Near Light Speed Travel Possible After All?

By dheaddy
in Science News & Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Experienced

dheaddy

Posted
Posted
PhysOrg has a story about research that may indicate that close to light speed travel is possible. From the article: 'New antigravity solution will enable space travel near speed of light by the end of this century, he predicts.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber will present his new exact solution of Einstein's 90-year-old gravitational field equation to the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) in Albuquerque.

The solution is the first that accounts for masses moving near the speed of light.'

Source: Physorg.com

Apprentice

ghippleh

Posted
Posted

What exactly does the research address? NEAR light speed has always been 'possible' but the energy requirements depend completely on the Equation found by Lorentz via Einstein. The only restraint imposed by modern physics on space travel is that an object with nonzero mas cannot equal or exceed the speed of light in any inertial or noinertial reference frame. The energy, however, to approach just less than the speed of light by a massive object increases exponentially and reaches toward infinity before the speed of c is ever reached. I must add that a few years ago some scientists 'thought' they found a way to record behaviour that moved faster than c. If i remember right, they shot an electron (a massive particle) through a gas of cesium and were able to note its arrival before its departure! (The consquences of going faster than light.)

Grand Master

kylejn

Posted
Posted

What exactly does the research address? NEAR light speed has always been 'possible' but the energy requirements depend completely on the Equation found by Lorentz via Einstein. The only restraint imposed by modern physics on space travel is that an object with nonzero mas cannot equal or exceed the speed of light in any inertial or noinertial reference frame. The energy, however, to approach just less than the speed of light by a massive object increases exponentially and reaches toward infinity before the speed of c is ever reached. I must add that a few years ago some scientists 'thought' they found a way to record behaviour that moved faster than c. If i remember right, they shot an electron (a massive particle) through a gas of cesium and were able to note its arrival before its departure! (The consquences of going faster than light.)

As I understand it, Einstein's equations allow faster-than-light travel, but travel at the speed of light makes things fall apart. So, if you could just, you know, "skip" going the speed of light, then things would be OK!

Veteran

lostspyder

Posted
Posted (edited)

As I understand it, Einstein's equations allow faster-than-light travel, but travel at the speed of light makes things fall apart. So, if you could just, you know, "skip" going the speed of light, then things would be OK!

If I rember my physics corectly speed over C makes the lorentz transformations divide by square of a negitive number, producing i. I cant fathom what happens if you start going some multible of i. So you would be going an imaginary speed?

and yes einsteins equations dont alow for speed of C because it makes things divide by zero.

but also einsteins equations are wrong, because there unable to account for quantum mechanics. There preaty darn close tho, but I imagine that the mistake will have big impact as you get closer and closer to C

as for the article, I dont think anyone realy doubted the posibility of going the speed of light. Infact electrons travel near the speed of light (or is it exactly?) and they have a mass.

Edited by lostspyder
Experienced

dheaddy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As I understand it, Einstein's equations allow faster-than-light travel, but travel at the speed of light makes things fall apart. So, if you could just, you know, "skip" going the speed of light, then things would be OK!

I don't think the equations account for faster than light travel, but that's not what this article is talking about. It's talking about solving the equations to develop a means to push a mass to a large fraction of the speed of light. There are theoretical particles that may travel faster than c called tachyons.

as for the article, I dont think anyone realy doubted the posibility of going the speed of light. Infact electrons travel near the speed of light (or is it exactly?) and they have a mass.

As far as I can remember, the speed of an electron in a vacuum can approach, but never reach c, the speed of light, in a vacuum anyway. Photons travel at the speed of light obviously

Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted

If I rember my physics corectly speed over C makes the lorentz transformations divide by square of a negitive number, producing i. I cant fathom what happens if you start going some multible of i. So you would be going an imaginary speed?

and yes einsteins equations dont alow for speed of C because it makes things divide by zero.

but also einsteins equations are wrong, because there unable to account for quantum mechanics. There preaty darn close tho, but I imagine that the mistake will have big impact as you get closer and closer to C

as for the article, I dont think anyone realy doubted the posibility of going the speed of light. Infact electrons travel near the speed of light (or is it exactly?) and they have a mass.

