Skip to comments.Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Get Warp Speed Extension
Posted on 10/13/2012 11:15:49 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
New theory describes faster than light travel, could explain CERN's results
Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Albert Einstein, consider the speed of light a sort of universal "speed limit". But over the past couple decades physicists theorized that it should be possible to break this law and get away with it -- to travel faster than the speed of light.
I. CERN Results Potentially Described
One of several possible routes to faster-than-light travel was potentially demonstrated when researchers at CERN, the European physics organization known for maintaining the Large Hadron Collider, sent high-energy particles through the Earth's crust from Geneva, Switzerland to INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy. In a result that is today highly controversial, the team claimed that the particles were observed travelling in excess of the speed of light.
Now physics theory may finally be catching up. Math researchers at the University of Adelaide -- located in the middle South of Australia -- have developed new formulas to describe the relationship between energy, mass, and velocity (which incorporates length and time) for objects traveling faster than the speed of light. The formulas modify Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, a fundamental pillar of our understanding of the universe.
Einstein formulated his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905. [Image Source: AP]
Math professor Jim Hill, a co-author of the paper writes, "Questions have since been raised over the experimental results [from CERN] but we were already well on our way to successfully formulating a theory of special relativity, applicable to relative velocities in excess of the speed of light."
He elaborates, "Our approach is a natural and logical extension of the Einstein Theory of Special Relativity, and produces anticipated formulae without the need for imaginary numbers or complicated physics."
The study's other co-author, Dr. Barry Cox, adds, "We are mathematicians, not physicists, so we've approached this problem from a theoretical mathematical perspective... Our paper doesn't try and explain how this could be achieved, just how equations of motion might operate in such regimes."
II. Placating the Critics
The authors obviously recognize the controversy surrounding both experimental and theoretical work regarding challenging the light speed limitation attached to the special theory of relativity. Write the authors in the abstract, "In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion."
Many believe faster-than-light travel may be possible. [Image Source: LucasFilm, Ltd.]
The paper proposes two sets of equations -- one based on an invariant set of "frame transitions", the other based on a "frame transition" with the invariance limitation removed. The authors suspect that if faster than light travel is possible, that the physical behavior of the faster-than-light travelling object is described by one of these equations.
Note, such work is relatively independent from forms of faster-than-light travel that do not violate Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, such as warping space via a massive energy source.
The paper was published [abstract] in the prestigious peer-reviews journal The Proceedings of the Royal Society A.
Hmm... cook... that reminds me that I am supposed to be looking up recipes for preparing celeriac.
Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light.No they aren't. That's exactly the kind of scenario Einstein included in his special theory of relativity.
If recent developments have come up with a particle that can go faster than the speed of light... then recent developments have broken new ground on this question.
Your statement is not new ground; it is old ground. It is ground that was basically covered by Einstein in 1905.
Good knife (seriously).
Heavy cream and butter at the finish. Peppercorns. Chicken stock. Hours and hours in the kitchen.
It turns into a little bit of heaven.
I used to use the tops in stock, as a younger man. Careful you don't mis-identify fennel for it.
The point of the mathematics of Relativity is NOT that the speed of light absolutely can NOT be broken, but that we can not break that barrier by adding more and more energy to the object, as with a jet plane. This is due to the observed FACT that as we add energy, the object gets increasingly heavy.
Particles in the most advanced accelerators have so much energy that “at top speed” they weigh in excess of 10,000 times their stationary mass, and are traveling on the order of 0.9999995 times the speed of light. Adding ten times the amount of energy will make them 100,000 times more massive, and their speed will become on the order of 0.999999995 times the speed of light. Rapidly diminishing returns.
A spaceship turning its lights on is a VERY ancient example used in physics texts. See my post#40 for the reality of what is observed.
Hmmm... OK ... chicken stock, eh? I have some bullion that will have to do, and some leftover gravy. Check on the butter and sour cream. I did save the tops after chopping them off.
Heavy cream is not sour cream. Double creme is not heavy cream.
Make stock with the tops.
I'm not going to offer any more advice. ;)
Anyone notice that the AP photo is a gratuitous “photoshop”?
That's the best that Lucas et al could do back then.
Extra points for figuring out where they were starting from, based on the star field.
Yes, I was that exactly bored.
Chuck Norris made the Kessel Run in less than 10 parsecs!
A warp bubble is the solution!
You missed my point. I was saying that most barriers are artificial in nature. It takes people thinking outside the box — thinking the unthinkable — to get past them. As with the Sound Barrier, I don’t think the Light Barrier is absolute. How we get past it is not my concern, but I think it is possible and it will happen.
Fairly arrogant. I'll give it 5.4.
The basic concept... that's a 10.0.
You could be a cook, or something.
I meant the one of Einstein.
LOL ... It didn’t take you long to gauge the level of my culinary expertise. I could give you an even more accurate gauge than saying “a box of macaroni and cheese”, etc., but I think I will let your understanding rest where it is.
Do I gather reasonably correctly that you would make a soup type dish with the celeriac, or are you looking more for a “mashed potato” type concoction? I know that celeriac is long-lasting, so I don’t feel under time pressure to use this immediately.
That's just me. My daughter's mother-in-law would disagree (loudly, in Cambodian) but I'm a French bastardizing classicist by nature, history, and training.
Escoffier does list a recipe (955) for Celeri-rave as an Hors-D'oeuvre. Julienne and mix with mustard and cream sauce (207) or a mustard flavored Sauce Vinaigrette.
I'd save a bit to try in that method, just to see.
The situation is not really very analogous to speed of sound. We knew that it was possible to go faster than speed of sound since bullets, etc. were doing it. The question was whether man and machine would be able to survive the dynamic pressures in the transition... several vehicles did not survive the attempt.
Unlike that, the state of physics right now would indicate that it is not at all possible to exceed light speed, certainly by brute force. We don’t have any convincing examples at this time. However, given that we have clear understanding that the mechanism for that is that space-time is “curved”, that leads to the intriguing possibilities of attempting to “jump over” areas of space, instead of traversing it... “worm holes” and such thoughts of intentionally curving space somehow. I don’t see any likelihood that technical means of accomplishing that can possibly come about until we have massive, controllable energy sources, likely fusion power plants. And surely, it is possible that somehow we can discover some way to negate the increase of mass as velocity increases somehow, but again, there is no proposed mechanism whereby that could occur.
Two other things: it appears that a “negative mass” object may be able to satisfy the relativity equations at “faster than light” speeds, but that can’t help us to, say, launch a space ship to Alpha Centauri. There also exists the intriguing possibility of “entangling” two particles at very great separations, and thereby “transfer information”, from one place to another, at “superluminal” speeds, That really doesn’t satisfy me as being “faster than light” travel, if only because my soul would not be able to partake in the trip.
I will probably try something like you suggest, a small portion. I am also going to do part of it as simply baked and/or boiled potato type situation, as a friend suggested. I only have one large root right now, but a friend has sold me on its versatility, and I am strongly considering planting it in my garden this coming year. My determination to do so will be tempered by the results of the these experiments.
The series was set in the 24th century, but the tech toys that were just imaginary in 1966 have become real or nearly real. These series fired the imaginations of many people and who knows what may come of it?
The current thinking is we can't go faster than light and that is certainly true with our current tech. But, in 50 years, who knows? We may have transporters and replicators and holodecks and (fill-in blank).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.