Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light

  1. Oct 10, 2012 #1
    Not sure if this was posted but this seems like an interesting paper. Then again, I'm not well read in this topic to judge their arguments:
    Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/09/25/rspa.2012.0340

    Physicists extend special relativity beyond the speed of light
    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-physicists-special-relativity.htmlPage2/3PhysicistsextendspecialrelativitybeyondthespeedoflightThis3Dgraphshowstherelationshipbetweenthreedifferentvelocities:v/ [Broken]

    Extending Einstein's Theory Beyond Light Speed
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010092742.htm
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 10, 2012 #2
    Lots of math turns out not to have a physical basis....

    time may tell if such math applies to our universe.

    It appears only the abstract is available for free...
     
  4. Oct 10, 2012 #3
  5. Oct 10, 2012 #4

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I find it hard to work up any motivation to worry about a paper that's published in a low-impact, paywalled journal, not available on arxiv, and appears to be a rehash of a topic that's already been carefully studied and found to be uninteresting.

    The possibility of defining superluminal frames of reference (as opposed to just describing superluminal particles) has been studied for a long time. There is a no-go theorem described by Vieira, which says that it only works in n+n dimensions. It doesn't work in 3+1 dimensions. The physics.SE thread discusses the fact that this objection also applies to Hill and Cox's work.

    Vieira, An Introduction to the Theory of Tachyons, 2011, http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4187
     
  6. Oct 12, 2012 #5

    Physicist50

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'd like to see what those equations are that allow us to travel faster than c! Also, what's non-zero?
     
  7. Jan 11, 2013 #6
  8. Jan 11, 2013 #7

    Bill_K

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Physicists Extent SR beyond the speed of light

    Nothing of interest. Except it does serve to illustrate how much popular attention you can garner with the words "faster than light". :tongue2:

    If you like, here's the full paper.
     
  9. Jan 11, 2013 #8

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Physicists Extent SR beyond the speed of light

    I didn't read it, just looked at Fig. 4. If I understand correctly:

    v : Velocity of frame B relative to frame A
    u : velocity in frame B
    U : velocity in frame A

    Is that right?

    Lets say a rocket fires a missile from it's nose launcher. The missile moves at u = 0.5c relative to the rocket. But In a frame where the rocket moves at v=4c the missile is slower than the rocket (U < 4c) and stays behind it, or destroys it right after launch.

    How is that resolved?. Is the entire rocket mirrored in the frame where it moves FTL? Negative length contraction?
     
  10. Jan 11, 2013 #9

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  11. Jan 11, 2013 #10

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is a recent note that points out what Cox and Hill did wrong:

    Andréka, 'A note on "Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light" by James M. Hill and Barry J. Cox,' http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2246

    The criticism is essentially the same as in this thread and the physics.SE thread: the idea only works in n+n dimensions, not 3+1.

    But Andréka, like Cox and Hill, doesn't seem to realize that this was all settled way back in 1986 by Recami.

    Obviously the RSPA doesn't have very high standards or very knowledgeable reviewers if they accept this kind of paper, which is both wrong and wrong for reasons that have been known and published in the literature for 25 years.
     
  12. Jan 11, 2013 #11

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Threads merged.
     
  13. Jan 11, 2013 #12
    Thanks a lot for your comments and the link.

    It seemed somewhat suspicious so I thought to confirm the results with you guys. :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light
Loading...