See: Loose cable to blame

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Technology/2012/02/24/Loose_cable_to_blame_721871.html

I confess to being rather disappointed.

Yes Steven, an exciting idea, for a little while

Can't see why speed can't be measured faster than light. It's only that it's the fastest thing we know but it's still just a number. Surely, with the expanse of the universe and with infinite acceleration in a vacuum you'd get there eventually.

But, I don't have a degree, so what do I know.

StG

The equations of Einsteinian special relativity (SR) say that as a particle speeds up its observed mass becomes ever greater. The effect is miniscule at speeds far below that of the speed of light. A fully loaded airbus A380 travelling at 550 mph would be observed to experience a mass gain about one twentieth the mass of an ant.

However the effect increases dramatically as you approach the speed of light. If you could speed the A380 up so that it was travelling at 580 million mph its mass would double.

There is ample experimental evidence for this. Electrons and protons accelerated to almost the speed of light are seen to gain mass in accordance with the equations of SR.

Trouble is the equations say that at the speed of light the mass of a particle becomes infinite. So the problem is not so much that nothing can travel faster than light as that it is not possible to accelerate something of infinite mass past the speed of light.

It works the other way too. If something is already travelling faster than the speed of light there is no way of decelerating it below the speed of light.

NB: This is a very oversimplified explanation. But it will do to give a rough idea of why neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light create such a sensation. It would mean that special relativity, which had met every experimental test so far, was not quite right. It would have opened the way to a whole new field of physics.

Incidentally the famous equation:

Energy = mass X (speed of light) squared depends on the equations of SR being correct. Since atomic bombs do explode that would have created an interesting conundrum.

steven/quote..""There is ample experimental/evidence for this.'''

that type of statement..allways worries me

""Electrons and protons..accelerated to almost the speed of light
are seen to gain mass..in accordance with the equations of SR.""

lol
are seen to gain mass?
lol

the same...mass.,...as the mass that limits
the mass..*"to near the speed of light"

think of why...anything over the speed of light..must be
mass/less..[what has increased in the force..
upon*..its same [origonal]..mass

the mass has not increased
only the impetous/force
[that will equal the total of force imput's
in a vacume]

""Trouble is..the equations say
that at the speed of light..the mass of a particle becomes infinite.""

the mass cant increase
but its possable cumalative force...[may]
if other assisting forces were imput[like magnets pushing]

but we miss the big point
infinite..isnt anything to do with mass
just the limitations of mass...

[at aetherial speed...in-finite
without effort or force]

'"So the problem..is not so much
that nothing can travel faster than light
as that it is not possible..to accelerate something of infinite mass past the speed of light.""

excelent
see the limits of flesh mortal
v
the eternal aetherial/eternal

""It works the other way too.
If something is already travelling..*faster than the speed of light there is no way of decelerating it..below the speed of light.""

cause
where could the mass come from?

[a wormhole into a egg shape]

""NB: This is a very oversimplified explanation.""

yeah..me too
ps not visited your link
please more info of where it goes to

anyhow prefer replying
to words allready posted

OUG wrote:

>>lol
are seen to gain mass?
lol>>

I see I cannot fool you.

You have discerned the truth. All scientists, not just climate scientists, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public. It's part of the plot to install an atheist world government that will enslave humanity.

Here is the inside story.

The families of the CERN scientists who discovered the awful secret that Einstein was a fraud are being held hostage in Guantanamo Bay. They were threatened with torture unless the scientists recanted.

Well done OUG.

I'll know better than to believe I can pull the wool over your eyes again.

steven...increaso of momentum
increases..the relitive impact force

think of a karate'chop
the weight of the hand stays the same
but the momentum..of it increases the force

its like the same hand..i tap your shhoulder with
now is rocket powerd..a fly moving at the speed of sound
will pass straight through your windshield..because of its momentum

not its 'extra weight'

think of a plane[dry weight]

being so light it flies
yet so heavey..it sinks

all depending on thrust
throttle and wind direction
i dont see why you cant see it

ok think of it like this
i got a really really long rocket
[i mean so long that it takes say..5 days to use its fuel]

i set it off
it gets lighter and lighter as it moves ever faster
getting heavier...lol..[increasing mass..lol
when in fact the mass..[fuel/weight..
is being left behind

but as its getting faster and faster
you claim its getting heavier

mate
dream on
where is that 'mass'..comming from?

its not mass ..;its energy..
[put into motion]..thus momentum
think like
you clothing..in the spin dryer

by your theory..that faster it moves
the heavier it is just by moving

lol

[except..as it goes faster
the water loss..ensures its getting lighter]

are you quoting from the link?
or sumerising

im only reacting to your words
and like with evolution..it seems again
belief..[faith]..not experteaze

mass..is defined..by the NUMBER of electrons/protons etc
moving arround the atom's poles..in a figure 8 motion

the more
the heavier its mass

moving the atom[and its ancilary mass]
faster..dont increase the atomic weight..
of that in motion..[under laws of momentum]

[in lue of proof
it dont..]

i cant find another mechanism..or law,..
that deigns..*increase of the parental..[origonal]...mass]
only that of its momentum

<< All scientists, not just climate scientists, are engaged in a conspiracy …>>

Come now Steven, if your article was about climate “science” it would have had to be titled: Oops! Oops! Oops! and Oops! again.

Or perhaps, just: Oops! followed by a long intoxicated giggle.

HAHAHAHA ...

"There goes another one"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4731#124683

Steven - watch this space indeed.

<See: Loose cable to blame>

Maybe, but no source of error has been found as yet. What you see is a process of exhaustive speculation and checking, and repetition of the experiment in other labs. Either an error will be found, else the science will have to change.

Fester wrote:

>>Maybe, but no source of error has been found as yet.>>

Technically you're right. The experiment will have to be repeated after the apparatus has been repaired.

However this was always a bit of a long shot and the odds just got longer.

Still, it would be nice if it turned out there was some way of travelling faster than light

Wasn't there there some belief that man would die if he attempted to travel at over 60 miles per hour? A totally irrational thought, but believed by many.

Then it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound. A bit more rational this one, but only requiring the application of some engineering.

What will it take to exceed the speed of light? Magic perhaps, or just some more engineering?

Hi Hasbeen

It is possible that I could win the powerball lottery not once, not twice, but three times in a row.

It is highly improbable of course. But it is not impossible.

With that out of the way let me answer your question. I've taken the liberty of reformulating it slightly.

Will it ever be possible to accelerate a material particle to beyond light speed?

Here is the answer:

Give what we believe we know about the laws of physics today the answer is "no." It is only possible if there is some physics we don't know about that provides some sort of loophole to special relativity.

So your question is tantamount to asking whether we shall one day discover some new physics that enables us to evade the strictures of special relativity.

I cannot foresee the future. If I could get a glimpse of the physics of the year 2100 I'd be able to collect Nobel prizes by the bucket load.

So the best I can do is to make a judgement call.

I think that finding some physics that enables us to bypass special relativity is less likely than me winning the powerball lottery three weeks in a row.

A related question is:

Might there be some sort of hidden dimensions or wormholes that enable us to take a sort of "shortcut" to, say, Alpha Centauri?

In other words we never exceed the speed of light, we simply find a better, shorter, route.

Again the best I can do is make a judgement call

I think the probability is about the same as my winning the powerball lottery not three times in a row but twice in a row.

Hope that helps.

Steven I hope you are right.

The universe will be a much better place if we & any other life forms, don't have access to each other. Our world would be a better place if transport for people & goods was much more difficult & expensive. Roll on peak oil, if only it were true.

I watched the folk of the Solomon Islands try to get into a major fight among each other, only to be saved by the lack of transport between their islands. Lucky them.

Yes I don't fancy a "Star Wars" future for us one little bit.

We are an irrational life form. To have picked an arbitrary distance like a mile, traveled in an arbitrary time period like 1/24Th of a day as being impossible to exceed, & live, is rather like having picked a level of CO2 as a reason for us all to burn in the fires of hell.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some crazy idea like life after death is true, & we can sit back, like a theater audience, & watch what we fool creatures do, & learn, in the next 100 years or so.

Hi Steven,

I can understand people like Bonmot being certain about the impossibility of superluminal velocity.
He was apparently born with omniscience (and probably omnipotence & omnipresence as well).
But low born doubting Thomas’s like myself need a bit more convincing.

I agree with nine-tenths of what you say. But when you start offering odds –you lose me.
<< I think that finding some physics that enables us to bypass special relativity is less likely than me winning the powerball lottery three weeks in a row.>>

If we are already seeing this:
<<New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.>>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

How can you with any degree of seriousness offer odds about what will/wont happen in the vastness of time?

I envisage than had we asked a Fourth Century BC (Greek) Stevenlmeyer about the prospects of manned flight he would have scoffed , offered us similar odds, and pointed to what happened to his friend Icarus.

In the following passage try substituting the words superluminal velocity for atheism!

<<Science had taught him to be skeptical of cosmic certainties, [Eagleman] told me. From the unfathomed complexity of brain tissue—"essentially an alien computational material"—to the mystery of dark matter, we know too little about our own minds and the universe around us to insist on strict atheism, he said. "And we know far too much to commit to a particular religious story." Why not revel in the alternatives? Why not imagine ourselves, as he did in Sum, as bits of networked hardware in a cosmic program, or as particles of some celestial organism, or any of a thousand other possibilities, and then test those ideas against the available evidence? "Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time," he said. "As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism
http://www.eagleman.com/

Oh dear Hasbeen

I have never heard any theory that you would die if you exceeded 60 miles per hour. Maybe it was an "old wives tale" from Victorian times. I doubt many serious scientists ever believed it.

The so-called "sound barrier" is a different question. It has to do with turbulence as you approach the speed of sound. There were real questions as to whether aircraft might shake themselves apart.

But this was viewed as an engineering problem. By the end of the 19th century scientists already knew that bullets or the tip of a whip travelled at supersonic speeds. No serious scientist thought about the speed of sound as an absolute speed limit in the 19th century.

In fact 19th century scientists did not even think of the speed of light as an absolute barrier. That came later with the publication of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

You mentioned CO2 levels.

I realise that it is an article of faith among many OLO posters that climate scientists are a gang of unspeakable scoundrels who have somehow managed to fool all the world's peak scientific bodies into believing their con. Only a few brave, persecuted souls (like Ian Plimer) have the courage to speak the truth. The scientists who warn of global warming are all money-grubbing maggots. Their opponents are all Persil pure and the fact that many of them make a great deal of money out of being "contrarian" is simple coincidence.

I also realise I have no hope of changing anyone's mind over this.

However, just for the record:

Climate science is not a "theory in trouble." It is not "unravelling." Unfortunately the evidence is getting stronger by the day.

However I am not going to go over all that ground again. I've posted extensively on the topic. I've given ample resources for people who want to gain an understanding of the actual science and I'm going to leave it at that.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend Hasbeen

SPQR wrote:

>>How can you with any degree of seriousness offer odds about what will/wont happen in the vastness of time?>>

I can't.

And if you looked at the tone as well as the text of what I wrote you will see that I was being semi-jocular. I was simply trying to say that I thought it was unlikely.

Not impossible because, as you point out, I cannot know "what will/wont happen in the vastness of time?"

But unlikely. That's my personal judgement.

One reason for my scepticism about the possibility of super-luminal travel is the question of where is E-T? Why haven't alien life forms visited us in their super-luminal space ships?

I suppose it's possible that we are the only intelligent life form in the universe or that we're the most advanced life form. But that also seems unlikely to me.

But who knows?

There is no problem with traveling faster than the speed of light.
The problem is with OBSERVING an object traveling faster than light.

Yes, there is a problem with traveling faster than the speed of light.

Look at Einstein's equations.

If you can't understand, ask 'the-one-that-has-gone-before' ... he's a wink-wink scientist and engineer :)

Steven,

thanks for explaining it

Yes, there is a problem with traveling faster than the speed of light.

Look at Einstein's equations.

If you can't understand, ask 'the-one-that-has-gone-before' ... he's a wink-wink scientist and engineer :)
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 26 February 2012 5:10:31 PM

bonmot.
You mean the Lorentz equations which are invalid above the speed of light as the speed of light is part of the equation.
Lorentz above light speed involves the square root of a negative number.
Observing with light gives a speed limit of light speed.
Observing by a faster than light method gives a faster speed limit.

Lorentz gives the correct answer for what is OBSERVED using light.

Hence the assumption, which most people seem to neglect or forget : )

complex numbers help too, as does tensor calculus - far beyond OLO maths :)

Then again, perhaps we're on a seperate page :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations