Is the speed of light the fastest speed possible?

[jackson33]

rocket; the idea of conscious thought having speed is not new. it certainly is fast, but so is 186k mps. probably much faster. whatever may be faster than light should be something we just don't know of now or something we just don't think of as having speed. if there are thought waves for instance, they are well below or above anything we classify as having frequency or wave lengths. then this scale should have others as well. darkness is my favorite for a couple reasons. its no more or less than light, but for lack of understanding has no entity value.

[Buffy]

...the idea of conscious thought having speed is not new. it certainly is fast, but so is 186k mps. probably much faster.

Much of this concept is covered by Information Theory and Information Entropy. One of the interesting aspects is that information--and a thought is information--"is physical," which means that it must obey the laws of physics. Current theory would posit then that it has the same speed limit at c, and if you follow the links here, you'll find experiments have indeed been done to validate this.

 

I always like to point out of course that the only thing that SR really says is that "at the speed of light, mass becomes infinite," and if you fiddle with the equations, you get interesting results leading to the conclusion that if you go faster than light you will either go backwards in time or have negative mass. Einstein hated quantum mechanics, but of course quantum mechanics allows you to jump from one state to another without passing through the intermediate values or states, which opens up at least the sci-fi door to "faster than light," but the implications are, uh, nasty! :doh:

 

Unstuck in time,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Not necessarily true, unmodified you might get nonsense results like backwards in time or negative mass, but with some rationalization one can find that this is not in fact the case, theoretically, for tachyons.

 

To quote the Faster than c study, PDF Here:

3.1 Tachyons and causal paradoxes

On the other hand, tachyons are usually associated with unpleasant causal paradoxes. The basic reason for this belief is that if two events, say E1 and E2 , are spacelike related, there is no absolute time ordering between them. Thus, if a signal travels from E1 to E2 in a reference frame, it is always possible to find another frame where E1 and E2 are simultaneous, so the signal would appear to travel at an infinite speed, and others where E1 happens after E2 , so the signal would “travel to the past”.13

 

Obviously, this argument could be used to criticize faster-than-c propagation only if, in any given reference frame, the only criterion for saying that an event is the cause of another one were the time ordering in that frame. However, cause and effect are usually not defined in this way.14 In fact, there are no precise definitions of these concepts, but only some intuitive ideas that allow us to recognize, in some cases, the existence of a causal relationship between events. Eventually, the criteria used to establish that E1 is a cause of E2 are based on considerations of complexity of the type usually involved in discussions about the so-called “arrow of time”.

 

For example, if E1 represents the emission of a signal from a broadcasting station, and E2 its reception on a TV set, we consider E1 a cause of E2 not just because it happened at an earlier time, but mainly because the opposite choice would require the presence of weird, conspiratorial, correlations.

 

Now, if E1 and E2 were connected by faster-than-c photons instead of ordinary ones, the same criterion would apply, so there would be an absolute notion of what is cause and what is effect. In this respect, the exchange in the time ordering of E1 and E2 within some reference frames should not be more disturbing than the jet lag experienced by travellers because of the peculiar way clocks are set on the Earth.15 Note, however, that if E1 causes E2 , there is always at least one frame in which E2 does not happen earlier than E1 .

 

The inversion of the time ordering for two events connected by the propagation of a tachyon is therefore not, by itself, a difficulty. However, unless some restriction is imposed on the type of propagation, it is potentially a source of paradoxes, as it can lead to situations where two events are timelike related, and yet the cause follows the effect. A typical argument is the following, sometimes picturesquely referred to as the “tachyonic anti-telephone”

 

* An equivalent way of describing tachyons with real masses is to adapt Einstein's energy-momentum relation to read:

 

[math]E^2 + m^2c^4 = p^2c^2[/math]

 

With this approach the energy equation becomes:

 

[math]E = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{\frac{v^2}{c^2} -1}}[/math].

 

And we avoid any necessity for imaginary masses, sidestepping the problem of interpreting exactly what a complex-valued mass may physically mean.

 

Both approaches are equivalent mathematically and have the same physical consequences. One curious effect is that, unlike ordinary particles, the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases. (For ordinary bradyonic matter, E increases with increasing velocity, becoming arbitrarily large as v approaches c, the speed of light.) Therefore, just as bradyons are forbidden to break the light-speed barrier, so too are tachyons forbidden from slowing down to below light speed 'c', since to reach the barrier from either above or below requires infinite energy.

 

Which is to show that the interp of negative mass and reversed causality are not the only models available to physics.

[jackson33]

it has been many years since i gave thought to this, but do recall the idea as

conceivable. as to actual speed fine, just another entity given C speed.

 

mass and weight are given proportionate meaning. mass of gold to mass of hydrogen and so on. the limits to mass are another thing i have problems with. ref; BH and the thought mass, regardless of consumption and so on. now if you want to create something new or other than what is known, i could accept some very dense matter as a possibility, but still with in limits. another way to explain my feeling, is what something is, is not what it was with less mass, if in the same size.

 

yes, i have seen some of the ideas suggested as events if C is surpassed. much of this is based on SO sound and the effects of air currents, which happens to be in atmosphere. i can see if C of mass under that scenario could have some rather dramatic effects, even to the point of opening a massive hole in atmosphere. my problem is in a vacuum. light for instance, if limited to speed or velocity at 186k mps must have a reason. now we add all the other waves, apparently even thought waves and still have this limit. why should these things be limited to C or in short what causes are we think we understand to be limited. in my mind there is a reason and that reason is linked to something totally unknown and could possibly be something or more probably things faster than light.

[rocket art]

"Consciousness is the source of gravity." Uhmmm, okay, but what then is consciousness? How can it be measured? What predictions does it make? How can we test that?

 

 

I've said it before, and I've been consistent... Purple leprachauns riding on 6 legged unicorns cause the uncertainty described by Heisenberg...

 

Conk shells make neat noises too.

 

Why do you ask me about your being conscious? How the heck could I ever measure your consciousness? How could I ever do test to convince you to prove about your being conscious? :)

 

But I can very much assure you I know how real Consciousness is and to doubt the obvious will be your own dilemma. I observe the existence of the physicality within the dimensions at lightspeed because as an observer, I am above the observed.

 

Your purple leperchaun and 6 legged unicorn can easily be refuted, but mine is not. However I won't deny you the place, for neither will I say that your pink leperchauns and unicorn are an impossibility, and whatever your conk shell is, it won't be surprising with the elegant series of patterns such shells grow themselves with. Even the realms of fantasies follow their own patterns.

 

Besides why would a unicorn with its fibonacci series horns evolve into a 6 legged creature when its environment doesnt have to require it to.

 

rocket; the idea of conscious thought having speed is not new. it certainly is fast, but so is 186k mps. probably much faster. whatever may be faster than light should be something we just don't know of now or something we just don't think of as having speed. if there are thought waves for instance, they are well below or above anything we classify as having frequency or wave lengths. then this scale should have others as well. darkness is my favorite for a couple reasons. its no more or less than light, but for lack of understanding has no entity value.

 

Your Consciousness, being the observer, is relative to everything that you see, you don't have to associate it with speed because it doesn't have to be.

We speak as if we don't know of but it's a constant experience that the materiality of objects that we see everywhere that exist along lightspeed, is being differentiated from us because unlike them, our 'speed' enables us to be a thinking, living entity. Even darkness, or nothingness itself contains far greater energy than what we previously imagine, and even inventors are already racing on with the Zero Point technology and the awesome potential that it promises.

 

 

I always like to point out of course that the only thing that SR really says is that "at the speed of light, mass becomes infinite," and if you fiddle with the equations, you get interesting results leading to the conclusion that if you go faster than light you will either go backwards in time or have negative mass. Einstein hated quantum mechanics, but of course quantum mechanics allows you to jump from one state to another without passing through the intermediate values or states, which opens up at least the sci-fi door to "faster than light," but the implications are, uh, nasty!

 

As usual, at FTL we create parallel dimension as to whether we decide to open the cookie jar, or decide not to, or decide to act like cookie monster. It's been going on all along, and we just have to seek for an equation for it, just as I am doing with my Rocket Theory on the other thread, which I wanted to be discussed.

 

Hey...tachyons, those could be hints that may confirm with my 'rocket philosophy' (likes those neat formulas too) :cup: :

 

Since matter cannot exceed lightspeed, it duplicates instead when subjected beyond it." -rocket

[jackson33]

rocket; i once thought if another intelligent life form existed they would likely communicate in a controlled telepathic manner. our means do seem rather time consuming and mankind's biggest flaw (honesty) is distorted by self interest and desires. i also felt this was instantaneous and really never considered the time element.

 

if thought is instantaneous or not restricted to any speed then fine. in my mind however there remains other more concrete and universal entities that will need identification to eliminate the current idea of max-speed. as i have said, something is preventing speed to our concept, beyond this.

 

on travel at C, and understanding no one has come close, i think the idea of some dramatic change in a vacuum is highly unlikely. what is or will be observed however (outside our means of travel), would have no choice but be effected in whats seen. since you and this mode of travel are going Cx2 or whatever, inside this unit would appear the same.

[InfiniteNow]

How the heck could I ever measure your consciousness? How could I ever do test to convince you to prove about your being conscious? :)

 

But I can very much assure you I know how real Consciousness is and to doubt the obvious will be your own dilemma

Your statements are contradictory.

 

"I cannot tell you what consciouness is, nor measure or prove it."

"You can be assured I know what consciousness is."

 

 

Fun thoughts, but frankly it doesn't compute. Perhaps it's just an issue with your presentation style. Je ne sais pas... But, we cannot read your thoughts, and what you take as given I take as baseless conjecture.

 

You speak as if consciousness is at the root of it all. That's fine. I'm good with that. However, you cannot understand consciousness nor speak of it with any validity... Get the picture? :eek:

[Erasmus00]

I always like to point out of course that the only thing that SR really says is that "at the speed of light, mass becomes infinite," and if you fiddle with the equations, you get interesting results leading to the conclusion that if you go faster than light you will either go backwards in time or have negative mass.

 

Of course, it all depends on how you develop the theory. You can, in fact, develop a relativistic mechanics without any reference to light, and use c to be a maximum speed limit of the universe.

 

Then, when it comes time to extend your relativistic mechanics onward to fields, such as electric and magnetic fields, you find that the electromagnetic waves travel at your speed limit ©.

 

Einstein hated quantum mechanics, but of course quantum mechanics allows you to jump from one state to another without passing through the intermediate values or states, which opens up at least the sci-fi door to "faster than light," but the implications are, uh, nasty! :eek:

 

In fact, faster than light signal propagation/causality was one of the problems that lead people to understand the need for a fundamentally relativistic quantum theory, and hence quantum field theory was born. Now when you try to figure out the probability of passing a particle outside the light cone (moving it faster than light) you find it is exactly balanced by the probability of passing an anti-particle the other way. In this manner, causality is maintained.

-Will

[rocket art]

You speak as if consciousness is at the root of it all. That's fine. I'm good with that. However, you cannot understand consciousness nor speak of it with any validity... Get the picture? :)

 

You cannot refute either, that Consciousness is a valid, unquantifiable existence, just as gravity cannot be refuted even when there's no physical particle to identify it with. And to deny the reality of consciousness is falsifiable in itself.

 

rocket; i once thought if another intelligent life form existed they would likely communicate in a controlled telepathic manner. our means do seem rather time consuming and mankind's biggest flaw (honesty) is distorted by self interest and desires. i also felt this was instantaneous and really never considered the time element.

 

At quantum level the concept of time gets 'blurred,' and the act of being 'observer' itself affects the 'observed'.

[InfiniteNow]

You cannot refute either, that Consciousness is a valid, unquantifiable existence, just as gravity cannot be refuted even when there's no physical particle to identify it with. And to deny the reality of consciousness is falsifiable in itself.

So are you suggesting that there must be a particle of consciousness in order to prove it? You're argumentative because you feel strongly. That's good. What I want is more. You're "this is right because I know it is," is frankly a bullshit position. You can do better... I hope.

[rocket art]

To quantify the unquantifiable, and to seek particle from the intangible would be a feat in itself. However I may as well reply on it with poetics:

 

"Consciousness is Energy with the Eloquent Patterns." -rocket

 

Now you've got stuff.

[Buffy]

"Consciousness is Energy with the Eloquent Patterns." -rocket

Poetry is fun, I love it. But it ain't science. "Eloquent" is a quality, not a quantity, so who gets to decide what's eloquent? You?

Now you've got stuff.

Nope. This is still content-free, dude.

 

Earning is more effective than demanding,

Buffy

[rocket art]

Poetry is fun, I love it. But it ain't science. "Eloquent" is a quality, not a quantity, so who gets to decide what's eloquent? You?

 

 

Be more holistic then because there are far greater challenges ahead; why not make science fun and lovely too at par with poetry? It's more eloquent. If a specie decides to create a civilization and eat with fork, rather than remain hanging up on trees, shaking twigs and catching bugs, that would be far more eloquent. Don't you think so?

[infamous]

why not make science fun and lovely too at par with poetry?

Science is what it is, no more no less than discovery that can predict a repeatable result. Sometimes lovely, but sometimes its ugly, what you see is what you get. We can't really make it anything but what it is, the truth about nature. Sometimes that truth is difficult to deal with, nonetheless, the truth remains the truth...................Infy

[Buffy]

Be more holistic then because there are far greater challenges ahead;

And what pray tell are those?

why not make science fun and lovely too at par with poetry? It's more eloquent.

Of course it is! But you can't *prove* anything with eloquence! It just makes it fun and enjoyable! I love art, and it actually helps me do science by providing insight and intuition, but since it is interpretive, its not something I can use to prove anything to anyone else.

 

So the question becomes, what do you want to do with "eloquence?"

If a specie decides to create a civilization and eat with fork, rather than remain hanging up on trees, shaking twigs and catching bugs, that would be far more eloquent. Don't you think so?

I would call it more "loquacious" and "inscrutable" and "audacious." And its also very "purple." See how easy it is to get creative? But is it useful, other than to make it sound like one is, well, "eloquent" without really being so?

 

The universe is perspicacious. My, I understand it so much better now!

 

Light and flaky,

Buffy

[rocket art]

Science is what it is, no more no less than discovery that can predict a repeatable result. Sometimes lovely, but sometimes its ugly, what you see is what you get. We can't really make it anything but what it is, the truth about nature. Sometimes that truth is difficult to deal with, nonetheless, the truth remains the truth...

 

Agrees. Not only that, science is also amoral. However, to decide with the awareness that science will be a tool for human development rather than a tool for its destrution, would definitely be a more preferable decision to make for something. Real Truth is not solely on the objectivity of it, but relatively to our being Human, because just as nature is, we also exist, yet we are expected to be more eloquent beyond it, as living, Conscious observers to these 'observed' environments.

 

But is it useful, other than to make it sound like one is, well, "eloquent" without really being so?

 

The universe is perspicacious. My, I understand it so much better now!

 

Useful? For our survival other than the alternatively less eloquent, or even uglier scenarios of how we make of it ahead, surely it is useful.

 

I think the universe is far more interestingly unintelligible than that. Answers about the Universe will eventually unfold like questions, and that's what keeps existence going.

[Pyrotex]

Rocket art,

 

you still sound like someone who has fallen out of a tall tree.