Outside the box: Einstein's Special Relativity works inside the smallest square.
The University of Adelaide researchers have extended the mathematics
to a world beyond Einstein's limit. Image provided by Professor Jim Hill
Posted on 10/10/2012 10:41:01 AM PDT by ShadowAce
We don’t (yet) have any way to test this, but University of Adelaide applied mathematicians are suggesting that an extended version of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity also holds true for velocities beyond lightspeed.
One of the main predictions of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is treated as an absolute cosmic speed limit, the line which can never be crossed; and even the notorious “faster-than-light neutrino” incident in 2011 has left the theory intact as one of the most robust in physics.
However, during the speculation that surrounded the neutrino discussion last year1, the University of Adelaide’s Professor Jim Hill and Dr Barry Cox considered the question of how the mathematical contradictions posed by a faster-than-light particle could be aligned with Special Relativity.
Their solution, which Professor Hill discussed with The Register,2 rested on ignoring the speed of light’s status as an absolute limit, and instead, using the information where the relative velocity of two observers is infinite.3.
Outside the box: Einstein's Special Relativity works inside the smallest square.
The University of Adelaide researchers have extended the mathematics
to a world beyond Einstein's limit. Image provided by Professor Jim Hill
The surprising outcome: with just two assumptions, an extended version of the mathematics for Einstein's special relativity works just as well above the speed of light as below.
“Relativity is about frames of reference,” Professor Hill explained to The Register. That is, observers with different velocities see the same event from different frames of reference.
“Einstein started working from information where the relative velocity is zero – what we knew about, such as rest mass, kinetic energy and so on – and then extrapolated what is known in the Newtonian world for velocities lower than c.
“Our thinking was: how do we make use of the essential essence of Einstein’s theory for velocities above c?”
Mathematically, what the mathematicians assumed is that for infinite relative velocity, there is a fixed relationship between the velocities of the two observers: where u is the first observer’s velocity, v is the second, the product of the two velocities is always c2.
“What we have is an equivalent theory [to Special Relativity] that applies for velocities beyond the speed of light. That theory is different from Special Relativity, but it has many of the same characteristics.
And readers with an interest in either physics or maths will be delighted with the vital assumptions: there has to be one, and only one, speed of light; and in all cases, a mathematical singularity occurs at the speed of light.
“If you believe what we’ve done,” Professor Hill said, “there can only be one speed of light in a universe. If there was a second speed of light, our mathematics wouldn’t work. If there is a second singularity [the one that occurs at the speed of light in Special Relativity – The Register] it wouldn’t work.
“This theory and method of solution is dependent on assuming that there is only one speed of light in any universe.”
To get from the theory to any practical test is another matter entirely, and Professor Hill freely admits he doesn’t know how that might be achieved (although The Register notes that the world took half a century to get from the maths of emission of radiation to the laser). He hopes, however, that a test can be devised.
“If you really don’t believe that faster-than-light is possible, then humans will be limited forever,” he said.
Einstein’s special relativity beyond the speed of light has been published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. ®
“Again, a scientist thinking that since an equation comes out right, it must faithfully describe the real world.”
That concept has worked pretty well thus far, methinks.
yes
Might make you rething that.
Nope. Different concept there. Think black holes. If gravity was not faster than light, then light could escape a black hole. At least we'd see the light that is coming around it. Since Black holes eat up all light--including the light that is between the hole and us--that means that gravity is faster than light.
True, but with one exception. Whoever measures the speed of light will always get the exact same value, regardless of the motion of the measurer, or of the light source.
According to Big Al (Einstein, that is) space and time will distort in order to keep that true.
So, for example, different observers might not agree on the time a certain light experiment takes, but they will always agree on the speed of light value itself.
Weird - so weird that Big Al never got a Nobel Prize for his Relativity paper - but many experiments have shown it all to be true.
“Again, a scientist thinking that since an equation comes out right, it must faithfully describe the real world.”
That concept has worked pretty well thus far, methinks.
The irony being we are posting using computers that are built on the foundation of equations that at one time seemed pie in the sky....
There are two reining factors in the belief that the speed of light is an absolute: 1) the state of physics and what we know/understand about friction, gravity and the way that light travels, and 2) the ability to detect and measure anything faster.
Without knowing specifically what they are seeking to measure, it is difficult for physicists to try to detect (much less develop) an instrument that can measure something travelling at greater than the speed of light.
The speed of light is the current state of technology. As soon as we discover dilithium crystals and develop warp engines, the speed of light will be relegated to travel in the slow lane!
(Ok, I’m having a little fun and made that last paragraph up!)
speed of C = speed of A ie:C&A are maintaining the same distance between themselves....B just happen to be between them
Please ping me to aviation and aerospace articles. Thank you.
If you want added to or removed from this ping list, please contact EveningStar or Paleo Conservative.
No, apparently not.
In this video, Bob compares what he does to "the speed of light":
“Gravity is faster than light.”
Ok... where is the “gravity” traveling from and where is it going to? How can you measure the speed? Maybe you’ll turn out to be right, but if it can’t be demonstrated, what’s the point of saying it?
2c
Any occupants in the vehicles headed toward each other would be dead twice as fast as before they knew it.
after rethinking my answer, i further propose a new problem...B is s stationary object....A moves away at the speed of light, C moves away in the opposite direction at the speed of light....now what is the relationship between objects.
if fact, if the "big Bang" theory is correct....there is matter traveling in opposite directions.....therefore, if you are going 1/2 the speed of light north, and I am going 1/2 the speed of light south....we could never see each other. ever
No, I don’t think the scientists who came up with this think that at all. More than likely, it’s another case of a hyperventilating science reporter desperately trying to make his topic appeal to the public with sensationalism.
Sort of related. Amazing video where you see light travel bit by bit across a table: http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Check up, they are already testing it. So far the results are showing that gravity waves travel at c.
Suppose I was sitting in the glassed in nose of a spaceship trsvelling at the speed of light, and turned on a flashlight?
What would be the forward speed of the light coming from the flashlight?
And yet people are still looking for “dark matter”. When all the matter in the universe is visible, the end will be nigh.
The other question is how fast are we going now?
velocity of the Earth around the Sun plus the Sun around the center of the Milky Way = 156 miles per second or 561,600 MPH.
But I cannot find values for our velocity in our galactic cluster or of our cluster’s velocity in the universe at large. Nor can I find a value for our velocity relative to the mono block.
What if we are already going faster than c?
A and C both see each other moving away from each other at the speed of light, not twice the speed of light. Space and time distort to make that happen. This isn’t just theory. It has been tested for slower moving objects that emit radiation, and in fact such distortions (albeit much smaller) had to be accounted for to make GPS work...
Actually that was how I (mis)read your first question...
The speed of light...
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.