Why we can never travel faster than the speed of light

[Guttairc]

When the universe was created, it had warmth and cold, energy and non-energy, it``s the only universe we can have. All matter is energy in a cooler state, you can set anything on fire even rocks, so the basic form is energy. A space-ship, for example, will be all energy also in a cooler state, so there`s a limit on how fast it can travel like light otherwise. There`s no dark matter or energy invisible in space which slows things down, or matter if you travel far away enough from planets and rocks.

If you take science for it, the universe is 14 billion years old also, and no alien-race has developed technlogy to find us in all that time. 14 billion years is a long time, and nothing. If you take the notion that life only needs warm water and organic compounds and a stable enviroment to form, life should be everywhere, still the distances are too great to overcome it seems in 14 billion years.

I`m sorry to say, maybe it`s just not possible. If we had dark matter, we could perhaps bend it to travel faster, but dark matter and dark energy, hasn`t been proven exists.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at, but maybe you're questioning why we haven't been visited by "aliens" if the universe is as old as our observations tell us it is? If I've got that right, then the simple answer is, and you pretty much said this I think, over-coming physics is really, really hard.

Even if there are advanced civilizations out in the universe they would run into the same issues with physics and space travel and time that we do.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at, but maybe you're questioning why we haven't been visited by "aliens" if the universe is as old as our observations tell us it is? If I've got that right, then the simple answer is, and you pretty much said this I think, over-coming physics is really, really hard.

Even if there are advanced civilizations out in the universe they would run into the same issues with physics and space travel and time that we do.

There is nothing to understand this is incoherent nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you take science for it, the universe is 14 billion years old also, and no alien-race has developed technlogy to find us in all that time.

Keep in mind too, that when Adam sinned, he threw the whole universe into a state of entropy -- not just the earth.

If indeed there is an advanced civilization out there,* they're a fallen race as well.

* Aside from the angels, of course.

 

[River Jordan]

Keep in mind too, that when Adam sinned, he threw the whole universe into a state of entropy -- not just the earth.

Interesting, but that's not in scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting, but that's not in scripture.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

From AI Overview:

According to some Christian theological interpretations, particularly within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the "Fall of Man" is considered a meta-historical event, meaning it affected the entire history of the universe, not just the Earth, implying that the whole universe was impacted by the Fall to some degree; however, this view is not universally held and is considered a minority opinion among theologians.

 

[River Jordan]

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Says nothing about entropy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says nothing about entropy.

If It did, then academia would be all over It, claiming the word is an anachronism, seeing as the word was coined in 1865.

 

[Neogaia777]

There is nothing to understand this is incoherent nonsense.

I'm mainly only interested in him bringing.up the subject of faster than light travel, but other than that, pretty much agree with what you just said.

Do you remember back when we were having a discussion in another thread about this where both you and I agreed (or rather, I knew how to ask the right questions, and you told me, etc) where we were talking about how right now (with the use of particle accelerators) we could push certain particles (with at least some mass) up to near, to very near the speed of light (c) and you told me and we agreed that the mass of that particle didn't ever increase? And that through a little bit more back and forth between you and I, that it was actually the time dilation that was the problem in getting a particle (with mass) up to, or past c? Well, can I maybe bother you some more about that subject again here maybe? (Cause I guess here is as good a place as any, etc) (At least it's in the right sub-forum, etc) Anyway, about those particles we are getting up to that fast, is there any real, objective evidence that time dilation is affecting those particles to that degree, or that severely, that we can for sure know, or can for sure measure objectively?

Essentially, we are talking about time slowing down for whatever physical matter or material makes up that particle, correct? But not anything other than that, correct? (Not the space around it or surrounding it or outside of it, or the spaces in-between, but just the particles that are making up that particle), correct? (But correct me if I am wrong about this, or am getting this in error etc) Anyway, can we measure this with any of these particles or not? Yes or No, or maybe, maybe not yet maybe?

Acceleration. We do know that Acceleration, while a thing is accelerating, definitely has an effect. But in the other forum thread where we were having a discussion before, I posited that if we could accelerate at a rate that was enough for us to be able to handle, and if we kept it constant, and if the mass of our particles never actually increases, or gets any more heavier/larger, etc, then why could we just keep going indefinitely, etc? That's where we agreed on time dilation for the particles being the real source of the real issue or problem, etc. But does that mean that time slows down for the particles in motion that have mass? Say, if it's an atom for example, do the particles in the nucleus slow down in their activity, or do the electrons quote/unquote "in orbit" slow down in their orbits, or in their activity? And again, is there a way we can objectively measure this so as to be able to know for 100% sure, if it is, or is not, actually happening that way?

Much thanks.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm mainly only interested in him bringing.up the subject of faster than light travel, but other than that, pretty much agree with what you just said.

Do you remember back when we were having a discussion in another thread about this where both you and I agreed (or rather, I knew how to ask the right questions, and you told me, etc) where we were talking about how right now (with the use of particle accelerators) we could push certain particles (with at least some mass) up to near, to very near the speed of light (c) and you told me and we agreed that the mass of that particle didn't ever increase? And that through a little bit more back and forth between you and I, that it was actually the time dilation that was the problem in getting a particle (with mass) up to, or past c? Well, can I maybe bother you some more about that subject again here maybe? (Cause I guess here is as good a place as any, etc) (At least it's in the right sub-forum, etc) Anyway, about those particles we are getting up to that fast, is there any real, objective evidence that time dilation is affecting those particles to that degree, or that severely, that we can for sure know, or can for sure measure objectively?

Essentially, we are talking about time slowing down for whatever physical matter or material makes up that particle, correct? But not anything other than that, correct? (Not the space around it or surrounding it or outside of it, or the spaces in-between, but just the particles that are making up that particle), correct? (But correct me if I am wrong about this, or am getting this in error etc) Anyway, can we measure this with any of these particles or not? Yes or No, or maybe, maybe not yet maybe?

Acceleration. We do know that Acceleration, while a thing is accelerating, definitely has an effect. But in the other forum thread where we were having a discussion before, I posited that if we could accelerate at a rate that was enough for us to be able to handle, and if we kept it constant, and if the mass of our particles never actually increases, or gets any more heavier/larger, etc, then why could we just keep going indefinitely, etc? That's where we agreed on time dilation for the particles being the real source of the real issue or problem, etc. But does that mean that time slows down for the particles in motion that have mass? Say, if it's an atom for example, do the particles in the nucleus slow down in their activity, or do the electrons quote/unquote "in orbit" slow down in their orbits, or in their activity? And again, is there a way we can objectively measure this so as to be able to know for 100% sure, if it is, or is not, actually happening that way?

Much thanks.

Take Care/God Bless.

@sjastro

Oh, and I also forgot to ask also, is the time dilation effect for the particles that are in motion dependent upon traveling at a certain speed through space? or is it dependent upon at what rate you are accelerating, or are increasing in your acceleration through space, etc?

Take Care.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm mainly only interested in him bringing.up the subject of faster than light travel, but other than that, pretty much agree with what you just said.

Do you remember back when we were having a discussion in another thread about this where both you and I agreed (or rather, I knew how to ask the right questions, and you told me, etc) where we were talking about how right now (with the use of particle accelerators) we could push certain particles (with at least some mass) up to near, to very near the speed of light (c) and you told me and we agreed that the mass of that particle didn't ever increase? And that through a little bit more back and forth between you and I, that it was actually the time dilation that was the problem in getting a particle (with mass) up to, or past c? Well, can I maybe bother you some more about that subject again here maybe? (Cause I guess here is as good a place as any, etc) (At least it's in the right sub-forum, etc) Anyway, about those particles we are getting up to that fast, is there any real, objective evidence that time dilation is affecting those particles to that degree, or that severely, that we can for sure know, or can for sure measure objectively?

Essentially, we are talking about time slowing down for whatever physical matter or material makes up that particle, correct? But not anything other than that, correct? (Not the space around it or surrounding it or outside of it, or the spaces in-between, but just the particles that are making up that particle), correct? (But correct me if I am wrong about this, or am getting this in error etc) Anyway, can we measure this with any of these particles or not? Yes or No, or maybe, maybe not yet maybe?

Acceleration. We do know that Acceleration, while a thing is accelerating, definitely has an effect. But in the other forum thread where we were having a discussion before, I posited that if we could accelerate at a rate that was enough for us to be able to handle, and if we kept it constant, and if the mass of our particles never actually increases, or gets any more heavier/larger, etc, then why could we just keep going indefinitely, etc? That's where we agreed on time dilation for the particles being the real source of the real issue or problem, etc. But does that mean that time slows down for the particles in motion that have mass? Say, if it's an atom for example, do the particles in the nucleus slow down in their activity, or do the electrons quote/unquote "in orbit" slow down in their orbits, or in their activity? And again, is there a way we can objectively measure this so as to be able to know for 100% sure, if it is, or is not, actually happening that way?

Much thanks.

Take Care/God Bless.

See here:

The lifetime of particles produced in particle accelerators are longer due to time dilation. In such experiments, the "clock" is the time taken by processes leading to muon decay, and these processes take place in the moving muon at its own "clock rate", which is much slower than the laboratory clock.

Without the time dilation experienced by particles travelling at subluminal speeds, the decay time would be too small to make good observations. The decay rate is thus the objective measure for time dilation.

.. again from that same Wiki link:

This is routinely taken into account in particle physics, and many dedicated measurements have been performed. For instance, in the muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of muons circulating with γ = 29.327 was found to be dilated to 64.378 μs, confirming time dilation to an accuracy of 0.9 ± 0.4 parts per thousand.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When the universe was created, it had warmth and cold, energy and non-energy, it``s the only universe we can have. All matter is energy in a cooler state, you can set anything on fire even rocks, so the basic form is energy. A space-ship, for example, will be all energy also in a cooler state, so there`s a limit on how fast it can travel like light otherwise. There`s no dark matter or energy invisible in space which slows things down, or matter if you travel far away enough from planets and rocks.

If you take science for it, the universe is 14 billion years old also, and no alien-race has developed technlogy to find us in all that time. 14 billion years is a long time, and nothing. If you take the notion that life only needs warm water and organic compounds and a stable enviroment to form, life should be everywhere, still the distances are too great to overcome it seems in 14 billion years.

I`m sorry to say, maybe it`s just not possible. If we had dark matter, we could perhaps bend it to travel faster, but dark matter and dark energy, hasn`t been proven exists.

Let's say the person who can travel a little better than half the speed of light, approaches another on the same course traveling a little better than half the speed of light in precisely the opposite direction. Whose perspective is the one from which to measure the speed of light?

 

[SelfSim]

Let's say the person who can travel a little better than half the speed of light, approaches another on the same course traveling a little better than half the speed of light in precisely the opposite direction. Whose perspective is the one from which to measure the speed of light?

All three of them.

 

[sjastro]

I'm mainly only interested in him bringing.up the subject of faster than light travel, but other than that, pretty much agree with what you just said.

Do you remember back when we were having a discussion in another thread about this where both you and I agreed (or rather, I knew how to ask the right questions, and you told me, etc) where we were talking about how right now (with the use of particle accelerators) we could push certain particles (with at least some mass) up to near, to very near the speed of light (c) and you told me and we agreed that the mass of that particle didn't ever increase? And that through a little bit more back and forth between you and I, that it was actually the time dilation that was the problem in getting a particle (with mass) up to, or past c? Well, can I maybe bother you some more about that subject again here maybe? (Cause I guess here is as good a place as any, etc) (At least it's in the right sub-forum, etc) Anyway, about those particles we are getting up to that fast, is there any real, objective evidence that time dilation is affecting those particles to that degree, or that severely, that we can for sure know, or can for sure measure objectively?

The discussion from what I recall is how does the momentum p of an object changes as the velocity reaches relativistic speeds.
At low speeds the momentum is p = mv but as the speed increases to relativistic magnitudes

p = mv/√(1-v²/c²)

Does the mass M increase relativistically M = mv/√(1-v²/c²), or does the velocity V increase V = v/√(1-v²/c²)?

Mathematically both variations are valid but since mass and charge are properties of an object and charge remains invariant (does not increase with increasing velocity), the modern day preference is for the mass M to remain invariant as well.

Essentially, we are talking about time slowing down for whatever physical matter or material makes up that particle, correct? But not anything other than that, correct? (Not the space around it or surrounding it or outside of it, or the spaces in-between, but just the particles that are making up that particle), correct? (But correct me if I am wrong about this, or am getting this in error etc) Anyway, can we measure this with any of these particles or not? Yes or No, or maybe, maybe not yet maybe?

It's about the frame of reference, an observer on earth will measure the clock on a spaceship running slower compared to his own clock.
The reason why your GPS works is that atomic clocks on GPS satellites need to be adjusted to take into consideration gravitational time dilation effects of general relativity and velocity effects of special relativity to remain synchronized with atomic clocks on Earth.

Acceleration. We do know that Acceleration, while a thing is accelerating, definitely has an effect. But in the other forum thread where we were having a discussion before, I posited that if we could accelerate at a rate that was enough for us to be able to handle, and if we kept it constant, and if the mass of our particles never actually increases, or gets any more heavier/larger, etc, then why could we just keep going indefinitely, etc? That's where we agreed on time dilation for the particles being the real source of the real issue or problem, etc. But does that mean that time slows down for the particles in motion that have mass? Say, if it's an atom for example, do the particles in the nucleus slow down in their activity, or do the electrons quote/unquote "in orbit" slow down in their orbits, or in their activity? And again, is there a way we can objectively measure this so as to be able to know for 100% sure, if it is, or is not, actually happening that way?

Much thanks.

Take Care/God Bless.

It doesn’t work that way.
From a classical physics perspective to accelerate an object of mass m from rest to some velocity v, work W needs to be performed on the object and equals the change in KE (kinetic energy) in this case W = (1/2)mv².

At relativistic speeds however the change in KE = mc²/√(1-v²/c²) - mc² where mc² is the rest energy.
If v = c the mc²/√(1-v²/c²) term becomes infinitely large irrespective of the value of constant acceleration.

It doesn't matter what the magnitude of the constant acceleration is, eventually the speed of light is reached which requires an infinite amount of energy.
Particle accelerators are examples of this limitation, its no coincidence the LHC accelerates protons to 99.999999% the speed of light.
There is a law of diminishing returns as increasing the particle accelerator centre of mass energies does not produce significant increases in particle velocities as the speed of light is the limit.

​

 

[sjastro]

@sjastro

Oh, and I also forgot to ask also, is the time dilation effect for the particles that are in motion dependent upon traveling at a certain speed through space? or is it dependent upon at what rate you are accelerating, or are increasing in your acceleration through space, etc?

Take Care.

All of the above.

Special relativity handles time dilation for objects moving at constant velocities and general relativity for objects being accelerated under the influence of gravity and curved spacetimes.
In the case of an object undergoing a constant proper acceleration in flat space time, special relativity is extended and time dilation is explained using Rindler coordinates and for circular motion Born coordinates.

 

[sjastro]

Let's say the person who can travel a little better than half the speed of light, approaches another on the same course traveling a little better than half the speed of light in precisely the opposite direction. Whose perspective is the one from which to measure the speed of light?

To expand on @SelfSim's answer as an example suppose observers A and B are travelling at 0.6c (c = the speed of light) towards each other and observer C is on the ground and measures the approach speed.

The measured speeds in each observer's frame of reference is.

Observer​	Measured speed​
A​	0.6c​
B​	0.6c​
C​	0.88c​

Note the approach speed in C's frame of reference is not 0.6c + 0.6c = 1.2c but (0.6c+0.6c)/(1+0.6²) = 0.88c.
At low speeds u = u' + v but at relativistic speeds u = (u' + v)/(1+u'v/c²)

 

[SelfSim]

and observer C is on the ground and measures the approach speed.

You stole much punchline by including observer C!

(.. Which is very cool! )

 

[Hans Blaster]

Modern nonsense, you take the idea that you can`t really measure speed because the observer is moving also. It`s the same nonsense as when they try to explain what gravity is, but it`s just things falling to the ground because there`s nothing interfering

I'm sorry, but your rejection of reality isn't worth the bits you sent to the CF server. The description of velocity addition and the measurement of the speed of light you rejected is backed by a lot of evidence for Einstein's special relativity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

To expand on @SelfSim's answer as an example suppose observers A and B are travelling at 0.6c (c = the speed of light) towards each other and observer C is on the ground and measures the approach speed.

The measured speeds in each observer's frame of reference is.

Observer​	Measured speed​
A​	0.6c​
B​	0.6c​
C​	0.88c​

Note the approach speed in C's frame of reference is not 0.6c + 0.6c = 1.2c but (0.6c+0.6c)/(1+0.6²) = 0.88c.
At low speeds u = u' + v but at relativistic speeds u = (u' + v)/(1+u'v/c²)

So, the implication that I was hoping someone would pick up on, is, supposing observers A and B are aware of their impending doom, how fast should A consider B to be going relative to himself? (And likewise, B concerning A's speed...)

 

[AV1611VET]

So, the implication that I was hoping someone would pick up on, is, supposing observers A and B are aware of their impending doom, how fast should A consider B to be going relative to himself? (And likewise, B concerning A's speed...)

Well, as the story goes:

Two men were out hunting, when a bear suddenly came lunging at them.

One man took off running.

The other sat down and began changing his shoes to tennis shoes.

"What are you doing!?" the runner yelled. "You can't outrun that bear, even in tennis shoes!"

"I don't need to outrun that bear," the man replied; tying his tennis shoes and now starting to run.

"I just need to outrun you!"