Register to reply 
How close to light speed can you theoretically get? 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb2708, 03:45 PM

P: 141

Can you go so fast that after say one second, light has traveled less than a planck length further than you did (with respect to an outside observer of course)?
Is c the actual speed limit, or is the speed limit slightly less than c? Maybe I'm not stating this properly and forgive me if not, but I think you know what I mean. 


#2
Feb2708, 04:27 PM

P: 218

As your speed increases your inertia also increases and it becomes harder and harder to accelerate you further.
[tex] m=m_0\gamma[/tex] [tex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex] [tex]F=ma=am_0\gamma[/tex] 


#3
Feb2808, 01:36 PM

P: 321

Assume that the total energy at rest is [tex]E_0=m_0c^2[/tex] The energy when the object reached speed [tex]v[/tex] is [tex]E_1=\gamma m_0c^2[/tex] The total work expended is [tex] \Delta W =E_1E_0=(\gamma1)m_0c^2[/tex] For [tex]v>c[/tex] [tex]\Delta W[/tex] goes to infinity. 


#4
Feb2808, 01:59 PM

P: 455

How close to light speed can you theoretically get?
There is no known limit to gamma.
The Planck length is not a limit on anything. 


#5
Feb2808, 02:54 PM

P: 38




#6
Feb2808, 03:40 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,267

The Planck length and related quantities aren't present in the theory of special relativity, so the answer within the framework of SR is clearly that the speed limit is exactly c. Light travels 299792458 meters in one second. You're asking if it's possible to travel more than 299792458l_{P} in one second, in the universe we live in (as opposed to the one described by SR, where it certainly is possible since there's no Planck length). There's nothing special about a second, so we should be able to replace "one second" with any other unit of time in your question and still get the same answer. Let's choose "one Planck time". Since the speed of light is one Planck length in one Planck time, your question becomes "is it possible to travel more than zero Planck lengths in one Planck time"? It's funny that when you break it down like that, it appears that 0 and c are the only possible speeds, but we know that's not the case, so there's definitely something strange going on here. Maybe speed in a quantum theory of spacetime is the probability that we will "jump" a Planck length in a Planck time. So I don't think anyone really knows the answer to your question, since there's no complete quantum theory of gravity. (A quantum theory of gravity would almost certainly also be a quantum theory of spacetime). I wonder if the candidate theories like strings and loop quantum gravity have a clear answer to this question. Perhaps someone will tell us that in this thread. (Wink wink, nudge nudge). 


#7
Feb2808, 11:05 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,087

Frederik,
trenchant analysis. A new Zeno paradox maybe ? 


#8
Feb2908, 06:29 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,843

I'm no expert on quantum theory, but I don't think it is right to think of the Planck length as being "the smallest possible distance". It's more like "the smallest distance you can measure" (and even that's probably an oversimplification). Also, in quantum theory, it is usual to measure momentum rather than speed. There is no theoretical momentum limit. You might get a better answer by asking this question in the Quantum Physics forum. In the real Universe, there is a practical upper limit. The faster you go, the more energy you need, so eventually you would run out. So, to give a ludicrous example, your kinetic energy could never exceed the total energy of the whole Universe! 


#9
Feb2908, 08:48 AM

P: 141

Formulated another way, is it possible to move 1/2 a planck length from your current position? 


#10
Feb2908, 09:33 AM

P: 28

How can the mass of an object be = to zero ? If mass is zero would it still exist? How can nothing be something? Does this mean that light can not be a particle ?



#11
Feb2908, 10:38 AM

P: 38




#12
Feb2908, 11:24 AM

P: 28




#13
Feb2908, 11:36 AM

P: 38

Additional info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity 


#14
Feb2908, 12:04 PM

P: 28

Relativistic mass is just another name for the energy? according to Wikipedia. So we know that mass is an expression of energy from e=mc^2? So if an object has mass of 0 then
0 = E/c^2 = ? Im trying to make sense of this. 


#15
Mar108, 05:11 PM

P: 218

If mass=0 then energy equals momentum times the speed of light. 


#16
Mar108, 05:17 PM

P: 815



#17
Mar208, 10:17 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,267

(The concept of "position" is welldefined e.g. when we're talking about classical point particles moving in a spacetime that can be represented mathematically by a smooth manifold, but there's no reason to believe that space and time in the actual universe is anything like a smooth manifold on small scales). 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Can photons be accelated or do they always travel at one speed (speed of light)?  General Physics  25  
Light speed...Impossible Faster than light..Probable?  General Physics  5  
Real time effects of light, light speed, and the sun?  Astronomy & Astrophysics  4  
Speed of light Schmeed of light: things can travel faster  Special & General Relativity  13  
A question about constant acceleration close to the speed of light  Special & General Relativity  12 