Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15

Surpass the Speed of Light

 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 9:09:18 PMPosted: 2 years agoHello all;I am going to keep this basic, no complex equations, no theorem, just a basic theory to discuss.So the current theory is that the speed of light is the fastest speed in the universe; kind of like the absolute speed limit of the universe. However, if we account for basic physics utilized in the vacuum of space, it seems as if we could surpass this speed. The understood speed of light is 186,000 mi/sec (miles per second). Let's think about a basic collision in a vacuum and assume no unwanted energy transfer is possible (creation of heat, breaking apart of objects, etc); if object 'A' weighing 5 tons strikes object 'B' weighing 5 tons, object 'A' traveling at 1,000 MPH (miles per hour) and object 'B' at a complete stop, the force is transferred and spread between the two forcing a speed increase in 'B' while decreasing the speed of 'A'.If we are able to strike object 'B' in a fashion that transfers 100% of the energy into 'B' utilizing a direct hit (think of a Newton's Cradle), object 'A' would instantly decrease to 0 movement speed and object 'B' would instantly accelerate to 1,000 MPH (remember, in a vacuum and no unwanted loss of energy).Now let's change 'A' to a super dense object and 'B' to a much less dense object but the same size and shape. Due to the increased density of 'A', it would be carrying much more kinetic energy than previously. When super dense 'A' strikes less dense 'B', this means the transfer of energy to 'B' would be greater meaning more potential energy and in-turn more kinetic energy once the transfer is complete (think of a Newton's Cradle with the starting sphere being the same size and shape but with a much denser material; it would send the last sphere of standard density flying MUCH further than before). This means although 'A' transferred 1,000 MPH of speed energy to 'B', the density (weight) increases this speed by an equivalent speed based on density difference.What if we applied this same theory to light? What if we had the ability to slow down a beam of light (or whatever object like a spaceship), take a number of light waves with normal speed (speed of light), line them up so right before collision with the first object (spaceship) they all combine into one super dense beam of light, striking said object at the speed of light with much more kinetic energy?I think this would break the limits of the speed of light, maybe even much easier than the theory of creating a wormhole. What do you think?
 Posts: 238 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 9:25:50 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 9:09:18 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Hello all;I am going to keep this basic, no complex equations, no theorem, just a basic theory to discuss.So the current theory is that the speed of light is the fastest speed in the universe; kind of like the absolute speed limit of the universe. However, if we account for basic physics utilized in the vacuum of space, it seems as if we could surpass this speed. The understood speed of light is 186,000 mi/sec (miles per second). Let's think about a basic collision in a vacuum and assume no unwanted energy transfer is possible (creation of heat, breaking apart of objects, etc); if object 'A' weighing 5 tons strikes object 'B' weighing 5 tons, object 'A' traveling at 1,000 MPH (miles per hour) and object 'B' at a complete stop, the force is transferred and spread between the two forcing a speed increase in 'B' while decreasing the speed of 'A'.If we are able to strike object 'B' in a fashion that transfers 100% of the energy into 'B' utilizing a direct hit (think of a Newton's Cradle), object 'A' would instantly decrease to 0 movement speed and object 'B' would instantly accelerate to 1,000 MPH (remember, in a vacuum and no unwanted loss of energy).Now let's change 'A' to a super dense object and 'B' to a much less dense object but the same size and shape. Due to the increased density of 'A', it would be carrying much more kinetic energy than previously. When super dense 'A' strikes less dense 'B', this means the transfer of energy to 'B' would be greater meaning more potential energy and in-turn more kinetic energy once the transfer is complete (think of a Newton's Cradle with the starting sphere being the same size and shape but with a much denser material; it would send the last sphere of standard density flying MUCH further than before). This means although 'A' transferred 1,000 MPH of speed energy to 'B', the density (weight) increases this speed by an equivalent speed based on density difference.What if we applied this same theory to light? What if we had the ability to slow down a beam of light (or whatever object like a spaceship), take a number of light waves with normal speed (speed of light), line them up so right before collision with the first object (spaceship) they all combine into one super dense beam of light, striking said object at the speed of light with much more kinetic energy?I think this would break the limits of the speed of light, maybe even much easier than the theory of creating a wormhole. What do you think?The problem is with the exponential energy requirements needed to accelerate an object as it nears the speed of light. No matter how many photons you line up, they will never be able to accelerate another object to the speed of light. You can input an infinite amount of energy and still not get a spaceship to the speed of light. This is because as an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially.Mathematical explanation below:E=MC^2 also means that M= E / C^2 and C = W30;(E/M)That is why we can never get to the speed of light; the energy input into the system would increase the mass of the object more than the speed of the object as we draw closer to the speed of light thus requiring more energy, creating more mass, requiring more energy, creating more mass, etc....
 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 9:37:21 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 9:25:50 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:This is because as an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially.Mathematical explanation below:E=MC^2 also means that M= E / C^2 and C = W30;(E/M)That is why we can never get to the speed of light; the energy input into the system would increase the mass of the object more than the speed of the object as we draw closer to the speed of light thus requiring more energy, creating more mass, requiring more energy, creating more mass, etc....Correct, however, if you combine multiple light waves to increase density, while traveling at the speed of light (again, assuming no unwanted loss of energy, all energy transferred from 'A' to 'B' without loss of any kind), the multiple light waves converging into a super dense light wave would increase exponentially the kinetic energy. In theory, this would overcome said equation.Since you seem like you know what you are talking about, let's do it this way. Let's take 10 light waves (waves labeled 'A' through 'J'), 'J' will sit stationary (Harvard has slowed down light waves, imagine we can make them stationary) 'A' through 'I' are all traveling as normal. Suddenly, an incalculable fraction of distance prior to collision with 'J', all 9 waves 'A' through 'I' converge into a new, super dense wave of light we will call 'K' smashes into 'J' transferring ALL energy of speed into 'J' sending it to the speed of light instantaneously, now add in the energy transfer from super dense 'K' into the equation and physics would dictate that an increased speed would be reached. Correct?
 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 9:40:28 PMPosted: 2 years agoAlso, since we are in the vacuum of space WITHOUT gravity, mass would NOT be a factor. Gravity is DIRECTLY required for mass.
 Posts: 238 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:11:38 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 9:40:28 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Also, since we are in the vacuum of space WITHOUT gravity, mass would NOT be a factor. Gravity is DIRECTLY required for mass.This is a misunderstanding of massMass is not weight. Weight is the measure of gravity acting upon mass.Mass is mass is a property of a physical body which determines the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction to other bodies, its resistance to being accelerated by a force, and in the theory of relativity gives the mass"energy content of a system.Mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any stationary body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction.Therefore, mass is a factor to consider, even in the absence of gravity.
 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:36:44 PMPosted: 2 years agoCorrect, however, in the theory of special relativity, the only objects effected in this manner by mass would be objects containing nonzero mass at rest. Since light waves can reach the speed of light, this means they have zero mass at rest. This means that Einstein's theory of special relativity (in regards to mass increase) would not apply to light. So, in this theory we discuss light increasing light beyond the speed of light by way of super dense light contacting standard light waves.
 Posts: 5,449 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:38:40 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 9:09:18 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Hello all;I am going to keep this basic, no complex equations, no theorem, just a basic theory to discuss.I have chopped out the first bit, as I beleive this was explained.What if we applied this same theory to light? What if we had the ability to slow down a beam of light (or whatever object like a spaceship), take a number of light waves with normal speed (speed of light), line them up so right before collision with the first object (spaceship) they all combine into one super dense beam of light, striking said object at the speed of light with much more kinetic energy?I think this would break the limits of the speed of light, maybe even much easier than the theory of creating a wormhole. What do you think?Light always travels at it's maximum speed; this is sometimes different in air, water, glass, but it can't be slowed down or sped up from the particular maximum speed in whatever medium it is travelling in. It's not particularly relevant, but I thought I would put it out.I wanted to walk through the example and what happens; as it may better illustrate what would happen.So firstly, as you rightly indicate, light has energy. It doesn't really have kinetic energy or momentum in the traditional sense of it, but it does have it in another sense (it's quite complicated, but doesn't affect the next bit). Light hitting something can speed it up or slow it down.So lets say you have a 1kg mass somewhere in space, at rest. You also have a massive, massive light generator, that will focus a laser beam on it, that will give it 500,000 joules of energy. Now, in reality, this would most likely vaporize the mass, as the majority of the light would be transferred to the atoms, which is not good; but if you had a perfect mass that would perfectly convert the energy of the light to kinetic energy, then the mass would then acquire that energy, and end up travelling (via standard newtonian mechanics) at 1000m/s (e=1/2mv^2, or rearranged 2e/m=v^2).That's a speed that is 300 000 x too slow, however! So if you started raising the power, the speed of the object would increase.However, lets say you managed to add the energy to the point you get the object going at 1/2 the speed of light. The problem you have is the mass part of the equation: 1/2mv^2. At higher speeds, instead of being 2kg, the mass will be greater due to relativistic effects.Now, remember, mass is energy. If the mass of the object is greater, that is energy that needs to come from somewhere. The only source, in this case, is the light itself.What this means is the more and more energy you put into the laser, the more and more of that energy is converted into additional "relativistic" mass of the object, and as you wind up the beam, more and more energy is converted into relativistic mass, and less and less is converted into speed.When you get to the super, super, super high speeds, almost every extra joule of energy you add will add to the relativistic mass of the object and a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of that will actually be added to the speed.
 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:44:03 PMPosted: 2 years agoHarvard has apparently successfully slowed down light to the speed of a mini van. See here:http://news.harvard.edu...so you can control the speed of light.
 Posts: 5,449 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:47:58 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 10:44:03 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Harvard has apparently successfully slowed down light to the speed of a mini van. See here:http://news.harvard.edu...so you can control the speed of light."Light always travels at it's maximum speed; this is sometimes different in air, water, glass, but it can't be slowed down or sped up from the particular maximum speed in whatever medium it is travelling in"And from your link:"Such an exotic medium can be engineered to slow a light beam 20 million-fold from 186,282 miles a second to a pokey 38 miles an hour. "As I said, you cannot slow down light when it's in a vacuum, you can only do so by putting it in somethign else.
 Posts: 238 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:49:38 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 9:37:21 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:At 7/14/2015 9:25:50 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:This is because as an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially.Mathematical explanation below:E=MC^2 also means that M= E / C^2 and C = W30;(E/M)That is why we can never get to the speed of light; the energy input into the system would increase the mass of the object more than the speed of the object as we draw closer to the speed of light thus requiring more energy, creating more mass, requiring more energy, creating more mass, etc....Correct, however, if you combine multiple light waves to increase density, while traveling at the speed of light (again, assuming no unwanted loss of energy, all energy transferred from 'A' to 'B' without loss of any kind), the multiple light waves converging into a super dense light wave would increase exponentially the kinetic energy. In theory, this would overcome said equation.Since you seem like you know what you are talking about, let's do it this way. Let's take 10 light waves (waves labeled 'A' through 'J'), 'J' will sit stationary (Harvard has slowed down light waves, imagine we can make them stationary) 'A' through 'I' are all traveling as normal. Suddenly, an incalculable fraction of distance prior to collision with 'J', all 9 waves 'A' through 'I' converge into a new, super dense wave of light we will call 'K' smashes into 'J' transferring ALL energy of speed into 'J' sending it to the speed of light instantaneously, now add in the energy transfer from super dense 'K' into the equation and physics would dictate that an increased speed would be reached. Correct?I know you didn't want a bunch of math, but I will have to use some math to show you why you're wrong on this.So E=MC^2 is a simplified formula for the original (more on that later). this formula only applies to objects at rest in an inertial frame of reference.A photon is not a particle at rest; if it was, it would have M=0 and therefore E=0 value.Since M=0 regardless of how many photons you use, the density would remain 0.Now, how do we get to E if M=0 and more importantly how do we get to C if M and E = 0?Well, that's where the whole equation comes into play. The whole equation isE^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2(p) is the square of the Euclidean norm (total vector length) of the various momentum vectors in the system. (c) is of course still the speed of light. So we're working not with the mass of a photon, but with it's momentum vector. This is a bit difficult to work out sometimes, so I'll show you a different way of getting E using the properties of a photon.in the Planck-Einstein relation we see thatE=hvPlanck's constant (h).Since frequency (v), wavelength (A....for lack of a Lambda symbol), and speed of light are related via the formula Av=c we get:E=hc/AThis would lead us to the conclusion that the max amount of energy transferred by (n) number of combined photons would be the equivalent to 1 photon. This is because the energy of a photon is directly linked to it's frequency and wavelength, not it's mass (since it's mass-less). So you can't combine "densities" of photons.Hope that wasn't too much math.....
 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 10:49:52 PMPosted: 2 years agoFrom the link provided:When atoms become packed super-closely together at super-low temperatures and super-high vacuum, they lose their identity as individual particles and act like a single super- atom with characteristics similar to a laser.This is space, nothing exotic except to us here on Earth right?
 Posts: 5,449 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 11:34:43 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 10:49:52 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:From the link provided:When atoms become packed super-closely together at super-low temperatures and super-high vacuum, they lose their identity as individual particles and act like a single super- atom with characteristics similar to a laser.This is space, nothing exotic except to us here on Earth right?"When the atoms are slowed to a modest 100 miles an hour or so, the experimenters load the atoms into what they call "optical molasses," a web of more laser beams. Each time an atom collides with a photon it is knocked back in the direction from which it came, further slowing it down, or cooling it.The atoms are now densely packed in a cigar-shaped clump kept floating free of the walls of their container by powerful magnetic fields."No doesn't really sound like space to me...
 Posts: 1,551 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/14/2015 11:44:16 PMPosted: 2 years agoThat all makes GREAT sense actually. One nuance though, deep space gets down to about 2.7 kelvin, not sure how slow molecules move at that temperature but seems pretty slow to me.Thank you both for your intelligent responses by the way. It's nice actually hearing from people here that don't have trouble locating the direction "up".
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2015 8:32:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 11:44:16 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:That all makes GREAT sense actually. One nuance though, deep space gets down to about 2.7 kelvin, not sure how slow molecules move at that temperature but seems pretty slow to me.Thank you both for your intelligent responses by the way. It's nice actually hearing from people here that don't have trouble locating the direction "up".The average velocity is proportional to the square root of the temperature. The harvardvarticle mentions temperatures within a billionth of a degree of absolute zero so the velocities at 2.7k would be over 30,000x greater.
 Posts: 5,200 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2015 8:38:43 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/14/2015 9:37:21 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:At 7/14/2015 9:25:50 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:This is because as an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially.Mathematical explanation below:E=MC^2 also means that M= E / C^2 and C = W30;(E/M)That is why we can never get to the speed of light; the energy input into the system would increase the mass of the object more than the speed of the object as we draw closer to the speed of light thus requiring more energy, creating more mass, requiring more energy, creating more mass, etc....Correct, however, if you combine multiple light waves to increase density, while traveling at the speed of light (again, assuming no unwanted loss of energy, all energy transferred from 'A' to 'B' without loss of any kind), the multiple light waves converging into a super dense light wave would increase exponentially the kinetic energy. In theory, this would overcome said equation.Since you seem like you know what you are talking about, let's do it this way. Let's take 10 light waves (waves labeled 'A' through 'J'), 'J' will sit stationary (Harvard has slowed down light waves, imagine we can make them stationary) 'A' through 'I' are all traveling as normal. Suddenly, an incalculable fraction of distance prior to collision with 'J', all 9 waves 'A' through 'I' converge into a new, super dense wave of light we will call 'K' smashes into 'J' transferring ALL energy of speed into 'J' sending it to the speed of light instantaneously, now add in the energy transfer from super dense 'K' into the equation and physics would dictate that an increased speed would be reached. Correct?If you combine light you changes is amplitude, not its speed. It basically gets brighter. Of course that assumes that you line it up trough to trough and crest to crest or it would cancel out and become dimmer. Basically what you are proposing is a laser, which stands for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.