Thread: Science Stuff...Time travel and stuff.

Yes, but there's also that whole requirement of infinite energy...

Originally posted by Techboy
Well, if waves and stuff (i.e. colour, gamma waves, etc) travel at the speed of light and the theory goes that faster than the speed of light makes time travel then can you not speed up these waves?

No offense intended, but you don't really seem to understand the concepts of light and relativity.

First off, colour and light are the same thing. Green, for example is just a light wave oscillating at a certain frequency. Similarily, a gamma ray is just a light wave oscillating at a certain frequency (much higher than green light).

Secondly, nothing can go faster than light. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. The theory is: When something approaches the speed of light it experiences time dilation which is a form of \"time travel\" in a sense. In reality, whenever you are not stationary you are experiencing time travel relative to everything that is stationary. This effect has been proven through extensive experimental evidence. For example, a clock on board a Concorde jet flying at Mach speed ticks slower than a clock that is fixed on the ground.

If something is travelling at the speed of light, it does not experience time at all (relative to us, time passes regularily for that object of course). As for what you said about \"speeding up the waves\", I'm not really sure what you mean.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin
Yes, but there's also that whole requirement of infinite energy...

That's true if you're trying to to accelerate something with mass, photons however are massless particles.

In theory we seem to understand the god's of this universe, and the energies that protest them. Although until these boundaries are reached, we are spectators. I still relish the moment people laughed at the idea of a microwave.

Ooooo, somebody's gettin a bit philosophical in the extended discussion forum.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Techboy

Well, if waves and stuff (i.e. colour, gamma waves, etc) travel at the speed of light and the theory goes that faster than the speed of light makes time travel then can you not speed up these waves?

No offense intended, but you don't really seem to understand the concepts of light and relativity.

First off, colour and light are the same thing. Green, for example is just a light wave oscillating at a certain frequency. Similarily, a gamma ray is just a light wave oscillating at a certain frequency (much higher than green light).

Secondly, nothing can go faster than light. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. The theory is: When something approaches the speed of light it experiences time dilation which is a form of \"time travel\" in a sense. In reality, whenever you are not stationary you are experiencing time travel relative to everything that is stationary. This effect has been proven through extensive experimental evidence. For example, a clock on board a Concorde jet flying at Mach speed ticks slower than a clock that is fixed on the ground.

If something is travelling at the speed of light, it does not experience time at all (relative to us, time passes regularily for that object of course). As for what you said about \"speeding up the waves\", I'm not really sure what you mean.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin
Yes, but there's also that whole requirement of infinite energy...

That's true if you're trying to to accelerate something with mass, photons however are massless particles.[/b]

How about at the quatum level? At the quantum size, almost anything is possible, right? So maybe something could be travelling at the speed of light.

Correct me if I'm wrong

~Haz

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Techboy

Well, if waves and stuff (i.e. colour, gamma waves, etc) travel at the speed of light and the theory goes that faster than the speed of light makes time travel then can you not speed up these waves?

No offense intended, but you don't really seem to understand the concepts of light and relativity.

First off, colour and light are the same thing. Green, for example is just a light wave oscillating at a certain frequency. Similarily, a gamma ray is just a light wave oscillating at a certain frequency (much higher than green light).

Secondly, nothing can go faster than light. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. The theory is: When something approaches the speed of light it experiences time dilation which is a form of \"time travel\" in a sense. In reality, whenever you are not stationary you are experiencing time travel relative to everything that is stationary. This effect has been proven through extensive experimental evidence. For example, a clock on board a Concorde jet flying at Mach speed ticks slower than a clock that is fixed on the ground.

If something is travelling at the speed of light, it does not experience time at all (relative to us, time passes regularily for that object of course). As for what you said about \"speeding up the waves\", I'm not really sure what you mean.[/b]

Yea, I knew all that. I'm saying, if you could accelerate the speed of something that travels AT the speed of light, then, well, it would be going faster than the speed of light. Get what I mean?

Originally posted by Techboy
Yea, I knew all that. I'm saying, if you could accelerate the speed of something that travels AT the speed of light, then, well, it would be going faster than the speed of light. Get what I mean?

Oh ok, I see what you're saying. Still impossible though. Speed is measured in km/h (or mph for all you backward Americans), as I already stated, when something is travelling at the speed of light, time for it stands still relative too all other objects. So it's physically impossible for an hour to pass. Therefore, there is no speed faster than the speed of light, it's a mathematical impossibility.

However there is one exception (although its not really an exception at all). In the time when the universe was 10^-36 (0.(35 zeros)1) seconds old it was experiencing a massive inflationary period (from the size of a marble to a size trillions and trillions of km's wide) where matter in the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. However, since the fabric of space itself was also expanding extremely fast, the particle were just kind dragged along, never going faster than the speed of light relative to space itself.

I hope I explained that clearly enough...I'm really sick and may not be thinking straight.

Yes, but there is another factor, which is perception. For example, say I am accelerated to the speed of light, and I stop accelerating 200 years later. Although to everyone else I have traveled 200 years, for me, it has been almost instantaneous.

Then there's also the theory that we do not in fact move as whole, but seperately as particles of extremely small size. Theoretically I should not be inbound by the laws of physics, but this is not so. This theory would also mean that everything is connected at some level, and we are virtually the same whole entity. By this, there is no "speed". Perception is applicable to everything that can perceive this is all relative.

When the clock was mentioned, I remind you that the concord does not travel at the speed of light, and thus we still attain fuction, and the clock functions normally. The clock exists on a plane of speed that is untouched by normal perception, and so we cannot view it as a device to display time, and moreso a timer of sorts.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin

When the clock was mentioned, I remind you that the concord does not travel at the speed of light, and thus we still attain fuction, and the clock functions normally. The clock exists on a plane of speed that is untouched by normal perception, and so we cannot view it as a device to display time, and moreso a timer of sorts.

Doesn't need to travel at the speed of light to experience time dilation.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div>

For example, say I am accelerated to the speed of light[/b]

Ummmmm......unless you are massless, which I highly doubt. You can't be accelerated to the speed of light. So that argument is completely deviod of any connection to reality.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div>

and I stop accelerating 200 years later. Although to everyone else I have traveled 200 years, for me, it has been almost instantaneous.[/b]

If you travel for 200 years at the speed of light, then you would percieve it to have taken 200 years. However, many, many, many more years would have passed on Earth if you ever decide to return.

<!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin@
Theoretically I should not be inbound by the laws of physics

You know that extremely small particles obey the laws of physics too right? Besides, the particles that you are made up of (Protons, Neutrons, Electrons) still have mass.

<!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin
When the clock was mentioned, I remind you that the concord does not travel at the speed of light

I second what Stalker said, you are experiencing time dilation when you walk down the street relative to a street lamp and the street itself.

BradyBaker and Stalker have this one right. (As they always do...kudos to you two!) Anyway, experimenting on the quantum level doesn't change the fact that you can't go faster than light.

How about at the quatum level? At the quantum size, almost anything is possible, right? So maybe something could be travelling at the speed of light. [/b]

That's not true. On the quantum level, we don't know all the laws yet, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any laws.

Well, if waves and stuff (i.e. colour, gamma waves, etc) travel at the speed of light and the theory goes that faster than the speed of light makes time travel then can you not speed up these waves? [/b]

Well, like BradyBaker said, particles have mass too, and it takes energy to accelerate anything with mass. As that mass approaches lightspeed, it takes more and more to accelerate it.


Also, before somebody brings this up trying to prove Einstein wrong:

If you are traveling near the speed of light, and you look at a beam of light going past you in the other direction, it WON'T be going faster than the speed of light, despite the theory of relativity and any other rule that might seem to apply, including logic. In some odd quirk of nature, no matter how fast your moving and in what direction, if you measure the speed of a light beam traveling in any direction relative to you, it will result to be the speed of light. It's never faster, and never slower.


lol, one of the kids in my neighborhood tried to prove that you could go faster than the speed of light, in a very odd manner.
According to him:
If you have a rocket with another rocket on the tip, and so on, if you launch the first rocket and when it reaches it's top speed it launches the second and so forth, eventually you'll reach lightspeed.

I almost tried to explain to him Newton's laws, but I figured that if he was stupid enough to think up that plot he probably wouldn't understand.

That you cannot travel faster than the speed of light is just a scientific theory. Its is not "hard fact". Just because we currently do not know or understand how it could be done, does not mean it cannot be done. There is a reason it is called a "theory." Yes we accept it as "truth" but only in the sense that there is no compelling evidence otherwise.

At one time there was a theory that the world was flat. That is the obvious example, but throughout history old scientific theories have been replaced or amended by newer ones in light of expanded knowledge and understanding. So just because we don't understand how something could work, doesn't mean it can't.

We are still far from understanding how the universe works. A simple example is gravity. Yeah we know (or think we know) about gravity, but we don't really understand it. Many of the "natural forces" we know about (or think we do), but don't really understand that much about them.

Not to mention the countless theories of the universe. So, IMO, to say "we cannot go faster than light, period" or "we can go faster than light" are both incorrect. Quite simply, we don't really know or understand.

Do you think in 150 years time -- or heck 100 years time or 50 years time, physics will still be as we know it? highly doubtful but possible.

Yes, it's just a theory. But it's a theory that is widely supported by evidence gathered over time. It's the best we've got for now, and it works for all purposes that we need it to. Maybe we'll find out that we're wrong, and I'd never say that we won't be proven wrong ever, but I don't think that it'll be anytime soon. If we can go faster than light, good for us, but I don't think that it'll happen (provided it CAN happen) any time in the next 100 years AT LEAST.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape
That you cannot travel faster than the speed of light is just a scientific theory. Its is not \"hard fact\". Just because we currently do not know or understand how it could be done, does not mean it cannot be done. There is a reason it is called a \"theory.\" Yes we accept it as \"truth\" but only in the sense that there is no compelling evidence otherwise.

You have no idea how compelling the evidence actually is or how much experimental evidence we have in support of Einstein's theories.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape
So, IMO, to say \"we cannot go faster than light, period\" or \"we can go faster than light\" are both incorrect.

No, one of those is definitely the right answer. There are only two options, either we can or we can't.

Originally posted by bradybaker
No, one of those is definitely the right answer. There are only two options, either we can or we can't.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I'll get somebody to translate it to Canadian for you

When light enters a black hole, will it speed up at any extent? As a black hole DOES warp space and time with it's gravitational force. Doesn't it?

~Haz

My post...taken apart and raped...ahh tis the fate of one in such forums. Anyway, since I don't like quoting a bunch of stuff, I'm just going to reply to this normally. First, I highly doubt I would perceive 200 years at the speed of light. You never really explained why, but I would just reason for my argument, that because my particles are moving seperately, I could not realize what would happen, and would only full attain a "conscious" state once I stopped moving. But, alas, I only hypothesize.

Without any offense (though I highly doubt you will not take offense to what I am about to say), I believe that you are not really presenting a good argument. All of what I say is speculation, but I do attempt to reason out what I am trying to tell you. What you say is "fact", but you give no reason to question what you have been taught or what you have learned. That is why we have "theories" on much physics, aside from gravity and such. I mean no disrespect to you as a person, but I just felt I should say this. While your statements do make sense in general terms and knowledge, I always question the given.

On time dilation, I suggest you reread what I said, as I believe we are in the midst of a subtle confusion of sorts. I was using the speed of light as complement to my argument of time dilation, not a definitive requirement to acheive time dilation.

Do some research. Everybody. Most people in this thread need it. Dreamscape, I can see your perspective, and I understand where you're coming from. Do some research, and you'll understand why it doesn't work. Haz, you too. I'm sure you'll understand once you've read a little into the subject.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin
First, I highly doubt I would perceive 200 years at the speed of light. You never really explained why, but I would just reason for my argument, that because my particles are moving seperately, I could not realize what would happen, and would only full attain a \"conscious\" state once I stopped moving. But, alas, I only hypothesize.

200 years in what system? Your moving system or the one you accellerated from (Earth i assume)?

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape
You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I'll get somebody to translate it to Canadian for you

No I knew what you meant, I thougt it might have been a bit misleading to some people though. It was really just more of a smart-ass reply than anything. Sorry \"aboot\" the confusion \"eh\".

Originally posted by Haz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haz)</div>

When light enters a black hole, will it speed up at any extent? As a black hole DOES warp space and time with it's gravitational force. Doesn't it?[/b]

No, light doesn't speed up. Yes a black hole does warp time and space. My knowledge of the quirks of black holes is kind of rusty. I suggest you do some research (read some Stephen Hawking).

<!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin
First, I highly doubt I would perceive 200 years at the speed of light. You never really explained why, but I would just reason for my argument, that because my particles are moving seperately, I could not realize what would happen, and would only full attain a \"conscious\" state once I stopped moving.

In your frame of reference, time always passes at the same rate for you. I'm not exactly sure where this whole \"my particles move seperately\" thing is coming from. But really, you can't travel at the speed of light anyways, making it a moot point and almost a completely pointless question to ask. Kind of equivalent to asking \"What if red was green?\"

Originally posted by Jospeh_Stalin
Without any offense (though I highly doubt you will not take offense to what I am about to say), I believe that you are not really presenting a good argument. All of what I say is speculation, but I do attempt to reason out what I am trying to tell you. What you say is \"fact\", but you give no reason to question what you have been taught or what you have learned. That is why we have \"theories\" on much physics, aside from gravity and such. I mean no disrespect to you as a person, but I just felt I should say this. While your statements do make sense in general terms and knowledge, I always question the given.

In this forum alone, I've been called a hypocrite, ignorant, close-minded, condescending, "Bitch No. 1" and probably many other things that I can't remember at this point in time. Did any of those things offend me? No. I don't get offended very easily. I could go on for hours about how easily others get offended...but that's a topic for another thread.

But anyways, it's perfectly logical for you to have much doubt in what I'm trying to say, it's some pretty counter-intuitive stuff to contemplate. But I assure you that there is huge amount of experimental evidence that supports the theories of relativity, I'll try to present some of that now:

Bending of light by gravity (ie. gravity warps space itself): This effect was conclusively observed during the solar eclipse of 1919, when the Sun was silhouetted against the Hyades star cluster, for which the positions were well known.

Peculiar orbit of Mercury: Since almost two centuries earlier astronomers had been aware of a small flaw in Mercury's orbit around the Sun, as predicted by Newton's laws. As the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury orbits a region in the solar system where spacetime is disturbed by t he Sun's mass. Mercury's elliptical path around the Sun shifts slightly with each orbit such that its closest point to the Sun (or "perihelion") shifts forward with each pass. Newton's theory had predicted an advance only half as large as the one actually observed. Einstein's predictions exactly matched the observation.

Red-shift: According to General Relativity, the wavelength of light (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation) passing through a gravitational field will be shifted towards redder regions of the spectrum. To understand this gravitational redshift, think of a baseball hit high into the air, slowing as it climbs. Einstein's theory says that as a photon fights its way out of a gravitational field, it loses energy and its color reddens. Gravitational redshifts have been observed in diverse settings.

There are dozens upon dozens of other observations and experiments that support relativity, if you're going to challenge it you better know you're stuff.

Originally posted by bradybaker
No, light doesn't speed up. Yes a black hole does warp time and space. My knowledge of the quirks of black holes is kind of rusty. I suggest you do some research (read some Stephen Hawking).

He recently came out and has said in light of more research or something that some of his previous theories about black holes were incorrect. I don't recall exactly which theories were incorrect though. I didn't read or hear that much about it.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape
He recently came out and has said in light of more research or something that some of his previous theories about black holes were incorrect. I don't recall exactly which theories were incorrect though. I didn't read or hear that much about it.

It was about whether or not black holes "evaporate" over time (ie. if energy, usually in the form of radiation, dissipate out of a black hole). He thought not, he was incorrect.

I still don't get what you mean by "particles moving seperately". I mean, there's no difference in moving mach 18 and walking at a couple of km/h and traveling near/at lightspeed (hypothetically). So your particles are "moving seperately" when you walk down the street as well. So why would that imply something different at high speeds? (Near lightspeed?)

Ok, quick modern physics lesson.

Bradybaker pretty much has it, but there's a subtlety that's being missed. Einstein's theory of general relativity states that nothing with mass/inertia can be accelerated to the speed of light. It says nothing about particles that might or might not already be moving faster than the speed of light. There is no experimental evidence of these hypothetical FTL particles that I know of, but they go by the name of "tachyons" and are not forbidden by general relativity.

The definition of a black hole is any region of spacetime from within which the escape velocity exceeds that of the speed of light. Light doesn't speed up when it enters a blackhole. Light travels at 2.998E8 m/s in a vacuum. Period. It travels slower than this through various media, but it never travels faster. In fact, Einstein developed general relativity from a thought experiment he performed wherein he determined that regardless of the relative speed of an observer, s/he must always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as 2.998E8 m/s.

The world at quantum scales is not a realm where all physical laws break down and cease to exist. We have laws to describe the behavior of particles at such scales and those are the laws of quantum mechanics. Are they strange and occasionally counterintuitive? Yes. Are they incomplete? Yes. We still lack a quantum theory of gravity. Does this incompleteness make them dismissible? No. The theoretical predictions of quantum mechanics have been experimentally tested and confirmed for over 80 years. No previous physical theory has been so ubiquitously successful. Just because something is incomplete does not make it incorrect. Newton's laws of motion, for example, are not "wrong," they are simply the low-speed approximations of Einstein's laws.