Gravity waves?

  • Thread starter TalonD
  • Start date
  • #26
149
0
Ahhh...dare to dream...

I've long thought there must be a way to MAGNIFY (gather or focus or align - not sure of the word) the gravitational pull of a large object or a cluster of objects onto a single object...to achieve rapid acceleration.
 
  • #27
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,371
2,875
Ahhh...dare to dream...

I've long thought there must be a way to MAGNIFY (gather or focus or align - not sure of the word) the gravitational pull of a large object or a cluster of objects onto a single object...to achieve rapid acceleration.
I think you're missing the point. It isn't a limitation on how you get the acceleration. You could have an arbitrarily large acceleration; millions of g's, billions of g's if you want. You could achieve it through any physical means your imagination allows; you want a gravity-magnifier? Granted. You want a limitless power source? Granted. You want to keep that acceleration up for a year? a millenium? a million years? Granted.

Your velocity would not reach, let alone exceed, c. Ever. Your velocity would merely get arbitrarily close to c, i.e. .99999999999...c

Velocities near c do not simply add. They follow the formula: v(1) = (1-(v(0)^2 / c^2))^.5.

You will find that, no matter how much you add velocities of any size (i.e. by hard acceleration) or how many times you reiterate the formula (i.e. by accelerating for a long time), your velocity will never exceed c.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
149
0
I think you're missing the point. It isn't a limitation on how you get the acceleration. You could have an arbitrarily large acceleration; millions of g's, billions of g's if you want. You could achieve it through any physical means your imagination allows; you want a gravity-magnifier? Granted. You want a limitless power source? Granted. You want to keep that acceleration up for a year? a millenium? a million years? Granted.

Your velocity would not reach, let alone exceed, c. Ever. Your velocity would merely get arbitrarily close to c, i.e. .99999999999...c

Velocities near c do not simply add. They follow the formula: v(1) = (1-(v(0)^2 / c^2))^.5.

You will find that, no matter how much you add velocities of any size (i.e. by hard acceleration) or how many times you reiterate the formula (i.e. by accelerating for a long time), your velocity will never exceed c.

I get the point.

But the question remains...what sets the limit at c? Maybe the limit is relative to something else.

Here's a rudimentary idea...

If you're on an airplane traveling at 300 miles an hour and you run down the aisle at (the same max speed you could run on the ground) 5 mph...but, you're actually traveling at 305 mph?

Likewise, why couldn't an object skip across space (at a velocity that can not exceed c) like a rock across the surface of a pond? Nothing of the shape, size and mass of a rock could ever travel through the water (given the force propelling the rock) at the same rate it can skip across the surface. Instead, the rock bounces off the surface and travels freely until the force applied is exhausted.

What if as acceleration approaches c a new dimension becomes accessible...one that allows the object to continue to move at c but across/over/around/(?) our known 3 dimensions?

Are we sure of how particles act at that speed?
 
  • #29
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,371
2,875
Imagination is a wonderful thing, but it has its place.
 
  • #30
Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
9,621
6
If you're on an airplane traveling at 300 miles an hour and you run down the aisle at (the same max speed you could run on the ground) 5 mph...but, you're actually traveling at 305 mph?
Not according to special relativity. As mentioned earlier relative velocities are not simply aditive in relativity.
Likewise, why couldn't an object skip across space (at a velocity that can not exceed c) like a rock across the surface of a pond? Nothing of the shape, size and mass of a rock could ever travel through the water (given the force propelling the rock) at the same rate it can skip across the surface. Instead, the rock bounces off the surface and travels freely until the force applied is exhausted.

What if as acceleration approaches c a new dimension becomes accessible...one that allows the object to continue to move at c but across/over/around/(?) our known 3 dimensions?
You need to be careful here, overly speculative posts and/or personal theories are not permitted here at PF unless they are in the proper format and submitted to IR.
Are we sure of how particles act at that speed?
Thus far all observations made with respect to particles travelling close to c are in agreement with relativity.
 
  • #31
1,838
7
If you could somehow move faster than c, or just send a signal faster than c, then one can show that this also enables you to send a signal to your own past. This is explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_Antitelephone" [Broken].

Special Relativity does not really say that you cannot go faster than c. All it says is that c is an invariant speed and it says how space time coordinates transform from one frame of reference to another. It then follows that faster than c signals can be paradoxical, but http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091" [Broken]

Also, note that you can make your travel time arbitraily close to zero by traveling close enough to the speed of light. So, in this regard, c in special relativity is similar to an infinite speed in classical mechanics. If you let c go to infinity in special relativity (and apropriately rescale some other physical variables in that limit), then you get classical mechanics. Not surprising, as in classical mechanics an infinite velocity is the invariant velocity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
149
0
I'm not trying to be speculative in a negative way...my "theory" is more of a question. I'm trying to understand the proven theories by looking at them from all aspects/applications.

Perhaps the question I should have posed is WHAT HAPPENS To MASS as it approaches c? Would a mass that reached c be consumed and converted to energy?

My understanding is that light is made up of mass-less protons...but at the same time, doesn't gravity bend light? Would this mean there is some residual mass present?

Another way to ask the question might be...as mass can't reach/exceed c is it because it is consumed...otherwise, where does mass (go) when the proton is created?
 
  • #33
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,371
2,875
I'm not trying to be speculative in a negative way...my "theory" is more of a question. I'm trying to understand the proven theories by looking at them from all aspects/applications.
Questions are always better than than speculations. :approve:

Perhaps the question I should have posed is WHAT HAPPENS To MASS as it approaches c?
What happens to MATTER is that its mass increases. In order to reach c, a force would have to accelerate and object whose mass is approaching infinite. This would require an infinite amount of energy to do.

Would a mass that reached c be consumed and converted to energy?
No. See above.
My understanding is that light is made up of mass-less protons
No. Protons are massive, positively charged subatomic particles. Photons are massless packets of EM energy. Two totally separate animals.

...but at the same time, doesn't gravity bend light? Would this mean there is some residual mass present?
No. Gravity bends space-time. Light follows spacetime's curves.
 
  • #34
149
0
Questions are always better than than speculations. :approve:


What happens to MATTER is that its mass increases. In order to reach c, a force would have to accelerate and object whose mass is approaching infinite. This would require an infinite amount of energy to do.


No. See above.

No. Protons are massive, positively charged subatomic particles. Photons are massless packets of EM energy. Two totally separate animals.


No. Gravity bends space-time. Light follows spacetime's curves.

As gravity bends space-time and light follows the space-time curves...at the speed of light...what (if anything) could break free of the curve...is there a theory in the works regarding how a CERN generated anti-matter particle might behave differently?

This relationship is what I was talking about with the rock skipping across a pond...under what circumstances could it be possible...what would need to happen?
 
  • #35
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,371
2,875
As gravity bends space-time and light follows the space-time curves...at the speed of light...what (if anything) could break free of the curve...is there a theory in the works regarding how a CERN generated anti-matter particle might behave differently?

This relationship is what I was talking about with the rock skipping across a pond...under what circumstances could it be possible...what would need to happen?
There is no evidence currently available that suggests anything like this is possible.
 
  • #36
667
4
As far as I know, none of our detectors has observed a gravity wave, never ever.

Any other information?

Reasons to hope this should improve soon?
 
  • #37
Lets say gravity waves/particles move outward like a cone. It would be stronger at the point and weaker as it moved outward and less dense. A light wave moves in a tighter wave simular to a ripple in water. The gravity particle would move faster than c because it is covering more area at the same time as the photon. Explains atomic strong force, space time, ect. Maybe possible to skip time on a gravity wave since time is a function of gravity.
 
  • #38
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,438
1,094
The gravity particle would move faster than c because it is covering more area at the same time as the photon.

No.
Explains atomic strong force, space time, ect.

No.
 
  • #39
1
0
can someone explain gravity waves to me? if gravity is only in the presence of mass then how can gravity waves propagate through space in the absence of the presence of mass? Have gravity waves been detected or proven or is it only theory so far?

Sure
I feel I have a handle on the elusive gravity wave...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=278773

namaste

Raphael
 

Related Threads on Gravity waves?

  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
818
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top