Near Light Speed Travel Possible After All?

[dheaddy]

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

[ghippleh]

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.)

[Rob2687]

Note it's arrival before departure...

Makes it sound like they sent it through a space and back in time? :huh:

[cchasem]

cool. i'll take 14 'anti-gravity weightlessly falling acceleration' devices.

[kylejn]

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!

[lostspyder]

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 February 11, 2006 by lostspyder

[NienorGT]

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...

[dheaddy]

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

[BigDaddy5]

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.

[thermal+paste]

will be like the ion drive in the movies? a soliton wave? dilithium crystal?

[JoDaddy]

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 February 12, 2006 by JoDaddy

[sundayx Veteran]

hi im john titor

[JoDaddy]

While we're on the subect - here's an article on a hyper-drive propulsion system in New Science that won an award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

[primexx]

Well, traveling over the speed of light is either already possible or it never will be...

(If you didnt get that, being able to travel back in time eleminates the meaning of "time", thus now is every single moment)

[lostspyder]

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

[BigDaddy5]

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.

[thermal+paste]

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

[BigDaddy5]

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?

[thermal+paste]

In either case we'd be ****ed right?

Edited February 13, 2006 by Boffa Jones

[Xerino]

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!!!!????

[leesmithg]

GeForce would knock you unconcious and you shall die quickly.

[Coneneo]

Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light

any idea how to travel at 1.8e8 m/s?

[Coneneo]

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.

[kinetix63 Veteran]

Whilst this thread has been very interesting to me, I now remember why I never took physics..

*massages temples, and reaches for aspirin*

[sundayx Veteran]

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

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

zis man took it http://www.youtube.com/?v=ul5L0ceo-ts