How do we know nothing can go faster than c and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joeschuler
  • Start date Start date
joeschuler
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
how do we know that c is the limit? and why is it the limit?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two common logical frameworks you can use. (1) You can assume that there is a particular, special speed c that is the same in all frames of reference, plus some assumptions about symmetry, esp. that all frames of reference are equally valid. You then conclude that the Lorentz transformation holds, and that time is not absolute. (2) You can make the same assumptions about symmetry, and also take it as an empirically established fact that time is not absolute (e.g., based on the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment). You then conclude that the Lorentz transformation holds, and there is a particular, special speed c that is the same in all frames of reference.

Nothing so far requires that c be associated with the speed of light. In general, it's an archaic mistake to think of the c in relativity as being the speed of light. It's fundamentally a property of spacetime, not a property of light. However, if photons are massless, then one can also prove that they move at c. Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment seems to show that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, which requires that it equal c.

Relativity does not in fact say that c is the maximum speed. However, it does put tight constraints on faster-than-light (FTL) motion. In particular, it says that any mechanism for FTL transmission of information is also a mechanism for transmitting information from the future into the past. This would violate causality. This is the most general thing you can say about FTL in relativity, just that it's inconsistent with causality. In more specific cases, you can say more. For instance, in the case of a material object, the energy required to accelerate it to c would be infinite.

So in summary, if you want FTL, you have to give up causality, or you have to find something wrong with both the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiment (as well as many others).

A good book on this topic is Time Travel in Einstein's Universe, by Gott.

Some people have seriously investigated the possibility that causality is not generally necessary in order to have reasonable, self-consistent laws of physics. Some interesting papers:

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/6469/

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3737/
 
Last edited:
A very good answer, but I would put this sentence differently:
So in summary, if you want FTL, you have to give up causality, or you have to find something wrong with both the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiment (as well as many others).
Actually, it's the principle of relativity (in SR) that is at odds with FTL travel and causality. If FTL had a special frame in which it works, there'd be no problems with the experiments. So, following JesseM: You can have exactly two of the following: FTL travel, relativity, causality.
 
Ich said:
So, following JesseM: You can have exactly two of the following: FTL travel, relativity, causality.

This is a very nice formulation.
 

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
View full post »

Thread 'A sufficient condition for integrability of equation ##\nabla g=0##'

In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
View full post »

Similar threads

B How does Einstein's equation work? Why do we need to square c?
Replies
18
Views
1K
I Why is there nothing faster than light?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Is there really nothing faster than light?
Replies
40
Views
4K
B Why can't energy or information go faster than light?
Replies
32
Views
3K
B Why is it impossible to go faster than the speed of light?
Replies
21
Views
3K
I Can there be a maximum curvature of spacetime?
Replies
9
Views
1K
I Time & Gravity in Rotating Faster Than Light?
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Does time dilation occur due to the speed limit of light or c?
Replies
47
Views
4K
B Let me ask a thing about the Speed of Light
Replies
6
Views
1K
B Time Travel: Can Humans Go Faster Than Ordinary Speed?
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top