Thread: Is this really true or it's just science fiction?

"However, you must accept that to a stone age man, if you throw a stone up in the air, it will fall back to the ground. He has absolutely no concept of escape velocity - it is totally meaningless to him, his frame of reference is simply not broad enough to comprehend the possibility of being wrong."

Of course he can comprehend the possiblity he's wrong, how does he know that if he throws it hard enough it won't just fly away? He doesn't know, he's just guessing; he has no basis other than his previous observations, no explanation of how, and why to guide him.

""Blindly accepting that what is, is what there is, and nothing else is possible is narrow sighted, anti-scientific I would suggest"

Blindly? Hardly, i question everything, no matter how accepted it is. I don't believe everything to be set in stone, there's plenty that could well turn out to be wrong. But some things won't. Given the proviso below:

It's "possible" that something with mass could travel through linear space at speeds greater than c........... its also "possible" that we all live in the matrix.... or that none of you exist and i'm having a dream. But we discount those possiblities as being too improbable to be worth consideration. (Really... really, you believe with certainty that the world around you exists, despite the fact that it's "possible" that it doesn't)

"Who said anything about that? You refuse to accept the possibility that at a time in the future a refinement, (your words), to the current model may change this?"

Relativity will no doubt be refined, it won't be anihilated, for an object with mass to travel faster than light it would need to be completely rubbished.

>>And what is moving faster than light there? Information.. and whats that?

I'm pretty sure that relativity also says that the effect of something cannot travel faster than the speed of light, hence the relativity of simultaneous events. But obvoiusly quantum mechanics seems to have different ideas about that

>>>
Of course he can comprehend the possiblity he's wrong, how does he know that if he throws it hard enough it won't just fly away? He doesn't know, he's just guessing; he has no basis other than his previous observations, no explanation of how, and why to guide him.
<<<

Actually, that is my point. He has only his observations and experience. To him, a stone thrown in the air always falls back to the ground. He cannot throw it hard enough for anything else to happen. His technology level would not allow any other rationalisation than "a stone thrown in the air will fall back down".

Now we observe nothing physical exceeding the speed of light, but are we, metaphorically, cavemen?

Remember, Istarted out with a "devils advocating" comment. I agree current theory states that c is a barrier to physical matter, but, I also, very strongly, believe, that thinking outside of the box is useful, and may well lead to breakthroughs that people doggedly working away inside the box might reach much later, or never at all.

I think a little, (and we're not talking billions here), money invested to check out some of these oddball claims, is a worthwhile investment. If it proves they are rubbish, then surely, that is good science. If there is something in any of them, then surely that is also good science. A win/win situation.

"Now we observe nothing physical exceeding the speed of light, but are we, metaphorically, cavemen?"

The caveman analogy doesn't work: The caveman believes that BECAUSE everything he has thrown up has come down, no matter how hard you throw something it will always come down.

We believe the speed of light is absolute NOT because we haven't observed it being broken but because that it is predicted to be the absolute by a theory that has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".

The caveman is NOT sure of his belief, since he has no basis other than experience, he has no explanation of how or why to back it up. I am sure of my belief because i do have an explanation of how or why to back it up.

Einstein did NOT sit back and say "geez why haven't we seen anything faster than light" the obvious answer to that question would have been "because we havent thrown anything hard enough".

"I also, very strongly, believe, that thinking outside of the box is useful"

There is no box, not really, we are disagreeing over probabilities, but that because you haven't seen the explanations in real detail. If you took your caveman and you told him that he could travel all the way round the Earth, then he might voice fears of falling off the edge......you'd say "never gonna happen, the Earth is round" he'd say "how can you be sure, you might be wrong"......... because he lacks the information to make an informed judgement on the probability that the Earth is actually flat. (in the case of the Earth being round that information is fairly easy to give to him: photos of the earth perhaps a small explanation of planetary formaiton, with Relativity the 'proof' is not possible to give to anyone who hasn't got a physics degree)

"If it proves they are rubbish, then surely, that is good science. If there is something in any of them, then surely that is also good science. A win/win situation."

Well indeed, and many many many oddball claims DO get checked out (see your NASA anti grav device) but people don't check out whether or not whether planes can actually fly... because we see them in the air every day. Likewise people don't check on the validity of 'c' being the absolute speed, because they observe it all the time in just about every particle accelerator experiment.

>>> by a theory that has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".

You see, there you go again! "beyond reasonable doubt" in todays view of the universe.

>>> The caveman is NOT sure of his belief,

I'm sure he is, pity we can't ask. The point being that if experience is all you have to go on, and something always works, then you tend to feel pretty sure it will continue to always work, but this is beside the point really.

Pick a different analogy, the caveman also had a good idea of the maximum speed of things, he had no idea that things could travel at the, to him at least, unimaginable speeds of, for example, the cosmic rays that were raining down on him. Indeed, he had no idea they were there. No theory of them, no observation of them, therefore no concept - but we know differently.

We have no way of detecting faster than light particles, there may be one emerging from your left ear as you read this, how would you know?

BTW...

>>> but that because you haven't seen the explanations in real detail.

... always dangerous to make assumptions like that!

