yes: velocity is defined to be s/t, t=0 implies the existence of an Asymptote (which IS the Limit- Comes from the construction based on proportionality)

Dear Hossein

To my knowledge of today, the answer is a big no.

Some theories describe situations about BB with velocities without  any limit.

Maybe we have to turn it all around and ask what velocity means and transform our questions into energy matter ?

I can't do it better sorry.

Kurt Wraae

Equivalent question is, If there is no speed limit in nature, do we have an infinite speed? In this case, what happens?

Reality of interval within relativistic physics requires any speed to be less than light speed (phase speed).

We only think there is a speed limit in the Universe because we have not excepted science that shows different. 

Dear Marat

Yes, you are right, question is why there is a speed limit in our universe?

Dear Spencer

No one has said tachyons have unlimited speed.

Humans have a bias (due to 'growing' their biological memories) to delayed interactions. The math indicates full time symmetry between two electrons; so one event is ALWAYS in the future of its partner electron in each interaction. 

Dear George

I agree with that the evidence shows there is a limit of speed in universe.

Dear Hossein, I draw your attention that Relativistic physics is generally accepted to be the main part of general description of the Universe.

Dear Marat

I know, they need to develop.

When you allow for 'advanced' interactions then an electron can communicate across the universe in a fraction of a second.

Speed limit is a property of space derived from the electric and magnetic constants.

The speed limit depends on your frame of reference. To a distant observer, the speed of light is slower in a gravity well than it is far outside the gravity well. In this distant frame of reference, the speed of light is a variable, not a constant. It only becomes a constant because our rulers and clocks are scaled by the gravitational potential.

Dear Jerry Decker:  Please leave Maxwell's bogus EM theory dead & buried.  His aether (your space) has NO properties as it is NOTHING - just an empty relationship between the emitting and receiving electrons (real stuff - not imaginary fictions).  At this rate, we will be discussing next how fast angels can fly. 

Dear Remi

Interesting questions, I do not belief the the speed of light always was constant. Fore detail see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315115730_Review_acceleration_of_photon_by_gravity

Article Review acceleration of photon by gravity

dear Hossein, . by using Distribution theory I have demonstrated that no natural constant is de facto constant. c, Speed of light, as well as the other (so-called) constants are variable.

Dear Paul

Thank you for your attention. I have not worked on other physics constants, now I am focusing on speed of light.

... but Speed of light is variable and limited: that IS another theory, not RT. it is a new one: i have published

Dear Hossein!

I would ask the question a different way: what if when there were not a limit of speed? This limit is obviously necessary in reality but there is no final answer why this limit is ≈300.000km/s.

The eqation c2 = 1/(ε0 ∙ μ0) establishes the relationship to other constants. Light speed is obviously a derived or secondary constant as Jerry said.

My regards! Hans

Dear Hans

No speed limit, is not compatible with our experience.

Because we have not seen the motion of a particle / object no speed limit

Do not break everything down?

Do we have an infinite speed?

A particle with infinite speed can be everywhere at the same time, please correct me if I am wroing.

With Best Regards

Hossein

"In a Universe with no speed limit, speed is unlimited, and anything can be everywhere. It is crude error, because we usually mean that speed can be unlimited in principle only in special, exclusive conditions but not everywhere.

There is NO speed limit in all theories of the hydrogen atom, where the standard assumption of Coulomb's Law is always used.  Since this is an electro-STATIC approximation (i.e . instantaneous effects or infinite speed) in a system where exquisite timing effects are critical then how can we have any confidence that we understand this only example of analytic quantum mechanics beyond coincidence of numbers. 

Dear Herb!

Let me just point out the following:

"There is NO speed limit in all theories..." As you say: in all theories

The propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation is clearly limited. Are the propagation speeds of coulomb force and magnetic force are limited too? If I regard the decays of some intermediary particles then I have to assume a limit.

@Hossein: We have to assume in accordance with all observations the speed of electromagnetic radiation as the absolute limit of speed. Beyond that: If a particle resp. a material object reached approximately this "limit speed" it loses more and more its material properties and becomes more and more the properties of electromagnetic energy. I do not agree with Einsteins assumption that merely the spatial and temporal properties change.

