomplete? I don't think so.

-------------------
One more way to see this, via placing your argument in another scientific scenario:

"Yeah, I know that scientists say that over-exposure to UV rays causes cancer, and it's been verified by numerous studies. But their theories could be incomplete... maybe they don't fully understand all the complexities, and there's a possibility that they're wrong about some of it. So I think we can ignore their results, and research the idea that sitting in the sun can end the aging process!"

Strife · Post by **Strife** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:53 pm

We need Doc brown in this conversation... 1.21 Gigawatts of electricty! Once Fusion Reactors are harnessed correctly, im sure there will be more to play with in relation to \"unlimited fuel\" required for faster than light travel...

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:50 pm

Strife wrote:...more to play with in relation to "unlimited fuel" required for faster than light travel...

A direct result of relativity is that a mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light (much less surpass it), period. Because of the way mass, energy, and momentum change as a particle approaches c, it's impossible no matter what force (of any magnitude, or applied for any length of time). Thus, "unlimited fuel" (i.e. you never run out) still wouldn't do it.

I know it's difficult to understand, but there are a couple of ways to think about it that might help it make more sense. Think about it something like this: let's say you have enough energy/force/fuel to accelerate your rocketship to 90% of c. So if you double that fuel, do you get to 180% of c? Nope, because as you approach c, the energy required increases (there's a sort of effective increase in mass, the rocketship gaining more and more mass as its speed approaches c, so it requires more and more force/energy to move it).

Relativity says c is a "limit"; you can get as close as you want, but never reach it. It's a bit like going from point a to point b by going 90% of the way in the first minute, then going 90% of the rest of the way in the second minute, then 90% of the rest... and so on. You can eventually get as close as you want, but you never get there in any finite amount of time.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:02 pm

i think by the time our technology can approach relativistic speeds (ie: approaching C), the power we are utilising will be so immense that it could be channeled into mega-physics experiments, like creating anti-gravitons or bending the fabric of space directly.

If you are playing with the kinda power to approach C anyway, these sorts of rule-changing physics mega-projects would be well attainable and definitely be influencial to the outcome of any C chasing attempt.

Much like the school of super/hypersonic aerodynamics only came around once our existing technology could sustain such a school, and sure enough our planes then punched through mach 1.
There are many theoretical sciences that require more energy than we can currently give them - so they remain theoretical and shelved until we're up to it. When we get upto the levels required to power them, we may indeed find them to be influential in our quest for limitless speed.
exotic particles, bending space, warp bubble stuff, etc.

Sedwick · Post by **Sedwick** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:03 pm

Foil wrote:...as you approach c, the energy required increases (there's a sort of effective increase in mass, the rocketship gaining more and more mass as its speed approaches c, so it requires more and more force/energy to move it).

Almost as though mass produces more drag as it's moved faster through the universe...

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:53 am

Foil wrote:I know it's difficult to understand, but there are a couple of ways to think about it that might help it make more sense. Think about it something like this: let's say you have enough energy/force/fuel to accelerate your rocketship to 90% of c. So if you double that fuel, do you get to 180% of c? Nope, because as you approach c, the energy required increases (there's a sort of effective increase in mass, the rocketship gaining more and more mass as its speed approaches c, so it requires more and more force/energy to move it).

Is there an easy to explain reason for WHY it takes more energy to accelerate further the nearer you are to c?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:22 am

Perhaps, not so much, if you read these in order.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 60731.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... _mass.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/P ... nMass.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... /mass.html , where

Taylor and Wheeler wrote: "Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."

The last article goes on further about problems related to the popular conception of relativistic mass.

Strife · Post by **Strife** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:31 am

I get a headache when I think about moving faster than light... I mean honestly... Imagine the possibilities of leaving our galaxy... Just boggles my mind... That and the whole infinite universe... I'm not sure my mind can completly grasp that concept... Something else that has bothering me lately... I understand the concept of a black hole... But I don't understand how it can absorb so much energy/mass and not put it anywhere... Where does it all go? I mean for christ sake it can suck in a sun... what happens to that energy... is it lost? Does that black hole get stronger? Someone please clarify this for me a little bit because the discovery channel just isn't meeting my expectations.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:41 am

Thanks, dissent. Interesting reads ... but tough going!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:08 am

Strife, think of black holes as giant compression machines. As the BH absorbs matter it grows, thus you will see in the middle of galaxy's, very large BH's and much smaller BH's on a galaxy's perifery. About as simple as I can explain it.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:08 am

I don't think we'll be leaving the galaxy any time soon. At light speed, it would take about 15,000 years. (Unless you went straight "up", where it would only take 5-10,000 years.)

woodchip wrote:Strife, think of black holes as giant compression machines. As the BH absorbs matter it grows, thus you will see in the middle of galaxy's, very large BH's and much smaller BH's on a galaxy's perifery. About as simple as I can explain it.

