Theory on Speed of Light & Faster Travel

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a theoretical proposal involving a massive centrifuge in space designed to spin at relativistic speeds, potentially approaching or exceeding the speed of light. Participants explore the implications of such a scenario, including the physical limitations and energy requirements involved in accelerating an object with mass to these speeds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a theoretical scenario where a centrifuge could be built to spin at relativistic speeds, questioning the feasibility of reaching or exceeding the speed of light with sufficient energy and stable materials.
  • Another participant asserts that it is impossible to accelerate any object with non-zero invariant mass to the speed of light or beyond, emphasizing that infinite energy would be required to reach such speeds.
  • It is noted that as the rim of the centrifuge approaches relativistic speeds, the energy required to maintain the spin increases dramatically, tending toward infinity as the speed approaches the speed of light.
  • A later reply challenges the initial proposal by stating that the material of the centrifuge is held together by electromagnetic forces, which cannot transmit forces faster than the speed of light, suggesting that the structure would fail as it approaches relativistic speeds.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of specifying reference frames when discussing velocities, indicating that time dilation would affect observations of speed, and reiterates that the structural integrity of the centrifuge would be compromised as speeds approach light speed.
  • Concerns are raised about the maximum stress-to-mass ratio of materials, with references to existing theoretical limits that suggest achieving such speeds is impossible without zero mass or infinite energy.
  • One participant mentions the "superluminal scissors paradox" as a related concept that may provide additional context to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the feasibility of the proposed scenario, with some asserting that it is impossible to reach or exceed the speed of light with any object that has mass, while others explore the theoretical implications without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights various assumptions about material properties, energy requirements, and relativistic effects, which remain unresolved. The limitations of current theoretical frameworks are acknowledged but not definitively addressed.

fr0zencipe
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey there, I just got a theory I've been thinking about since a while and want to share it.
So here it comes: imagine, we build a huge centrifuge in space, i mean really huge. It is made of super stable material which will not break in the following process. So we speed up that centrifuge until the outer parts of it reach almost the speed of light. (You all know that the outer part of something that spins is always faster thatn an inner one). What would happen if we enlarge the radius of the spinning object? What would happen, if it reaches the speed of light or faster? And would it be possible if we had enough energy for it and it won't just break because of the centrifuge force? Theoretically it might be possible if we had that material and the energy. or not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you can never accelerate an object with non-zero invariant mass to the speed of light or beyond. For the same force, the increase in speed ( instantaneous velocity) decreases over time, and asymptotically approached 0 as you to tend to the speed of light. Only objects with 0 rest mass travel at the speed of light (in fact, they always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum). Theoretically speaking, you would need infinite energy to accelerate the outer parts of your machine to the speed of light, and we all know that this is a nonsensical statement and is clearly not possible practically.
 
Last edited:
When the rim starts to approach relativistic speed, you would find that the faster you try to spin your ring, (or the more you increase the radius), the more energy you would need to maintain the spin, until the energy required tends toward infinity at a speed somewhat less than c.
 
Last edited:
fr0zencipe said:
Hey there, I just got a theory I've been thinking about since a while and want to share it.
So here it comes: imagine, we build a huge centrifuge in space, i mean really huge. It is made of super stable material which will not break in the following process. So we speed up that centrifuge until the outer parts of it reach almost the speed of light. (You all know that the outer part of something that spins is always faster thatn an inner one). What would happen if we enlarge the radius of the spinning object? What would happen, if it reaches the speed of light or faster? And would it be possible if we had enough energy for it and it won't just break because of the centrifuge force? Theoretically it might be possible if we had that material and the energy. or not?

The other fallacy here in this scenario is that you are forgetting (ignorant?) that the material that makes up your centrifuge is held up together predominantly by electromagnetic forces. This means that the push-pull on every single particle that makes up that material is limited by c. You cannot push and pull any element in that material faster than that. So in principle, the material will fall apart as you approach c.

Zz.
 
Even theoretically it is not possible. Even if you take care of all the problems (which trust me are many), there are three explanations I can think of for this thing to fail.
  1. When you talk about velocity, you need to specify the reference frame. So first of all, in whose reference will that be going at speed greater than the speed of light? Now whatever that frame be, time will slow down in that frame and so the speed observed in that frame will slow down. However even if you can "hypothetically" find a frame in which this speed, you think is more than the speed of light, point 2 i what is going to happen.
  2. The very force of interaction keeping the structure intact; the disturbances in it or may be you can say the force carrying particles; themselves cannot travel at speed more than that of light. So as your "expected speed" tends to the speed of light, your structure will blow away.
  3. One last thing, the maximum stress to mass ratio of any object that might theoretically exist in universe is ## c^2 ## .The best ratio we have achieved is of carbon nano tubes and that is not even closer to the value I just mentioned. I think this is what others are trying to say, You need zero mass or infinite energy to achieve this thing. So it is as a matter of fact impossible according to the existing theories to do what you want do (until you prove otherwise by building one).
 
fr0zencipe said:
Hey there, I just got a theory I've been thinking about since a while and want to share it.
So here it comes: imagine, we build a huge centrifuge in space, i mean really huge. It is made of super stable material which will not break in the following process. So we speed up that centrifuge until the outer parts of it reach almost the speed of light. (You all know that the outer part of something that spins is always faster thatn an inner one). What would happen if we enlarge the radius of the spinning object? What would happen, if it reaches the speed of light or faster? And would it be possible if we had enough energy for it and it won't just break because of the centrifuge force? Theoretically it might be possible if we had that material and the energy. or not?
Hi welcome to Physicsforums. :smile:

Others have clearly replied already, but your question reminded me of the superluminal scissors paradox, which you may like as well.
You can read about it here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/scissors.html
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K