Correct, the lorentz transformation equation requires a factor, usually referred to as gamma, that is 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

That means when velocity is above the speed of light, you will get a factor of i on the bottom. The same thing about einsteins field equation holds true for the lorentz tranformations equations, you will have a 0 factor on the bottom.

What is interesting about the speed of light, according to theory, is that you will be everywhere at once, and yet nowhere. When you travel at near the speed of light, space and time contracts to you, so a meter in one reference frame might only be an inch in yours, and a year might only be a second. And in theory, when you travel faster then the speed of light, time becomes inverted, so you will be traveling back in time.

This is what makes the speed of light so interesting, because if the theory about special relativity at near the speed of light, and just above the speed of light hold true, then at the speed of light something will have to contract to the point of nonexistence in your reference frame.

This also makes some other topics interesting, such as what happens to an object that travels at the speed of light in an observer's reference frame. At near C speeds, you contract in that frame, so instead of a meter long, you're only an inch (quite interesting if you think about it, in the "rocket" frame, you are an inch long, but in your frame, he's an inch). But at the speed of light, in theory you'd contract so much you'd disappear.

Tachyons are a theoritical particle designed to help with faster then light travel theory, but they're not holding much water so far. And the "slowest" a tachyon can travel is the speed of light. I'd be interesting to see if faster then light travel is possible in the future, and if it's possible to cross that line.

Man did I go off into left field there...sorry, physics is my major.

Mentor

JoDaddy

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think the only real limitation to speed is being able to see. There is always this unpredicatable part to the universe that will keep anyone deploying a payload of any value blindly forward. Having said that - I think you can see at the speed of light - so I'm just wondering what the next barrier will be. First it was the sound barrier, then the light barrier. Maybe once we get that fast we'll discover objects that never go slower than the speed of light, and then we'll want to get to going that fast. After all there is a huge universe out there that'd I'd love to go speeding in. [/star Trek thinking] So yeah, end of this century is a bit early, but we'll do it soon enough. It'd be nice if I was alive when we made anti-gravity engines!

Edited by JoDaddy
Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted

Also on a side note, theres no reason to say that the earth isnt travling the speed of light relitive to some other observer right now. Hence we could all be traveling near the speed of light already :D

Actually, we are traveling at near light speed to particles traveling at near light speed. A particle or object or whatever, traveling at near the speed of light wouldn't "know" it's traveling, everything would be traveling at "it's speed," in the other direction relative to it.

It's all about reference frames.

But there are some laws about reference frames that hold true throughout. Like if an event can cause another in one reference frame, it can cause it throughout all reference frames. This is the "causality" rule or something similar, I forgot the exact rule. But when you travel at faster then light speed, the causality relation breaks down, because it's possible to have a result happen before the cause, at least in theory. This is one of the many interesting things about time travel and faster then light speed.

Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted

Do you guys believe the universe is expanding? If so where does it end? It seems if so we could extrapolate an origin?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html

I think the more interesting question is not where it ends, since most scientists will agree that the universe is finite, or where the origin is (though the origin would be interesting), but rather what will happen to the universe. Will it expand constantly? Will it reach a peak and shrink back to that origin? Or will it keep expanding until it reaches a point and "rip" into 2 universes?

Grand Master

Xerino

Posted
Posted

Well, you know, in the 80's we thinking to have space colony on the moon by 2000...

Or that the cars would fly like planes...

So i'm pretty septic...

according to the 1950's we were suppose to have flying cars and jetpacks by now too

wheres my jetpack dammit!!!!????

Collaborator

Coneneo

Posted
Posted
Actually, we are traveling at near light speed to particles traveling at near light speed. A particle or object or whatever, traveling at near the speed of light wouldn't "know" it's traveling, everything would be traveling at "it's speed," in the other direction relative to it.

It's all about reference frames.

No, not everything. Einstein postulated that light travels at 3e8 m/s in all reference frames, stationary or moving.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • eM Client 10.4.5600.0

      By Copernic · Posted

      eM Client 10.4.5600.0 by Razvan Serea eM Client is a full featured e-mail client with a modern and easy to use interface. eM Client also offers calendar, tasks, contacts and chat. eM Client supports all major services including Gmail, Exchange, iCloud, and Outlook.com. You can easily import your data from most of the other e-mail clients. This includes Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, The Bat and more. eM Client fully supports touch devices like touch-enabled laptops, tablets and hybrid devices. Use your email client easily in a modern way. eM Client PRO vs. Free version While the Free license allows you to set up the maximum of two accounts in the application, it is possible to add an unlimited number of accounts with the PRO license. The PRO license also enables you to use eM Client for commercial purposes. Commercial use is any activity that helps you make profit, the Free license therefore cannot be used in company settings or on personal computers for business correspondence. PRO users also gain access to the dedicated support system and to the licensing manager. eM Client has been fully optimized to run smoothly on Windows Vista, 7, 8, 10 and 11. eM Client 10.4.5600.0 changelog: Improved memory management Improved MS Teams support A lot of other fixes Download: eM Client 10.4.5600 | 128.0 MB (Free, paid upgrade available) View: eM Client Website | eM Client Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • EU says AWS and Microsoft Azure should be treated as DMA gatekeepers

      By Nas · Posted

      Re: Capitalism. It's just 1 of dozens of economic models currently-adopted worldwide; most national models separate money from politics thereby limiting the influence wealth carries over the economy (due to limited tentacles wealth politics has over the broader economy). The "American model" of unfettered financial influence should NOT be the variant of pure capitalism adopted worldwide. More regulations formulated within this variant is effectively useless due to the misalignment between regulatory objectives and fundamental influence wealth politics carry over the market. Re: enough money. Without constraining the breadth/depth/scope/scale that any measure of money/wealth can have within a market, there will always inherently be those who have "enough money" and those who do not. Those without "enough money" will always lose -- regardless if a bedroom DJ, indie developer, or million-dollar corporation going against a billion-dollar mega-corporation. The evil is the absence of guardrails against the influence of wealth; not the mere existence of wealth. Re: dragged through the courts. The liberalist nature of litigation does not exclude anyone, anywhere, for any reason for getting dragged through the courts. Rather than formalize remediation pathways for various perceived ills, everything is left up to flawed interpretations... and this is where a litigation-averse community fails to thrive (thus a losing proposition when dragged to courts). Everyone should have more protections and clear remediation strategies! Going to an alternate remediation arbitration is OK so long as the case review and remediation processes are clear and transparent. For corporations, hit them where it hurts: automatic financial penalties. (PS: This is where corporate risk management strategies would do well to behave more ethically.) Overall, failure to truly shake-up the incentive core and regulatory extremities of the economic market will necessarily mean that all other actions are simply applying lipstick on a pig. Change begins from the inside. Is the root cause of the problem that a majority of consumers within a market goes for Option Brand-name versus Option Indie? Or that brand-name is spending foreign money to control domestic markets? Or that money is the objective measure for success across all walks of life? Or that deep pockets dictate the moral and ethical rights/wrongs of entire societies? Regardless of the answer (and there's nothing inherently wrong with being a socialist or communist or whatever label your surroundings deem 'cool' or 'uncool') there's a common thread: If a market truly wants to nurture domestic innovation, then performative finger-wagging will do nothing to that end.
    • Researchers claim Microsoft's quantum breakthrough is flawed by basic Python errors

      By +pmrd · Posted

      Lol, I won't even bother explaining the joke to you.
    • Microsoft updates Visual Studio Code with chat cost tracking and multi-agent chats

      By Fleet Command · Posted

      Does anyone remember the time when VSCode was a lightweight solution, just shy of 40 MB? No?
    • The official Funny Pictures thread

      By +Edouard · Posted

  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      404
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!