Originally posted by: violetman
I know that if you can sum up up two speeds than you'll be able to overcame c
It's not that hard....
Originally posted by: violetman
I know that if you can sum up up two speeds than you'll be able to overcame c
It's not that hard....
Originally posted by: violetman
i think it's possible.
I think that everything is possible.....
Originally posted by: rgwalt
The speed of light is an unbreakable barrier if your rest mass is greater than zero because it will take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light, according to Relativity.
Now, particles can exist whose nature is that they go faster than the speed of light.
Science fiction has given us several ways of breaking the speed of light including worm holes through space and creating fields around a ship in which the speed of light increases.
Ryan
Originally posted by: violetman
Can you overcome the speed of light?
In any way?
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: violetman
Can you overcome the speed of light?
In any way?
I think the speed of light barrier is more an artifact of Einstein's math than reality.
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
I remember that my physics teacher told the class that you can't prove things in science, but in math. In science, you compare experimental results with theory, not prove. Maybe I heard him wrong; it was halfway into a boring, and yes I was a bit sleepy lecture.
Originally posted by: ClueLis
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
I remember that my physics teacher told the class that you can't prove things in science, but in math. In science, you compare experimental results with theory, not prove. Maybe I heard him wrong; it was halfway into a boring, and yes I was a bit sleepy lecture.
All science is based on fundemental assumptions that are suggested by experimentation, so the proof is not necessarily as solid as one that only relies on the postulates of set theory (as with abstract mathematics).
Special relativity makes two assumptions: Physics is the same in all inertial frames, and the speed of light constant for all inertial frames (something required by Maxwells equations). So far neither of these have been shown to have a single exception.
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Well, you can slow down light...but I don't think we've figured out how to accelerate a particle beyond the speed of light.
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: ClueLis
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
I remember that my physics teacher told the class that you can't prove things in science, but in math. In science, you compare experimental results with theory, not prove. Maybe I heard him wrong; it was halfway into a boring, and yes I was a bit sleepy lecture.
All science is based on fundemental assumptions that are suggested by experimentation, so the proof is not necessarily as solid as one that only relies on the postulates of set theory (as with abstract mathematics).
Special relativity makes two assumptions: Physics is the same in all inertial frames, and the speed of light constant for all inertial frames (something required by Maxwells equations). So far neither of these have been shown to have a single exception.
Maxwell's equations were with respect to a rest frame (the aether), were they not? It was SR that postulated a Lorentz invariant for 'c' using the transformation without respect to a rest frame, was it not?
Originally posted by: matt426malm
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
Well, you can slow down light...but I don't think we've figured out how to accelerate a particle beyond the speed of light.
Even then light is not really going slower. The photon is being absorbed and emitted by atoms whose electrons have been bumped up an energy level and then emit a photon when they drop down. What I'm remembering from chem. So the AVERAGE speed through the material is slower but between atoms it's still going the speed of light?
I'm not sure how it works with the supercooled gases were they REALLY slow light down.
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
It was in a popular science mag a long time ago, and yes, the article I read was where they passed a laser through a gas filled substrate (forgot exactly what gas) and the scientists could slow down light or even stop it, then "resume" it and the light would exit with the same way it came in, even after "stopping" it.
Originally posted by: ClueLis
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
It was in a popular science mag a long time ago, and yes, the article I read was where they passed a laser through a gas filled substrate (forgot exactly what gas) and the scientists could slow down light or even stop it, then "resume" it and the light would exit with the same way it came in, even after "stopping" it.
When the light was caught in the substrate, it managed to retain all of its values (frequency, direction, etc.) in the quantum state of the atoms that absorbed it, which then can be transferred back to light in the same form as before.
Here's a quick article with a decent description.