According to special relativity, we cannot travel faster than the speed of light.Do you have another answer.
Han Solo travelled slightly faster in the Millennium Falcon in order to evade the blast shields of the First Order!
Dear Andrew
Han Solo is Fictional Character , lol
any way thank you
Actually for us, we more related to general relativity than special. This is better way to attack problem. In this formulation if we can travel, then causality breaks. There is an interesting paper by Levy-Leblond, which discuss foundation of special relativity, "one more derivation of ...", in last part of his analysis, it shows that lorentzian picture depends on causality condition, if we remove this condition we can travel faster that light and vice versa.
Article One more derivation of the Lorentz transformation
Dear Dr. Saeed,
It is really an interesting question although conflicting opinions existed about it's answer. For more answers and points of view, please refer to the links below.
Best regards
SM Najim
http://earthsky.org/space/faster-than-light-travel-are-we-there-yet
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/49360/20150428/nasa-may-have-accidentally-discovered-faster-than-light-travel.htm
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/why-can-t-anything-travel-faster-light
http://io9.gizmodo.com/are-we-ever-going-to-develop-faster-than-light-travel-1703108613
http://www.sciencealert.com/these-4-cosmic-phenomena-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121003-can-we-travel-faster-than-light
Dear Prof. Saeed Al Rashid,
Your question is a question for a Nobel prize.
I would like to say something from the domain of science fiction. In the past we read the books of Jules Verne, they were science fiction, and today may of his ideas became real technology. In his books "Foundation", Isaac Asimov speaks of "jumps" - wormholes through the space-time. The people who deal with general relativity (unfortunately, I don't belong to this field) didn't find such a thing. But, could it be that such a thing is though possible?
Now, some general considerations. You know that a signal (of some nature - maybe not yet discovered by us) which travels with faster-than-light velocity, may seem from the point of view of some moving frame of reference, as traveling from the future to the past.
Can we bring information from the future to the past? Is it logically possible? Bringing information from the future, which wasn't known in the past, means re-writing the past. A universe in which such things would be possible, would be an unstable universe. The only solution for a stable universe, wold be a universe in which the future is identical with the past - i.e. the concept of time won't exist.
This is NOT a negative answer to your question. It is just thoughts.
With best regards,
Sofia
Dear Sofia
Thank you for your answer, so I really respect all answer even if they are wrong. Here, (in my opinion) just the Angles( Angels of God ) and spirit (when it going to God ) moving in speed of light so may be Im mistaken.
Regards
While it's seems that special relativity bounds velocity from above, but in fact it's doesn't. SR separate three regions from each other, it means that if velocity is less than c remains there, and if it's greater than c, it's remains greater. In later case (Tachyonic case), mass isn't a physical quantities.
http://www.sciencealert.com/these-4-cosmic-phenomena-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
Dear Abinayaa
First , thank you , So I want your view in this question not more papers and articles
regards
Faster-than-light travel refer to the propagation of matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not prohibit the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
Dear friends,
Actually, the nature allows a certain "wormhole", through the entanglements. It's not for travelling, it's for transmitting information. Of course, there is no object or particle which travels superluminally between separated regions, the entanglement handles the distant particles as if they were at the same place. It does that by constructive and destructive interference of multi-particle amplitudes.
But the theorem of no-signaling theorem says that we can't use the entanglements for superluminal communication. The truth of the theorem is restricted to unitary transformations. (The theorem appears in the Wikipedia somewhat more generalized.) For overcomming this theorem, what is needed is a NON-UNITARY transformation.
The question is, therefore if such a transformation can be found and CONTROLLED. A trivial non-unitary transformations is the "collapse" of the wave-function. But we can't controll it. We can't impose to the collapse which result to pick in every trial and trial of an experiment. We need a controllable non-unitary transformation.
Very interesting discussion
We all know the number one traffic rule of the universe – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And that happens to be 299,792.458 kilometres per second. But why is it so?
Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not prohibit the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
This question gave Albert Einstein pause for thought
E= MC2
Einstein's special theory of relativity permanently tied mass and energy together in the simple yet fundamental equation E = mc2.This little equation predicts that nothing with mass can move as fast as light, or faster. The closest humankind has ever come to reaching the speed of light is inside of powerful particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider and the Tevatron.
In Indian History Mr. Narad (the Messenger of God) can travel.
Dear RG friends
Thank you very much for you discussion , but please lets us far away from papers or articles , I want to discuss it with your minds and backgrounds.
regards
my dear Saeed Al Rashid....
its good question.....
first let us travel with the speed of light....then we see faster than light is possible or not......
can anybody traveled with speed of light in real life?
Dear friends,
Everybody knows that the relativity theory interdicts an object with rest-mass to increase its speed up to EQUALITY to the light velocity. It is boring to see this trivial fact repeated again and again in comments. It would be good if someone could say something NON-trivial (and also correct).
The question asked here is an invitation for deep thinking, for original ideas.
Dear Sofia
As I said before in this question in special relativity is no one can travel faster speed of light and also in my comment ( in my opinion). But we are looking for to find an idea to let that possible , may be theoretical it is possible.
thank you
regards
Yes, this is a fact we must accept. So we must hope that there is somewhere which relativity doesn't apply! something like spooky action in QM.
Sometimes it's not necessary to cross a bound, e.g. to achieve negative temperature, system doesn't necessarily cross zero temperature!
Dear RG friends
When Albert Einstein first predicted that light travels the same speed everywhere in our universe, he essentially stamped a speed limit on it: 670,616,629 miles per hour.
But that's not the entire story. In fact, it's just the beginning.
Before Einstein, mass — the atoms that make up you, me, and everything we see — and energy were treated as separate entities. But in 1905, Einstein forever changed the way physicists view the universe.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity permanently tied mass and energy together in the simple yet fundamental equation E=mc^2. This little equation predicts that nothing with mass can move as fast as light, or faster.
The closest humankind has ever come to reaching the speed of light is inside of powerful particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider and the Tevatron. These colossal machines accelerate subatomic particles to more than 99.99% the speed of light, but as Physics Nobel laureate David Gross explains, these particles will never reach the cosmic speed limit.
To do so would require an infinite amount of energy and, in the process, the object's mass would become infinite, which is impossible. (The reason particles of light, called photons, travel at light speeds is because they have no mass.)
Since Einstein, physicists have found that certain entities can reach superluminal (that means "faster-than-light") speeds and still follow the cosmic rules laid down by special relativity. While these do not disprove Einstein's theory, they give us insight into the peculiar behavior of light and the quantum realm.
regards
Dear RG Colleagues
When objects travel faster than the speed of sound, they generate a sonic boom. So, in theory, if something travels faster than the speed of light, it should produce something like a "luminal boom." In fact, this light boom happens on a daily basis in facilities around the world — you can see it with your own eyes. It's called Cherenkov radiation, and it shows up as a blue glow inside of nuclear reactors, like in the Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory in the image to the right. Cherenkov radiation is named for Soviet scientist Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, who first measured it in 1934 and was awarded the Nobel Physics Prize in 1958 for his discovery. Cherenkov radiation glows because the core of the Advanced Test Reactor is submerged in water to keep it cool. In water, light travels at 75 % the speed it would in the vacuum of outer space, but the electrons created by the reaction inside of the core travel through the water faster than the light does. Particles, like these electrons, that surpass the speed of light in water, or some other medium such as glass, create a shock wave similar to the shock wave from a sonic boom. When a rocket, for example, travels through air, it generates pressure waves in front that move away from it at the speed of sound, and the closer the rocket reaches that sound barrier, the less time the waves have to move out of the object's path. Once it reaches the speed of sound, the waves bunch up creating a shock front that forms a loud sonic boom. Similarly, when electrons travel through water at speeds faster than light speed in water, they generate a shock wave of light that sometimes shines as blue light, but can also shine in ultraviolet. While these particles are traveling faster than light does in water, they're not actually breaking the cosmic speed limit of 670,616,629 miles per hour.
regards
Saeed
Dear Prof. Saeed Al Rashid,
What you talk with us in riddles? It seems that you know something. Can you afford to tell us? Or at least, to give some hint? Or, eventually, shall we wait until you publish an article? Everybody is curious to know. At least, do tell us if there is some hope for surpassing light velocity.
With kindest regards,
Sofia
Dear Sofia
I just offer history of this problems,
regards
Dear Daniel,
==> "Anyhow, without getting into a complete exposition of the argument, assuming that gravity is instantaneous, . . ."
NO force that propagates continuously from one point to another, is instantaneous.
Best regards!
Oh, Daniel !
Yes, I know that there are people who think that the space-time is quantized. Prof. Antoine Suarez (here on RG) is an adept of such a view. But, you see, I don't know why is it necessary to adopt this view. So, I tried to read the article in the link you recommended, but the statement "Here we chose space to be fundamentally discrete" kicked me out.
About gravitational field, yes we can consider it static as long as the masses inside it don't move. But what if they do move? Assume that two massive bodies collide non-ellastically forming an even more massive body (and a lot of splints flying all around). What happens with the gravitational field acting on a third body? The field geometry changes, doesn't it?
Best regards!
Dear Dr. Daniel L. Burnstein,
I think, I observed that gravity is instantaneous. Please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263890605_The_speed_of_gravity_An_observation_on_satellite_motions?ev=prf_pub
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308409482_The_speed_of_gravity_An_observation_on_galaxy_motions?ev=prf_pub
Article The speed of gravity: An observation on satellite motions
Experiment Findings The speed of gravity: An observation on galaxy motions
Dear Daniel,
I do not reject the idea that the space-time is discrete. The situation is, that general relativity is not my domain of competence - I deal with the quantum mechanics. Thus, as usually among people who are not competent in some domain, I look at the idea of discreteness of the space-time with suspicion, and I feel better with the continous space-time.
You see, to accept a new hypothesis is not trivial. One has to be aware of the implications of that hypothesis and agree with them, and also to know which advantages brings the new hypothesis over the old theory.
With best regards,
Sofia
Dear RG Colleagues
Keep in mind that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity states that nothing with mass can go faster than the speed of light, and as far as physicists can tell, the universe abides by that rule. But what about something without mass?
Photons, by their very nature, cannot exceed the speed of light, but particles of light are not the only massless entity in the universe. Empty space contains no material substance and therefore, by definition, has no mass.
"Since nothing is just empty space or vacuum, it can expand faster than light speed since no material object is breaking the light barrier," said theoretical astrophysicist Michio Kaku on big think. "Therefore, empty space can certainly expand faster than light."
This is exactly what physicists think happened immediately after the Big Bang during the epoch called inflation, which was first hypothesized by physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde in the 1980s. Within a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, the universe repeatedly doubled in size and as a result, the outer edge of the universe expanded very quickly,much faster than the speed of light.
Regards
Saeed
Dear
Quantum entanglement sounds complex and intimidating but at a rudimentary level entanglement is just the way subatomic particles communicate with each other. And whats fanscinating about it is that sudies have shown that this communication process can travel faster than light.
"If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory," Kaku explains on big think. Now, separate those two electrons so that they're hundreds or even thousands of light years apart, and they will keep this instant communication bridge open.
"If I jiggle one electron, the other electron 'senses' this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light," Kaku wrote.
In fact, in 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, attempted to disprove quantum theory with a thought experiment on what Einstein referred to as "Spooky action at a distance ".Ironically, their paper laid the foundation for what today is called the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox, a paradox that describes this instantaneous communication of quantum entanglement — an integral part of some of the world's most cutting-edge technologies, like quantum cryptography.
Thank you for all
regards
Saeed
Hi,
I'm just an architect but I'd like to ask you something about this. According to @Daniel Bunrstein, "I believe that nothing can have an intrinsic speed greater than the speed of light. But the relative speed between two bodies, calculated from their intrinsic speed, can be greater". Does it mean that if I take Einstein's train at c speed and I start travelling from the train, but in opposite direction, at any velocity...would I surpass c speed related to the train? This concept of intrinsic velocity is very interesting.
Also, as far as I know, a theory is less than a law. i.e. Relativity Theory and Gravitational Law. I know they tried to demonstrate Relativity Theory looking at an eclipse and checking wether light beams curved or not. But some say this test wasn't well done. So why taking this a a law?
Finally, what do you think about Tesla's writtings on Relativity?. Although he never demonstrated, he believed that this theory was wrong.
Thanks!
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/occultether/occultether.htm#contents
Can our senses measure speed using an entity that has an intrinsic ability to travel faster than light? If we can or when we can, then we reconstrct all our 'speed-limit' theories.
No one has reach the speed of light in practical life , so when we reach the speed of light first then we start to think about warp speed
Frankly no! Nothing physical exceeds light speed in our 4 dimensional space time.
The reason is simple. Energy and momentum give the answer.
(mc2)2 = E2 ( 1-v2/c2)
Faster than light means the mass becomes imaginary.
Nothing with mass is observed to travel at light speed. Some times the opinions are found that energy can never go that high. More recently it is proposed that mass energy converts to kinetic energy as velocity approaches light speed. LIGO observation data seems to confirm this with pairs of black holes even losing mass as kinetic energy radiated away while the pairs merged at near light speed.
Einstein required local light speed to change in a gravity field or other accelerating frame. By reference to Lagrangian Density a difference is taken subtracting potential energy from kinetic energy, suggesting that kinetic energy curves space backward from the curvature of gravity potential energy. If true then light speed could increase locally in an accelerating frame as measured by the traveler, but within limits derived from conventional energy and momentum equations.
The traveler never exceeds local light speed, but the local light speed might increase in an accelerating frame. It leads to a prediction of limitations on the capacity of space to contain kinetic energy, which could eventually be tested, but at present is not proven.
Saeed, two points.
In truth, the Lorentz transformation does allow for objects to travel faster than the speed of light. There's only a minor point: the mass must be "imaginary." But "imaginary" does not mean "make-believe." Imaginary numbers represent real phenomena. E&M theory is full of imaginary numbers, and we know that electromagnetic fields are real enough!
[The "gamma" term, in the Lorentz transformation, is 1/sqr(1 - v2/c2). So gamma becomes imaginary when v > c. The speed of light itself is a singularity, but faster is quantifiable.]
The other aspect of this is the concept of traveling effectively faster than c, without actually moving mass faster than c. We can conceive of cutting between folds in the space-time continuum, either via worm holes or something along the lines of a warp drive.
Whatever the answer is, we have to find something. It's inconceivable to me that mankind is forever confined to one solar system, or even a tiny neighborhood of a galaxy.
- Badges
- Science topic