New Reply

Does it need light speed or not

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Jul22-12, 09:21 AM   #1
 

Does it need light speed or not


Hi,
If there is really one way to go back the past, must the way be through light speed or not? If the answer is yes, I really do not believe that the human beings or any animals are able to endure light speed technically!

Best Regards
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
physics news on PhysOrg.com

>> Study provides better understanding of water's freezing behavior at nanoscale
>> Soft matter offers new ways to study how ordered materials arrange themselves
>> Making quantum encryption practical
Jul22-12, 10:48 AM   #2
 
Blog Entries: 27
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Homework Helper Homework Help
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Hi HuaMin! Welcome to PF!
Quote by HuaMin View Post
Hi,
If there is really one way to go back the past, must the way be through light speed or not? If the answer is yes, I really do not believe that the human beings or any animals are able to endure light speed technically!

Best Regards
No, that's only in science fiction …

(unless there are "wormholes") there is no way of going back into the past
Jul22-12, 11:06 AM   #3
 
Thanks. I know Wormhole is one of the research area in Physics. What speed is needed if one day we will go through the wormhole?

Many thanks
Jul22-12, 11:14 AM   #4
 
Blog Entries: 27
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Homework Helper Homework Help
Science Advisor Science Advisor

Does it need light speed or not


wormhole research is on an entirely mathematical basis

you could pass through a wormhole (if any exist, and are large enough not to crush you) at any speed you like, same as you can go to alpha centauri at any speed you like (both slower than light, of course)
Jul22-12, 09:31 PM   #5
 
Many thanks. Can I have more details for the wormhole that leads to the past across the time dimension?
Jul22-12, 11:48 PM   #6
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by HuaMin View Post
Many thanks. Can I have more details for the wormhole that leads to the past across the time dimension?
You could try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

Just be warned that time travel is generally frowned upon here at PF, so I would be careful in discussing it. (Meaning I probably wouldn't discuss it here)
Jul23-12, 09:59 PM   #7
 
Thanks. I know wormhole does exist only in the multi-dimensional Mathematical models. Do you think it will be technically possible to locate that in reality?

Best regards
Jul23-12, 11:26 PM   #8
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by HuaMin View Post
Thanks. I know wormhole does exist only in the multi-dimensional Mathematical models. Do you think it will be technically possible to locate that in reality?
This actually isn't true. A wormhole requires only the 4 spacetime dimensions we're used to. We usually depict such a structure by embedding it in a higher dimensional space, but this embedding is not required for its existence; it's merely a byproduct of the visualization.
Jul24-12, 02:52 AM   #9
 
Seriously, HuaMin, Google is your friend.

There are also quite a few books on wormholes intended for lay audiences:

Cosmic Wormholes by Paul Halpern

Black Holes & Time Warps -- Einsteins Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne

Black Holes, Wormholes and Time Machines by Jim Al-Khalili

The Physics of Stargates -- Parallel Universes, Time Travel and the Enigma of Wormhole Physics by Enrico Rodrigo

Unveiling the Edge of Time -- Black Holes, White Holes, Wormholes by John Gribbin

The bottom line is that, despite a lot of theoretical effort, the the existence of wormholes cannot be ruled out. This especially true in the context of quantum theory or when one considers reasonable generalizations of Einstein's theory of gravity.
Jul24-12, 03:08 AM   #10
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
It is possible that even with wormholes time travel will still not be possible (or even if it is changing history will not be possible).
http://homepages.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~visser/general.shtml
One of the truly wierd side-effects of the wormhole/warp-drive discussion is that it seems to lead, almost inevitably, to the possibility of time travel. (At his stage the more conservative members of the physics community typically shake their heads in befuddlement and leave the room.) There are roughly four broad classes of response suitable for handling the various types of paradox induced by the possibility of time travel:

The radical re-write conjecture: Grit your teeth and proceed to re-write all of modern physics from the ground up. Painful, very painful. (I'll live with this if necessary-but you'd better give me good experimental evidence before I spend too much time worrying about this possibility.)

The consistency conjecture: Since there seems to be only one universe, insist that it must be consistent no matter what. So if you try to change history you cannot succeed no matter how hard you try, because the past is already fixed. You know that you, the reader, are alive right now, so no-one can ever send a time traveller to five minutes ago to kill you as you pick up your copy of Phlogiston. If someone tries, something must go wrong: the gun must misfire, or the time machine malfumction, or the assasin miss the bus, or any of a potenially infinite list of increasingly contrived excuses. (Not my favourite way of dealing with things; it quickly begins to look like a consistency conspiracy.)

The chronology protection conjecture: A much more conservative point of view. Even though time travel seems to be absurdly easy once wormholes/warp-drives are allowed, there are reasons to expect things to go berserk just at the onset of time travel. We know that gravitational fields distort the quantum mechanical vacuum, and that this vacuum distortion heads off to infinity at the onset of time travel. We suspect that this effect destroys the wormhole/warp-bubble just as one is getting round to building a time machine. (This is my personal favourite.)

The boring physics conjecture: Forget all this nonsense. Take a good hard look at the experimental evidence, or rather lack thereof, and move on to greener pastures.

To wrap up then, what we are doing is laying the groundwork for Planck scale physics, and groping our way toward the as yet ill-perceived theory of quantum gravity. We are surveying the lay of the land, and even if we do not yet have definitive answers, we are trying to at least formulate the right questions. In particular, whatever the true theory of quantum gravity is, at energies below the Planck scale it must reduce to semiclassical quantum gravity. So any question you can ask about semiclassical quantum gravity must be askable and answerable in the full-fledged theory of quantum gravity. Whatever the theory of quantum gravity ultimately proves to be, it must (among many other things) be able to give solid answers concerning the existence of, and properties of, wormholes, warp-drives, time machines, and other exotica.


The author:

Matt Visser grew up in Lower Hutt and studied undergraduate physics at Victoria University. He obtained his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley. He is presently Research Assistant Professor of Physics at Washington University in Saint Louis.
Jul24-12, 06:05 AM   #11
 
Quote by HuaMin View Post
...I really do not believe that the human beings or any animals are able to endure light speed technically!...
This seems the most misguided part of your post to me. Speed does not have any effect on what a traveller feels, only acceleration does. And even acceleration would not, if it were uniform, as in from a gravity field, as opposed to spread around along the body through stress and elastic forces.
Jul24-12, 06:07 AM   #12
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
Quote by georgir View Post
And even acceleration would not, if it were uniform
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but this doesn't seem correct. The human body can only widthstand certain accelerations for certain amounts of time without health complications.
Jul24-12, 06:49 AM   #13
 
That is because the acceleration is non-uniform. Take, for instance a high G decelleration in a rocket sled. It is the lack of uniform acceleration that kills you -- for instance your blood, your retinas or your aorta failing to decellerate along with the rest of your body.

If, hypothetically, you could decellerate your entire body uniformly (e.g. in a high strength, uniform gravitational field) then you would feel nothing out of the ordinary.
Jul24-12, 06:56 AM   #14
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
Quote by jbriggs444 View Post
That is because the acceleration is non-uniform. Take, for instance a high G decelleration in a rocket sled. It is the lack of uniform acceleration that kills you -- for instance your blood, your retinas or your aorta failing to decellerate along with the rest of your body.

If, hypothetically, you could decellerate your entire body uniformly (e.g. in a high strength, uniform gravitational field) then you would feel nothing out of the ordinary.
*smacks forehead. That's pretty obvious now
Jul24-12, 08:59 AM   #15
 
Quote by jbriggs444 View Post
That is because the acceleration is non-uniform. Take, for instance a high G decelleration in a rocket sled. It is the lack of uniform acceleration that kills you -- for instance your blood, your retinas or your aorta failing to decellerate along with the rest of your body.

If, hypothetically, you could decellerate your entire body uniformly (e.g. in a high strength, uniform gravitational field) then you would feel nothing out of the ordinary.
Many thanks to you all.
Jbriggs,
Is there any evidence/lab completed to prove such things?
Jul24-12, 09:10 AM   #16
 
Quote by jbriggs444 View Post
That is because the acceleration is non-uniform. Take, for instance a high G decelleration in a rocket sled. It is the lack of uniform acceleration that kills you -- for instance your blood, your retinas or your aorta failing to decellerate along with the rest of your body.

If, hypothetically, you could decellerate your entire body uniformly (e.g. in a high strength, uniform gravitational field) then you would feel nothing out of the ordinary.
Not true. A high strength, uniform gravitational feild will likely kill you over a long time period. High gs in a rocket sled don't count because they are over a short peroid of time. E.g a slap is 100g or something, and that doesn't kill you because its over really quickly.
Jul24-12, 09:48 AM   #17
 
Quote by jetwaterluffy View Post
Not true. A high strength, uniform gravitational feild will likely kill you over a long time period. High gs in a rocket sled don't count because they are over a short peroid of time.
Do you have evidence for your claim here that the equivalance principle is false?

We're talking about free fall in a high strength gravitational field where tidal forces are assumed away.
New Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: Does it need light speed or not
Thread Forum Replies
Exceed speed of light: always exceeded speed of light? Special & General Relativity 11
2cars moving slightly less than speed of light look faster than light to each other? General Physics 3
What is the speed of light of a headlamp of a plane travelling at a speed of 1000km/s General Physics 4
Speed inorder to shift green light to blue light? General Physics 4
Idea for light speed or possibly faster than light speed travel? Quantum Physics 1