|
speed of light.
|
|
ok i believe that there is no mathematical proof that s.o.e (speed of light) is the fastest that one could go. it was rather an axiom assumed by einstein for the development of his relativity theory. since the theory is generally accepted then the axiom that provides a base for it is assumed to be true as well. let me know if i am wrong. an year ago i read of a paper wherein some scientists claimed to have speeded up a ray of light to three times its speed in vaccum. if such is the case, then why isn't there a big hullaballoo over it? also if photons can be speeded up then what is there to stop elementary particles and then normal matter to be speeded up to a great fraction of the soe. any comments? let me know if i am a bit right or getting daft in the head. or maybe i need to read my sources better before posting stuff? regards Rishav Sharan. |
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by humblemonkey
on 2005-06-22 03:56:10
|
|
Well, unless it has to do with cloning, stem cell research, abortion, or one of the other hotly debated topics in science today, I don't think the media would address any discovery in science much. Guess people just are not interested in this stuff anymore. *shrugs* Wouldn't normal matter become unstable and break apart if it were accelerated that fast? Maybe not. |
|
Re: speed of light.
|
| matter beguin to act like waves at really high speeds just like the light and indeed there are particles that move faster than light. So me dont now. |
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-06-22 15:04:13
|
|
Ensteins thoery states that mass can not reach past the speed of light due to the fact that the amount of energy any level of mass needs to reach that speed would be infinite As far as massless particles going faster than light, there is no thoery saying they cant.. that I know of.. but all of the field particles do travel at the speed of light (speed of light is also the speed of nuclear and gravitational forces)
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: speed of light.
|
|
Quite frankly, I was wondering the same thing myself. Specifically, the "proof" that any non-zero-mass particle can't reach the speed of light is that it would supposedly have infinite momentum at the speed of light. Were such the case, that would be correct. However, since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, and both of these are finite, then why would their product be infinite? It doesn't make sense. However, I'll be the last person to claim expertise in the field. |
|
Re: speed of light.
|
| So light's momentum is calculated differently than other things? That's all well and good, but I'm not talking about the momentum of light; I'm talking about the momentum of other things travelling at light-speed. An apple, for instance. |
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by
on 2005-07-09 14:57:41 |
|
Well, i have different opinion. If something travels with speed of light, the mass of it self will increase until it can't calculated. And the height or width of this thing will decrease until it almost reach zero. Well, it means this thing will dissapear, because something that related to zero means no thing. Also, we will recieved a gravity force which can crush us in a second while the ship accelerated to reach light speeed. The energy that use for the travel is also impossible for us to provide the amount of energy. (Remember Einstein's theory, E=MC2. Energy equal to mass and the speed) Unless we solve this problem, we can't travel with ligthspeed. Well i'm pretty sure that in 20 to 50 years, we'll be able to find the solution.   |
|
Re: speed of light.
|
|
this relative in a different way. but if one were to move slightly faster than the speed of light should,nt one be able to see himself in slowmotion . i mean that since vision works by light reflecting of an object one should be able to look back and see the light reflected of himself. and since the light is only slightly slower ne should be able to see himselfmoving in slow motion. it may not even be a noticable amount of movement but still. PS: im only 15 and i have a lot of time on my hands because i don,t like to do school work . it's easy but i don,t like the idea of working for nothing.and i dont want to go to a post graduate school.
trying is the first step towards failure
|
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-07-13 18:52:34
|
|
but you forget to go even the speed of light you would cease to exist, and nothing has been ever recorded going faster than light. The only feasiable way of traveling faster than the speed of light is to bend space around you rather than moving.. but I believe even that might pose problems.. there is a reason why light can only travel at a certain speed. Maybe that there is a natural resistance that space has to being bent or being flowed through
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: speed of light.
|
|
but if the bose einstein condensate theory is correct one should be able to used trapped light as a means of acceleration
trying is the first step towards failure
|
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-07-14 15:53:31
|
|
when light enters a bose einstein condensate it doesnt slow down.. it just has to be absord and released by so many particles at such a close distance that it seems to slow. But infact inbetween these particles, the speed of light is at its normal constant... and even if we were to "trap" light and release it for accleration.. that doesnt mean we would be able to pass that constant, no matter how you accerlate a mass, you still have the same problems of infinite mass at the speed of light.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: speed of light.
|
|
Talk about "trapped light".. Isn't it that the light is trapped inside the blackhole, and that's why it is so dark? Is there any relation between the speed of light with gravitational force??
-nothing is impossible to a willing heart :p-
|
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-07-19 15:32:31
|
|
light really isnt trapped inside a black hole, black holes emit radation, everything goes in.. comes out
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: speed of light.
|
|
The thing itself won't dissappear if it enters the speed of light because its existence is almost zero, not totally zero. We are the ones who see it zero. Example. If we watch someone runs and then he runs wuth the speed of light, we won't be able to see him anymore. He just dissappear from our eyes. Poof! But the the existence of the runner itself doesn't dissappear. Only the runner himself feels normal but the truth is, he's no longer normal in our eyes. We can see him again if he reduces his speed. And, yes, any particle that enters the speed of light will have a very destructive gravitational force because the energy is almost infinite (cuz I think it's not infinite). Even a handkerchief can kill you if it enters the speed of light... lol
Gendou City Crossover RP! ~Coming soon~
|
|
Re: speed of light.
|
|
Well, I have an opinion about light.. If we are talking about the characteristic of light in physics, don't we always take comparison with others? Let's say, light can be reflected or refracted just like sound. So we could say that light is wave. But light has energy and energy equals mass times square of speed of light. Everything that has mass is particle, right? Maybe light is a particle afterall, but also a wave. So, I guess light can be attracted due to gravity.
-nothing is impossible to a willing heart :p-
|
|
Re: speed of light.
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-07-25 16:28:00
|
|
What you have incorrectly stubbled upon is one of physics most confusing thoerys.. light is in fact both a particle and a wave and will act like which ever one you want it too. the reason light is attacted to gravity is not that it is being pulled by gravity but that gravity is bending space time and light flows with that bend.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|