If we can speed up light

[sonz70]

why is it still "impossible" to travel the speed of light, I know, technically, it is beyond our grasp, but even theoretically it is impossible. Or am I missing a really important concept here.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

As something approaches c, it's mass becomes infinate, requiring infinate energy to accelerate it.

 

[sonz70]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
As something approaches c, it's mass becomes infinate, requiring infinate energy to accelerate it.

but if c is variable....

 

[The Boston Dangler]

c is relative, so it is effectively not variable.

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
c is relative, so it is effectively not variable.

:thumbsup:

All the other variables vary with C too... you can't just change C and expect everything else to stay the same. Poster 2 wins.

 

[unipidity]

You can change the speed of light, but c is a constant. (hopefully)

 

[alienal99]

we are talking in relative terms here c is constant relative to energy and mass. Good call rufflib.... the speed of light can obviously be changed, however c is the limit of the function speed...for very large values of energy, no matter what happens speed will not reach c....especially since they will become infinitely massive, as the boston dangler already pointed out.

 

[Calin]

We can slow down light, but in void the speed has its highest speed, and that is c.
In a certain medium (like in air), lightspeed is less than c, and you could have subatomic particles travelling faster than light (but not faster than c), the result is named (I think) Cherenkov radiation.

 

[SagaLore]

The trick is to not worry about the speed of light. Don't try and approach that speed.

Instead, find something faster than light, and work off that.

Look up "Tachyons".

 

[Eeezee]

How about we try reaching 0.5c first?

 

[TheoPetro]

just talked to my physics prof about this actually. i guess to move at c you cant have any mass. if you look at the problem graphicaly youll see that the energy needed to overcome the object's inirtia (i think maby this is total bs) asymptotes so you never actually reach c while still having mass.

all we need to do is "hide" our mass and we can move this fast.

would tachyons be invisable? because light couldnt catch up w/ em to reflect off of them? thats assuming there a particle. .....guess they could just be waves but wouldnt they have to be quantized somehow? ehh maby im talken out my ass. should take that second yr of physics i guess.

 

[sonz70]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
just talked to my physics prof about this actually. i guess to move at c you cant have any mass. if you look at the problem graphicaly youll see that the energy needed to overcome the object's inirtia (i think maby this is total bs) asymptotes so you never actually reach c while still having mass.

all we need to do is "hide" our mass and we can move this fast.

would tachyons be invisable? because light couldnt catch up w/ em to reflect off of them? thats assuming there a particle. .....guess they could just be waves but wouldnt they have to be quantized somehow? ehh maby im talken out my ass. should take that second yr of physics i guess.

So, if we could find a way to stop gaining mass as we accelerate than traveling the speed of light would be possible.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
just talked to my physics prof about this actually. i guess to move at c you cant have any mass. if you look at the problem graphicaly youll see that the energy needed to overcome the object's inirtia (i think maby this is total bs) asymptotes so you never actually reach c while still having mass.

all we need to do is "hide" our mass and we can move this fast.

would tachyons be invisable? because light couldnt catch up w/ em to reflect off of them? thats assuming there a particle. .....guess they could just be waves but wouldnt they have to be quantized somehow? ehh maby im talken out my ass. should take that second yr of physics i guess.

Just an odd comment about the tachyons being invisible:
What do you mean by "invisible"
Individual atoms cannot be "seen" with visible light - the wavelength of light limits the possible resolution. But, we can image atoms using other techniques. Electron microscopes exist because of the limitations upon visible light microscopes.
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) works by shooting a focused beam of electrons at a surface and creating an image based on the reflection of those electrons. There is also a transmitting electron microscope (TEM) where the electrons are passed through a very thin sample - the image is created by detectors detecting where the electrons strike after passing through. Focusing is nearly analogous to light microscopes, but the electrons are focused by magnetic fields rather than lenses. And, rather than your eye being the receptor, the electron microscope creates that image for you and displays it on a monitor (or a pretty photograph that it can print out.) I still have a pile of old photos from back in the day when we got to play with an SEM at college.

 

[DrPizza]

Oh, one other note:
It's a huge misconception that mass increases as speed increases.
The rest mass remains the same

?It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than ?the rest mass? m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.? ? Einstein, in a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett

Check out this page for more info: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Relativistic_mass

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
just talked to my physics prof about this actually. i guess to move at c you cant have any mass. if you look at the problem graphicaly youll see that the energy needed to overcome the object's inirtia (i think maby this is total bs) asymptotes so you never actually reach c while still having mass.

all we need to do is "hide" our mass and we can move this fast.

would tachyons be invisable? because light couldnt catch up w/ em to reflect off of them? thats assuming there a particle. .....guess they could just be waves but wouldnt they have to be quantized somehow? ehh maby im talken out my ass. should take that second yr of physics i guess.

Just an odd comment about the tachyons being invisible:
What do you mean by "invisible"
Individual atoms cannot be "seen" with visible light - the wavelength of light limits the possible resolution. But, we can image atoms using other techniques. Electron microscopes exist because of the limitations upon visible light microscopes.
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) works by shooting a focused beam of electrons at a surface and creating an image based on the reflection of those electrons. There is also a transmitting electron microscope (TEM) where the electrons are passed through a very thin sample - the image is created by detectors detecting where the electrons strike after passing through. Focusing is nearly analogous to light microscopes, but the electrons are focused by magnetic fields rather than lenses. And, rather than your eye being the receptor, the electron microscope creates that image for you and displays it on a monitor (or a pretty photograph that it can print out.) I still have a pile of old photos from back in the day when we got to play with an SEM at college.

ya i just started playen w/ electron microscopes. if they move faster than the speed of light what would we shoot at them to bounce off them?

 

[Torched]

everyone look up stimulated Brillouin scattering

 

[JF060392]

i wish we could go faster than light.. we would be able to achive light years in seconds

 

[Vanquisherfx]

Theoretically speaking,
Light Bends therefore it can slow down but not speed up, becoz nothing is faster than c.
So if we can somehow slow speed down (through a dense medium) we can theoretically travel the speed of light. hehe