Beyond Lightspeed


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Beyond Lightspeed

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1299898 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 19:12:50 UTC - in response to Message 1299801.
Last modified: 28 Oct 2012, 19:13:19 UTC

I think I have a very good question, they claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old. But surly we aren't sitting right smack in the middle so how do they derive 13.7 vs maybe 27.4 or something older.

There's a few indicators that have made them come up with the 13-14 billion year old number.

Observation indicates that the universe is expanding. (Cue JG and his 'there ain't no such thing as red-shift' rant! ;0) ) If things are expanding then it follows that things were closer together in the past. Calculate backward in time and somewhere between 10 and 15 billion years ago everything would have been condensed to a point.

Assuming that science's best guess on stellar evolution is accurate (and I tend to think it is) then red dwarf stars can have very long lives. Some could last for hundreds of billions of years. Yet, we see no stars of any sort that are more than 10 – 12 billion years old.

There are some other reasons for the 13.4 billion year estimate but the reasoning is heavily mathematical, somewhat arcane and I'll let someone who is a better author that I am to explain.
____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1502
Credit: 749,203
RAC: 267
Message 1299929 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 20:29:19 UTC
Last modified: 28 Oct 2012, 20:30:59 UTC

The story generally being told is that the Universe is some 13.7 billion years old of age.

Is the reason for this assumption about the age of the Universe that we think that the Big Bang took place 13.7 billion years ago?

Should we then assume that the size of the Universe is 13.7 billion light years across from one end of it to the other?

I have read a couple of places that the estimated size of the Universe is some 80-85 billion light years across. Regardless of this size or number either being measured in "diameter" or "radius" - do we know which shape the Universe is having?

Earlier on I also came across a speculative particle known as a "tachyon" which was thought of as having the ability to travel through space beyond the speed of light. I have not looked up this particle yet so I have still to find out more.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1749
Credit: 583,045
RAC: 35
United States
Message 1299991 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 23:06:41 UTC

Maybe the ultimate question is "Why is the speed of light fixed?" and then "What makes 186,000mps special?" Why not 200,000 mps?
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1502
Credit: 749,203
RAC: 267
Message 1300032 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 0:50:26 UTC - in response to Message 1299991.
Last modified: 29 Oct 2012, 0:52:44 UTC

Albert Einstein's famous equation states that E=mc2.

But where is time in all of this? Are we able to assume t or T for time and if so, is it a constant?

Are we assuming all the time that the speed of light is a constant as well?

Or maybe c rather is dependant on its environment or surroundings?

We only know that time is known to be coming to a standstill inside the event horizon of black holes - the point where light or any other particles are unable to escape because of immense gravity.

Possibly it may be more to it than only this way of viewing things. Time has been shown to speed up within certain areas or spots where extraterrestrial crafts have been thought to have landed here on earth. Therefore time is only relevant to the observer as seen from his or her point.

We all have a sense of time as it is being generally described. For example the following question:

What is the definition of the length of a second?

You are always supposed to be late. Time is running when an important meeting is scheduled and you are in the morning rush and will not get there in time.

Never mind. Better relax and let time run its own course.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,517,491
RAC: 14,044
United Kingdom
Message 1300177 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 11:12:22 UTC

Time has been shown to speed up within certain areas or spots where extraterrestrial crafts have been thought to have landed here on earth.

Evidence?

What is the definition of the length of a second?

As if you didn't know ....

Since 1967, the international second has been defined to be:

The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1300256 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 16:22:35 UTC

here's my problem with anything traveling close to the speed of light. weight or mass for a better term. Any object with any mass traveling at, near, or beyond light speed would have a distinct gravitational pull on objects it passes. More mass equals greater pull at light speed I see this as being dangerous. Since it potentially could pull asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space objects into different orbits. Or worse pull these objects in behind the light speed object. When the lightspeed object(assuming spaceship) slows it could have dozens if not hundreds of objects coming at it from thje rear
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8815
Credit: 63,042,244
RAC: 78,165
United Kingdom
Message 1300360 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 21:09:15 UTC

Time can be distorted as speed increases, as predicted by Einstein's theories. I can't recall the exact logic, because I never had to consider that particular corner of his work while doing my work at very low temperatures (77K = too hot, sub 4K = normal, even a few trips to sub 1K...) - you can have real fun with liquid helium and tomatoes, but that's a different story....
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1502
Credit: 749,203
RAC: 267
Message 1300369 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 21:40:18 UTC
Last modified: 29 Oct 2012, 21:49:37 UTC

If something like time should be able to be distorted, you possibly could be able to have a "field" in which time exists or is present when it comes to its existence or precence and possibly be able to come up with a definition of such a "field".

Not necessarily meaning or implying a "gravitational field".

Otherwise there has been the usual way of thinking that gravity and time is closely related to each other and that other factors may not be equally as important in this context.

In which way is it possible to make a definition of a "field" when it comes to the subject of time?

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8815
Credit: 63,042,244
RAC: 78,165
United Kingdom
Message 1300378 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 22:12:14 UTC

It is easier of you consider "time" as an n-dimensional plane than a linear object. By doing so you can have the time-plane distort without disturbing our geometric planes, or you can distort our geometric planes without affecting the time-plane. Once you've done this transformation you can start to think about exceeding the speed of light in our set of geometric planes, but without exceeding it in the time-plane. The maths is in the "quite exciting" club until you give up trying to work everything back to our view of geometry....


This reminds me of an old sci-fi book that started with the phrase "Time was proceeding at it usual rate of one second per second", and ended, two hundred odd (very odd) pages later with the phrase "Time was one more proceeding at its usual rate of one second per second".
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1300467 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 6:44:26 UTC

but in the emptiness of space.. there is no 'mass' :P
____________

Profile SciManStevProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4908
Credit: 84,363,605
RAC: 29,431
United States
Message 1300490 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 10:19:50 UTC - in response to Message 1300467.

but in the emptiness of space.. there is no 'mass' :P

Even in empty space, there is about one hydrogen atom per size of a grape fruit, so not even space is completely void of mass. Years ago, I read of a possible earth based space craft that could theoretically obtain about 86% of the speed of light that would shaped like a huge scoop close to the size of the moon, that would scoop up those hydrogen atoms, and fuse them as a propulsion source that is self fueling. Of course that is not practicle, but theoretically possible.

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,517,491
RAC: 14,044
United Kingdom
Message 1300527 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 13:26:38 UTC

There are various theories about "sling shots" around the sun to launch vehicles into interstellar sapce at near light speeds.

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8815
Credit: 63,042,244
RAC: 78,165
United Kingdom
Message 1300550 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 20:06:11 UTC

Mass is a "funny", it is the result of an interaction between gravity and particles, or an interaction between gravity and a wave. Now in which set of dimensions does this interaction occur? That entirely depends on the model you are using.




Can I take another aspirin now please - I'm getting a headache thinking about the prospects of distorting our geometric set of planes in the time domain in such a way that it becomes possible to move faster than light, but without increasing the mass of the object you are trying to move within the geometric/time set of planes....
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,517,491
RAC: 14,044
United Kingdom
Message 1300568 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 20:52:42 UTC

If only we could trick physics into thinking that an object didn't have any mass, then faster than light speed would be possible.

wibble wibble

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8815
Credit: 63,042,244
RAC: 78,165
United Kingdom
Message 1300573 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 21:08:22 UTC

The problem isn't so much fooling physics as being able to manipulate the correct set of dimensions without upsetting our normal set of dimensions.
Our normal set of dimensions, the "geometric", "temporal time" and "gravity" relate to each other in a predicable manner, however there is a lot of theory around that indicates that this relationship is actually controlled by another set of dimensions, which, if we could manipulate them would allow us to change the relationship between say non-temporal-time and temporal-time in such a a way that we could proceed through temporal-time at say 0.001ts per nts, thus be able to approach light speed in our time domain...
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1502
Credit: 749,203
RAC: 267
Message 1300582 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 21:42:51 UTC
Last modified: 30 Oct 2012, 21:50:20 UTC

We happen to know that mass represent extraordinarily amounts of energy because of Einstein's famous equation E=mc2.

Gravity is known to be bending space and time and mass is also the reason for gravity and gravitational fields.

Isaac Newton's three laws of gravity are dealing with this subject. The third law of his is quite complex.

I happened to watch a video from hurricane Sandy coming across and was watching the waves coming ashore from the ocean as a result of this hurricane.

Energy is being moved through the water by means of the waves. When such a wave hits you, the power of it is readily being felt.

The amount of water in the wave shows up by means of the amount of energy passing through it in order to make up a wave of the same amount of water, setting it in motion.

A wave is a constantly or continuously upgoing or downgoing curve. Traveling upwards and downwards along such a wave, it does not represent the shortest line between two separate points when it comes to a straight line.

All particles could be thought of or regarded as waves. Rather than waves we could assume that particles represent energy instead.

Physicists are assuming that Planck's constant is the smallest number which could be related to things in nature directly.

An Adobe Flash Player model mentioned here earlier could be used as an illustration or diagram for this purpose.

On this scale everything that is present or showing up should be waves at best, not necessarily particles.

Gravity is related to mass, but energy is related to waves. Still we are assuming gravity waves in the same way as we are feeling the waves from earthquakes through solid ground, not necessarily only liquid water.

Scientists have been trying to detect gravity waves by means of sensitive underground detectors. I am not sure about whether or not this has been worked out, but as far as I know, they have not been successful at detecting any such gravity waves yet.

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1300606 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 0:15:00 UTC - in response to Message 1300490.

but in the emptiness of space.. there is no 'mass' :P

Even in empty space, there is about one hydrogen atom per size of a grape fruit, so not even space is completely void of mass. Years ago, I read of a possible earth based space craft that could theoretically obtain about 86% of the speed of light that would shaped like a huge scoop close to the size of the moon, that would scoop up those hydrogen atoms, and fuse them as a propulsion source that is self fueling. Of course that is not practicle, but theoretically possible.

Steve


You're the last person I'd ever want to argue physics with, Steve, but the Ram Scoop engine you are talking about wouldn't work at higher speeds. Scooping up those atoms robs momentum from the spaceship which is, presumably, gained back when you launch it out the back end. The faster your exhaust, the better, of course but it is hard to imagine a jet velocity of even half of the speed of light. (Just a few percent is more likely.) and attempting to go faster than the jet speed means that it costs more energy to scoop them up than you get out of them.

____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Profile SciManStevProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4908
Credit: 84,363,605
RAC: 29,431
United States
Message 1300802 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 21:00:58 UTC - in response to Message 1300606.

but in the emptiness of space.. there is no 'mass' :P

Even in empty space, there is about one hydrogen atom per size of a grape fruit, so not even space is completely void of mass. Years ago, I read of a possible earth based space craft that could theoretically obtain about 86% of the speed of light that would shaped like a huge scoop close to the size of the moon, that would scoop up those hydrogen atoms, and fuse them as a propulsion source that is self fueling. Of course that is not practicle, but theoretically possible.

Steve


You're the last person I'd ever want to argue physics with, Steve, but the Ram Scoop engine you are talking about wouldn't work at higher speeds. Scooping up those atoms robs momentum from the spaceship which is, presumably, gained back when you launch it out the back end. The faster your exhaust, the better, of course but it is hard to imagine a jet velocity of even half of the speed of light. (Just a few percent is more likely.) and attempting to go faster than the jet speed means that it costs more energy to scoop them up than you get out of them.

Fair enough. It was based on a fusion reaction, and I just remembered reading about it many years ago, and haven't seen anything about it since. I am pleased you are familiar with it also. The other point is that there are free floating hydrogen atoms in "empty" space.

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2645
Credit: 1,181,113
RAC: 75
United States
Message 1300824 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 23:35:45 UTC
Last modified: 31 Oct 2012, 23:36:27 UTC

You could accelerate at one g for six months or so and achieve a fair percentage of the speed of light. The problem as I see it is to find an engine that can carry this much fuel especially since relativistic effects must be considered as to increased mass. I suspect that the only solution might be anti-matter annilation which would yield a near 100% mass conversion to energy.

I also suspect that this may be way off in the far far future if ever. If we found a habitable planet in the Proxima Centauri system than maybe we could go there some day.

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1301012 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 16:45:57 UTC - in response to Message 1300802.
Last modified: 1 Nov 2012, 16:48:12 UTC


but in the emptiness of space.. there is no 'mass' :P

Even in empty space, there is about one hydrogen atom per size of a grape fruit


1 atom per grape fruit isnt a mass lol

if you point my belly and say 'thats a mass!!' that i understand ! and you're right!

but 1 atom per inch3 ?? we didnt even succeeded to invent a microscope to see that atom !
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Beyond Lightspeed

Copyright © 2014 University of California