# spped of light

TDR1
Posers and Puzzles 29 Sep '06 22:25
1. 29 Sep '06 22:25
is it possible hyptothetically speaking of course to travel at the speed of light?
2. 29 Sep '06 22:39
Originally posted by TDR1
is it possible hyptothetically speaking of course to travel at the speed of light?
to travel at the speed of light should be possible. just to accelerate to that might be difficult. (yes, i got inspired from the movie k-pax there ðŸ˜‰)
3. AThousandYoung
29 Sep '06 23:23
Not for anything with mass.

I am not referring to relativistic mass, but invariant mass.
4. 30 Sep '06 01:13
Yes however there would be a major problem with time dilation.

(Don't get me started on the speed of light. I'm an unbelievable sci-fi nerd and have seen most every ship that can travel faster than the speed of light and know how it does this.)

Time dilation is the phenomenon when an object moving relative to the observer, whom is traveling at a very high speed, this object would slow down. In other words

"Time around you slows down."

This would traditionally happen after the starship Enterprise reacted antimatter and matter inside an environment of dilithium crystals used to generate plasma to generate the warp drives that allowed the ship to travel at superluminous speed through a quantum singularity large enough to transport a ship.

NOW! Say something was traveling alongside the Enterprise at a relative speed to it. This object or other ship would appear to slow down because of time dilation's effect.

Time dilation however also happens to tardyons (particles moving slower than light) going at a very fast speed. it also happens to luxons, which are particles which can travel exactly the speed of light.
5. 30 Sep '06 03:25
yeh i got into a huge aregument with my physics teach that hypothetically you could. she said you couldnt. is antimatter a real thing?
6. AThousandYoung
30 Sep '06 05:26
Originally posted by TDR1
yeh i got into a huge aregument with my physics teach that hypothetically you could. she said you couldnt. is antimatter a real thing?
Yes, antimatter is a real thing, and no, hypothetically you could not.
7. 30 Sep '06 07:42
The speed of light is the only velocity you can't travel in.
Below you can.
Above you can if you find a way to accellerate to a super luminal velocity without even touch the velocity of light itself.
8. 30 Sep '06 13:16
Originally posted by FabianFnas
The speed of light is the only velocity you can't travel in.
Below you can.
Above you can if you find a way to accellerate to a super luminal velocity without even touch the velocity of light itself.
So you would allow for the state where time can go backwards. That is going to screw up a lot of v-t curves!

Now velocity is no longer a function, and the relationship between velocity and displacement and acceleration, etc. would be compromised.

(Okay, I always had sucky physics teachers, and most of my physics is self-explained.)

However, just on the surface it would seem odd that the system of velocity would have a blip at the speed of light. Why there? If there is a blip there, then is there another? LEt's assume that our relativity equations are not necessarily completely accurate.
9. 30 Sep '06 13:591 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas
The speed of light is the only velocity you can't travel in.
Below you can.
Above you can if you find a way to accellerate to a super luminal velocity without even touch the velocity of light itself.
ok how the heck do you do that? you have to bypass the speed of light in order to go at a superluminous speed. therefore it theoretically would not be possible. It's like a hole in the graph, a discontinuity. It's a point that you have to go through in order to achieve superluminous speed. If you were accelerating at the fastest speed possible, you'd still have to cross the speed of light eventually, even if its only for a second. Therefore it is not possible and the speed of light is our asymptote.

And another thing...a question that keeps every physicist up at night.

If matter and antimatter are equivalent yet opposite, why is there so much more matter in the world than antimatter?

Edit- hole in the graph thingy.
10. 30 Sep '06 14:56
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeed
ok how the heck do you do that? you have to bypass the speed of light in order to go at a superluminous speed. therefore it theoretically would not be possible. It's like a hole in the graph, a discontinuity. It's a point that you have to go through in order to achieve superluminous speed. If you were accelerating at the fastest speed possible, ...[text shortened]... is there so much more matter in the world than antimatter?

Edit- hole in the graph thingy.
The equivalent anti-matter doesn't exist in the same space as matter, therefore there could be an equivalent anti-universe in which anti-matter exists.
11. 30 Sep '06 15:00
Originally posted by Gastel
So you would allow for the state where time can go backwards.
No.
12. 30 Sep '06 15:05
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeed
ok how the heck do you do that? you have to bypass the speed of light in order to go at a superluminous speed. therefore it theoretically would not be possible. It's like a hole in the graph, a discontinuity. It's a point that you have to go through in order to achieve superluminous speed. If you were accelerating at the fastest speed possible, ...[text shortened]... is there so much more matter in the world than antimatter?

Edit- hole in the graph thingy.
"ok how the heck do you do that?"

I have no idea.

"you have to bypass the speed of light in order to go at a superluminous speed. therefore it theoretically would not be possible."

Superluminal velocities are not forbidden by any of the laws of nature. The only velocity that is forbidden is the velocity of light.

"If you were accelerating at the fastest speed possible, you'd still have to cross the speed of light eventually, even if its only for a second."

No, you can't pass the velocity of light without having the velocity of light, even in an instant. The laws of nature don't permit that. We agree on that.
13. 30 Sep '06 15:10
Thank you for clearing everything up, Fabian and Gastel. Glad I could finally meet someone who could answer some of the questions i had in physics.

So technically our velocity limitations are to be tardyons forever and ever for all of time, and no matter what we do we will never break the speed of light. (unless of course we invent and/or discover a particle that has zero mass which is, of course, impossible.)
14. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
30 Sep '06 16:38
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeed
ok how the heck do you do that? you have to bypass the speed of light in order to go at a superluminous speed. therefore it theoretically would not be possible. It's like a hole in the graph, a discontinuity. It's a point that you have to go through in order to achieve superluminous speed. If you were accelerating at the fastest speed possible, ...[text shortened]... is there so much more matter in the world than antimatter?

Edit- hole in the graph thingy.
If matter was going at light speed, it would have a mass greater than the rest of the universe, clearly impossible. As to anti-matter v matter, there is a tiny differance in the way anti and regular matter interact, when the universe first popped or pooped out ðŸ™‚ there was equal amounts but a tiny differance was there that allowed one in about ten billion atoms of regular matter to be left over. There is still a debate about exactly why that happened. Here is a link, a bit complicated to follow but it sums up the debate.
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/antimatter.html
15. AThousandYoung