Science Forums

# Can something move faster than light?

## Can something move faster than light?   1 member has voted

1. ### 1. Can something move faster than light?

• Yes
85
• No
40
• I don't know
20

## Recommended Posts

it may seem unlikely, but doesnt escape the fact that it is unachievable, as v -> c, you get a divide by zero error, mass runs off to infinity and it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it any further..

• Replies 338
• Created

#### Popular Posts

Pole or disk, even if you avoid breaking it, even if you recite the right mantra, to get the furthest parts of it moving at a velocity approaching c you would have to supply a kinetic energy approachi

Massed bodies cannot propagate at lightspeed. Unmassed bodies cannot propagate at any speed other than ligthspeed. Can anything be superluminal?   1) The mathmatics of tachyons is perfectly reason

Because the speed of sound is not a fundamental physical property of the universe.   It's an entirely different set of problems - it doesn't require brand new physics to go faster than sound, just bra

I'm srry JQ I am not following you.

##### Share on other sites
If one moves (changes velocity) at all, their mass, as measured by someone who does not (the observer), alters, according the formula:

$M = \frac{M_0}{\sqr{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}}$

Where $M$ is the measured mass, $M_0$ is one mass as measured when stationary ($V$=0) relative to the observer, $V$ is the velocity relative to the observer, as measured by them, and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.

Actually, that is the expression for total energy. Make that:

${\large\b E} = \frac{M}{\sqr{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}}$

Particle physicists, i. e. the real tall :cool: ones when it comes to speeds near c, don't consider mass to increase with velocity. The only mass they talk about is rest energy. The total energy increases because there is kinetic energy as well as rest energy.

##### Share on other sites

I believe the speed of light is the terminal speed for matter and energy. My reasoning is connected to a universal zero reference setting this limit. The universal zero reference is easiest to see by looking at absolute zero. At absolute zero there is no temperature and movement, and therefore no energy. If any energy existed it would give off temperature. Without energy, the speed of light does not exist in the universe. If we slightly increase temperature energy can exist but with most of the universe is at zero reference, it sets a speed limit at C.

A good analogy of this speed limit is the melting of ice. When ice melts the water and ice will remain at 32F until all the ice is gone. In this case, the phase change from matter without energy at absoluute zero, into pure energy, such as at the beginning of the universe, phase changes at C. This is due to the zero reference, which have 100% coverage in the universe at absolute zero, and 0% coverage at pure energy. Maybe pure energy, without any matter and zero reference in the universe, obeys slightly different laws allowing faster than C. For example, a cyclic universe sort of goes forward only to go backwards to the beginning.

##### Share on other sites

Actually, I believe most of the universe it at 3 Kelvin, and not 0.

Other than that, I don't really understand the analogy.

TFS

##### Share on other sites

Someone said "0" was impossible and I don't understand the analogy either....how can ice MELT but still be at freezing point. I have seen a block of ice in a cup of boiling water ...no problem??????

KC

##### Share on other sites
how can ice MELT but still be at freezing point.
Ice may be in equilibrium with liquid water. Even with water vapour at the same time. Look up latent heat and triple point.
##### Share on other sites

I don't think anything can move faster than light. Because the speed of light isn't really the speed of light. People have this concept of a little photon bullet zipping from a to b. But a photon isn't some kind of billiard ball tangible particle. I wouldn't say it's a wave, but it's some kind of self-propagating electromagnetic doobrey that might be hundreds of metres long. And the speed of light is more like the rate of charge propagation through space. Since everything tangible is made out of charge (and other stuff), what we're really talking about is how fast things happen. The question then becomes Can something move faster than things can happen? And I think the answer is no.

##### Share on other sites
I don't think anything can move faster than light. Because the speed of light isn't really the speed of light. People have this concept of a little photon bullet zipping from a to b. But a photon isn't some kind of billiard ball tangible particle. I wouldn't say it's a wave, but it's some kind of self-propagating electromagnetic doobrey that might be hundreds of metres long. And the speed of light is more like the rate of charge propagation through space.

startrek predicts that if you go faster than the speed of light, you will be everywhere in an instant.

Since everything tangible is made out of charge (and other stuff), what we're really talking about is how fast things happen. The question then becomes Can something move faster than things can happen? And I think the answer is no.

if it is so, it's like then breaking the laws/rules that govern the physical universe.

but what if instead of talking about breaking the laws,, it can trancend say in other theoretically higher dimensions of the universe. then things out there can move faster than c.

h

##### Share on other sites

The trouble with Phsysics it seems to me is that language gets in the way.

Perhaps instead of asking if something can move faster than light?, the question should be: Will it ever be possible to circumvent the barrier imposed by C. Circumvent being the key word. Perhaps light takes the long way round just because it can. Is their possibly another way to get from A to B by going round the inside of the track to the finish line? Humans historically have a handy knack of circumventing the apparently impossible, getting unbelievable amounts of energy simply from bumping a few unbelievably small (particles) into each other for example. Made even more confusing by recent research considering if particles even exist. Something exists....ask the Japanese.

bagpi

##### Share on other sites
• 1 month later...

I am however a little concerned about Cerenkov radiation. This is where neutrons travel faster than light in water (not faster than c), and you get the "blue glow" of a reactor pool. Does anybody know anything fast uncharged particles?

##### Share on other sites
I am however a little concerned about Cerenkov radiation. This is where neutrons travel faster than light in water (not faster than c), and you get the "blue glow" of a reactor pool. Does anybody know anything fast uncharged particles?
From what I’ve read, only charged particles can produce Cherenkov radiation. A neutron, which has no charge, couldn’t produce Cherenkov radiation, no matter how fast it moves through the medium. It could produce other kinds of glowing, but that glowing would be spectrascopically unlike Cherenkov radiation.
##### Share on other sites
The trouble with Phsysics it seems to me is that language gets in the way.

Perhaps instead of asking if something can move faster than light?, the question should be: Will it ever be possible to circumvent the barrier imposed by C. Circumvent being the key word. Perhaps light takes the long way round just because it can. Is their possibly another way to get from A to B by going round the inside of the track to the finish line? Humans historically have a handy knack of circumventing the apparently impossible, getting unbelievable amounts of energy simply from bumping a few unbelievably small (particles) into each other for example. Made even more confusing by recent research considering if particles even exist. Something exists....ask the Japanese.

bagpi

IN Start Trek for the ship to get from point A to point B the ship had a machine that condensed the space behind the ship and expanded the space in front of the ship. So the ship would not actually move, the space around it would. Do yall think that this is possible?

##### Share on other sites
IN Start Trek for the ship to get from point A to point B the ship had a machine that condensed the space behind the ship and expanded the space in front of the ship. So the ship would not actually move, the space around it would. Do yall think that this is possible?
I suspect it is physically possible – that is, not forbidden by any quality of nature / physical law. However, I doubt that it’s achievable without tremendous advances in our understanding of physics, and, were such advances achieved, other technological options would render such a machine undesired.

Current physics suggest that physically reasonable “warp bubbles” require not only strong gravity of the kind that can be produced by very dense matter, and is thus in principle possible, but of a kind produced by dense exotic matter with negative mass. There are some tantalizing experiments that suggest that such matter may be possible, but the physics is very tentative and cutting edge.

If STrek-type warp bubbles are possible, so may be distorted spaces such as wormholes. If wormholes are possible, so may be all sorts of counterintuitive violations of causations. This rabbit hole is very deep ;)

By nearly any current calculation, even if warp bubbles and wormholes are possible, their energy requirements are staggering – galaxies worth of available energy to produce effects capable of moving small objects interstellar distances.

For more, read (more than just the wikipedia article) about the Alcubierre drive.

##### Share on other sites

Craig, would you be so kind as to stop tantalizing us and elaborate on the tantalizing experiments.

You tantalizer you.

TFS

##### Share on other sites

Cringing apologies Craig, I don't where "neutrons" came from re Cerenkov radiation. PS: I picked up from somewhere that negative mass was an impossibility involving runaway repulsion and attraction - a positive mass would chase away a negative mass faster and faster.

##### Share on other sites
The trouble with Phsysics it seems to me is that language gets in the way.

Perhaps instead of asking if something can move faster than light?, the question should be: Will it ever be possible to circumvent the barrier imposed by C. Circumvent being the key word.

What is the difference between them?

The trouble with Phsysics it seems to me is that language gets in the way.

If that is the case, then the word 'Physics' is not spelt correctly in your sentence. I know that that you have done it mistakingly. In fact, anyone can make that mistake. Sorry to point to your mistakes.:)

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.