My regards! Hans

Dear Hans

"....it loses more and more its material properties and becomes more and more the properties of electromagnetic energy."

I agree with you.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit speed c and the relativistic mass. At that time there has not been a clear understanding of the subatomic particles and basically there was little research in high energy physics.

Moreover, the approach of relativity toward the physical phenomena is hyper structural and explains the observations of the observer while there is little consideration to the intrinsic entity of the phenomena.

Best Regards

Hossein

Dear Hossein,

in sixties former (now dead) soviet dissident and specialist in mathematical logics Alexandr Zinoviev has shown analizing logical structure of languages in his book "Logical Physics" that word (notion) "speed" presumes also maximal possible speed as well as notion length presumes minimal possible length. Unfortunately, I am not sure that his book has ever been translated into english, but he is famous person and scientist, so, You may find his works in materials of scientific conferences on mathematical logics of that times.

Regards,

Eugene.

According to the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU), the speed of light is the limit because of how acceleration takes place.

In HU,

So, QLP rules tangential motion (motion within the 3D hypersurface. There is no force that would effect our radial speed.

So, forces are what generates acceleration. Since there is a natural maximum speed, the effect of QLP should diminishes as velocity gets closer and closer to the speed of light.

That is the case.  In HU, time flows unimpeded. The result of interaction (acceleration) diminishes as velocity reaches the speed of light. That is trivial to show in HU.

You can follow the rest of my reply here.  It is easier.

https://www.quora.com/Why-can-something-with-mass-not-travel-at-the-speed-of-light/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/The-Derivation-of-Natural-Laws

I am not sure, but I feel speed is limited because our universe is limited.

I see 'light-speed' c as an intrinsic property of how electrons interact together.  It is as intrinsic as electron mass m and as such are the foundations of reality and NOT derived quantities.  These two, plus the electric charge e are linked together through Sommerfeld's (1916) Fine Structure Constant (alpha).  They define E/M interaction and resistance to change in their motions.  

With respect to wave particle duality, the velocity of a particle cannot exceed the velocity of the phase of the wave. This limits the velocity of photon to c. So the limiting condition is imposed by the phase of the wave. Now if we dissociate particle from the wave, then wave alone is like a virtual particle without any matter. This is the naked force for which there is no definition in physics. Because in physics, force is always associated with matter. In Hindu philosophies, this naked force is called Prana. When a person dies, Hindus say that his Prana (life) is gone. It is this Prana which makes the oscillatory motions of the lungs and the heart. There are several different kinds of Prana described in Upanishads. Prana is also called spandana which is a sanskrit word for vibration. So your question boils down to more fundamental question. Why the minimum velocity of the phase of the wave is limited to c?

Here's a simple metaphor for people who are still confused about "electron waves".

Watch a sewing machine operator do square stitches across some moving fabric.  When finished, the fabric exhibits a square wave of thread on both sides of the fabric.

In other words, a time-based fluctuation (the threading needle) will manifest its actions as a sine wave when motion is introduced. 

Sidney Ernest Grimm

A very good point of view.

We have a project for the moment working on the same philosophy principles , including descriptions of possible energy orbits in space..

Kurt Wraae

@ Sydney Ernest Grimm

That is a sad day when we decided to explain Reality based on Mathematics (as opposed to use Math to explain reality).

Mathematics does not allow for more fundamental laws...:)  about Reality.

If you don't believe.  Start from number theory and derive the law of Gravitation.

You should know that you cannot start from a Fitting Theory like General Relativity and claim that you are deriving anything fundamental.

What if reality is not a 4D Spacetime?

What if Forces were operational in a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface but not on the 4D volume, that is, what if the force domain was just the hypersurface (our Universe).

In 1915, the only known force was velocity-dependent. Why would we rule out Gravity to be velocity dependent?  Paul Gerber reproduced Mercury Perihelion Precession results using a velocity-dependent potential. My theory reduces to Paul Gerber when one consider a non-rotating Sun.  HU Gravitational Law also satisfies Gravitational Lensing and provides evidence from the SDSS BOSS dataset of the existence of Hyperspherical Acoustic Oscillations.

Those Hyperspherical Acoustic Oscillations are evidence that GR is wrong.... so, I would be carefull starting any Fundamental Reasoning based on GR.

