Silly speed of light question..

Silly speed of light question..

Author
Discussion

thebluemonkey

1,296 posts

202 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
alexkp said:



This is Einsteinian physics


Oh right so a lot more complicated then Cheers anyway.

groucho

12,134 posts

208 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Beam me up Scottie


Never said it. Beam me up Mr scott is the closest.
I travel the speed of light every saturday night.

Grouch.

alexkp

16,482 posts

206 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
gh0st said:

groucho said:

Speed of light is not possible as for reasons that thebluemonkey explained.
But who knows? light travels at that speed, so why not other things.

Grouch.



Because a photon has no mass therefore does not need infinate energy to achieve the speed of light.


That is most probably true - but some physicists now believe that a photon may have mass, and if true it may have quite profound implications. There are also theoretical particles even smaller...

Anyhow, I'm kinda reaching the limits of my knowledge here. To go further would require some very long posts and someone much more informed than I.

thru5h

26 posts

196 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
alexkp said:

thru5h said:
if you travel at or above the speed of sound you can still hear your self talk or talk to the person in the next seat.

scientists always say things are impossible and give you reasons why (remember when the sound barrier couldnt be broken), only for someone a few decades later to do the impossible and prove them wrong, a theory is a theory.



There's a big difference: 733mph at sea level vs. 186,000 miles per second in space.

But there are theories as to how you can get around the light barrier without having to break it...


your still traveling faster than sound.. enough said

until its attempted and proven beyond doubt that it can not be done (with the technology at the time) it will remain possible in my opinion.

alexkp

16,482 posts

206 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
thru5h said:

alexkp said:


thru5h said:
if you travel at or above the speed of sound you can still hear your self talk or talk to the person in the next seat.

scientists always say things are impossible and give you reasons why (remember when the sound barrier couldnt be broken), only for someone a few decades later to do the impossible and prove them wrong, a theory is a theory.




There's a big difference: 733mph at sea level vs. 186,000 miles per second in space.

But there are theories as to how you can get around the light barrier without having to break it...



your still traveling faster than sound.. enough said

until its attempted and proven beyond doubt that it can not be done (with the technology at the time) it will remain possible in my opinion.


Actually I do agree with you. At our present time with our current knowledge of physics, travelling faster than light is impossible.

However, never say never, and there may be ways around the light barrier that involve inter-dimensional travel and bending space-time.

In actual fact, not totally dissimilar to warp drive, but without actually moving. The concept is, in a nutshell, that space-time moves around you instead...

paolow

3,106 posts

220 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
alexkp said:

gh0st said:


groucho said:

Speed of light is not possible as for reasons that thebluemonkey explained.
But who knows? light travels at that speed, so why not other things.

Grouch.




Because a photon has no mass therefore does not need infinate energy to achieve the speed of light.



That is most probably true - but some physicists now believe that a photon may have mass, and if true it may have quite profound implications. There are also theoretical particles even smaller...

Anyhow, I'm kinda reaching the limits of my knowledge here. To go further would require some very long posts and someone much more informed than I.


if solar winds exist and solar sails are theoretically feasible, surely then the photons do have a mass to exert pressure?

alexkp

16,482 posts

206 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
paolow said:

alexkp said:


gh0st said:



groucho said:

Speed of light is not possible as for reasons that thebluemonkey explained.
But who knows? light travels at that speed, so why not other things.

Grouch.





Because a photon has no mass therefore does not need infinate energy to achieve the speed of light.




That is most probably true - but some physicists now believe that a photon may have mass, and if true it may have quite profound implications. There are also theoretical particles even smaller...

Anyhow, I'm kinda reaching the limits of my knowledge here. To go further would require some very long posts and someone much more informed than I.



if solar winds exist and solar sails are theoretically feasible, surely then the photons do have a mass to exert pressure?


...or rather they impart energy. Light creates pressure.

lightningghost

4,943 posts

211 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
I think if you were travelling at the speed of light and you switched your lights on there might be a little glow just in front of you. Either that or it would just be completely dark.



Or you could say if you were travelling at the speed of sound and you switched the stereo on what would happen? I think that you wouldn't hear anything, and then the sound would catch up with you and there would be a sonic boom.

So I think that in the first question, there might be some kind of solar boom, if that were possible.




Anyway, there would be a gatso nearby, and you'd get zapped. But of course, TG proved that if you go too fast the gatso doesn't pick you up or it trys to photo you and it's too slow or somwething, so that wouldn't really matter.




I'm talking to myself aren't I

love machine

7,609 posts

197 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
The light has its frequency raised (blueshifted) Doppler style. I think it is something to do with the energy of the light being increased by a significant amount which only becomes percievable at very large velocities.

As E=MC^2 assuming mass=0, a photon will have energy of such and such, by also knowing that E=hF where h=plancs constant you can say hF=MC^2, (F=frequency), so you need the excess (speed over light) speed and you whack it in that equation and it gives you a frequency which you add to the original frequency (ies) and find out how much blueshifted it has got.

That is how I figure it.

tvrgit

8,449 posts

214 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
the gatso wouldn't work because the light from the flash wouldn't catch you up

alexkp

16,482 posts

206 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
tvrgit said:
the gatso wouldn't work because the light from the flash wouldn't catch you up


Yeah...but they're working on it as we speak...

nel

4,650 posts

203 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
love machine said:
The light has its frequency raised (blueshifted) Doppler style. I think it is something to do with the energy of the light being increased by a significant amount which only becomes percievable at very large velocities.

As E=MC^2 assuming mass=0, a photon will have energy of such and such, by also knowing that E=hF where h=plancs constant you can say hF=MC^2, (F=frequency), so you need the excess (speed over light) speed and you whack it in that equation and it gives you a frequency which you add to the original frequency (ies) and find out how much blueshifted it has got.

That is how I figure it.


So essentially you wouldn't need to put blue bulbs in your fog lights because the blue shift would make them look blue anyway - wikkid dood! That is assuming that light from fog lights travels the same speed as 'normal' light - dubious IMO because they are so cool that they might be distorting the space time continuum.

So if you're travelling at or slightly above the speed of light, when you turn your lights on the light emitted can't escape the headlight reflector. So the light waiting to be emitted would build up in the headlight unit, converting into heat and probably eventually causing meltdown...

Right, I'd better go and smoke a doobie and reconsider this spaced out idea...

loaf

850 posts

223 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
alexkp said:

thebluemonkey said:


alexkp said:

The key thing is the vacuum bit.




Is this to do with the constant velocity part of newtons laws ? or alot more complicated than that ?



This is Einsteinian physics, Newton does not really cover this - apart from any action having an equal and opposite reaction - which does realte to the problem of infinite speed = inifinite energy = infinite mass.

A vacuum means nothing can interfere with a particle/wavicle in either a negative or positive manner.

(BTW there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum)


A scientist is only right until someone who knows more proves him wrong.

For centuries Man thought the Earth was flat; also that it was the centre of the Universe. Both theories now proved to be a bunch of hooey.

To (mis)quote Tommy Lee Jones: 'Imagine what we will KNOW, tomorrow...'

tvrgit

8,449 posts

214 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
alexkp said:
(BTW there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum)

My Dyson is pretty good.

alexkp

16,482 posts

206 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
loaf said:

alexkp said:


thebluemonkey said:



alexkp said:

The key thing is the vacuum bit.





Is this to do with the constant velocity part of newtons laws ? or alot more complicated than that ?




This is Einsteinian physics, Newton does not really cover this - apart from any action having an equal and opposite reaction - which does realte to the problem of infinite speed = inifinite energy = infinite mass.

A vacuum means nothing can interfere with a particle/wavicle in either a negative or positive manner.

(BTW there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum)



A scientist is only right until someone who knows more proves him wrong.

For centuries Man thought the Earth was flat; also that it was the centre of the Universe. Both theories now proved to be a bunch of hooey.

To (mis)quote Tommy Lee Jones: 'Imagine what we will KNOW, tomorrow...'


I do agree....kinda. But scientific knowledge is a billion times more advanced than it was even a couple of centuries ago. It is not as simple as to say it can all be "proved" wrong. That is very unlikely.

What is more possible is that exceptions to some laws of physics may be discovered that utilise exotic matter, or even the holy grail of the Unified Field Theory may be reached.

B19 CER

86 posts

224 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
Tell you what - I'll take the Cerb out for a run tomorrow, turn on me lights and let you know.

8Pack

5,182 posts

202 months

Sunday 24th October 2004
quotequote all
Watch out for the red light camera just past Saturn. BTW. I'm typing this so fast that I'll be doing it tomorrow.

tvrgit

8,449 posts

214 months

Monday 25th October 2004
quotequote all
you were so fast you finished it yesterday

8Pack

5,182 posts

202 months

Monday 25th October 2004
quotequote all
Sorry, I cannot possibly answer you until tommorrow, er! I mean yesterday, er! would a week on tuesday do?

rumpelstiltskin

2,805 posts

221 months

Monday 25th October 2004
quotequote all
Maybe he should drop down a couple of gears to the speed of sound and turn on the radio and really confuse the hell out of himself:-)