|
Einstein may have been wrong about not surpassing the speed of light? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
I am just basing my comments on Stephen Hawking's article, so I'm not sure what to say on this. I don't have enough knowledge in physics to state whether this is true or not, although I do get what you're saying.
But...I would have to wonder why Stephen Hawking stated that if it wasn't true? I think he would be VERY well aware of any issues with his theories... |
I don't think he said it. I just read the article you posted and what he is saying is exactly what I am saying albeit with different language. It's the part where he talks about how time continually slows down in order to ensure the speed limit is maintained. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
XKCD has a wonderful response to the neutrino problem at CERN that puts the whole discussion to rest.
Sub-text: "I can't speak to the paper's scientific merits, but it's really cool how on page 10 you can see that their reference GPS beacon is sensitive enough to pick up continential drift under the detector (interrupted halfway through by an earthquake)." |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
Regarding the time travel thing, Steven Hawking was talking about a train traveling near the speed of light.
Though possible it would take immense amounts of energy (on the scale of c^2) to reach these speeds; completely impossible by today's and the next millena's capabilities of the human race.
Though say we had the resources and you had this train travelling at these speeds, a girl that walks on the train would cause her frame of reference to slow down compared to the outside observer. It would look like she is walking slowly on the train and her resultant speed would still be below c. The faster she walks on the train in her frame of reference the more of a reduction in seen in her walking from the outside frame. Which is what DJ Science said.
One misconception about relativity is that it's this mysterious force in the universe that you can harness to time travel. This is not what it is. It's simply the understanding that we perceive information through photons that hit our eyes. Hence our sight is continually limited to the medium of information being locked to a fixed speed of c. This alters the way we perceive things, especially when they travel near the speed of light. |
|
|
| cammaxwell |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
I don't think he said it. I just read the article you posted and what he is saying is exactly what I am saying albeit with different language. It's the part where he talks about how time continually slows down in order to ensure the speed limit is maintained. |
Right, that was the whole point...that time would slow the closer you got to the speed of light. Sorry if I explained it wrong... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
There is no such thing as time as its own independent variable. Because everything that has every happened or will ever happen is happening in this eternal moment. Time only exists in the context of the movement of celestial bodies and objects relative to each other. Period. How do we measure out the day? Yeah, you betcha - the movement of Earth around the Sun, and so forth, etc. etc.
TIME travel is therefore impossible.
|
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| couldnt get through the stephen hawking article, in my head I kept reading it in his voice. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
couldnt get through the stephen hawking article, in my head I kept reading it in his voice. |
Why not just get one of those text to speech synthesizers to do it for you. Then have it perform M.C. Hawking's back catalog. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
Right, that was the whole point...that time would slow the closer you got to the speed of light. Sorry if I explained it wrong... |
It's fine. I just wanted to make sure you weren't saying this setup somehow gets you to faster than light. That is how I read your original post. |
|
|
| pozz |
| quote: | Originally posted by neuromancer
what does that even means ! |
means you can carry out calculations, get results, build bridges, move mountains, reroute rivers, make levers, clocks, bombs, cars, and still be wrong about the fundamentals.
for example, in the special theory of relativity (the one everyone is discussing), space is warped around the presence of matter. blackholes are these points in space where matter has reach infinite density and thus you have relativistic time dilation. in the General theory, one he developed later, space itself is curved and causes the effect of gravity. a reversal of terms that is, as of yet, unproven, but tremendously productive for modern physics. |
|
|
| pozz |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
Why not just get one of those text to speech synthesizers to do it for you. Then have it perform M.C. Hawking's back catalog. |
:stongue:
beautiful
set it to a battle record, scratch it. wikawika |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
I'd like to see a paper from the Chicago group. I've not seen anything other than the CERN announcement. Do you happen to know the group leader's name? |
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09...t-particle.html
| quote: | | A team at Fermilab had similar faster-than-light results in 2007, but a large margin of error undercut its scientific significance |
That's all I have. |
|
|
| pozz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
So maybe it will be possible to travel a bit into the future under extraordinary circumstances, but to travel BACK in time - heck, thats not possible. That would be like reversing the fabric of space itself. Very destructive. |
naahh, you wouldn't even notice. someone could step into the 1500s for a quickie, and all paradoxes resulting from that (becoming your own ancestor, etc) would even themselves out. environments aren't homeostatic and harmonious, they're inherently very violent. time travel wouldn't even make a blip on the radar.
whats the number for the universal constant? something like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000003% chance for existence (of matter and all its regulating principles)? existence is already so unlikely that there can be no easy weave of the kind you are talking about. it's not like there is fabric and it will be ripped because of some crazy act. it's being ripped all the time. timetravel is just complicated geometry. it's like those psychedelic trips when you jump out of your own body. that is time travel, my friend. |
|
|
|
|
