Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedDon't be sorry. Most people don't.
Sorry. I really and truly don't know the formulas. A bit of stupidity and a bit of dishonor on my part, really. nothing much more to day for now. L8r.
Here is the formula: E=m*c2
where m = m0/(sqr(1-v2/c2))
where v = your velocity and c = velocity of light.
When your velocity equals light velocity yields m = m0/(1-sqrt(zero)) = m0/zero, not good, forbidden velocity.
Try a velocity > velocity of light yields m = m0/(1-sqrt(something less than zero)), confusing but not forbidden. The question is if nature permits imginary units involved with mass.
Some says it is rubbish but can't explain why. I say that nature doesn't forbid superluminal velocities.
But how to reach the super luminous velocity? There I have no idea at all. Perhaps this barrier (v=c) is the way for nature to forbid superluminous velocities. But what about those particles that is emmitted in superluminous velocities? Does anyone know?
I gotcher back Fabian!
I know what your talking about but....
I can't place the name!
Particles emitted at superluminous velocities....
whats the word im looking for..........
NEUTRINOS!
What about those?
Those go very, very close to the speed of light because they have a fractional mass...
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedNo, not neutrinos... but...
I gotcher back Fabian!
I know what your talking about but....
I can't place the name!
Particles emitted at superluminous velocities....
whats the word im looking for..........
[b]NEUTRINOS!
What about those?
Those go very, very close to the speed of light because they have a fractional mass...[/b]
Ah, tachyons. But this is only a hypothesis.
No one has actually observed such a particle.
Thought of being born in super luminous velocities, not having the possibilities to drop to sub luminous velocities.
Do I believe in tachyons? No more than pre big bang universe, a life beyond death, traveling backwards in time, and such... I just don't know.
Originally posted by FabianFnasso then essentially, it is hypothesized that something can actually travel faster than the speed of light, although not yet discover?
No, not neutrinos... but...
Ah, tachyons. But this is only a hypothesis.
No one has actually observed such a particle.
Thought of being born in super luminous velocities, not having the possibilities to drop to sub luminous velocities.
Do I believe in tachyons? No more than pre big bang universe, a life beyond death, traveling backwards in time, and such... I just don't know.
Originally posted by TDR1Well, the theory doesn't forbid 'faster than light', only 'fast as light'.
so then essentially, it is hypothesized that something can actually travel faster than the speed of light, although not yet discover?
The theory doesn't say that any particle actually travel 'faster than light'.
So the tachyons are only hypothetical. Yet.
Originally posted by The Th1ngIf you have no mass you can go at the speed of light. Anything with mass takes an infinite amount of energy to travel at the speed of light and would become more massive than the rest of the universe so its pretty much out of the question. Photons have zero mass, just flying packets of electromagnetic energy.
I would say that it is possible to travel at the speed of light since light itself does so.
Originally posted by sonhouseIs it possible to have any other velocity than this of light if a particle is massless? Can a massless particle be stationary?
If you have no mass you can go at the speed of light.
If a particle has a mass with the property that its mass squared is negative, does it have to have a speed above that of light? Is it impossible to have a sub light velocity then?
This is two interesting questions I don't have an answer to.
a massless particle? but that would be a wave of energy which is always moving. Light cannot be frozen however if you went as fast as light you could see it was frozen. Nor can waves of energy be frozen. they can only appear frozen. We have not even frozen particles to absolute zero yet.
The reason you go back in time when you travel at the speed of light is this:
Imagine that you where in space, and miles in front of you was a clock, that you could see from your start place, because of the light travelling from the clock to you. If you then travelled faster than the speed of light towards the clock, you could read the time sooner than before, so would have travelled back in time.
Assuming time travel is impossible, it is impossible for humans to travel at "light speed".
Anyone follow that???