ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Speed or Acceleration

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 05 2011, 3:42 pm

1, It is mathematically plausible but not realistically, In other words, mathematical equations are possible but not realistical, like E=mcc, right?


2, Is 'm' mass or is 'mcc' mass because you say both equal energy? Also, as I burn more fuel going faster in my car I have less mass and travel even faster, as long as some fuel remains,

3, No, light has no mass and that is why it travels that fast, infinite mass is required to travel that fast, Huh?

4, It violates the law of intelligence,

Chief Warrant Officer
Finn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 321

Report this Aug. 05 2011, 5:00 pm

1. You can do a lot in mathematics that is not known to be possible in our universe.  For example, in math you can always make a number negative by putting a minus sign in front.  However, you run into problems when you start doing that.  You can't have negative mass, at least not in our universe.


E = mc² is not only plausible, but it has been observed and demonstrated to be correct.


2. E is energy, m is mass, c is a constant (usually the speed of light in a vacuum.)  If you set c to equal 1, it cancels out.  Now you have just E = m.  Energy equals mass at rest, or energy-mass equivalency.  I tried to use an analogy that you might understand, but you've taken it to too literally.


3. Correct.


4. The way our universe works is that you can not have more mass than energy, and vise versa.  This is the basic principle of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It would require more energy than there is in the whole of our universe to fly someone at 99% of the speed of light.


Don't let this get you down.  Just because you can't fly at the speed of light, doesn't mean you can't get somewhere before light does.  If you create a short cut from point A to point B, then you don't need to travel faster than light.  If you could control a black hole and turn it into a cylinder, where the singularity and event horizon are the walls, you can now travel insurmountable distances in a matter of minutes; distances far greater and far faster than light could ever travel.

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 06 2011, 8:08 pm

First of all I do not accept the fact that light speed cannot be surpassed,

That does not mean I expect we will soon be travelling turbo-trans-warp drive and so it does not get me down, but thanks for caring,

Also, I believe there is a network of cosmic wormholes that could one day be used practically for true space travel, but that is only my belief...
(and no "what is this belief based upon")

Chief Warrant Officer
Finn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 321

Report this Aug. 07 2011, 11:52 pm

Quote: Ayko @ Aug. 06 2011, 8:08 pm

>

>1. First of all I do not accept the fact that light speed cannot be surpassed,

2. That does not mean I expect we will soon be travelling turbo-trans-warp drive and so it does not get me down, but thanks for caring,

3. Also, I believe there is a network of cosmic wormholes that could one day be used practically for true space travel, but that is only my belief...
(and no "what is this belief based upon")

>



1. There are instances where radio waves or any other sort of radiation can travel at superluminal speeds, but there are certain conditions: one, an existing medium of light or radiation has to already exist, and then the radiation travels within that medium; two, information and mass particles still do not travel faster than light.


Think of it as a train traveling at the speed of light.  You move from the back of the train to the front of the train while it's in motion.  Relative to onlookers, you appear to be moving faster than light as you move from the back to the front.  However, regardless of how fast you move inside the train, the train itself will never go any faster, nor will it reach its destination any faster.  So while you can technically move faster than light, you're limited by the speed of the train... which is still only light speed. 


2. Even in Star Trek, the ship itself never travels faster than light.  It warps space-time around the ship.  The ship and everyone on it travel at sub-light speeds, but as it warps space-time around the ship, relative to everyone else, it appears to be moving faster than light.  Apparent superluminal.


There are some interesting theoretical physics that actually cover that.  Suppose you have a space ship with a drive mechanism that can create its own micro-universe, one just big enough to surround the ship.  Initially, the ship travels at 1/2 the speed of light, or .5c.  Then the ship creates a "warp bubble," a micro-universe the same size as the ship, then accelerates to .5c inside that.  We'll call it Warp 1.  For Warp 2, you create a second micro-universe and accelerate to .5c.  Warp 3 you do the same, and so on.


Every time you make a new micro-universe, your speed accelerates at a geometric rate.  Relative to yourself, you're only flying at .5c, but relative to the onlookers, you're traveling exponentially faster than the speed of light.


3. That would certainly be cool.


Chief Warrant Officer
Finn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 321

Report this Aug. 08 2011, 12:04 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>You're a smart mofo ChiefWarrantOfficer Finn. Have you studied? If so, what did you study?

