Faster than Light!

Dec 30, 2019
53
10
55
So if we are ever going to get anywhere we gotta go there much faster than light speed. We hypothesize faster than light(FTL), at inflation, lots of talk about tachyons and even a Big Bang episode with instant particle matching. But you want to pass intro, you better say something about the impossibility of mass accelerating to light speed. So what have You got to get us out there? My current imaginary ideas forms around gravities effect on time and times effect on light speed. In our gravity web, 186,000 miles/s is light speed but close to a black hole time and light move slower(?). So how about farther out, away from all this gravity. Could less gravity let time move faster and thus light move faster? If so, all we need do is control gravity... There is a very popular thread about the weird speed of light and other tangents to regard. So the goal is to have a craft that can move us around real fast. If you want to explain why this is a stupid idea and a waste of time, that too would be good.
 
Jan 6, 2020
163
56
180
Time is a dimension not a vector field. Gravity and light have their own vector fields. The symmetry of all 3 are different from each other. The absence of gravity time slows down that is a proven fact. Recheck your imagination.
 
Dec 30, 2019
53
10
55
Thank you for responding. My confusion relates to reading, I thought, that near a black hole time (appears?) to slow down. So, sometimes the absence of gravity , as in your earth example, time slows down but in extremely gravity time also slows down? Also, my confusion relates to the idea that time slows down the faster the object is moving, I am still working on understanding so any assistance would be appreciated.
 
Jan 6, 2020
163
56
180
The earths elliptical orbit is 66,616 mph around the Sun, and it rotates around 1000 mph. Standing near the center of gravity, Earth, time accelerates.
Standing in space beyond the gravitational field it becomes weaker and in a vacuum time slows down. Time is a dimension which is hard to conceptualize it has to do with electromagnetic fields that objects of mass create. Time in a vacuum would be a weak force the further away from the electromagnetic field you travel. Hope this helps.
 
Dec 30, 2019
53
10
55
I am still rereading your message. Thank you. So what about time near a black hole; is it speeding up or slowing down. And, how does vacuum slow time? I am (obviously) confused. I will keep on keeping on...
 
Jan 6, 2020
163
56
180
Your question about time accelerating near a black hole is interesting. My thoughts would be it would accelerate. The problem becomes on a physical level what a black hole is composed of what particle. Right now, they only use statistical probabilities as to what the black hole could be.
Time on the other hand is a difficult property to define. It is considered to be an ontologically primary concept not made up or dependent on anything else.
In non-relativistic or classical physics, the concept of time generally used is that of absolute time (also called Newtonian time after its most famous proponent), time which is independent of any perceiver, progresses at a consistent pace for everyone everywhere throughout the universe, and is essentially imperceptible and mathematical in nature. This accords with most people’s everyday experience of how time flows.
In Quantum mechanics time is perhaps not a central concept as in classical physics. As it is in classical physics there is no such thing as quantum time. For example, time does not appear to be divided up into discrete quanta as are most other aspects of reality. However, the different interpretations of quantum theory (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation, etc.) do have some potentially important implications for our understanding of time.
We instinctively perceive time as moving forwards from the fixed and immutable past, though the present, towards the unknown and unfixed future. This idea has its roots in physics, particularly in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, although other, often related, arrows of time have also been identified.
It was the early Babylonians that created the measurement of time by watching the movement of stars and planets and placing their movements on a 180-degree arch across the night sky. Hope this helps you a little bit to understand time and its concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wdm1234
Jul 10, 2020
1
1
15
According to the new hypothesis, the maximum speed an object can attain rises far from massive objects, such as stars, planets etc. I found the book on Amazon (for free!) and thought it was very exciting, mostly because the idea is so "outside the box". The idea is clearly far outside the mainstream, but I liked it because it's something I haven't heard before.

It uses a single premise, which is that the Universe works by processing information, meaning all physical laws are computed. That's pretty much it. From this premise, both special and general relativity, gravity and quantum mechanics come about, in their mathematical form. I am still digesting this. Like I said, it's just a hypothesis, but I like new and exciting, and even if wrong, this is it.

I found it for free on amazon, it's called "The Faster Than Light Hypothesis" by Theo Quinn:


but a cursory google search finds it elsewhere, in case you're not on amazon, like (also for free):


It predicts that a large object (such as a huge mothership? I am guessing) CAN break the light barrier and move hundreds of time faster than light - but only in deep space, far from other objects. That's my take of it. Clearly no one has done this. There's also a proposed experiment with a space probe, in which kinematic time dilation would "dissipate" as the probe moves into deep space.

My PhD in physics is rusty (I am doing financial derivatives AI now), but I know enough to say the math here is fairly simple and it's correct. As for the premise, that's obviously a question above my pay grade. It's likeable though.

The book is very calm and non-confrontational, it just explains the idea on its own, without touching on any physics at all, in a very very simple language. It kind of sits on its own, quite interesting. It's also easy to read with many analogies, most of them relating to a world simulated in a computer. Food for thought.

Obviously, this isn't official science in any sense of the word, but the thought and the idea are intriguing to say the least. The idea is so "alien" that I understand it doesn't come from a science journal and the author had to publish the book on the web, as I don't think any respectable journal would entertain this, but maybe they should....

-Gina
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
Mar 4, 2020
169
20
105
If you accelerate mass at a 50% duty cycle, at the proper rate, you will not get the mass gain. But that does not solve the problem. We know of no force faster than c, to propel the mass. Plus, you could never detect where the mass is, only where it was.
 
Oct 9, 2020
2
0
10
According to the new hypothesis, the maximum speed an object can attain rises far from massive objects, such as stars, planets etc. I found the book on Amazon (for free!) and thought it was very exciting, mostly because the idea is so "outside the box". The idea is clearly far outside the mainstream, but I liked it because it's something I haven't heard before.

It uses a single premise, which is that the Universe works by processing information, meaning all physical laws are computed. That's pretty much it. From this premise, both special and general relativity, gravity and quantum mechanics come about, in their mathematical form. I am still digesting this. Like I said, it's just a hypothesis, but I like new and exciting, and even if wrong, this is it.

I found it for free on amazon, it's called "The Faster Than Light Hypothesis" by Theo Quinn:


but a cursory google search finds it elsewhere, in case you're not on amazon, like (also for free):


It predicts that a large object (such as a huge mothership? I am guessing) CAN break the light barrier and move hundreds of time faster than light - but only in deep space, far from other objects. That's my take of it. Clearly no one has done this. There's also a proposed experiment with a space probe, in which kinematic time dilation would "dissipate" as the probe moves into deep space.

My PhD in physics is rusty (I am doing financial derivatives AI now), but I know enough to say the math here is fairly simple and it's correct. As for the premise, that's obviously a question above my pay grade. It's likeable though.

The book is very calm and non-confrontational, it just explains the idea on its own, without touching on any physics at all, in a very very simple language. It kind of sits on its own, quite interesting. It's also easy to read with many analogies, most of them relating to a world simulated in a computer. Food for thought.

Obviously, this isn't official science in any sense of the word, but the thought and the idea are intriguing to say the least. The idea is so "alien" that I understand it doesn't come from a science journal and the author had to publish the book on the web, as I don't think any respectable journal would entertain this, but maybe they should....

-Gina
Read the book above. Perhaps the most ingenious idea since Relativity. And mostly for not being relativity at all. It's not about frames of reference, or measuring time. It's about local information use by elementary particles. Pretty much super simple, yet brilliant.

Another thing, though, this book isn't on Amazon (perhaps it was, but no more). It's on google play, and some other places, but the easiest way to read it:


since you don't need an account, in fact the entire book is just a one big web page, well formatted for reading....
 

Gringoz

BANNED
Oct 3, 2020
79
3
55
So if we are ever going to get anywhere we gotta go there much faster than light speed. We hypothesize faster than light(FTL), at inflation, lots of talk about tachyons and even a Big Bang episode with instant particle matching. But you want to pass intro, you better say something about the impossibility of mass accelerating to light speed. So what have You got to get us out there? My current imaginary ideas forms around gravities effect on time and times effect on light speed. In our gravity web, 186,000 miles/s is light speed but close to a black hole time and light move slower(?). So how about farther out, away from all this gravity. Could less gravity let time move faster and thus light move faster? If so, all we need do is control gravity... There is a very popular thread about the weird speed of light and other tangents to regard. So the goal is to have a craft that can move us around real fast. If you want to explain why this is a stupid idea and a waste of time, that too would be good.
Faster than light is already achieved as galaxies are clocked moving 5 times light speed which creates the need for dark matter and quantum entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times light speed. Science admits these things but has no way to explain them so einstein was wrong
 
Mar 4, 2020
169
20
105
The red shift you see in star light is NOT caused by acceleration.......it is caused by the gravity field, at the time of emission. Our universe started with a super high G force. It decayed very quickly at first.....but now it decays slowly.......forever more. No mass can exceed c, naturally.
 

Gringoz

BANNED
Oct 3, 2020
79
3
55
The red shift you see in star light is NOT caused by acceleration.......it is caused by the gravity field, at the time of emission. Our universe started with a super high G force. It decayed very quickly at first.....but now it decays slowly.......forever more. No mass can exceed c, naturally.
The big bang has been disproved long ago as there is no void where this happened, and the source of the background radiation is unknown.

Super high G force? Please detail
 
Oct 9, 2020
2
0
10
I think that where we live affects our understanding of the speed of light. It's a classic trap of trying to extrapolate the Universe based on what you see in your immediate vicinity.

I think out there the maximum speed is much greater than the speed of light, and the larger your mass the higher your speed limit.

We couldn't tell if that's true or not from here. All our experiments would be hopelessly tainted. For example, we would think some objects are closer, other farther from us. We would fit the facts into Relativity as if it's the only way of describing Nature.

That's why I like Theo Quinn's FTL hypothesis (and why I think this way now). You get all the relativistic equations.... except that in deep space the "c" in all the equations gets bigger the farther away you're from large mass, and the bigger your own mass.

That would be a beautiful generalization of Einstein's relativity. It works perfectly here in the Solar system and it explains why small particles in accelerators "behave" under the speed limit, but in deep space the maximum achievable speed grows much beyond "c" (or approx 300,000 km/s). It also explains why Galaxies could move so fast, and eliminate the need for ugly "expansion of space" theory that was conveniently invented to save Relativity.
 
Oct 17, 2020
25
0
50
Thank you for responding. My confusion relates to reading, I thought, that near a black hole time (appears?) to slow down. So, sometimes the absence of gravity , as in your earth example, time slows down but in extremely gravity time also slows down? Also, my confusion relates to the idea that time slows down the faster the object is moving, I am still working on understanding so any assistance would be appreciated.
 

Attachments

Oct 17, 2020
25
0
50
I don't think we need to move faster than light, we need to learn to convert matter into electromagnetic energy and back again, kind of like a star trek transporter.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY