Can something move faster than light?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

past the speed of light cannot be reached. light itself can only go its speed because of the law that the faster you go, the slower time goes. if you go the speed of light, time stops, and so you go the speed of light. i think the speed of light is acually infinity if you are the thing going the speed of light, but to the observer, or even precise instruments, you are going slower. the only time this has probobly been reached is during the big bang, when the whole universe blew apart.

You are assuming 'the big bang' actually took place. You are assuming that SR is valid. You call them 'laws' but they're merely theories and theories have a way of being replaced as we see things more clearly.

There are examples of observations contradicting theory. We were taught that nothing escapes from a black hole. But now we find out that black holes regularly eject matter. Isn't that enough to give pause to the theory? We give light two properties depending on what we want to prove: particle or wave? As the church lady would say, "conVENient".

My point, I guess, is to be careful what we believe is absolute. There are absolutes. The problem, however, is finding them.

[niin]

Can something move faster than light?

What do you think - can anything move faster than light?

 

Depends on what "something" is.

If you have something big like an apple...no

If you have something "smaller" than light...yes

by "smaller" i mean...more stable (less relative movement compared to self)

 

Right now i dont think you can get "smaller" than "light" so i would say...no, something can't move faster than light.

[IDMclean]

We were taught not that nothing escaped a black hole but that only gravity escaped a black hole.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

We were taught not that nothing escaped a black hole but that only gravity escaped a black hole.

It takes courage to believe something to be true ... but it takes more to throw one out. I suppose it could also be said that the more beliefs one throws out the more one would tend to be critical of new beliefs. Maybe the birth of a skeptic comes from the act of throwing out beliefs.

[Nammy]

A proper thread to mark the 5oth death anniv. of Albert Einstein.

 

An interesting topic that is coming up is that the speed of light may not be constant. Ref : Cosmic Log: April 17-22, 2005 - Cosmic Log - MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7549794/#050418a

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Hello! I will shorten my name at a later time... to; madone (My name is Millard Alexander Dorsey, so MAD are my initials , I use madeone, or mad#1, or mad 123456... Hi.

 

Yes something can move faster than light. The speed of thought. In certain quantum (level 4) evaluations; a plasma type Universe can allow real particles (not wave lenghts, light) to escape time and distance and occur instantly. This would mean that the thought could travel any distance and cause an effect where ever it landed. As we all know to objects that collied will change one another for ever. If you have ever awakend, from a random dream, in a cold sweat or just plain woke up , then as soon as you try to get back to the dream (semi-subconsious thought) ..it's gone. Remember with your eyes closed in your room with the lights out your Brain or your Universal Receptacle is free to conduct quantum activities..

 

madone

[Michaelangelica]

We were taught not that nothing escaped a black hole but that only gravity escaped a black hole.

 

I read somewhere that something (light?) was spewing OUT of some black holes.

(it was yet another incomphehensible Physics Book that sounds like it all makes sense when you read it -then you try -like now- to explain it and go Eh Um ? . . .ERRR. . ?)

Would this mean that the "something" is faster than light?

Michael (Confused)

[Jay-qu]

try searching these forums for hawking radiation :cup:

[Michaelangelica]

try searching these forums for hawking radiation :cup:

 

Thanks. It was probably Hawking I was reading. He always explains things so simply but then you put the book down and realise you haven't a clue!

Nice pic here for the literal/visual mined ones like me

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html

and a great explanation here

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html

"Hawking Radiation

In 1975 Hawking published a shocking result: if one takes quantum theory into account, it seems that black holes are not quite black! Instead, they should glow slightly with "Hawking radiation", consisting of photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles. This has never been observed, since the only black holes we have evidence for are those with lots of hot gas falling into them, whose radiation would completely swamp this tiny effect. Indeed, if the mass of a black hole is M solar masses, Hawking predicted it should glow like a blackbody of temperature

 

(6 x 10-8/M) kelvin,

 

so only for very small black holes would this radiation be significant. Still, the effect is theoretically very interesting, and folks working on understanding how quantum theory and gravity fit together have spent a lot of energy trying to understand it and its consequences. The most drastic consequence is that a black hole, left alone and unfed, should radiate away its mass, slowly at first but then faster and faster as it shrinks, finally dying in a blaze of glory like a hydrogen bomb. However, the total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses works out to be

1071 M3 seconds

so don't wait around for a big one to give up the ghost

 

So the question is: "Does this stuff that is leaving a black hole need an escape velocity faster than light?"

 

Thankyou for the tip on Hawking radiation

Michael

[InfiniteNow]

So the question is: "Does this stuff that is leaving a black hole need an escape velocity faster than light?"

 

Thankyou for the tip on Hawking radiation

Michael,

 

Jay-qu was referring to the search function within Hypography. It's one of the options toward the top right of your screen. Hawking Radiation has been explained many times in the forums. Be sure to read those explanations and, if AFTER doing so you still have questions, ask them then.

 

 

Cheers.

[Jay-qu]

Thankyou for the tip on Hawking radiation

Michael

 

Thats ok, any time :)

 

I was actually refering to a search within hypography as InfNow said, but it doesnt matter you seem to have found your info all the same :D

[Qfwfq]

Does this stuff that is leaving a black hole need an escape velocity faster than light?

No, it comes from outside the event horizon, although it is also energy coming from within. I think it's akin to the Esaki effect, also known as "tunnel" effect.

[Michaelangelica]

Michael,

 

Jay-qu was referring to the search function within Hypography. It's one of the options toward the top right of your screen. Hawking Radiation has been explained many times in the forums. Be sure to read those explanations and, if AFTER doing so you still have questions, ask them then.

 

 

Cheers.

thanks I tried that but found the seach function too difuse (I ended up with a long list of topics with even longer posts to wade though tring to find the reference. I found google much better. Is there away of refining the search function that I don't know about?

Thankyou for you advice, help and concern for a very newbe

Michael

[Jay-qu]

there is an advanced search - it has many other options for refining you search ;) I would suggest searching thread titles only and see what comes up.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This probably doesn't relate to this discussion but can anyone explain why we think we understand what the total mass of the universe should be? I've heard discussions of dark matter making up the difference between what we see and what we expect. What are the basic assumptions that allowed us to assume we know what the mass should be?

[Michaelangelica]

This is cute Check it out

(only for the confused)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/explore/einstein/lightstory.htm

"The Nature of Light

Is light a particle or a wave? Albert Einstein showed that it was both! Find out how it works by clicking on the play button."

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

:surprise: Gentlemen as you go back and forthward the question of matter breaking apart is the realativity we seek. I contend that the speed of thought travels from point A to point B instantly regardless of the distance, you guys forget that atomic mass has a calculated weight. How much does a particle (not wave) of thought weigh? In the 4th level of the Quantum Wave Mechanics you will find that "Synchronicity" should be of interest. QUOTE=EWright]Serg, you can't simply make up assumptions with no basis and then challenge someone to prove them wrong from within a framework in which the laws of physics are not understood. I do agree with trying to push the envelope, and with presenting new and even unusual ideas, but if we want to present challenges in this way the possibilities are endless. And you can't just 'invent' matter that won't break apart. If you can do that, we can just invent a spaceship that travels faster than light, right here in normal space because it all takes place in our minds.