"The point being that if experience is all you have to go on, and something always works, then you tend to feel pretty sure it will continue to always work, but this is beside the point really"

Indeed, but relativity is not merely based on experience, it is predicted based upon theory.

"We have no way of detecting faster than light particles, there may be one emerging from your left ear as you read this, how would you know? "

But you see, the reason we do not believe they exist is NOT because we haven't found them, its because relativity PREDICTS they will not exist. And relativity has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"You see, there you go again! "beyond reasonable doubt" in todays view of the universe"

Ok, fair enough, but then i can equally say that in the future they might discover that the Earth is actually flat........ now I would say that the Earth being round has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, if you really want to add the proviso of "in today's view of the universe", you can do so. But we BOTH know full well that the Earth is round NOT flat, and it doesn't matter how far you go into the future that will NEVER be disproved. The same applies to the speed of light's absolute nature.

"... always dangerous to make assumptions like that!"

Heh, well it's a fairly safe assumption, you don't speak like a physics grad. ; if you were you'd be talking in maths, not English, and no-one would understand a word you said

Results not in yet.
But its looking doubtful. The argument put forth by adrianxw was the exact one used by nasa to justify the expirment.

>>>
But you see, the reason we do not believe they exist is NOT because we haven't found them, its because relativity PREDICTS they will not exist. And relativity has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
<<<

I think this is a recursive argument, the theory predicts they are not there, so they are not there, so we don't look for them, because the theory predicts... and so on.

Newtonian physics worked well, (indeed still does in everyday experience), until the envelope was explored when it was found lacking. Relativity works well too, but if we accept that it is definitive fact, nobody explores the envelope so it remains so.

>>> you don't speak like a physics grad.

No, I'm not, although I did physics as one of my senior subjects, and continued with it for 2 years at university as an "associate" subject, (not sure if that is the right word - sorry). You were suggesting that I had not studied the subject in detail, that is not actually true, maybe not to the depth you obviously have, but enough to be happy with it.

I am not sure anything physical can exceed c, but I'm prepared to accept that something might - that is the difference between you and me. A theory is a theory until something comes along to negate it, if nobody is looking for anything to negate it, it will remain the theory. I think that is sad. Much progress has been made by breaking existing theories.

>>> and no-one would understand a word you said.

That's true!

"I think this is a recursive argument, the theory predicts they are not there, so they are not there, so we don't look for them, because the theory predicts... and so on"

Well, as well as the theory predicting it, everytime we accelerate something in a particle accelerator we can never make it faster than c, no matter how much energy we pour into it, just as relativity predicts. So, we'd need a magic new particle for it to travel faster than C, the only one that is in consideration is the tachion which has no mass hence doesn't contradict relativity.

Let me explain a little why i'm so sure that C will never be broken:

The problem with an object ever being able to break the speed of light is that relativity has shown that the speed of light to be a property of space. Because we're talking about a property of space itself there is no envelope, an alternative way of getting round C would be to change the properties of space itself, this was the angle the "warp drive" in star trek took, but unfortuneately as i mentioned before it has been shown that it would take 10x more energy than existed in the universe to be able to do that.

So the only scenario that lets a mass break the speed of light (aside from another ingenious way of manipulating space -which I doubt will happen anyway) is that relativity is wrong, that the speed of light is not a property of space at all.

But that aspect of relativty has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt", just as genes have been proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to carry the genetic code, or evolution has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt" as the mechanism by which life arose, or that it has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that hot air rises.

"A theory is a theory until something comes along to negate it, if nobody is looking for anything to negate it, it will remain the theory. I think that is sad."

But eventually you have the truth, then no theory replaces it. The part of relativity that we are talking about is imo the truth, just as genes being the genetic code is the truth, or the Earth being round is the truth.

And their are loads of people trying to find the replacement theory for relativity/QM that will merge them (Quantum gravity). The merged theory will of course contain most of relativity and most of Quantum mechanics.

If relativity is completely wrong (which as I have pointed out seems monstrously improbably) the people searching for quantum gravity will find out.

This argument has grown useless.
All adrianxw is saying is that you should have a more open mind.
It is pointless to completly block your mind to the possiblity that it might be wrong or that there is a better way of doing things. You gain nothing from it.
You cannot prove otherwise conclusivly as that would violate relativity, you'd have to discuss events that have not occured yet, meaning that thier effects strech back in time, a speed sooo much faster than light.
And yes we all understand your view point, nothing can travel faster than c.
A long time back someone pointed out an analegy to conventional air craft, its not perfect but it still holds. Eay back in the 1800's people didnot think it was possible to create a vehical that could fly. But peoplwe kept working on it regardless of that until they found a way. Yes 99% of the people who worked on this acheived absloutly nothing, however they were all important as they paved the way for the 2 people who did suceed and finally made a (some what primitive but functional none the less) aeroplane.
The people who stood in thier way acheived absloutly nothing.

>>>
The problem with an object ever being able to break the speed of light is that relativity has shown that the speed of light to be a property of space.
<<<

You would seem to be using parts of the theory to prove other parts of the theory - relativity may be self consistent, that is the box.

I don't know how to proceed without repeating myself frankly.

BTW, how do physicists feel about the faster than light problems associated with cosmologists inflation theory?