Faster Than Light Travel

Is a theory that can not be tested scientific? How do we seperate tachyons from ID and accept theories that can not be tested about one and not the other?

I think I already answered part of your posts 96 and 97. As to this I said:

Let's just say that you can construct a rigorous field theory for free tachyons, but that it would be little more than a mathematical recreation (if they are free we can't see them).[1] However, a theory for interacting tachyons seems to present insurmountable problems (energetic considerations for example). Most importantly, they have never been observed (maybe we don't observe them because they are free, but this is meaningless for a physical theory).

You quoted this same paragraph... it agrees with what you are saying.
 
I think I already answered part of your posts 96 and 97. As to this I said:



You quoted this same paragraph... it agrees with what you are saying.

And how about string theory? Doesn't it have the same problems?
 
And how about string theory? Doesn't it have the same problems?

It cannot be tested now, but at least its proponents think it will be susceptible of empirical testing in the future. If we find a phenomenon were gravitational and QM effects are important at the same time, we will be able to test some flavours of quantum gravity.

The difference is that a tachyon that would never interact with ordinary matter is like the pink invisible ninja, you will never be able to disprove it, because we are ordinary matter.
 
Dave1001 said:
I think we may still have a way for a ship to outrace a laser yet.


How about if the ship is going .51c in a straight path, but along the path we've set up floating mirrors parallel to each other along the route, and bounce the laser such that it's bouncing along the same route as the ship but covering twice the distance. The laser will never reach the ship. Falsify that!

Actually, this is reminiscent of the "light clock" idea that Einstein used to develop relativity theory and it's effects on time and distance.

Yes, the laser would catch up. Even if your ship was moving .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c, the laser would catch up (eventually to an external observer "stationary" with respect to the velocities listed...almost immediately from the POV of those in the fast-moving ship).

How is that possible? This ship is going .51c along its path, whereas the laser is going c along a path twice as long, or in other words, progressing at .5c along the ship's path. Am I missing something here?
 
How is that possible? This ship is going .51c along its path, whereas the laser is going c along a path twice as long, or in other words, progressing at .5c along the ship's path. Am I missing something here?

In the ship's reference frame, it's stationary.
 
Elaborate please?

Hey Dave, I'll try. I was thinking I should at first, but then I thought - "rob, you don't know that much about this, don't get in over your head, wait for someone how understands it better to reply." But I'll give it a go. At least maybe it'll help you think about it more clearly:

Imagine you're on Ship 1. You and your friend on ship 2 have arranged that when you are 300,000km apart after passing each other, you will each fire a short laser burst in the other's direction.

A third observer waits at the point that the two of you will pass. So what happens?

First let's look at what this looks like from each observer's point of view.

From Observer 3's point of view (and the one you are probably accidentally establishing as the "real" one), you (O1) are travelling at .51c toward O3, your friend (O2) is travelling at .51c toward 03, until you both pass by O3 (waving by the window perhaps?) and now are each moving away from O3 at .51c

From your point of view, you are stationary. O3 is moving toward you at .51c, and O2 is moving toward you at something more than .51c (you'll have to use the equation given upthread to calculate that) but less than c.
O2 and O3 both pass you at the same time, but O2 is only moving away from you at .51c, while O3 recedes faster, and thus moves further away in the same amount of time.

O2's point of view exactly mirrors yours.

Now, what about the laser?

So after O2 passes you, you wait until he is 300,000km away, then you fire your laser. But O2 is moving away from you very fast. It takes more than one second for the light to reach him, because after one second he is more than 300,000km away.
(it'll take something less than 2 seconds).

O2 does the same thing, and sees the same thing happen - it takes something more than 1 second but less than 2 seconds for his laser to hit you.

Question: Do you record yourself being hit by the laser at the same time that you record your laser hitting O2? I don't think so.
Naively I would say that after you fire your laser, it takes 1 second before you are hit by O2's laser. This is because he is 300,000 km away, and you are stationary - so the laser will reach you in one second.
The reason I'm not sure is that you can't say that he fired his laser at the same time you did - you can only say that you and he both waited until you recorded yourselves to have travelled 300,000km apart. When events are separated in space, you can't say that they happen at the same time, because different observers will record them happening at different times.
But I don't get that part well enough to explain it.

I hope there weren't too many errors in all that, but maybe it makes something a little more clear... (and at least I'll learn something when my errors are corrected!)
 
Hey Dave, I'll try. I was thinking I should at first, but then I thought - "rob, you don't know that much about this, don't get in over your head, wait for someone how understands it better to reply." But I'll give it a go. At least maybe it'll help you think about it more clearly:

Imagine you're on Ship 1. You and your friend on ship 2 have arranged that when you are 300,000km apart after passing each other, you will each fire a short laser burst in the other's direction.

A third observer waits at the point that the two of you will pass. So what happens?

First let's look at what this looks like from each observer's point of view.

From Observer 3's point of view (and the one you are probably accidentally establishing as the "real" one), you (O1) are travelling at .51c toward O3, your friend (O2) is travelling at .51c toward 03, until you both pass by O3 (waving by the window perhaps?) and now are each moving away from O3 at .51c

From your point of view, you are stationary. O3 is moving toward you at .51c, and O2 is moving toward you at something more than .51c (you'll have to use the equation given upthread to calculate that) but less than c.
O2 and O3 both pass you at the same time, but O2 is only moving away from you at .51c, while O3 recedes faster, and thus moves further away in the same amount of time.

O2's point of view exactly mirrors yours.

Now, what about the laser?

So after O2 passes you, you wait until he is 300,000km away, then you fire your laser. But O2 is moving away from you very fast. It takes more than one second for the light to reach him, because after one second he is more than 300,000km away.
(it'll take something less than 2 seconds).

O2 does the same thing, and sees the same thing happen - it takes something more than 1 second but less than 2 seconds for his laser to hit you.

Question: Do you record yourself being hit by the laser at the same time that you record your laser hitting O2? I don't think so.
Naively I would say that after you fire your laser, it takes 1 second before you are hit by O2's laser. This is because he is 300,000 km away, and you are stationary - so the laser will reach you in one second.
The reason I'm not sure is that you can't say that he fired his laser at the same time you did - you can only say that you and he both waited until you recorded yourselves to have travelled 300,000km apart. When events are separated in space, you can't say that they happen at the same time, because different observers will record them happening at different times.
But I don't get that part well enough to explain it.

I hope there weren't too many errors in all that, but maybe it makes something a little more clear... (and at least I'll learn something when my errors are corrected!)

I don't see what this has to do with my scenario, which doesn't even require a 2nd ship. The crux of my scenario is that the laser beams route is twice as long (due to mirrors and zig zag bouncing) as the path of the .51C speed spaceship.
 
I don't see what this has to do with my scenario, which doesn't even require a 2nd ship. The crux of my scenario is that the laser beams route is twice as long (due to mirrors and zig zag bouncing) as the path of the .51C speed spaceship.

Ah but that just means you made light take longer to get there. That is allowed, look at the sun, it takes a million years for a photon from the core to get to the surface, but sound does it in hours. There is a difference between rate at which light travels and the speed of light.
 
Ah but that just means you made light take longer to get there. That is allowed, look at the sun, it takes a million years for a photon from the core to get to the surface, but sound does it in hours. There is a difference between rate at which light travels and the speed of light.

Right. So you agree that the .51c spaceship traveling x meters in a straight line from A to B would outpace the laserbeam to point B, if the laserbeam was traveling 2x meters due to zig zagging bouncing off mirrors.
 
Right. So you agree that the .51c spaceship traveling x meters in a straight line from A to B would outpace the laserbeam to point B, if the laserbeam was traveling 2x meters due to zig zagging bouncing off mirrors.

Sure, to a given observer.

But what does that have to do with anything? Light slows down in glass and other materials but it does not mean that you can travel faster than light. There is specific radiation that is caused when something exceeds the velocity of light in the material it is traveling in.
 
Sure, to a given observer.

But what does that have to do with anything? Light slows down in glass and other materials but it does not mean that you can travel faster than light. There is specific radiation that is caused when something exceeds the velocity of light in the material it is traveling in.

I'm just playing with the concepts. I understand some areas of relativity, etc. are non-intuitive. I'm looking for areas related to these topics that ARE intuitive, too.
 
Light slows down in glass and other materials but it does not mean that you can travel faster than light. There is specific radiation that is caused when something exceeds the velocity of light in the material it is traveling in.

Cherenkov radiation. As shown in my avatar and hinted at in my earlier post.

Actually, stuff travels faster than light all the time. I've seen a few things do it with my own eyes (sorta).
<=== Clue.

It's always worth remembering, c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light in other media can vary, c can not.
 
grav waves does, according to GR not travel faster than light, that is according to newtonian physics.

According to GR gravity waves travel at exactly the speed of light.

if gravity traveled faster than the speed of light it might be possible to transfer information faster than the speed of light. Gravity telegraph. Not sure how it would be done, but it might be possible.


Thanks - I checked sources (As I read much - but on a wide variety of topics - and 2003 was a hell-year for me...) and I had missed the 2003 test using Jupitar and a quasar to measure the speed that found the range to be between 20% less than SOL to under 2X SOL. Now I am more or less up to date!!:) :) :)
 
e=mc^2 is the rest energy, applying to objects with no momentum.

Consult en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2

You divide the answer by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for objects in motion. In other words, for non-zero mass, traveling at the speed of light (v=c), the equation reduces to:

E=mc^2 / 0

Mathematical models are... models. It's nice when they fit with observation, and it's great for predicting stuff. But all you need is to observe deviance from the model, and then the formula you had needs some adjusting.

It's easy to get this backwards when we're learning it - we look at an equation and accept it as fixed, when really it was only invented in order to match what was observed in experiments.

That's no way to work when we're trying to do stuff. We need to accept that PV=nRT, or whatever, when reality is actually more complex than a simplified formula.
 
I don't see what this has to do with my scenario, which doesn't even require a 2nd ship. The crux of my scenario is that the laser beams route is twice as long (due to mirrors and zig zag bouncing) as the path of the .51C speed spaceship.

Woops, I misread the quote that I was responding to. Sorry about that. I think you're right. But I think it's interesting to take another look at why you're right.

I think a good way to think about this is to still look at it as though your ship is stationary. In this example, it is the mirrors that are moving past you at .51c. Let's say the mirrors are 1 light second (300,000km) apart.

Here's a diagram of what it looks like in the mirror's reference frame, if I were to use the example as you give it:
light:
.......^..........^
...../...\......../
..../.....\....../
.../.......\..../
............\../
..............v
You:
----------------->

My problem is that there are two dimensions of movement, and I can't easily figure out how to solve the problem that way. So, I think works out the same if we look at it with only one dimension, but where it happens like this:

(blue dashes are where the light travelled only once, red coloured dashes are places where the light has to cover that distance twice. Black dashes are just for formatting and should be ignored. Again this is from the mirrors' reference frame)
light:
----------\
----|----------\
---------|----------\
You:
--------------------->
The dashes are mirrors that are only very very slighlty tilted (so little that I don't have to take it into account), the straight lines are mirrors that direct the light perpendicular to your line of movement (from the mirror's reference frame of course). The light goes forward 300,000 km, then is reflected back 150,000km, where it hits a second mirror, turning it back for 300,000km again, etc. This will still double it's path, and thus allow you to outrun it.
But all of that is from the mirror's reference frame. What does it look like from yours?

Now, I think I've got this right, from your perspective what happens is that the path of the light beam is distorted. You are stationary, and a set-up of light emiter and mirrors is moving toward you at .51c. When the light emiter passes you, it emits a burst of light.
The light moves away from you at c.
After going something less than 300,000km, it hits a mirror which is moving toward it at .51c. The reason that it didn't have to travel 300,000km is that the mirror covered part of that distance in that time.

Now it moves back toward you at c. It travels back more than 150,000km where it hits another mirror. The reason that it travelled more than 150,000km is that the mirror moved away from it during that time.
Here's the important part - if you do the math, it will turn out that it traveled back more than the "something less than 300,000km" that it had already travelled. In fact, it will have passed by your ship.

Now it travels toward you again, at c. This time, before it reaches you, the next mirror which has been wizzing up toward it intersects it, again after it's gone something less than 300,000km. It starts traveling away from you again at c.

As you can see, even though in your reference frame, you aren't moving, the light will be continuing to get further and further away from you, even though it is aways travelling at c.

I think that with your original zig-zag set-up it works out the same because the angle that the light is reflected will be changed. But I'm not quite sure. Can anyone enlighten me about this?

Anyway, I mostly just did all that as a fun exercise, but I do think it helps a lot to ask yourself "what reference frame am I talking about?"
 
Last edited:
And how about string theory? Doesn't it have the same problems?

It cannot be tested now, but at least its proponents think it will be susceptible of empirical testing in the future. If we find a phenomenon were gravitational and QM effects are important at the same time, we will be able to test some flavours of quantum gravity.

The difference is that a tachyon that would never interact with ordinary matter is like the pink invisible ninja, you will never be able to disprove it, because we are ordinary matter.

Just to clarify a bit here (because so many people talk about string theory being "untestible" and don't understand the precise meaning in this case):

String theories are currently testable. The problem with this is that the parts of them we can currently test produce answers identical to the Standard Model. They are testable, it's just that the test do not distinguish between the various string theories and the current model. Some tests that can are thought possible by the new collider being built (can't recall the name...heayv hadron collider? Something like that).
 

Back
Top Bottom