Hehe. Think of a black hole as a Zip file, and stars as text files.

Munk · Post by **Munk** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:07 pm

We already know that general relativity (large scale physics) and quantum physics (small scale physics) are incompatible. This doesn't mean that each theory is false - it is just not applicable at the other scale.

Of course there must be physics which includes both, but this has not been found yet.

But the thing of speed of light is a case for special relativity (which claims that their is no acceleration process that can lift a massive object to speed of light velocity): both _are_ compatible.

The problems about quantum physics is: humans tend to oversimplify observations and draw false conclusions which are _not_ predicted by physics (but seems to be \"natural\" to human minds).

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:19 pm

the equations don't say you can't go past the speed of light, just that if you did you would be going backwards in time, e.g. the theoretical tachyon particle

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Birdseye wrote:the equations don't say you can't go past the speed of light, just that if you did you would be going backwards in time, e.g. the theoretical tachyon particle

I don't think so. The equations state that anything going faster than light, have always gone faster than light. Think of a barrier with slower than light speed particles on one side, and faster than light particles on the other. Neither can visit the other side of that "barrier".

The initial inflationary period was FTL.

I will check to be sure...

Bee

Munk · Post by **Munk** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:31 am

The mechanics of relativity do not allow a transition between below speed of light and speed of light (and thus beyond speed of light).

The calculation is rather simple: If you add up two velocities which are both below speed of light, the resulting velocity is _always_
below speed of light.

It doesn't have to do with \"infinite energy needed\" or something. It's just as it is: You cannot add up velocities to get a velocity beyond speed of light.

Massive matter is simply trapped below speed of light.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:14 am

Bet51987 wrote:Think of a barrier with slower than light speed particles on one side, and faster than light particles on the other. Neither can visit the other side of that "barrier".

I hadn't heard it described that way, that's a good way to explain it.

Munk is right, as well. Relativity says that the geometry of space-time is such that no finite increase in velocity can ever reach (or surpass) the speed of light.

When talking about the speeds of cars on the road, we can "add up" velocities almost linearly. I.e. A person in a car driving 40mph throws a ball forward 40mph, so the ball is moving about 80mph. However, this doesn't work at velocities near the speed of light. (99% of the speed of light) + (99% of the speed of light) is still below the speed of light! I know it seems weird, but it's true.

The speed of light is effectively a limit. think of the sequence "0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999..." - it's always increasing, it approaches the number 1, it will get as close as you want given enough time, but it will never reach or surpass that limit.

Analogously, if relativity is true (which it has been verified to be, over and over and over), velocity can keep increasing, approaching the speed of light, but it will never reach or surpass it.

Neo · Post by **Neo** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:39 pm

This might help for those who can't grasp the infinite energy concept... or those who don't know why Einstein said that it requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light in a vacuum:

As you can see here (v is the speed of the mass) if you take the limit as v approaches c from the left, E approaches infinity. Beyond that, in the denominator, you would get an imaginary (complex) number. I find it interesting that Einstein used that physical interpretation of this limit, and that he concluded that it is a universal speed limit.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:47 pm

LOL, dude, that made very little sense as I've never taken math on that level.

Even with the green underlining. Interesting, but all I can do is nod my head and smile.

None the less, it's fascinating to see the actual equation.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:03 pm

That hurts the brain. I'll take your word for it.

Neo · Post by **Neo** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:51 pm

o_O

hehe

Actually the green underlining was M$ word being dumb. ^_~

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:30 pm

lmao ..

Munk · Post by **Munk** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:25 am

Neo, this is not the whole story.

To show that energy is infinity at speed of light only says that the theory is obviously wrong for (massive) objects with speed of light. Thus by logic one could say that this equation must be wrong at all for every velocity.

The only reason not to draw this very conclusion is to show that by relativistic theory it's impossible to have a massive particle at speed of light.

Eienstein Defeated?

Eienstein Defeated?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: