Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44

Thread: What would actually happen...

  1. #1 What would actually happen... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45
    What would actually happen if you travelled the speed of light?
    Would you become infinitively massive?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    You couldn't travel at the speed of light.


    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You couldn't travel at the speed of light.
    Quote Originally Posted by ceire
    if
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You couldn't travel at the speed of light.
    Quote Originally Posted by ceire
    if
    The problem with that "if" is that it requires you to violate tha laws of physics as we understand them. If you assume that these laws are violated, then we cannot use them to answer the question, and since we don't know what new laws of physics are used to allow such an event, we can't give a meaningful answer on that basis either.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    The problem with that "if" is that it requires you to violate tha laws of physics as we understand them. If you assume that these laws are violated, then we cannot use them to answer the question, and since we don't know what new laws of physics are used to allow such an event, we can't give a meaningful answer on that basis either.
    BUT if you had to give an answer what would you think? Doesn't matter if its not meangingful
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    You would spontaneously turn into a bowl of petunias and a sperm whale.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6
    In order for you to prove that a ball will not stay stationary in mid air when you bounce it on the ground, a person would have to bounce that ball for infinity. I.e travelling at the speed of light may be possible, Einstein may be wrong. Please don't lynch me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You would spontaneously turn into a bowl of petunias and a sperm whale.
    As good an answer as any other.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Were you to reach the speed of light you would instantaneously become pure energy and ignite into a mass of protons and various other forms of electromagnetic radiation.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by ceire

    BUT if you had to give an answer what would you think? Doesn't matter if its not meangingful
    That is one of the more ridiculous statements that I have every encountered.

    This exhibits a complete lack of comprehension of not only physics, but fundamental logic.

    So, in the spirit of a truly stupid question, the correct answer is 12. Units to be supplied later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    the correct answer is 12
    Nonsense! Its 42.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    the correct answer is 12
    Nonsense! Its 42.
    It is 12. And you misspelled "it's". :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'd much prefer to become a bowl of petunias, thank you
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    That is one of the more ridiculous statements that I have every encountered.

    This exhibits a complete lack of comprehension of not only physics, but fundamental logic.
    Wow Dr Rocket, You must be an extremely fun person to be around!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'd much prefer to become a bowl of petunias, thank you
    Interesting that you choose the petunias over the whale...


    ...I say interesting, actually I'm just bored.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    well, The petunias are obviously Omniscient. And as such, they can clearly see this thread being closed.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I find it odd that I am the only one to consider his request in earnest. It should be easy to imagine "what if this observation isn't true?" Yet at the same time you criticize theists for being unable to imagine hypotheticals (what if God doesn't exist?)

    For example, if something with mass accelerated to that speed by normal means, I imagine its mass would become infinite and the universe would collapse in on it. Probably forming a dense singularity the size of a particle and...heeeeeyyyy wait a minute... :P
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    You must not have read my first post in this thread, Darius.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I did. I'm proposing an alternate hypothesis.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'd much prefer to become a bowl of petunias, thank you
    Interesting that you choose the petunias over the whale...

    Especially if you know the back story of those petunias.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I truly wish I knew the whole story behind the petunias.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I find it odd that I am the only one to consider his request in earnest. It should be easy to imagine "what if this observation isn't true?" Yet at the same time you criticize theists for being unable to imagine hypotheticals (what if God doesn't exist?)

    For example, if something with mass accelerated to that speed by normal means, I imagine its mass would become infinite and the universe would collapse in on it. Probably forming a dense singularity the size of a particle and...heeeeeyyyy wait a minute... :P
    Nonsense.

    There is no such thing as infinite mass or a singularity. A singularity in cosmology is simply a surface on which the curvature tensor fails to exist. That means that it is not part of the manifold and the manifold is space-time. So a singularity is not "something" but rather the lack of something, namely a defined curvature tensor.

    Similarly infinite mass represents another type of singlarity.

    So now you have two completely undefined quantities and you propose to draw a conclusion on how they interact. That is simply preposterous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45
    I seem to have offended people by asking this question (which by the way I realise this question IS NOT possible) and im an unsure why (prehaps it is my post count).
    I will not ask a "what if" question again as I see now it offends some 'high post counters' for some reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6
    Are we not already travelling at the speed of light? If information could be passed across the universe at the speed of light from earth then humans don't actually need to travel at the speed of light themselves physically.

    I.e. if one day we could submit information (whether it be chemical chain reactions or actual physical information as in the internet) at the speed of light then the human race will have 'got it's message' across the universe without needing to travel themselves.

    Example, if we could send intelligent information that is able to somehow replicate itself to a planet 500 million light years away we could, maybe, start life on that planet. This is obviously completely out of our realm now, but a few thousand years in the future?

    If I am completely wrong please don't reply with a sarcastic message, explain politely! :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i heard somone in a forum asking this question which i think proves information can travel faster than light

    you build a very light stick 300000 km long from planet to planet

    you push it on earth at 1 m/s which is not a relativistic spped and that info wil have been transfred instantly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Well, right now no, we ourselves are not traveling at the speed of light. But, a good thread for you to read, lisa, would be the Relativity Primer thread stickied at the top of the subforum, it'll help you a bit and it's quite informative on the subject here.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i heard somone in a forum asking this question which i think proves information can travel faster than light

    you build a very light stick 300000 km long from planet to planet

    you push it on earth at 1 m/s which is not a relativistic spped and that info wil have been transfred instantly
    No, all it proves is that there is no such thing as a perfectly stiff stick.

    A stick is composed of atoms. When you push the stick the atoms influence each other by electrical and magnetic fields, traveling at the speed of light. Besides, the stick has mass, so it would actually move a lot slower than the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i heard somone in a forum asking this question which i think proves information can travel faster than light

    you build a very light stick 300000 km long from planet to planet

    you push it on earth at 1 m/s which is not a relativistic spped and that info wil have been transfred instantly
    The information would only travel as fast as the speed of sound for the material the stick is made of. For instance, through diamond, which has a high stiffness to weight ratio, sound travels at 12,000 m/s. This is still only 0.004% of the speed of light. So if you push one end of a 300,000 km long diamond rod, it would take almost 7 hrs before the other end moved.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    we do move information at the speed of light using fiber optic cables
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    A variation on the stick is the sweeping spotlight or shadow. You can project an image (say, a cat) that flits from nebula to nebula.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    A variation on the stick is the sweeping spotlight or shadow. You can project an image (say, a cat) that flits from nebula to nebula.
    That is not a variation.

    The stick example would, if it were valid, allow superluminal transmission of a signal. It shows, as was pointed out why one cannot permit rigid bodies within special relativity.

    Sweeping a light or shadow from nebula to nebula at superluminal speeds is allowable. But nothing, not even an information-bearing signal is transmitted in that way.

    A similar thing is the contact point between a guillotine blade and a horizontal plane. That can also move at speeds greater than c, but again nothing, including information is moving that fast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    A variation on the stick is the sweeping spotlight or shadow. You can project an image (say, a cat) that flits from nebula to nebula.
    But like DrRocket has said, this involves no transfer of information from nebula to nebula.

    Example I am shining a light on a planet 1 ly away. I swing my light around to poit at a second planet 1 ly away in the opposite direction. One year later the last bit of light that left my light while pointing at planet 1 reaches planet 1 and the spot of light disappears. At the same time the light I pointed in the opposite direction reaches planet 2 and a spot of light appears on it. It appears as if the the light instantly moved from planet 1 to planet 2.

    Now imagine that there is a packet of information you want to move from planet 1 to planet 2. There is no way to use this method to move that information.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    True, true. It broadcasts information much as a chiming clock tower. When two pedestrians set their watches, there's no communication between them.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    what if the first planet choses to reflect or not the ray to the second planet?

    if it gets reflected second planet will see two signals if not just one

    since oposite rays of light will have a relativistic speed with respect to each other of half than if it just goes one sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    yes, but it would take twice as long for the light to go from the first planet to the second. And beside that, your flashlight's light would take x years to get to either planet, so in order for it to appear as if it happened at the same time you would have to shine your light on planet one for 2x years ( takes x years to get there, x years to get halfway back and will be right in line with you when you switch to the other planet.) and then immediately swing it over to planet 2. While you see an instant change, the planets you are "illuminating" won't.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    what about the theory that if change a photon instantly another photon changes instantly this would be transluminical speed

    if it was not transluminical the universe would be unbalanced for a while

    so either transluminical info is posible or the universe could be briefly unbalanced, total momentum wouldnt be 0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You're talking about quantum entanglement. Yes, something happens superluminally, but nothing that can be used to transmit information. Basically, the only way you could know that the change was the result of someone transmitting something would be if someone told you they had transmitted something, which would require a normal light-speed signal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2
    I'm not great a physics, but was thinking about this.

    If einstein was correct in that E=Mc^2 where E is energy M is mass and c is velocity, then light must have some kind of mass.

    If it had no mass then there could be no energy or speed.

    The Mass of light is ~=0; therefore the amount of energy required for the mass of light to reach the speed of light is >~0.

    The energy required for an particle to reach the speed of light would be almost impossible to control; let alone that required for a human being.

    Lets say that u were somehow able to find a way to create and harness enough energy for you to make it to the speed of light.

    You are then faced with a couple of problems.

    How do you accelerate yourself uniformly enough so there is no stress of your body?

    If you come under the influence of any other force, your atoms that were affected by the force would abruptly slow from the speed of light, while other regions would not slow quite as fast, causing most certainly fatal damage. In short, if you approached the speed of light, your body will cease to exist and the particles that made up your body would be scattered across the solar system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Demise_
    How do you accelerate yourself uniformly enough so there is no stress of your body?
    Gravity.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Demise_
    I'm not great a physics, but was thinking about this.

    If einstein was correct in that E=Mc^2 where E is energy M is mass and c is velocity, then light must have some kind of mass.

    If it had no mass then there could be no energy or speed.

    The Mass of light is ~=0; therefore the amount of energy required for the mass of light to reach the speed of light is >~0.
    E=mc^2 tells us how much energy a mass of m can be converted to. The c^2 (the speed of light squared) is the conversion factor. By itself, the formula is only useful for objects that have a rest mass. Light has no rest mass.

    The more general form of the formula which can be used for light is:



    Where p is momentum. Light does have momentum, so even if m is zero you get an non-zero answer for the energy of light.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Demise_
    I'm not great a physics, but was thinking about this.

    If einstein was correct in that E=Mc^2 where E is energy M is mass and c is velocity, then light must have some kind of mass.

    If it had no mass then there could be no energy or speed.

    The Mass of light is ~=0; therefore the amount of energy required for the mass of light to reach the speed of light is >~0.
    E=mc^2 tells us how much energy a mass of m can be converted to. The c^2 (the speed of light squared) is the conversion factor. By itself, the formula is only useful for objects that have a rest mass. Light has no rest mass.
    Is light 'energy" itself? Is that 'Photon' (qubit) in many of the wavelengths, the energy when the 'm' is broken up?

    The more general form of the formula which can be used for light is:



    Where p is momentum. Light does have momentum, so even if m is zero you get an non-zero answer for the energy of light.
    What mass, is that momentum applying too?

    What is moving thru space? That second script is for "mass" . W

    You are suggesting the accepted frame. To account 'angular momentum' to the vector (your momentum).

    what you just did was use the E=mc2 (wavelength/frequency) to the particle (mass) based on an assumption of the photon being both. (this is what is accepted in physics but not reality (ie... it it like accepting a "creator".. to me)

    That conversions you are implying is using a word 'mometum' to a trajectory (vector potential) creating angular momentum into the physics describing the system. (it creates a particle to energy itself)

    the amplitude of any unit photon is being converted to angular momentum (the particle spin (torque) but maintains the energy content to the 'f' ^c yet, when combing 2 systems, the total power cannot be caluclated because of that very issue.

    this is the true conflict between a wave and particle frame (the math requires the assumption to the 'energy' itself as you just posted above)

    the systems are not interchange able without a patch to convert back.

    ie..... what is the particle to a 'string' in M theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Demise_
    I'm not great a physics, but was thinking about this.

    If einstein was correct in that E=Mc^2 where E is energy M is mass and c is velocity, then light must have some kind of mass.

    If it had no mass then there could be no energy or speed.

    The Mass of light is ~=0; therefore the amount of energy required for the mass of light to reach the speed of light is >~0.
    E=mc^2 tells us how much energy a mass of m can be converted to. The c^2 (the speed of light squared) is the conversion factor. By itself, the formula is only useful for objects that have a rest mass. Light has no rest mass.

    The more general form of the formula which can be used for light is:



    Where p is momentum. Light does have momentum, so even if m is zero you get an non-zero answer for the energy of light.
    There are two ways to skin this cat.

    Your equation is correct, with the interpretation that is rest mass, or . The equation is also correct with the interpretation that is relativistic mass

    Either way is correct. In order to apply this to light, in either case you need the basic equation for a photon where is Planck's constant and is the frequency. This latter equation provides the means for calculating the momentum of the photon from the equation for energy. Specifically, noting that ,

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1
    That's very clever of you Dr. Rocket, you're on of the few who tried to answer his questions without saying stupid things. I believe whenever we go in a forum we must be open minded on listening on the ideas of everyone then if his ideas are wrong or his wordings are incorrectly spelled then it is OK to let him know the correct answers..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by ShashaCorleone
    That's very clever of you Dr. Rocket, you're on of the few who tried to answer his questions without saying stupid things. I believe whenever we go in a forum we must be open minded on listening on the ideas of everyone then if his ideas are wrong or his wordings are incorrectly spelled then it is OK to let him know the correct answers..
    Huh?

    I see that you are new. Welcome.

    I was responding to Janus. Janus is pretty knowledgeable.

    I was not responding to Bushadi. Bushadi is hopeless. Explaining things to him is pointless. Been there. Done that.

    He has managed to actually accumulate negative knowledge of science. Everything that he "knows" is wrong. It is just unbelievable.

    You would to well to ignore Bushadi. He contributes nothing and detracts greatly. If you already know the subject you will be immune. But if not and if you pay any attention to him at all it will be to your detriment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •