• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
irreversible

Possible neutrinos travel faster than light

52 posts in this topic

This is not a recent development, but the news becoming public regarding this is very fresh.

[url="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-faster.html"]CLICK[/url].
[url="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20110594-264/physics-shocker-neutrinos-clocked-faster-than-light/"]CLICK[/url].
[url="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/neutrinos-faster-than-light/"]CLICK[/url].

To recap: the Italians placed the speed of the neutrino marginally above the speed of light.

The speed of light is one of the cornerstones of the theory of relativity, which in turn is one of the fundamental cornerstones of life as we know it today. The results so far haven't been verified and aren't therefore conclusive. However the scientists involved have probably taken more care than most coders out there to make sure their results are as legit as possible. In that they have analyzed these results over [i]three years[/i] and at this time there simply is no other explanation. The results may be confirmed or disproved rather soon by two other independent parties (see articles).

It is probably safe to say that if they happened to confirm the results, relativity itself could take a position similar to what Newtonian physics was forced to take a century ago - as a passing stage between sticks and stones and a theory of everything. It would also rattle the cage we live in very unexpected ways. For instance, sending information back (and possibly forth) in time might all of a sudden become a practical problem rather than a theoretical one.

In other words, if these results were to be confirmed, we could be in for quite a ride.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd really love to see this confirmed, it'd be really interesting, and a great breakthrough in physics models! There are already so many mathematical models, this could throw many away and generate new ones :)

Maybe the "time" dimension works differently than we think, and since speed is time and distance related, weird properties of the time dimension can have an effect on lightspeed. Well, just making stuff up here, I'm not a physicist :)

But I can't say whether it's actually true or not until it has been confirmed over, and over, and over again, in different setups and locations.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's possible that the mass of the neutrino has been misgauged. We have proved that energy with a negative mass can exist (see: Negative energy) through experimentation. If negative energy is possible to produce then particles with a negative mass exist. If a neutrino actually had a negative mass, it would theoretically be able to travel faster than the speed of light without changing the current models of physics.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know through what these particles got sent? Do they just go through rock over this whole distance?

EDIT: Got the answer. Neutrinos travel through atoms unhindered. Edited by Lode
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chuck Norris decided to throw the particles over the mountains, which also explains the results.
Either that or they went through a vacuum tube..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1317034827' post='4866006']It would also rattle the cage we live in very unexpected ways. For instance, sending information back (and possibly forth) in time might all of a sudden become a practical problem rather than a theoretical one.

In other words, if these results were to be confirmed, we could be in for quite a ride.
[/quote]

Let me preempt a few pages of rambling nonsense: no, that 'might' not happen by any reasonable interpretation of the word 'might'. Relativity never even hinted at the possibility of time travel (im affraid you are confusing relativity theory and science fiction), and neither will whatever theory comes out of this. All we know theoretically and experimentally is that one can put a damper on the passage of time; nowhere is it implied that one can qualitatively change the arrow of time, infact relativity theory explicitly requires this cannot be done, and this experiment doesnt change a single thing about that fact.

The core ideas behind relativity will remain firmly standing of course, notwithstanding sensationalism to the contrary. This result is entirely consistent with the notion of a fundamental speed limit to propagation through the vacuum; and all this entails, ie the core tennets of relativity theory. Perhaps just like most particles, photons dont quite reach that maximum speed. The vacuum is to photons less 'empty' than to neutrinos, since a photon would interact much more strongly with whatever there does be, in terms of quantum fluctuations or trace amounts of particles, so it makes sense from that point of view; if mass isnt the only interaction to hinder a particle from moving through the vacuum at full speed, then neutrinos would be a good contender to photons for the candidate of fastest particle, since they are very light indeed and barely interact with anything at all, as opposed to the rather promiscuous photons.

The upheaval will mainly be theoretical rather than practical. String theory or other hubristic frameworks which start out by taking the speed of light as an axiomatic property are all in rather deep trouble if this will be confirmed.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too would love for this to be confirmed, because that would open up the future for quite a lot more science and understanding of our universe. Not that I suspect we're running out of ideas on how to improve our understanding, but jarring results like this are always fun.

I just don't see it happening, really. It's such an unlikely thing to be true, given what we know. And since it's only happened in one instance that we've set up, I strongly suspect that it's really just a fluke in the experiment. Not being a quantum physicist, I can't begin to conjecture what they messed up, but that's definitely where I'd start with the finger pointing.

Of course, it would be amazing if we did end up discovering a way to communicate FTL or develop FTL drives based on this somehow, but that's a pretty lofty hope indeed. :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1317046265' post='4866066']
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1317034827' post='4866006']It would also rattle the cage we live in very unexpected ways. For instance, sending information back (and possibly forth) in time might all of a sudden become a practical problem rather than a theoretical one.

In other words, if these results were to be confirmed, we could be in for quite a ride.
[/quote]

Let me preempt a few pages of rambling nonsense: no, that 'might' not happen by any reasonable interpretation of the word 'might'. Relativity never even hinted at the possibility of time travel (im affraid you are confusing relativity theory and science fiction), and neither will whatever theory comes out of this. All we know theoretically and experimentally is that one can put a damper on the passage of time; nowhere is it implied that one can qualitatively change the arrow of time, infact relativity theory explicitly requires this cannot be done, and this experiment doesnt change a single thing about that fact.

The core ideas behind relativity will remain firmly standing of course, notwithstanding sensationalism to the contrary. This result is entirely consistent with the notion of a fundamental speed limit to propagation through the vacuum; and all this entails, ie the core tennets of relativity theory. Perhaps just like most particles, photons dont quite reach that maximum speed. The vacuum is to photons less 'empty' than to neutrinos, since a photon would interact much more strongly with whatever there does be, in terms of quantum fluctuations or trace amounts of particles, so it makes sense from that point of view; if mass isnt the only interaction to hinder a particle from moving through the vacuum at full speed, then neutrinos would be a good contender to photons for the candidate of fastest particle, since they are very light indeed and barely interact with anything at all, as opposed to the rather promiscuous photons.

The upheaval will mainly be theoretical rather than practical. String theory or other hubristic frameworks which start out by taking the speed of light as an axiomatic property are all in rather deep trouble if this will be confirmed.
[/quote]


Uh, Photons do too reach the maximum speed of light.....Photons are massless particles that move unhindered because gravity only exerts a pull upon things with mass....since it has no mass gravity can't slow it down and so it travels at the maximum speed of the universe.

Also, its possible to travel faster than the speed of light by using negative energy to bend spacetime.... therefore it is possible that the neutrino possibly has the effect of bending spacetime or it consists of a negative mass.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eelco, it's not my intention to postempt your preemption, but I'd just like to point out that the notion of time travel could be far more elusive if this were to be true. If the bulk of information is limited to light speed and [i]regular matter is bound by that limit as such[/i], then for all intents and purposes a particle that travels faster than light is travelling back in time. I do not claim that time travel is possible, which is why I wrote: "[color=#1C2837][size=2]It would also rattle the cage we live in very unexpected ways". IF harnessing this were possible in practice, then sending bits of information doesn't necessarily amount to time travel in a traditional sense.[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]Also, while I'm not too well versed on the topic of neutrinos, it is my understanding that they are not that well understood themselves. Based on this I have to assume that it might not be possible to use neutrinos to carry information so much as they are relics that simply are. I don't think Relativity Theory is in any danger of being debunked. Neither do I think the Standard Model is or String Theory are for that matter - while String Theory is a topic in and of itself, there hasn't been a case in history where either the Standard Model or Relativity Theory, when applicable, has fallen flat on its chest. Yet, the Standard Model is literally missing its most important component. If this implies anything, then it is that we're not wrong, but we're rather just not there yet.[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]Regarding time travel - I mentioned nothing about the arrow of time. Also, on a side note - it might be an interesting dabble into science fiction to open another topic and try and fantasize what the arrow of time actually is and why we perceive it the way we do. Because I don't believe anyone really has an idea.[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]>> The upheaval will mainly be theoretical rather than practical.[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]Let's agree to disagree in that I prefer to remain more hopeful and wouldn't put something as fundamental past the [/size][/color][color=#1C2837][size=2]next [/size][/color][color=#1C2837][size=2]potential[/size][/color][color=#1C2837][size=2] great discovery just yet, even if the discovery itself might be postponed beyond my lifetime. Although, I do agree that there doesn't seem to be much practicality in this at face value.[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]At the end of the day, though, the guys at the lab went public with this because they couldn't figure this out on their own. They could be poking out their left eye tomorrow morning when some 13 year old points out that they'd accidentally switched their gear to imperial instead of metric when someone spilled their morning coffee.[/size][/color]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1317052673' post='4866103']
Eelco, it's not my intention to postempt your preemption, but I'd just like to point out that the notion of time travel could be far more elusive if this were to be true. If the bulk of information is limited to light speed and [i]regular matter is bound by that limit as such[/i], then for all intents and purposes a particle that travels faster than light is travelling back in time. I do not claim that time travel is possible, which is why I wrote: "[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]It would also rattle the cage we live in very unexpected ways". IF harnessing this were possible in practice, then sending bits of information doesn't necessarily amount to time travel in a traditional sense.[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]
[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]Also, while I'm not too well versed on the topic of neutrinos, it is my understanding that they are not that well understood themselves. Based on this I have to assume that it might not be possible to use neutrinos to carry information so much as they are relics that simply are. I don't think Relativity Theory is in any danger of being debunked. Neither do I think the Standard Model is or String Theory are for that matter - while String Theory is a topic in and of itself, there hasn't been a case in history where either the Standard Model or Relativity Theory, when applicable, has fallen flat on its chest. Yet, the Standard Model is literally missing its most important component. If this implies anything, then it is that we're not wrong, but we're rather just not there yet.[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]
[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]Regarding time travel - I mentioned nothing about the arrow of time. Also, on a side note - it might be an interesting dabble into science fiction to open another topic and try and fantasize what the arrow of time actually is and why we perceive it the way we do. Because I don't believe anyone really has an idea.[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]
[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]>> The upheaval will mainly be theoretical rather than practical.[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]
[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]Let's agree to disagree in that I prefer to remain more hopeful and wouldn't put something as fundamental past the [/size][/color][color="#1c2837"][size="2"]next [/size][/color][color="#1c2837"][size="2"]potential[/size][/color][color="#1c2837"][size="2"] great discovery just yet, even if the discovery itself might be postponed beyond my lifetime. Although, I do agree that there doesn't seem to be much practicality in this at face value.[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]
[/size][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]At the end of the day, though, the guys at the lab went public with this because they couldn't figure this out on their own. They could be poking out their left eye tomorrow morning when some 13 year old points out that they'd accidentally switched their gear to imperial instead of metric when someone spilled their morning coffee.[/size][/color]
[/quote]

If a neutrino were traveling faster than light, it doesnt mean that its traveling backwards in time. Time is not a real, its a manmade concept. Our concept of Time moves at the speed of light so if anything it would be moving forward in time at a faster rate than the universe itself.

I'm sticking with my negative mass concept. Possitive mass gets pulled by gravity. The more mass the more it gets pulled and the slower it becomes. At 0 mass (photon) there is no pull or exertion and so it is allowed to travel unhindered. If you apply negative mass, instead of gravity pulling, it would push. If you push something thats already traveling at the speed of light it would travel faster, logically.

However its not possible for a particle with positive mass to travel at the speed of light. The universe actually slows what we call time down when approaching the speed of light so that it remains impossible to achieve. Instead we can move objects and a very close fraction to the speed of light.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dysphoric' timestamp='1317052035' post='4866101']
Uh, Photons do too reach the maximum speed of light.....[b]Photons are massless particles[/b] that move unhindered because gravity only exerts a pull upon things with mass....
[/quote]

That's not true. Photons DO have a mass, however they don't have a rest mass (I hope this is the right word, in german it's called "Ruhemasse"). If photons had no mass then light could not be bent, however it is possible in extremely strong gravitational fields. These kinds of distortions are actually used to detect black holes (the quiet ones ;) ).

*edit*

I can't find an english source, but [url="http://www.quantenwelt.de/faq/masse.html"]this[/url] (beware, german) is what I'm talking about. But according to that source, "bewegte masse" (moving mass, or something like that) just seems to be another word for energy. It renders my comment somewhat pointless :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dysphoric' timestamp='1317053344' post='4866106']
If a neutrino were traveling faster than light, it doesnt mean that its traveling backwards in time. Time is not a real, its a manmade concept. Our concept of Time moves at the speed of light so if anything it would be moving forward in time at a faster rate than the universe itself.
[/quote]

You're right - time is not real: it's part of something [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity"]more fundamental[/url] called spacetime. Passage through spacetime happens at constant speed (an increase in velocity is only possible at the account giving up velocity of passage through time) according to currently accepted theory. If the neutrino violates this limit then it violates the most fundamental physical limitation there is and in this case would effectively travel back in time.


Consider this where the x-axis is velocity through space and the y-axis is velocity through time. By maximizing your velocity through space you minimize your velocity through time. At a certain point (light speed) you reach a limit where time literally comes to a standstill. According Special Relativity nothing can travel underneath the horizontal axis, which is precisely what happens when you cross this threshold.
[center][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Relativity_of_Simultaneity.svg/220px-Relativity_of_Simultaneity.svg.png[/img]
[/center]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='SiS-Shadowman' timestamp='1317053772' post='4866109']
[quote name='dysphoric' timestamp='1317052035' post='4866101']
Uh, Photons do too reach the maximum speed of light.....[b]Photons are massless particles[/b] that move unhindered because gravity only exerts a pull upon things with mass....
[/quote]

That's not true. Photons DO have a mass, however they don't have a rest mass (I hope this is the right word, in german it's called "Ruhemasse"). If photons had no mass then light could not be bent, however it is possible in extremely strong gravitational fields. These kinds of distortions are actually used to detect black holes (the quiet ones ;) ).

*edit*

I can't find an english source, but [url="http://www.quantenwelt.de/faq/masse.html"]this[/url] (beware, german) is what I'm talking about. But according to that source, "bewegte masse" (moving mass, or something like that) just seems to be another word for energy. It renders my comment somewhat pointless :)


[/quote]


Thats such a contradictory statement. How can a photon have no resting mass? When is a photon standing still? In order to slow a photon down it would have to have mass..... I think newtonian gravity is flawed.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1317046265' post='4866066']
snip[/quote]

What are you talking about the theory of relatively does talk about time and therefore time travel. According to the theory of relatively the faster something travels the slower time passes for that object. Also the higher the gravity around an object the slower time passes for it. Therefore if you travel faster than the speed of light, according to the equation, you would go backwards in time. The notion of time travel was originally proposed by scientist studying relatively, not science fiction writers. Now you are right in saying that it if this is thing about neutrinos is true it doesn't mean that time travel is anymore possible because it only applies to neutrinos.

You also bring up another good point in that neutrinos might go faster than photos because photos are attracted to some many things which causes them to slow down. If this is the case then all that means it that the speed of light is slightly faster than we thought it was before, which would only slightly alter the results of any equation using the speed of light in it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For these sort of news, I think it's best to check out the [url="http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html"]official CERN Press release on this subject[/url], or the [url="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf"]actual paper detailing the experiment and the results[/url], and for the lazy, here is a [url="http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486"]web cast[/url], with one of the scientist discussing and defending the aforementioned paper (it's long). Pay attention to comments during question time, it's very interesting.

In a nutshell, the authors were not making any deductions, assumptions, nor any theoretical assertions about what was observed. The paper simply described the methodology, discussed the results, and left open for scrutiny. No doubt, the experiment will be dissected in great detail.

I'm betting there is probably a systematic error somewhere in the experiment which skewed the results.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='SiS-Shadowman' timestamp='1317053772' post='4866109']
[quote name='dysphoric' timestamp='1317052035' post='4866101']
Uh, Photons do too reach the maximum speed of light.....[b]Photons are massless particles[/b] that move unhindered because gravity only exerts a pull upon things with mass....
[/quote]

That's not true. Photons DO have a mass, however they don't have a rest mass (I hope this is the right word, in german it's called "Ruhemasse"). If photons had no mass then light could not be bent, however it is possible in extremely strong gravitational fields. These kinds of distortions are actually used to detect black holes (the quiet ones ;) ).

*edit*

I can't find an english source, but [url="http://www.quantenwelt.de/faq/masse.html"]this[/url] (beware, german) is what I'm talking about. But according to that source, "bewegte masse" (moving mass, or something like that) just seems to be another word for energy. It renders my comment somewhat pointless :)


[/quote]


Photons don't have mass. They are bent by black holes because space time is warped by black holes. What you are refering to is an increase in kinetic engery.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1317054449' post='4866115']
[quote name='dysphoric' timestamp='1317053344' post='4866106']
If a neutrino were traveling faster than light, it doesnt mean that its traveling backwards in time. Time is not a real, its a manmade concept. Our concept of Time moves at the speed of light so if anything it would be moving forward in time at a faster rate than the universe itself.
[/quote]

You're right - time is not real: it's part of something [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity"]more fundamental[/url] called spacetime. Passage through spacetime happens at constant speed (an increase in velocity is only possible at the account giving up velocity of passage through time) according to currently accepted theory. If the neutrino violates this limit then it violates the most fundamental physical limitation there is and in this case would effectively travel back in time.


Consider this where the x-axis is velocity through space and the y-axis is velocity through time. By maximizing your velocity through space you minimize your velocity through time. At a certain point (light speed) you reach a limit where time literally comes to a standstill. According Special Relativity nothing can travel underneath the horizontal axis, which is precisely what happens when you cross this threshold.
[center][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Relativity_of_Simultaneity.svg/220px-Relativity_of_Simultaneity.svg.png[/img]
[/center]
[/quote]

Yeah that makes sense except the fact that you'd travel backwards in time. If you traveled faster than the speed of light from point A to point B then you'd arive before a wave of light traveling the same distance at the same time. If we apply that to spacetime, then you'd arive at a point in time faster than the rest of spacetime, thus traveling foward into the future.

Edit: Okay no...Sorry Im an idiot and I need sleep lol. If you arrive at a point before it happened then you're effectively traveling backwards. Duh. Forget my other statement.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One way to visualise how light is affected by gravity, imagine space time is like a flow of a tide or a medium and you are trying to go against it. At some point the tide is going to so fast that you can not counter it at your maximum speed, therefore you are swept with it... into a black hole.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tachikoma' timestamp='1317056253' post='4866132']
One way to visualise how light is affected by gravity, imagine space time is like a flow of a tide or a medium and you are trying to go against it. At some point the tide is going to so fast that you can not counter it at your maximum speed, therefore you are swept with it... into a black hole.
[/quote]


Black holes are not the only things to effect the speed of light. Explain this.

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1"]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1[/url]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm putting my money on a fluctuation on the space-time plane and for that specific moment, the emitter and the detector were 60 feet closer to each other. No laws broken.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dysphoric' timestamp='1317056579' post='4866136']
[quote name='Tachikoma' timestamp='1317056253' post='4866132']
One way to visualise how light is affected by gravity, imagine space time is like a flow of a tide or a medium and you are trying to go against it. At some point the tide is going to so fast that you can not counter it at your maximum speed, therefore you are swept with it... into a black hole.
[/quote]


Black holes are not the only things to effect the speed of light. Explain this.

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1"]http://abcnews.go.co...id=99111&page=1[/url]
[/quote]

The speed of light changes depending on medium. It travels fastest in a vacuum. Its nothing new. Its like trying to get to the front of the mosh pit, to many particles to interact with


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Discount_Flunky' timestamp='1317054850' post='4866119']
[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1317046265' post='4866066']
snip[/quote]

What are you talking about the theory of relatively does talk about time and therefore time travel. According to the theory of relatively the faster something travels the slower time passes for that object. Also the higher the gravity around an object the slower time passes for it. Therefore if you travel faster than the speed of light, according to the equation, you would go backwards in time. The notion of time travel was originally proposed by scientist studying relatively, not science fiction writers.
[/quote]

O RLLY?

Indeed, more velocity means slower passing of time; but clearly the geometry of the equation doesnt allow for the extrapolation you posit here, since time dilation as a function of v isnt even differentiable at v==c; it has an infinite slope. The correct extrapolation of ever more velocity isnt into negative time; the correct extrapolation is that the function doesnt extend into the v>c domain at all cause it completely curves away from that domain and doesnt point toward it at all.

Try and plug v > c into the formula for time dilation; you dont get a negative number as your naive extrapolation would have, but an imaginary one. An imaginary flow of time... indeed a concept more apt for science fiction writers than scientists. (or perhaps scientists looking to pry funding loose from people who never looked at the math themselves)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1317063684' post='4866176']
[quote name='Discount_Flunky' timestamp='1317054850' post='4866119']
[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1317046265' post='4866066']
snip[/quote]

What are you talking about the theory of relatively does talk about time and therefore time travel. According to the theory of relatively the faster something travels the slower time passes for that object. Also the higher the gravity around an object the slower time passes for it. Therefore if you travel faster than the speed of light, according to the equation, you would go backwards in time. The notion of time travel was originally proposed by scientist studying relatively, not science fiction writers.
[/quote]

O RLLY?

Indeed, more velocity means slower passing of time; but clearly the geometry of the equation doesnt allow for the extrapolation you posit here, since time dilation as a function of v isnt even differentiable at v==c; it has an infinite slope. The correct extrapolation of ever more velocity isnt into negative time; the correct extrapolation is that the function doesnt extend into the v>c domain at all cause it completely curves away from that domain and doesnt point toward it at all.

Try and plug v > c into the formula for time dilation; you dont get a negative number as your naive extrapolation would have, but an imaginary one. An imaginary flow of time... indeed a concept more apt for science fiction writers than scientists. (or perhaps scientists looking to pry funding loose from people who never looked at the math themselves)
[/quote]

When you put v = c you get 0 which means times stops for the object. The thing is though that getting anything to go the speed of light that has mass takes infinite energy, because things also get more massive the faster they go. According to the equation mass is infinite at the speed of light therefore the energy needed to go faster then the speed of light is impossible to reach. That is way the possibility of Neutrioes going faster then light is so freaky, because that implies that there is a loop hole in relativity.

When most scientist speak of time travel mostly they speak of using something like a black hole's gravity field to make yourself live way longer then you normally would so that you can see the future. The only way to got to the past would be a worm hole, and those haven't been proven yet. Also you could only go back to the time that the worm hole was created.

Edit: Also just because something sounds far fetched it doesn't mean it's form or should only be mentioned in science fiction. There's a lot crazy science out there. For instance many scientists are starting to find proof that humans have a sixth sense.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0