@ Sydney Ernest Grimm

This concept is the pinnacle of arrogance by mathematicians, I suppose I should include Max Tegmark in that group.  The data I presented should illustrate how arrogant that is.

Without the SDSS BOSS data and the hyperspherical acoustic waves in it, we would be dreaming about a 4D Spacetime and variations about the theme forever.

Unless, my analysis is incorrect and the data is bogus (the waves are there and don't depend upon my theory).  If I apply a different d(z) (distance from redshift mapping), the waves will be slightly distorted but they will still be there..

So, data (Physics) is guiding Mathematics again (I say that but I know that that is not true since Mathematicians are the Queens of Denial..:)

Thanks for the reference to Tegmark's article.  I would read it, if I had time to waste.

I am not saying that the Universe is not Mathematical. It is!

In my theory, matter is made up from deformed space and they are polymers of the Fundamental Dilator.

So, in my theory, you can apply Number Theory directly to Physics.  For instance,

Charged Hyperons contain prime multiples of the Fundamental Dilator.

Goldbach's conjecture is applied to the bootstrap of all particles

Majorama Particles contains 2^n Fundamental Dilators,

ABC might be seen in decay reactions...etc.

Below is the topology (seen from the top of the fourth spatial dimension- perpendicularly to our 3D Universe) of the Omega Plus particle. Omega Plus topology is a tridecagon.

My biff is not with the Universe is Mathematical... It is with Mathematics is the Universe (a specific current view of Mathematics should guide us forever)

That is not the case.

If guys want to see what happens when people start with mathematics, instead of a physical hypothesis, go look at Quantum Mechanics (QM).  We now have 12 contradictory interpretations, including the nonsensical  Multi-Univiverse, plus zero progress in the last 90 years.  This has been a bust. 

Anyone seen a real field lately?

No, mathematical equations are NOT evidence for existence.  I'm talking REALITY. 

dear Hossein, ; Yes, I know why: if Events could happen instantly, then, for instance, Aliens who were interested for something could move into one another. therefore a limited Speed is needed: not to get into each other! in other words: Queues, lines, waiting lists could be useless :)

Dear Paul

Thank you for your interesting sociological opinion.

dear Hossein, without a Speed Limit everything could happen simultaneously; there were no time to build anything.

ِDear Paul

Exactly, I agree with you.

@Hossein Javadi @ Paul Pistea 

In a universe without speed limits, everything is topsy and events are beyond forecast. In a universe with no speed limit, speed is unlimited, and anything can be everywhere at the same time. So, facts show there is a limitation for speed in the universe. Question is what is the speed limit? 

The argument is flawed for the reason we could have an infinite maximum speed. What matters is the velocity distribution. That is what defines dynamics.  This is different from having matter without inertia.  Under those circumstances, then your statement would make sense.  Nobody said that all the other laws of physics out disappear.

Infinite speed for light would make wavelength undefined. So, we can rule out infinite speed for light, gravitation.

Infinite speed for the motion of massive bodies doesn't affect anything.

PS_ I am speaking within the framework of current physics.  My theory has a different take on the subject

Dear Marco

What is your theory?

Christian:  Yes, the Continuum Hypothesis was adopted to simplify the math model.  It is a "good enough" approximation at macroscopic levels but fails at the micro.

This is the reason for quantized activity "down there".  

Please wait a while & I will prove this. 

Schrodinger's Equation, like all post Bohr/Sommerfeld MATHEMATICAL models, lacks physics.  It focuses on the ill-defined state variable (psi function) that is only good for long-term time averaged, repeated experiments.  It offers NO dynamical insights and has been a disaster.  We are stuck in 1926. 

Dear Chris:  I feel that "Number Quantization" is only a mathematical fantasy and has nothing to do with physics - like so much 'mathematical physics'.  Please show the link between Wave Mechanics and dynamical insight.  I told you the connection, please read again.  It is only LONG-TERM AVERAGES, which are meaningless as "we all dead in the long term" (Keynes).  

I have done 50 years of physics, so please withdraw your unjustified remarks about my concept of physics - what have you achieved?

dear Herb, number quanrization is the best (used) Fantasy ever. even infinity can be assigned to set of numbers. countable ones, or continuous infinities...