>A few like yourself have come and gone on these boards before. You'll probably become the bloke I pose my questions to from now on.

>Got nothing at the moment...

>
I'm very flattered, but I'm an armchair scientist.  I could never get past the advanced mathematics required for a science degree, but I haven't let that keep me from enjoying it as a hobby.  I don't always understand the math, but I do understand the concepts.  I have over half a dozen science related journals that I read all the time.  They're great.  In the front half of the journal it's explained in layman terms, then in the back is the actual math behind it that reminds me why I draw pretty pictures instead.


I am, unfortunately, a very right-brained person.  If only there was a cosmology degree for liberal arts majors, I'd be all over that.  Even if it was just using imaging software to clear up satellite photos.  That would be fun.


Math is my only barrier.  I'm good at abstract and parallel thinking, but not problem solving.  Hence my liberal use of analogies.

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 11:43 am

Thanks for taking the time Finn, I knew you were good for something (kidding),

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 11:49 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Yeah, I hear ya. I can't grasp the maths either, no matter how hard I try.

>I like to write sci-fi stories. I was always searching for the "right" way to travel faster than light. These days I keep everything sub-light, cause I never found a solution I was happy with.

>I don't mind using wormholes constructed by super-intelligent beings, or reactionless "warp" drives that travel STL, like the Natario configuration.

>


What about a universal mapping of a network of naturally occuring cosmic wormholes (what a dumb name, wormhole)? An idea I used for a sci-fi story with a time travelling space ranger,

Chief Warrant Officer
Finn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 321

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 4:14 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Chief, your bubbles in bubbles theory on warp drive, I haven't heard of it. I'm only familiar with the Alcubierre and related metrics.

>Do you have a link to this paper? Or a name of its publisher? I'd like to read more...

>


It is based on the Alcubierre thought experiment.  The problem with his is that it requires too much energy, more exotic matter than there is in the universe.


It requires much less energy to fly at subluminal speeds, then just create more bubbles.  There are several mathematicians and physicists that cover this idea or something similar.


Just check out the Wikipedia on the Alcubierre warp drive, it talks about several different solutions.

rtc

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Dec. 06 2011, 10:41 pm

Sorry but having trouble getting my head around this.....if light has no mass, how does it make the "thingy" spin in the glass vacuum experiment?


I thought something had to have mass to cause a reaction or force in the opposite direction. Please correct me if I have this all wrong.

The Master

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 404

Report this Dec. 12 2011, 10:37 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>They don't have mass, but they do have energy. I guess this causes the reaction.

>Although, mass and energy are equivelent. So I don't really get it either...

>


Dear Admiral K.J., what causes the effect is that each photon has a momentum and an energy, so as usual in any collision problems, in the simplest case, you determine eveything you want from conservation of total energy and total momentum. Total - means that of a silver plate and light, reflecting from it.


Regarding mass and energy being equivalent: it is not really a correct statement and it is not what follows from relativity. There is a concept of rest mass - if you go to a reference frame where the particle is at rest (has a zero speed), then the mass of the particle in that reference frame is a rest mass. There is no such reference frame for a photon - in any reference frame photon is moving with a speed of light - so for a photon rest mass is equal to zero. However it does not prevent a photon to have both energy and momentum (in appropriate units).


From the other side if you consider massive particle - the one that does have a rest mass - then you can use Einstein formula and find a rest energy for this particle.


You can hide a lot in a large-N matrix

The Master

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 404

Report this Dec. 21 2011, 11:53 am

Oh, you are welcome. I will try to write more about Higgs later, perhaps. Generally, I thought if someone had had questions about that Higgs hint on LHC, I would have tried to answer. Anyway, the story is that there is some evidence that there is a Higgs with mass around 125 GeV or so (quarter million times of electron's mass), and statistical significance of that observation is okay but not good enough to claim a discovery. So fellows on LHC will work the next year and see whether it is confirmed or not. Essentially this is pretty much it.

boco

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9942

Report this Dec. 22 2011, 5:30 am

:)

The Master

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 404

Report this Dec. 22 2011, 7:11 pm

Sure, they will just collect more data and see whether 125-GeV is confirmed. The whole point of hadron colliders is to shoot at high energies to get as much events as possible.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum