# Highest velocity possible

FabianFnas
Science 25 Feb '08 12:26
1. 25 Feb '08 12:261 edit
I was about to pose this question in the Posers and Puzzles Forum, but when I saw this new Forum (Thank you Russ!) I bring it here instead.

What is the highest possible velocity in normal space and with things with mass?
I say there is no highest velocity at all, what do you say?
2. 25 Feb '08 12:28
Originally posted by FabianFnas
I was about to pose this question in the Posers and Puzzles Forum, but when I saw this new Forum (Thank you Russ!) I bring it here instead.

What is the highest possible velocity in normal space and with things with mass?
I say there is no highest elocity at all, what do you say?
I am not sure, though I read somewhere that the speed of light is unattainable by anything other than light, but any speed above or below it is theoretically attainable...I don't remember the reasoning for this...I will have to look it up.
3. ivan2908
SelfProclaimedTitler
25 Feb '08 13:111 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232
I am not sure, though I read somewhere that the speed of light is unattainable by anything other than light, but any speed above or below it is theoretically attainable...I don't remember the reasoning for this...I will have to look it up.
Following Einstein theories if something wants to travel at light speed (300 000 km\second in vacuum) it would need endless amount of energy so for the current science it is impossible. I do not why is that so. There is some nice graph showing this.. Even more interesting the faster something is going the bigger his mass becomes, the object would change its dimensions to smaller and smaller and the time would start passing faster and faster. So if you reach the light speed with your fancy cool spacecraft it dimensions would shrink to zero, its mass would grow immensly and the time would stop.

Wow. ðŸ˜›
4. 25 Feb '08 13:15
Originally posted by ivan2908
Following Einstein theories if something wants to travel at light speed (300 000 km\second in vacuum) it would need endless amount of energy so for the current science it is impossible. I do not why is that so. There is some nice graph showing this.. Even more interesting the faster something is going the bigger his mass becomes, the object would change its ...[text shortened]... mensions would shrink to zero, its mass would grow immensly and the time would stop.

Wow. ðŸ˜›
No..Time has a speed and when you travel as fast as time then it only feels like it has stopped when really you are just keeping up with it.

NOTE: speed is not the best word for it, but I can't come up with a better one.
5. Pawnokeyhole
Krackpot Kibitzer
25 Feb '08 14:26
Originally posted by FabianFnas
I was about to pose this question in the Posers and Puzzles Forum, but when I saw this new Forum (Thank you Russ!) I bring it here instead.

What is the highest possible velocity in normal space and with things with mass?
I say there is no highest velocity at all, what do you say?
This is somewhat analogous to the question of whether matter can be divided into ever smaller fractions. Physics says otherwise. But it seems possible in principle.
6. Phlabibit
Mystic Meg
25 Feb '08 14:29
Originally posted by FabianFnas
I was about to pose this question in the Posers and Puzzles Forum, but when I saw this new Forum (Thank you Russ!) I bring it here instead.

What is the highest possible velocity in normal space and with things with mass?
I say there is no highest velocity at all, what do you say?
It would be interesting if anyone heard this and could find the write up.

I believe light or particles were passed through xenon gas, and registered on the other side .0000000000000000000000003 seconds earlier than when the light was emitted.

My understanding is the light pulse traveled faster than the speed of light through the gas and actually reached it's destination before it even existed

Anyone hear anything similar to this? Not sure where I read it some time last year or so.

P-
7. AThousandYoung
West Coast Rioter
25 Feb '08 14:443 edits
Kind of an odd forum. It's not like PNP was getting overly spammed with science questions.

There's a thing called the Lorenz Factor which shows mathematically why this all works the way it does. As speed approaches the speed of light, the Lorenz Factor approaches infinity because there's a "c^2 - v^2" in the denominator. Since the LF multiplies pretty much everything in this sort of topic, including the amount of energy needed to accelerate, the energy needed to accelerate to light speed approaches infinity as a limit. Thus, the speed of light is too fast, but it's the limit that is approached as you consider the fastest speed possible. Practically the answer is a little less than light speed. How much less? How good is your engine and fuel supply, and how long do you plan to keep accelerating?
8. 25 Feb '08 15:05
Originally posted by ivan2908
Following Einstein theories if something wants to travel at light speed (300 000 km\second in vacuum) it would need endless amount of energy so for the current science it is impossible. I do not why is that so. There is some nice graph showing this.. Even more interesting the faster something is going the bigger his mass becomes, the object would change its ...[text shortened]... mensions would shrink to zero, its mass would grow immensly and the time would stop.

Wow. ðŸ˜›
The guy traveling wouldn't notice a thing. He would see other "static" things getting smaller and more "massive" the same way. Effectively he could just say the static observers were the ones that were moving, and no one could prove who was really moving.
9. wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
25 Feb '08 16:39
Originally posted by FabianFnas
I was about to pose this question in the Posers and Puzzles Forum, but when I saw this new Forum (Thank you Russ!) I bring it here instead.

What is the highest possible velocity in normal space and with things with mass?
I say there is no highest velocity at all, what do you say?
well, velocity is a vector so the question is a bit like asking whether there's a limit for the emotion of a banana. ðŸ™‚
10. 25 Feb '08 16:51
Originally posted by wormwood
well, velocity is a vector so the question is a bit like asking whether there's a limit for the emotion of a banana. ðŸ™‚
Got me there. Perhaps I should write |velocity| or speed or something. I think everyone understand what I mean. Is speed the right word for what I mean?

I still say that there is not any highest speed for massive objects in normal space. Any objections?
11. ivan2908
SelfProclaimedTitler
25 Feb '08 16:56
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Got me there. Perhaps I should write |velocity| or speed or something. I think everyone understand what I mean. Is speed the right word for what I mean?

I still say that there is not any highest speed for massive objects in normal space. Any objections?
Universe is stretching since big bang so the fastest speed records are found in abberation of galaxies. Some galaxies are running from each other extremely fast.. I do not remember right number though.
12. wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
25 Feb '08 17:021 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Got me there. Perhaps I should write |velocity| or speed or something. I think everyone understand what I mean. Is speed the right word for what I mean?

I still say that there is not any highest speed for massive objects in normal space. Any objections?
well, the theory of relativity is based on the notion that there is a constant top speed. so, within that theory there is a top speed for particles with mass.

it doesn't mean there couldn't be greater signal speeds though, and such have actually been demonstrated like phlabby noted. however, those signals can't carry information.
13. wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
25 Feb '08 17:08
Originally posted by ivan2908
Universe is stretching since big bang so the fastest speed records are found in abberation of galaxies. Some galaxies are running from each other extremely fast.. I do not remember right number though.
well that's sort of misleading, as the universe is not expanding into some other space, but instead the space itself is expanding.

it's like you had an ant running on a ruler. the ruler itself is stretching 'longer' instead of the ant running at a superluminal speed.
14. Seitse
Doug Stanhope
25 Feb '08 18:16
I'm lost.

You people are very smart.

I give up.
15. 25 Feb '08 18:59
Originally posted by ivan2908
Following Einstein theories if something wants to travel at light speed (300 000 km\second in vacuum) it would need endless amount of energy so for the current science it is impossible. I do not why is that so. There is some nice graph showing this.. Even more interesting the faster something is going the bigger his mass becomes, the object would change its ...[text shortened]... mensions would shrink to zero, its mass would grow immensly and the time would stop.

Wow. ðŸ˜›
I think the science will eventually find the way to travel at the speed of light.

A photon does not have an endless amount of energy and it also has particle properties in addition to wave properties. Remember also that photons travel at different speeds depending on the medium.

Obviously there is a lot we don't know yet. Human nature is to explore and find the answers so I have no doubt that we will eventually get there.