Biohazord Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 OT: do you think humanity will eventually achieve light speed? 584811085[/snapback] Even though most theory's say it is impossible I believe that eventually we will overcome the barrier some time in humanities future (if it survives that long :alien: ), but like Jack31081 said the most likely thing will be the warping of space/time to achieve the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Almost forgot. One way you can travel to the stars without breaking the light barrier is by using gravity. Basically, you take 40 or 50 neutron stars, line them up rotating in the same direction, giving you a big spinning rod. And when I say big...I mean big. The gravity generated from such a massive object actually creates so much gravity that it warps space-time. It goes back to Einstein's theory that gravity itself is a warping of space time. Create enough gravity, and space-time doesn't just warp, it snaps. Anyways, you wind up with gravity fields around this huge cylinder and in theory, a ship travelling into these fields has access to any location in space-time...past, present, future, here, there, anywhere. Problem is, that kind of gravity is a real biatch on the traditional space craft. However, the shape best suited to deal with those kinds of forces is... ... ... a flying saucer. I kid you not. I've read a few of books that deal with the scientific possibilities of time travel. Some other tidbits that are off-topic but interesting nonetheless: - travelling faster than light does not violate any laws of physics. - in theory, particles exist which are 'born' travelling faster than light and which require energy to slow down. In fact, no amount of energy could slow these particles down to a speed slower than light - theory suggests that antimatter is simply normal matter travelling backwards through time. all the equations work when this is taken into account and all observations of antimatter still make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tktino Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 its going to be dust thats going to return. If they are lucky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted October 27, 2004 Veteran Share Posted October 27, 2004 (edited) Anti-matter + Matter = Nothingness. If anti-matter were to make conact with matter at the other side of the universe it would mean the destruction of the whole universe itself. (Assuming the universe is a sphere). Example: 1 spherical bubble (matter), my hand (anti-matter). If I touched the bubble what would happen? .......... It would pop. Same thing goes for the universe. If it comes into contact with anti-matter it would be obliterated. once you break 1 molecular bond the whole thing collapses. Also.. anti-matter only exists outside of the universe. Dark matter protects matter from anti-matter. Wherever matter exists darkmatter co-exists with it. Anti-matter doesn't technically exist with matter.. it probably does. No one knows. Except for god. I don't even know what I just said. Feel free to prove me wrong. :wacko: 1 more thing. On rare occasions anti-matter + matter = light. I think it depends on the way anti matter and matter come into contact with each other. I could be wrong. There is absolutely no anti-matter in our galaxy.. except for the galactic core which is basically made up of photonic energy. Edited October 27, 2004 by Anaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ember Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 kewl news.. GO humans :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Anti-matter + Matter = Nothingness. If anti-matter were to make conact with matter at the other side of the universe it would mean the destruction of the whole universe itself. (Assuming the universe is a sphere). Example: 1 spherical bubble (matter), my hand (anti-matter). If I touched the bubble what would happen? .......... It would pop. Same thing goes for the universe. If it comes into contact with anti-matter it would be obliterated. once you break 1 molecular bond the whole thing collapses. Also.. anti-matter only exists outside of the universe. Dark matter protects matter from anti-matter. Wherever matter exists darkmatter co-exists with it. Anti-matter doesn't technically exist with matter.. it probably does. No one knows. Except for god. I don't even know what I just said. Feel free to prove me wrong.?:wacko:: 1 more thing. On rare occasions anti-matter + matter = light. I think it depends on the way anti matter and matter come into contact with each other. I could be wrong. There is absolutely no anti-matter in our galaxy.. except for the galactic core which is basically made up of photonic energy. 584812565[/snapback] They made antimatter tho and it only survived for like a millionth of a second or something. I can't remember where I read it but you will find the research if you search google. In theory there could be entire galaxies made of antimatter which we cant travel too because we would not survive if we came in contact with any of the antimatter. So our galaxy is matter.... another is anti matter... if they collide then they will destroy each other... but only if they are of equal mass... if the matter galaxy is greater than some of that will be left and if the anti matter galaxy is greater some of that will be left... ANYWAY .. off topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebigj Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Plasma propellants are accelerated to speeds an order of magnitude greater than those achieved by chemical rocket propellants, resulting in higher spacecraft velocities - at least 26,000 miles per hour. : :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejn Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Light speed is not the greatest speed possible. We can go faster. The problem is that at the speed of light, all of Einstein's equations go all screwy. However, once you get past the speed of light, things start to work fine again. It seems like it would be impossible to go faster than the speed of light without actually going the speed of light at some point, and in all likelyhood, it is. Still, if we could theoretically "skip" the speed of light, we shouldn't have a problem going even faster. I could be completely wrong about this, but this is what I remember from my astrophysics class in high school. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted October 28, 2004 Veteran Share Posted October 28, 2004 Light speed is not the greatest speed possible. We can go faster.The problem is that at the speed of light, all of Einstein's equations go all screwy. However, once you get past the speed of light, things start to work fine again. It seems like it would be impossible to go faster than the speed of light without actually going the speed of light at some point, and in all likelyhood, it is. Still, if we could theoretically "skip" the speed of light, we shouldn't have a problem going even faster. I could be completely wrong about this, but this is what I remember from my astrophysics class in high school. 584821252[/snapback] If I am not mistaken, light speed requires that the object traveling that fast has no mass (only thing I am aware of that has no mass yet does in fact exist is light) going faster then light would require an object to have negative mass, I don't even know what that would mean but that is what Einstein?s formulas would indicate. I don't see how you could skip light speed either, if you are accelerating to faster then light speed at some point you have to be going the speed of light if only briefly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Light speed is not the greatest speed possible. We can go faster.The problem is that at the speed of light, all of Einstein's equations go all screwy. However, once you get past the speed of light, things start to work fine again. It seems like it would be impossible to go faster than the speed of light without actually going the speed of light at some point, and in all likelyhood, it is. Still, if we could theoretically "skip" the speed of light, we shouldn't have a problem going even faster. I could be completely wrong about this, but this is what I remember from my astrophysics class in high school. ;) 584821252[/snapback] You're right in one respect, and I mentioned this earlier. Einstein's equations never prohibit faster-than-light travel. They only prohibit acceleration from a speed slower than light to a speed faster than light. Trying to do so is like trying to roll a marble through a steel wall 4 feet thick. It can't happen. When an object reaches light speed, it's volume becomes zero and its density becomes infinite. Also, its relativistic mass becomes infinite, meaning no amount of energy in the world would push the object any faster. However, if you have an object that is already travelling faster than light, everything's fine. Mass isn't negative (as someone else recently mentioned). The only difference in all the equations is that all the time variables are negated. Faster-than-light equals backwards through time as far as Einstein's equations are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted October 29, 2004 Veteran Share Posted October 29, 2004 You're right in one respect, and I mentioned this earlier. Einstein's equations never prohibit faster-than-light travel. They only prohibit acceleration from a speed slower than light to a speed faster than light. Trying to do so is like trying to roll a marble through a steel wall 4 feet thick. It can't happen. When an object reaches light speed, it's volume becomes zero and its density becomes infinite. Also, its relativistic mass becomes infinite, meaning no amount of energy in the world would push the object any faster. However, if you have an object that is already travelling faster than light, everything's fine. Mass isn't negative (as someone else recently mentioned). The only difference in all the equations is that all the time variables are negated. Faster-than-light equals backwards through time as far as Einstein's equations are concerned. 584827321[/snapback] Ouch...somebody, man I was one post above you. Anyway I'll take your word for it. Question though how exactly would something accerate past the speed of light without reaching the speed of light? The only solution I would see for that is some form of teleportation, granted it is possible I suppose (after all electrons do it all the time from what I understand). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Ouch...somebody, man I was one post above you. Anyway I'll take your word for it. Question though how exactly would something accerate past the speed of light without reaching the speed of light? The only solution I would see for that is some form of teleportation, granted it is possible I suppose (after all electrons do it all the time from what I understand). 584827959[/snapback] Not quite sure what you meant by the first line there. As far as your question, it's a very good one. Fact is, we can't accelerate past the speed of light, because we're already going slower than light. But there are a number of theories that indicate there are types of particles that exist that are 'born' going faster than light. These particles actually speed up as they lose energy and it requires more energy to slow them down. It's like a mirror image of 'our side' of the light-speed barrier. It would be impossible for these particles to slow down to a speed less than light, for the same reasons we can't go faster than light. Kind of strange, but it violates no law of physics. I'm not certain, but I think there are scientists working right now to attempt to detect these particles. You mention electrons 'teleporting'. They do, in some respect. In fact, a possible explanation for antimatter lies in the ability for particles to actually bust through the light-speed barrier and travel back through time (read: faster than light). Let's put it this way. When anti-matter and matter collide, they are both annihilated in a burst of energy. In fact, this is the single greatest energy souce in the universe I belive, moreso than fusion. But let's look at it another way. Suppose you see me running down the street. I run faster and faster and faster, and at a certain point, bam, a huge release of energy and all of a sudden I'm travelling faster than light. What would you see as an observer? Well, you'd see me running faster and faster...but then in the distance you'd see another me running backwards, along the same path. I run faster and faster towards an inevitable collision with this other me that's running backwards. The two of us collide and bam, there's a huge release of energy. Sounds familiar, no? Of course, this would never be possible with humans, but for particles and sub-particles, there are theories that suggest it's quite feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I just got a couple of comments to add. Firstly, anti-matter is created all the time and has very useful applications, so it's not gonna destroy the universe. One example would be positron emission tomography used in medical imaging. And when matter and anti-matter of equal mass collide, it produces two photons of equal energy, with each photon having energy equivalent to the mass of one of the particles. Another thing, how can one travel faster than the speed of light. According to special reletivity, if something travels faster than light, the gamma function becomes an imaginary number. How the hell can you have an imaginary amount of momentum? Imaginary momentum implies imaginary force implies imaginary energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Another thing, how can one travel faster than the speed of light. According to special reletivity, if something travels faster than light, the gamma function becomes an imaginary number. How the hell can you have an imaginary amount of momentum? Imaginary momentum implies imaginary force implies imaginary energy. 584829698[/snapback] I'm no physicist, and I've only read books (never solved any of the equations :) ), but I believe the gamma function is imaginary only until you negate all the time variables. Once you negate the time variables, the momentum becomes real again. This is where we get the conclusion that to travel back in time, you must travel faster than light. I'm not certain, and I'd be pleased if someone would correct me, but that's my best guess. All I do know is that travelling faster than light does not break any laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I'm no physicist, and I've only read books (never solved any of the equations :) ), but I believe the gamma function is imaginary only until you negate all the time variables. Once you negate the time variables, the momentum becomes real again. This is where we get the conclusion that to travel back in time, you must travel faster than light.I'm not certain, and I'd be pleased if someone would correct me, but that's my best guess. All I do know is that travelling faster than light does not break any laws of physics. 584830104[/snapback] Um... there is no time variable in the gamma function. Gamma is dependent on velocity and velocity of light. The speed of light is derived from permeability and permittivity of vacuum so no ime there. Speed is distance over... ****! There is time. But in the gamma function, velocity is squared and so the negative time has no effect. Unless you have imaginary time, in which case a negative will appear since i^2 = -1. How do you get imaginary time then? Do real world problems even exist that use imaginary numbers? Well, real worlds examples do exist, but only from a mathematical perspective (i.e. eigenvalues of a rotation matrix are imaginary). I mean, can you have an imaginary number of apples? Anywho, I'm way off topic. Gotta go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Um... there is no time variable in the gamma function. Gamma is dependent on velocity and velocity of light. The speed of light is derived from permeability and permittivity of vacuum so no ime there. Speed is distance over... ****! There is time. But in the gamma function, velocity is squared and so the negative time has no effect. Unless you have imaginary time, in which case a negative will appear since i^2 = -1. How do you get imaginary time then? Do real world problems even exist that use imaginary numbers? Well, real worlds examples do exist, but only from a mathematical perspective (i.e. eigenvalues of a rotation matrix are imaginary). I mean, can you have an imaginary number of apples? Anywho, I'm way off topic. Gotta go... 584830695[/snapback] Well like I said, I don't know too much about the science behind it, I've only read some books on the subject of time travel. It's probably more complicated than "negate the time variables", but that's the impression I have some 2 years after reading the last of the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Pirate] Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Cool :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts