Nothing can travel faster than light

In summary, Fredrik and his co-worker have a disagreement about what is possible and what is not for something to travel faster than light. Fredrik believes that nothing can travel faster than light, with the exception of inflation and entanglement, while his co-worker believes that something can stop something from instantaneously traveling faster than light. They also have a disagreement about time slowing down for something to travel faster than light. Fredrik believes that time would remain the same from the perspective of the person traveling at that speed, while his co-worker believes that time would slow down. Finally, they also have a disagreement about the existence
  • #1
TheIconoclast
16
0
Is that a completely correct statement?

I had a discussion with a co-worker the other day (while checking out a customer at a local grocery store lol) about the statement above. I firmly made the argument that nothing can travel faster than light with the exception of inflation and entanglement. I explained why using general relativity but he said i wasn't thinking of it the right way. My co-worker told me nothing can accelerate up to the speed of light however, nothing, as far as we know, can stop something from instantaneously traveling faster than light. I then asked him to name anything that is instantaneous. The conversation then ended.

Oh and he also disagreed with me when I told him that as anything approaches the speed of light it becomes heavier, distances contract, and time slows down. This was unexpected.

It was a nice discussion and I want to know what is right and which of the statements I've made are incorrect. I realize that I might be ignorant and that is okay. Because, it is only through discussions like this that I effectively learn. So please clear up everything that needs clearing up and Thank You.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's possible in principle for a particle to be created with speed >c. Such particles are called tachyons. (Don't you guys watch Star Trek? :smile:). They're believed not to exist. Tachyons are pretty weird, but relativity doesn't forbid their existence. The mass m of a tachyon satisfies m2<0. They're easy to accelerate and hard to slow down. (It takes more work to decrease its speed by 1 m/s than to increase it by the same amount). They also have to have some other weird properties to avoid logical inconsistences, like Alice sends a message to Bob, who sends a reply that reaches Alice before she sent the original message and instructs her not to send it. See this post for details. (That post actually assumes that the speed of the "messages" is infinite in the rest frame of the transmitter, but that's just to simplify the problem a little bit. It doesn't change anything significant).
 
  • #3
Thank you Fredrik. I suppose next time I see him at work I will tell him he is partially correct. I'm sure he doesn't know what a tachyon is. And I can't believe i forgot about them.
 
  • #4
TheIconoclast said:
Is that a completely correct statement?

I had a discussion with a co-worker the other day (while checking out a customer at a local grocery store lol) about the statement above. I firmly made the argument that nothing can travel faster than light with the exception of inflation and entanglement. I explained why using general relativity but he said i wasn't thinking of it the right way. My co-worker told me nothing can accelerate up to the speed of light however, nothing, as far as we know, can stop something from instantaneously traveling faster than light. I then asked him to name anything that is instantaneous. The conversation then ended.

Oh and he also disagreed with me when I told him that as anything approaches the speed of light it becomes heavier, distances contract, and time slows down. This was unexpected.


Like Fredrik has already pretty much said, relativity doesn't technically forbid the existence of faster than light objects. Your friend is right that what's impossible is accelerating something with mass up to the speed of light, since it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so (finite acceleration for eternity or infinite thrust over a finite time).

As for the part about becoming "heavier", it depends what you mean. Rest mass never changes. If you were in a spaceship traveling 99.9% the speed of light, you wouldn't feel heavier. I'm surprised he disagreed about time slowing down, though; maybe he meant that time would remain the same from the perspective of the person traveling at that speed?
 
  • #5
I would drop the idea of masses becoming infinite. Masses are always their rest mass and what changes are the other parameters in the equation, speed being one. E.g. if an electron at SLAC (did they rename that yet?) moves at the speed of light, then if it's mass would be infinite - which means it would fill the universe. So instead of allowing that, we tell it, no v >= c, so that it's mass is the same, but it's energy get's really big.

As for tachyons, only Data was awesome, Crusher was ok, and the rest of the crew to TNG could fly merely (ahem) into a giant supernova at warp speed 9. (Why was there never a warp speed 10?!?)

Seriously though as for anything traveling faster than the speed of light there are two possibilities:
1) causality is contradicted, time does not flow, the man is unbitten by the dog before the dog bites him, and you are Phillip J. Fry (your own Grandfather) or,
2) if there are indeed tachyons, then we would need to rewrite E&M, and to maintain causality, which states that tachyons are the particle propagators of QED. But Feynman would never allow that... or maybe he would ... but only before he wouldn't.

CAUSALITY RULZ,

tachyons drull.

Also, tell your co-worker to stop chatting and help that customer in Isle 3 find the Newtons. :)

...wait a minute, this is a joke, right?? Cause you guys must be from Vulcan b/c no workers in America discuss relativity at work - and in such an intelligent way. Sure they might discuss other important things like what's the latest tweet for Brittney. So confess, you're both students at the Spock Institute of Technology! ... come to think of it, are the people who use twitter called twits?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
tachyon are hypothetical subatomic particles dude bt in this real world no such thng exits
 
  • #7
Bussani said:
Rest mass never changes.
Take 10 balls, each with a rest mass of 10kg, spread out in space. Once gravity brings them together you will discover that the total mass < 100kg.
 
  • #8
Passionflower said:
Take 10 balls, each with a rest mass of 10kg, spread out in space. Once gravity brings them together you will discover that the total mass < 100kg.

I believe you are including the binding energy in that description.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
I believe you are including the binding energy in that description.
Yes, and excluding kinetic energy. Include both, and everything is ok.
 
  • #10
Living_Dog said:
I believe you are including the binding energy in that description.
Ich said:
Yes, and excluding kinetic energy. Include both, and everything is ok.
We are talking about rest mass being allegedly constant right?

In GR there is no such thing, and even the term mass needs qualifications.
 
  • #11
We are talking about rest mass being allegedly constant right?
Right.
In GR there is no such thing, and even the term mass needs qualifications.
If there is no such thing, then why are you talking about it as an example of rest mass not being conserved? That doesn't make sense.
 
  • #12
Passionflower said:
We are talking about rest mass being allegedly constant right?

In GR there is no such thing, and even the term mass needs qualifications.


Once the Higgs comes out of the ether we will know what mass is all about. So far the best definition is the phrase "hard stuff that hurts when my head hits it" (i.e. there is no good definition).

...hmmm... PF = PassionFlower = PhysicsForums = Phillp Fry ... are you another VULCAN? Stop teasing us Earthlings, we still don't have warp drive yet!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Thanks for the Posts everyone. I enjoy reading what you have to say. And I enjoy correcting myself.

Living Dog: We actually do work at a local grocery store haha It's called HEB. Its kinda like kroger if you've ever seen that. I'll be majoring in physics beginning this year. I can hardly wait.
 
  • #14
TheIconoclast said:
Thanks for the Posts everyone. I enjoy reading what you have to say. And I enjoy correcting myself.

Living Dog: We actually do work at a local grocery store haha It's called HEB. Its kinda like kroger if you've ever seen that. I'll be majoring in physics beginning this year. I can hardly wait.

I've seen them both (it's actually H-E-B) when the hoosers abducted me and tortured me for 6 flat out miserable years of my life. The only thing good about Indiana is ... that "ground zero" is another name for it.

Ah ha! So you are a Vulcan! Since I tormented you with my posts I will apologize now and simply hand you a little gift which I think _EVERY_ future physicist should know about:

http://www.hetemeel.com/einsteinform.php

Live long and prosper.
 

What is the theory of relativity?

The theory of relativity is a scientific theory developed by Albert Einstein that explains the behavior of objects in motion, specifically when they are moving at high speeds or in the presence of strong gravitational forces.

Why is the speed of light considered to be the cosmic speed limit?

The speed of light, which is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second, is considered to be the cosmic speed limit because according to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. This means that the speed of light is the maximum speed at which information, energy, and matter can travel.

What happens if an object were to travel faster than the speed of light?

According to the theory of relativity, it is impossible for any object to travel faster than the speed of light. However, if an object were to somehow exceed the speed of light, it would require infinite energy and its mass would become infinite. This is not possible according to our current understanding of physics.

Can anything travel faster than the speed of light?

No, according to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This has been supported by numerous experiments and observations, and is a fundamental principle in modern physics.

Is it possible to break the speed of light barrier?

No, it is not possible to break the speed of light barrier. The theory of relativity has been extensively tested and has been proven to be accurate. While there have been some speculative theories about faster-than-light travel, they have not been supported by scientific evidence. Additionally, breaking the speed of light barrier would require the laws of physics to be fundamentally rewritten, which is highly unlikely.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
181
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
957
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
507
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
Back
Top