Evidence for infinites at light speed.

[Researcher X]

What evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity?

 

[mathman]

There is plenty of evidence that the Lorentz transformations are valid. However it is impossible to reach the speed of light, so reaching infinity is impossible.

 

[Pengwuino]

To add to that, infinity is not something that can be reached, it is undefined. A seemingly popular example of time dilation is how GPS satellites must compensate for time dilation (using a 3rd or 4th satellite) due to the precise calculations that must be made to determine your position on Earth. There's also a popular high energy physics example I can't quite remember but it has to do with the fact that a certain particle's decay is so quick that it can't be detected unless you speed the particle up enough so that the decay takes long enough in our reference frame that it can be detected. I can't remember the specifics though.

 

[Researcher X]

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.

If it takes you 2 seconds from your reference frame to take a journey encompassing several years from another, that's all well and good, but when it stops being fractions of the speed of light, and you "reach" the infinity point, all journey times from that frame become zero, which is a paradox, because a time period of zero can't even take place at all, and in the frame outside of the hypothetical transport, an infinite amount of time has occurred! You might as well have arrived before you took off for all the sense that makes.

Is it not possible that the speed of light actually makes this effect just ridiculously large instead of infinite?

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.

Is it not possible that the speed of light actually makes this effect just ridiculously large instead of infinite?

No, it isn't. Particle accelerators have tested the theory to an extremely high energy, getting extremely close to C. The equation holds.

 

[jtbell]

Is it not possible that the speed of light actually makes this effect just ridiculously large instead of infinite?

Sure, but all experimental data so far has fit curves which go off to infinity as v --> c. We go by the data that we have in hand. If someone finds something different, then theorists will go off and look for a new theory that either modifies or fundamentally replaces relativity.

There are actually physicists who are working on replacements for current relativity theory, but those theories are pretty much speculative right now, for lack of experimental data.

 

[Dale]

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.

Yes, although I would use the word "nonsense" or "non-physical" rather than "paradox".

you "reach" the infinity point

that is why it is nonsense. You cannot "reach the infinity point". It is not even a point, let alone a reachable one.

What this infinity means is that there is no finite amount of energy which will accelerate a particle to c. So far, we have never found an exception.

 

[markonline]

the faster that one travels the more force is need to travel faster, if one is traveling at .99c time is 7x slower therefore he must have 7x more force to accelerate, as this number goes up and up it will take more and more effot to reach c making it impossible.

 

[Phrak]

What evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity?

Which sort of infinity are you talking about? Is 1/0 infinity, or undefined? Is 1/0=2/0 ?

 

[HallsofIvy]

What evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity?

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.

Yes, which means that it can't happen. Far from being "evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity" What you just quoted means it can't happen. The can't be "evidence" of something that can't happen! There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence for time dilation, mass increase, etc. for objects moving at a very high relative speed.

 

[Rebel]

Sure, but all experimental data so far has fit curves which go off to infinity as v --> c. We go by the data that we have in hand. If someone finds something different, then theorists will go off and look for a new theory that either modifies or fundamentally replaces relativity.

I see more probable that theorists would look at this supossed new findings and study what is wrong with the experiment.

 

[russ_watters]

Huh?

 

[HallsofIvy]

There have been experiments with "mass increase" or "time slowing" with very fast particles that have verified the formulas of relativity. But, of course, there can't be any experiments that show the "the mass of a particle moving at light speed is infinity" and relativity doesn't say that it would be. Relativity says that a particle's "mass" increases without bound as its speed approaches that of light.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Yes, which means that it can't happen. Far from being "evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity" What you just quoted means it can't happen. The can't be "evidence" of something that can't happen! There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence for time dilation, mass increase, etc. for objects moving at a very high relative speed.

I see more probable that theorists would look at this supossed new findings and study what is wrong with the experiment.

I don't know why so many people think scientist have some kind of "stake" in maintaining a theory. A scientist would become far more famous by verifying something that violates relativity than by finding an error in the experiment. Scientist are always hoping for anomalous results!

 

[jtbell]

I see more probable that theorists would look at this supossed new findings and study what is wrong with the experiment.

Actually, I would say that it's not an "either-or" situation. In general, theorists will take both approaches, some doing one, some doing the other, some doing both. After the first experiment comes along with these "new findings," most of the emphasis will be on analyzing the experiment and looking for flaws. If more experiments come along with similar results (preferably using different techniques!), emphasis will shift towards re-evaluating, modifying, and/or replacing the theory.

 

[Rebel]

Of course, I just pointed out the position respect to the overwhelming experimental support for relativity.

 

[jtbell]

Right, the initial mix of emphasis on checking the experiment versus modifying the theory depends on how solidly established the theory is, based on previous experiments. Also, I expect, on whether the "new findings" are in an area (of energy / velocity / whatever) that has previously been tested, or well outside a previously-tested area, or what.

 

[markonline]

ok...

lets say that time dilation increases as an exponential rate as velocity increases. now to reach the speed of light, time dilation must equal infinite. while infinity may not be a real number a possible very very large number that goes on forever could take its place

 

[DaveC426913]

ok...

lets say that time dilation increases as an exponential rate as velocity increases. now to reach the speed of light, time dilation must equal infinite. while infinity may not be a real number a possible very very large number that goes on forever could take its place

What is the point in this line of thought? Is there some reason you find our current understanding of the universe to be too consistent for your liking?

We have a theory, we have a formula and we have a preponderance of evidence that points to a very consistent universe in the context of SR, where all the puzzle pieces fit together beautifully. Is there some reason why you think that it should be only mostly consistent? Why you think a single puzzle piece should have a tab that sticks out like a flap of dead skin?

 

[markonline]

What is the point in this line of thought? Is there some reason you find our current understanding of the universe to be too consistent for your liking?

We have a theory, we have a formula and we have a preponderance of evidence that points to a very consistent universe in the context of SR, where all the puzzle pieces fit together beautifully. Is there some reason why you think that it should be only mostly consistent? Why you think a single puzzle piece should have a tab that sticks out like a flap of dead skin?

to my liking, hmm. the question being what is the evidence of infinite. that was my answer. and yes i believe it to be consistently inconsistent. why don't you just put everything on the forum about SR. and you can just leave it at that.

 

[russ_watters]

lets say that time dilation increases as an exponential rate as velocity increases. now to reach the speed of light, time dilation must equal infinite. while infinity may not be a real number a possible very very large number that goes on forever could take its place

Well that's just a misunderstanding of how math works. Yes, infinity is not a number, so that does mean that - if the equation is correct - traveling at C isn't possible.

What you're talkinig about is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[markonline]

Well that's just a misunderstanding of how math works. Yes, infinity is not a number, so that does mean that - if the equation is correct - traveling at C isn't possible.

What you're talkinig about is nothing more than wishful thinking.

correctamondo. it would take forever to reach the speed of light unless the boundaries of physics are somehow changed with physics. but light having no mass. being a proton that travels in only direction with no force keeping it at bay does reach the speed of light.

 

[DaveC426913]

to my liking, hmm. the question being what is the evidence of infinite. that was my answer. and yes i believe it to be consistently inconsistent. why don't you just put everything on the forum about SR. and you can just leave it at that.

These sentences do not string together into a cohesive thought. Can you try again?

correctamondo. it would take forever to reach the speed of light unless the boundaries of physics are somehow changed with physics. but light having no mass. being a proton that travels in only direction with no force keeping it at bay does reach the speed of light.

These are not sentences. It is extremely difficult to figure out what you're saying.

In that last one it almost sounds like you think that protons accelerate of their own accord for some unknown reason and will then reach c. This is both nonsensical (by would something acclerate if no force is applied to it?) and factually incorrect (it still won't reach c, no matter how long it accelerates).

 

[markonline]

These sentences do not string together into a cohesive thought. Can you try again?


These are not sentences. It is extremely difficult to figure out what you're saying. In that last one it almost sdounds like you think that protons accelerate of their own accord for some unknown reason and will then reach c. This is bith nonsensical and factually incorrect.

i never said accelerate, i mearly mean travel in one direction as fast as something can possibly be

 

[DaveC426913]

i never said accelerate, i mearly mean travel in one direction as fast as something can possibly be

Then could could it possibly, as you say "reach the speed of light"?

 

[markonline]

i meant that with SR there are some inconsistancies. i propagate that the are mear indescressions that have been overlooked by the larger community. one inconsistancy being a lack of proper mathematical development with time dilation matematics. ever hear the term kiss. regardless of how good something might sound sometimes psychology has a big part in all subjects. even Einstein died trying to do more with SR.

 

[russ_watters]

Probably misspoke "proton" for "photon"...

 

[markonline]

Then could could it possibly, as you say "reach the speed of light"?

i spose theoretically you could get somewhere really close to the speed of light. is that not good enough. matter has energy traveling in all directions to speed it up to the speed of light it would need to only have energy traveling in one direction.

 

[markonline]

Probably misspoke "proton" for "photon"...

thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

i meant that with SR there are some inconsistancies.

No, there really aren't.

i propagate that the are mear indescressions that have been overlooked by the larger community.

"Propagate"? "Mear"? C'mon, are you for real?

one inconsistancy being a lack of proper mathematical development with time dilation matematics. ever hear the term kiss. regardless of how good something might sound sometimes psychology has a big part in all subjects.

Huh? SR is high school level math. It is very simple and completely "developed" (whatever that really means).

even Einstein died trying to do more with SR.

I don't think that's true, but even if it was, so what? It would be fundamentally different than it was today.

Beyond wishful thinking, you have a hostility toward accepting a reality that you don't like.