back to article Is lightspeed really a limit?

We don’t (yet) have any way to test this, but University of Adelaide applied mathematicians are suggesting that an extended version of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity also holds true for velocities beyond lightspeed. One of the main predictions of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is treated as an absolute …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Turtle

    Limits.

    “'If you really don’t believe that faster-than-light is possible, then humans will be limited forever,' he said".

    Humans might be limited anyway; after all, faster-than-light speeds might be impossible regardless of human beliefs.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Limits - "Humans might be limited anyway".

      True, but there's a big difference between 'might be' and 'will be', so it's worth suspending disbelief at least for a time.

      I find it interesting and encouraging that something may come out of a false experimental result, simply because people were no longer quite so certain of the impossibility of FTL travel.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Limits.

      Of course there will be something that travels faster than light.

      It's just that it has not been invented yet. Give it a couple of months and you'll see.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Limits.

        Yep, first it was the foot, then the horse, the train, the car, the aeroplane, the space rocket.

        Humans keep going faster and faster, communication was shouting, smoke signals, lights, bean cans, telephone, wireless radio, fibre optics etc etc.

        Someone will,invent it.

        1. Chemist

          Re: Limits.

          Why not suggest going below absolute zero as well (Hint : below absolute zero doesn't mean anything )

          1. Chemist

            Re: Limits.

            So several downvoters appear to believe that < absolute zero is a perfectly reasonable concept ?

            Science education is appalling !

            Absolute zero IS one of the limits - certainly in this universe

            1. TRT Silver badge

              Re: Limits.

              I don't think you were downvoted because people believe that there can be temperatures below absolute zero, but because you were drawing a comparison with a value which BY DEFINITION can only be zero or positive, whereas the limit of lightspeed exists because of a practicality relating to mass. There is no upper limit on temperature, by the way, so the analogy with speed fails there; of course you cannot have a speed below zero.

              1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
                Holmes

                Re: Limits.

                > I'll cling on to hope, thanks.

                Do not hope to do impossible things. Hope to do feasible things. Anything else is religion in a terribly bad way.

                This is the Slow Zone. Better accept it.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Limits.@Destroy All Monsters

                  "Do not hope to do impossible things. Hope to do feasible things"

                  Aim low to ensure disappointment, then?

                  In seventy years we went from the Wright flyer limping a few yards through the air, to reaching the Moon, but you're suggesting that in essence we know it all now, and should stop anything other than unambitious incremental improvement.

                  I hope my descendants have more to look forward to than a lighter, more easily emptied vacuum cleaner.

                  1. Michael Habel
                    Facepalm

                    Re: Limits.@Destroy All Monsters

                    When you put it like this, it saddens me greatly that this boom time of innovation came to an end nearly 40 Years ago now. Weren't we not meant to be colonizing Mars and live in floating houses (i.e. The Jetsons). And what about our flying Cars? If the Internet is the best thing to come out of our Epoch. Then may we be forgiven.

                    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                      Happy

                      Re: Limits.@Destroy All Monsters

                      "Weren't we not meant to be colonizing Mars "

                      And NASA's budget was 5% of the US GDP.

                      But things have a way of sneaking up on people.

                      The question is do you want the *result* or the result by a specific *means*?

                2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                  Re: Limits.

                  "This is the Slow Zone. Better accept it."

                  My mind bobbles :-)

              2. Chemist

                Re: Limits.

                I know it's by definition but it's amazing how many, otherwise intelligent well-educate people, think that it's just something that will be overcome as we learn more.

                Incidently there may be a potentially max. temp. around 1E32K where physics breaks down so that all predictions fail.

                1. Dan 10

                  Re: Limits.

                  @Chemist. I find this interesting:

                  http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/20/warp-drives

                  "The drive works by using a wave to compress the spacetime in front of the spaceship while expanding the spacetime behind it. The ship itself would float in a "bubble" of normal spacetime that would float along the wave of compressed spacetime, like the way a surfer rides a break. The ship, inside the warp bubble, would apppear to be going faster than the speed of light relative to objects outside the bubble."

                  Now I'm no mathematician or physicist, but this seems to broadly concur with the Adelaide prof mentioned here?

                  1. Chemist

                    Re: Limits.

                    "The drive works by using a wave to compress the spacetime"

                    Sorry this has nothing to do with it. The so-called warp drive even if it eventually proves feasible allows a ship moving less than c to travel large distances quickly by altering spacetime using exotic matter and a great deal of energy.

                    1. roger stillick
                      Go

                      Re: Limits.

                      According to NASA at the Florida lab where a soccer ball sized field is being built,

                      the actual power needed to run the field is about 15 watts,

                      the power consumed currently by Voyager 1 and 2...

                2. Tom 13

                  Re: Limits.

                  The limit question in Special Relativity is intrinsically more nuanced and interesting. Einstein assumed continuous increase in acceleration. Quantum physics gives us discreet increases. The equations still work if V > c and you assume the i is an indicator of (for lack of a better term) a phase shift. Which is what these mathematicians explored.

                  Would I ever want to be the test monkey in an experimental device based on these assumptions? Hell no! But it can be fun to talk about, even though Al's musings based on practicality are probably spot on.

              3. Chemist

                Re: Limits.

                " drawing a comparison with a value which BY DEFINITION "

                Here's an experiment, you don' know anything about absolute zero, you have a good thermometer reading to low temperatures - doesn't matter what the scale reads in. You build various kinds of kit to produce lower and lower temps. At a certain point, to your amazement, the temperature doesn't go down anymore.

                You have reached a limit - the same throughout the universe - we merely define that as 0 K.

                In another universe with different parameters the limit will likely be different.

              4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                Re: Limits.

                the limit of lightspeed exists because of a practicality relating to mass

                Far more than that. Yes, there's a singularity in relativistic mass (and hence momentum, kinetic energy, etc) at C - but also in length and in time. And more importantly, FTL communication (which FTL travel implies) breaks causality.

                In short, it's not just the infinite-energy requirement that makes C the universal speed limit.

            2. Tom 7

              Re: Limits.

              I think you'll find the financial system is proof things existing below absolute zero.

              1. LaunchpadBS
                Trollface

                Re: Limits.

                @Tom7 that could also be the ideal argument for entropy :)

            3. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

              Re: Limits.

              Rubbish, Chemist! Your poopy-head facts are just a temporary hindrance to my sci-fi fueled optimism!

              First the speed of light will be broken, and your "absolute" zero will be shown up as positively balmy - Einstein said everything was relative after all, and he had a fine moustache. Then we'll move on to sub-planck length transistors and proving both P and not-P simultaneously.

              The human race is unstoppable! So stick that in your sciency-wiency-pipe, divide it by zero and smoke it.

              1. Chemist

                Re: Limits.

                @Androgynous Cupboard

                I do appreciate a well-reasoned argument. How about you provide one

            4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Happy

              Re: Limits.

              < *absolute* zero sounds reasonable = V. poor science education.

              *however* doubtful analogy.

              Ambiguity is the enemy of uniform upvoting.

          2. relpy
            Boffin

            Re: Limits.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

            1. Chemist

              Re: Limits.

              "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature"

              Now that you've found it try reading it and understanding what it actually means - here's a snipette :-

              "by contrast a system with a truly negative temperature in absolute terms on the kelvin scale is hotter than any system with a positive temperature. If a negative-temperature system and a positive-temperature system come in contact, heat will flow from the negative- to the positive-temperature system."

              1. relpy
                FAIL

                Re: Limits.

                And I quote : "(Hint : below absolute zero doesn't mean anything )".

              2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
                Boffin

                @Chemist

                Funny, I understood what that wiki article is saying, and, ironically, this is because of my training as a chemist.

                I think maybe a better comparison would be to say the temperature of an object cannot fall below absolute zero by passing though zero, principally because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents anything from ever being at absolute zero.

                To get to a temperature below absolute zero, a system has to have an upper bounded temperature, i.e. be a properly closed system with a finite number of states, when energy is pumped into such a system at the maximum temperature which is an asymptote, an inversion occurs, and the temperature becomes the minimum temperature of teh system, which is the negative of the abosulte maximum. This doesn't apply to everyday classical objects, but only to specific things, such as the energy states in the atoms comprising a laser, and similar quantum objects.

                The speed of light is a similar system, as an object approaces the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity. it is not possible to be at the speed of light, as the mass, and therefore energy would be infinite, but it may be possible to be beyond the speed of light, in which case the object in question would have to have negative mass/energy. In fact theoretical particles travelling at beyond the speed of light would have a lower limit for their speed of c and negative mass. We are essentially cut off from such theoretical particles, since they cannot slow down beyond the speed of light, and we cannot speed up past that point; the problem being the point in time at which the velocity is at c.

                1. Chemist

                  Re: @Chemist

                  "but it may be possible to be beyond the speed of light, in which case the object in question would have to have negative mass/energy."

                  I point this out below somewhere although earlier in the day.

                2. outinoregon

                  Re: @Chemist

                  What ?

                  maybe you're a chemist (?), but you ain't no physicist !!

                  1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  2. Chemist

                    Re: @Chemist

                    Well I am really a chemist (retired) but I've spent a lot of my time writing scientific software, protein modelling and utilising quantum mechanics. All these things have required rather a good knowledge of physics..

                    Your evidence ?? and indeed provenance as you only joined today so we've not had the benefit of your wisdom before.

                    1. relpy
                      Boffin

                      Re: @Chemist

                      I'm happy to believe you have a fine understanding of both physics and chemistry. Almost certainly better than mine. I've felt no need to down-vote you.

                      However when you make assertions along the lines of "science education is rubbish" you are kind of required to get your facts right thereafter.

                      You used as an example the fact that absolute zero is an absolute, and lower temperatures "have no meaning". I provided you with evidence that it does. Your response was to critcise me and assume I hadn't understood what I read. As it happens I believe I had understood it, and it told me your prior assertion was incorrect - negative temperatues do have meaning, albeit that meaning is rather esoteric by "normal" standards and is certainly not what the layman might consider "obvious".

                      High horses require high standards of their riders...

                      Not a boffin, just cold.

                      1. Chemist

                        Re: @Chemist

                        I was actually replying to a comment by outinoregan who suggested that I didn't without giving any evidence.

                        As for the negative temperature as you say that's rather esoteric and not directly related to my point. I apologise if I assumed that you had no understanding of the area but on these forums many people know enough to search/quote from the web but have no real knowledge of the subject.

                        My comment about "science education being rubbish" was due to several comments recently in the media where several pronouncements were made along the lines of "of course everything is possible" when clearly the history of the world, let alone science shows that there are almost certainly limits in certain directions.

                        1. relpy
                          Happy

                          Re: @Chemist

                          Fair enough.

                          I confess I too despair of the standard of some reporting of science, and even more of what seems like a general malaise towards the subject as a whole. Although to be honest probability and risk are possibly an even bigger issue (from a maths graduate who does the lottery now and again - so who am I to talk!)

                          I don't know a great about the subject to be honest, but I do know what absolute zero is (cold :-)

                          I hope somebody works out how to go faster than light, preferably without requiring more energy than exists in the universe, but I don't expect to see it for anything larger than a electron in what remains of my lifetime, if even that.

                          As for everything being possible, well, we only have theories to support our scientific view of the world. Theories are far easier to prove wrong than correct. Point here is that some of the key theories we're talking about are proving incredibly robust. A certain amount of cynicism is always warranted, in both directions.

                          But as you say - there are limits - and we should always aim to make decisions based upon the best available evidence, not superstition, hope (see above) or too much star trek.

                3. Bud

                  Re: @Chemist

                  I stopped reading when I saw the word 'asymptote' because it triggered a bad flashback. I'm feeling better now, thanks.

                  The speed of light is most obviously the ratio of time quantum to space quantum. Time and space are being created continuously (oops, I mean one quantum after the other, and quickly). With that in mind, you the readership might want to reconsider what is meant by 'at rest' and 'energy'.

                4. Roger Mew

                  Re: @Chemist

                  The problem to me seems to be what is the speed of light related to. Take a space craft traveling at almost the speed of light. Should a person on that craft be for example be watching a video and the screen in the tail and the person in the nose, would the picture never get to the viewer, yet he could walk to the TV as the body is on the same mass as the TV. (effectively just being a movable particle) or would he see the TV as normal so meaning that the speed of the light from the TV is actually travelling at "almost" 2 x the speed of light relative, well to what. Certainly not earth, because thats already clanking along at silly speeds.

                  1. Chemist

                    Re: @Chemist

                    Suggest you read-up on this - the predictions are all very weird but many have been experimentally confirmed.

                    Wikipedia's Special Relativity is reasonable as is Time dilation

                    If you are on a craft at near c the light you measure ( from the TV or otherwise) will be measured as traveling at c - that's the cornerstone of SR - the observer will always measure light - ANY light - as traveling at c. To reconcile the problems that brings up other measurement s have to give way - in particular time varies.

                    This may all sound silly but experiments all agree. Sub-atomic particles with a known short lifetime last longer at high speed and do so by exactly the amount that SR predicts.

                    Further down this topic someone mentions that IF a craft could reach close to c the traveler inside could tour the galaxy in a short time by their measure although thousands of years might have passed on Earth

                    Incidently GR also predicts time changes due to gravity, the closer to a large mass the slower time runs - these effects are also measured as predicted.

                    It's a weird universe.

                5. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Loyal Commenter

                  I think my brain just exploded.

              3. John Smith 19 Gold badge

                Re: Limits.

                "by contrast a system with a truly negative temperature in absolute terms on the kelvin scale is hotter than any system with a positive temperature. If a negative-temperature system and a positive-temperature system come in contact, heat will flow from the negative- to the positive-temperature system."

                So the temperature is a *ring*?

                Which of course begs the question where does the *top* of the ring end and start going "negative"?

                Bizarre.

            2. illiad

              Re: Limits. @ relpy

              I dont think that falls into the 'laymans' language...

              i,e, what is the closest 'black body' in the solar system???

              :) hint, it is something that reflects NO light.. all the planets do.. :)

              1. relpy
                Mushroom

                Re: Limits. @ relpy

                Reflects *NO* Light.

                Wouldn't want to be too hard on that.

                find the right requency and I think it might.

                Big and shiny not withstanding.

                (icon because that's what it is)

                (and okay, it reflects no light I grant you, to any measurable value of none).

          3. Denobin
            Linux

            Re: Limits.

            Two different things: Absolute zero is not a thing, it is a lack of a thing, in this case, energy (the same goes for darkness.) FTL is something that would require more energy; infinite maybe, but it is derived from something, not nothing.

      2. chrisf1

        Re: Limits.

        A shadow can travel (or be perceived to at any rate) faster than light. Not terribly functional mind.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: Limits.

          A shadow does not "travel" in any sense a reasonable intelligence would accept. Neither does an equation, an idea or a train of thought.

          Also, humans limited forever, no-go theorems, N is not NP, Gödel, the age of failed dreams (when we still watched the original Star Trek)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Destroy All Monsters - "humans limited forever"

            Bugger that!

            If true, what's the point in carrying on? We might just as well use genetic engineering to cut our fertility down to a level that allows the human species to gracefully fade away, if we accept that there is no use for our intelligence.

            I'll cling on to hope, thanks.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Destroy All Monsters - "humans limited forever"

              "If true, what's the point in carrying on? We might just as well use genetic engineering to cut our fertility down to a level that allows the human species to gracefully fade away, if we accept that there is no use for our intelligence."

              I think he probably meant faster than light travel was a no-go, not that there's no use for intelligence. There's more to life than clinging to some green-skinned space babe fantasy, mate. What that might be I don't know, but ...

            2. Tinker Tailor Soldier
              Go

              Re: @Destroy All Monsters - "humans limited forever"

              Even with relativity intact, you can get anywhere you like as fast as you want, (well, not counting pesky problems like getting bombarded with highly energetic particles caused by their relative blue-shift and the like). You just can't come back without massive time dilation. (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Paradox).

              So, kindof hard to run a Galactic empire, but, hey maybe that's for the best.

              1. Chemist

                Re: @Destroy All Monsters - "humans limited forever"

                "you can get anywhere you like as fast as you want"

                Assuming you have a means of generating the vast amount of energy required. - otherwise I agree

                1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                  Joke

                  Re: @Destroy All Monsters - "humans limited forever"

                  "Assuming you have a means of generating the vast amount of energy required."

                  Generating the energy required is left as an exercise for the student.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like