Caveman 2 Cosmos
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
You were talking about neutrinos, he was talking about other particles.
Normal matter colliding at relativistic speeds would do serious damage.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I wouldn't think there would be normal matter at such speeds, considering that after a particular speed particles tend to become a wave.
Wave-particle duality has nothing to do with it. Waves still carry momentum and energy.
In fact LOW momentum/energy means more wavelike behaviour.
Wavelength of matter is inversely proportional to momentum - higher momentum (higher mass or velocity) means shorter wavelength.
Photons are purely waves, but carry energy and are used by solar sails (photons have momentum too).
Photons ionize stuff if they have short enough wavelength.
You could heat up things with kilometre long waves too.
Neutrinos and electrons have very low momentum even close to speed of light - their mass is very low, so they can be considered waves most of time.
On other hand atomic nucleus have much higher mass meaning much shorter wavelength at same speed.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Sure but you're not likely to simply create a nuclear explosion if you encounter an object at high speeds if you're travelling so fast as to be a wave. Well, nothing about what you said states that anyhow. The point is that the rules change greatly at that point.
Do you realize, that things are wave at LOW not HIGH speeds? You got it backwards.
Wavelike properties are visible at LOW momentum, also photons despite being waves still can cause nuclear reactions, if they are energetic enough.
Also on macro scale being wave doesn't change anything when it comes to transfer of energy.
Nuclear reactions happen in LHC and other accelerators - higher velocities means more exotic nuclear reactions.
Particles here travel with >99.9% speed of light.
Nuclear explosion is lots of those reactions in macroscopic scale.
Higher collision speed always means more damage.
Also good job on falling for April Fools story, that was posted somewhere else later.
https://www.physics-astronomy.org/2018/04/breaking-researchers-at-cern-break.html
This is exactly same story, that you posted.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Interesting. Still likely to eventually be proven imo.
This one was April Fools fake news, that was spread to other sites.
Not everything on internet is true, even if it suits your views.
I guess April Fools pranks do some persistent damage lol.
Stellaris FTL is in 2200 AD, C2C FTL is in 2500 - 2700 AD (when you are colonizing Orion Arm)
Anyway you can't reach speed of light by simple acceleration.
If there is inertia/gravity manipulation, then maybe you could travel at 99.9.....% speed of light having rest of universe going in extreme fast forward due to time dilatation.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Hooray for the supremacy of limited thinking!
Wishful thinking won't do anything.
Also see my edit - if we discover new physics...
Or at least wormholes.
Still radiation and collisions will be serious issues, unless we change ourselves to stream of neutrinos like that Transtangible Neutrino Accelerators tech
Basically you believe we live in New game+ universe - after someone achieved scientific victory already. Having ample source of magic like Doctor Strange.
I believe we have to go trough slow path. Just have patience. Build suit from scraps like Ironman and improve from here.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It's not wishful... it's just a sense of knowing that we're only making presumptions based on what we've been able to observe so far but part of what we've observed so far is that there has never been a limitation we have not exceeded so it's hard to believe, logically, that this perceived limitation will be found to be unbreakable. And not by some kind of sidestep by saying we can go through a wormhole either.
I have more faith that all of the limitations we think we have are nothing but illusionary and the question is NEVER 'CAN we', but instead 'HOW do we'. That's not 'wishful thinking', it's just an understanding.
Besides, this article certainly wasn't suggesting that people could be propelled faster than light, only that we found something that could be, thus breaking our assumption that somehow light's speed defines time itself, which I really think is a stupid notion because we can track time in light years, meaning that light actually takes time, processable and recordable time, to travel, therefore it is NOT instantaneous from point A to point B which would be what is required for it to be the very definition of time itself. SOMETHING will be found to travel faster eventually.
This article was a prank.
Maybe new physics allows to break that limit, but maybe you would have to be pure information being (like in C2C) to survive such trip.
This would mean time travel too.
So maybe there are no unbreakable limitations, but it would take millions of years to win C2C scientific victory.
Also there is time dilatation:
Going to Alpha Centauri at 99% of speed of light takes around 4 years from Earth perspective.
From spaceship perspective it would be much shorter time.
There is no absolute reference frame for velocity and acceleration.
GPS timing has to take relativistic effects under account - it is THAT precise.
For photon itself there is no time - it is instantaneously absorbed as soon as it was emitted.
For us it takes time to travel - its speed of casualty.
Also any new physics theory must predict same things as old physics theory within old physics conditions.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
You established that already. Rather smugly I might add.
Light does not define the speed of time since it takes time to travel, therefore, it would not automatically mean exceeding the speed of causality if you exceeded it.
Possibly, or you might be able to create a completely frictionless energyshell around an area or ship that would make it possible to slip through space and all objects and energy within it without disturbing it in the passing, that could then somehow, perhaps on the basis of the same energy, be capable of being propelled at speeds closer to causality than light, aka closer and closer to instantaneous.
If that were true, you would not have any delay between a distant event, such as a supernova, and our ability to witness it. Even light takes time to travel. In fact, we can measure that rate. If it can be measured, it can be exceeded. We just haven't found anything that does yet.
You don't understand concept of time dilatation - it is very real effect.
This is how you get to Alpha Centauri in four months in your reference frame - by travelling with relativistic speeds.
If you were even faster then you could get to Alpha Centauri in 4 nanoseconds while 4 years pass on Earth.
For even faster speeds time you need to spend travelling falls asymptotically to 0, while from Earth reference frame you still need 4 years to get here.
Effectively if you don't care about time passage you have Newtonian "FTL" (spending less than 4 years travelling 4 light years distance from your reference frame) + one way time machine (time passes faster in your reference frame - universe is in fast forward).
Also distances are shorter due to Lorentz contraction - distances are shorter if you are travelling faster.
This is how you need years to travel light years from Earth reference frame if you travel at speed of light.
Special and General relativity will always remain 99.9999% true just like Newtonian mechanics are 99.9999% true in its domain.
Last edited:
makotech222
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 240
Sorry, I meant an object of spaceship-sized mass moving at >0.5c colliding with just about anything would cause an explosion.
A good way to explain relativity is to say that you are always moving through space-time at speed 'c'. Space-time is represented as an x-y grid of positive values from 0 to c on each axis. If you are standing still, you are moving through time at c, and space at 0. If you were to move at space=c, your movement in time would be 0.
This results in a function of c = s^2 + t^2, where s = space, t = time, c = speed of light.
A good way to explain relativity is to say that you are always moving through space-time at speed 'c'. Space-time is represented as an x-y grid of positive values from 0 to c on each axis. If you are standing still, you are moving through time at c, and space at 0. If you were to move at space=c, your movement in time would be 0.
This results in a function of c = s^2 + t^2, where s = space, t = time, c = speed of light.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
True, I can't say I do understand what you're trying to explain as being anything more than a twisted convulsion of a thought model to try to account for light not being absolute causality itself as if it's somehow critical that we think of it as the same thing. If light traveled at absolute speed of causality, you would have no delay between the source and the observer.
If true, it would mean the opposite, that you'd be from point a to point b even faster, since distances are actually shorter the faster you travel. Do you mean distances are longer the faster you travel?
If you travel less than 4 years to reach something that is 4 light years away, all you've done is get there faster than the light. Sure your observation during that travel would make it seem that time was moving backwards, but that's just basically rewinding an already delayed display. It isn't like if a supernova is being seen here, it's happening now... it's literally already happened a long long time ago. Moving towards that object faster than light you'd see it speed up to catch up to how it is closer to now - it is Earth (if you could watch it) you'd see moving backward in time, but that doesn't mean YOU are - it means that the light that tells you how Earth was at the moment you left it has now years to go to catch up to you. That's not actually time travel.
Sure, assuming frictional physics is still applicable in the situation where you're moving that fast then yes, it would be fatal far before that with the slightest impact into any particle. Thus, some very special physics would certainly be required.
Looks like special relativity is completely incomprehensible for you.
It is one of easier things to understand in modern physics.
New physics would be even more incomprehensible and it must agree with old physics in its domain.
Its If new mathematics agree with old mathematics in its domain.
Quantum mechanics is way more mindbending than special relativity.
And it apples much more to real life (functioning of transistors for example) than special relativity.
That thought model explained quirks in physics back then.
In reference frame of photon there is no time delay, but in resting reference frame there is time delay - this delay would be shorter if you moved towards it and longer if you moved away from it.
So if supernova exploded while you moved towards it at 90% speed of light you would see it blueshifted and happening faster.
If you moved away from it it would be redshifted and you would see it in slow motion.
Fun fact: All photons always travel at same speed in vacuum no matter what reference frame you pick - just directions and energies would be different.
Last edited:
MightyToad
Sith Lord
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2015
- Messages
- 477
Almost none of the SciFi franchises dismiss Einstein. Star Trek warp drives compress spacetime in front of the ship, and expand it behind. The ship itself doesn't actually move. It just surfs on a wave.
Star wars and stargate both have the ship enter "hyperspace", and leave our spacetime entirely. Battlestar galactica uses "fold", or "jump" drives that basically create an artificial worm hole allowing the ship to just jump to its destination instantly.
My point is none of them simply accelerate to light speed and beyond like what is being discussed here. Even if that was possible the time dilation makes it more akin to a time machine and worthless.
Another thing I've noticed is magical thinking. You don't start with a conclusion and dismiss a century of empirical evidence to the contrary. Nothing is true without evidence in science. Thats the philosophy of science.
I'm a big scifi fan, but FTL is most likely impossible.
Star wars and stargate both have the ship enter "hyperspace", and leave our spacetime entirely. Battlestar galactica uses "fold", or "jump" drives that basically create an artificial worm hole allowing the ship to just jump to its destination instantly.
My point is none of them simply accelerate to light speed and beyond like what is being discussed here. Even if that was possible the time dilation makes it more akin to a time machine and worthless.
Another thing I've noticed is magical thinking. You don't start with a conclusion and dismiss a century of empirical evidence to the contrary. Nothing is true without evidence in science. Thats the philosophy of science.
I'm a big scifi fan, but FTL is most likely impossible.
MightyToad
Sith Lord
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2015
- Messages
- 477
Light speed despite the name isn't really about light itself. Light speed is the speed of causality. It's the speed things propagate through spacetime. Its not limited to light. Gravity and electromagnetic radiation in general all "travel" at light speed.
I say "travel", but like raxo has explained already. From a photons point of view it never moved. A photon doesn't experience time. It was created and destroyed in the same instant.
I say "travel", but like raxo has explained already. From a photons point of view it never moved. A photon doesn't experience time. It was created and destroyed in the same instant.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
I mostly agree with you, but time passes slower for anything travelling at approaching the speed of light, and is believed to stop for that which travels at that speed. Thus while we on Earth have to wait 4.3 years for that photon from Proxima Centauri, the photon itself experiences that as instantaneous travel. If it could see its 'destination' ie. Earth, it would see it appear to jump 4.3 years in time, instantly (as well as getting that many light-years closer) .
I do suspect that the speed of light and time will turn out not to be exactly the same, it's just too much of a coincidence.
Similar threads
