Faster than the speed of light

[Jinei]

Quote by: Median We have not measured the speed of the force of gravity, but we have measured the speed of light. I have no problem with gravity as " waves " but I also think that anything that has mass, especially celestial bodies, produce gravity "waves" but I do not think that if you instantly placed a sun into space, it would take any amount of time for that respective gravity wave to form, it would be formed almost instantly simply because that mass was there almost instantly. This is a very interesting subject, I am not sure if anyone has actually measured gravity from an object in terms of speed.

Oh lord, I have to read that 400 page book over again, lol. I'm pretty sure that astrophysicists currently suspect that gravitational effects travel at the speed of light. I'll have to read up on it so I can cite or explain the reasons why, though. Maybe there's something online....

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Jinei Oh lord, I have to read that 400 page book over again, lol. I'm pretty sure that astrophysicists currently suspect that gravitational effects travel at the speed of light. I'll have to read up on it so I can cite or explain the reasons why, though. Maybe there's something online....

Jinei speaks truth. Who needs the internet when you have weird people?

[gallo]

I also understood that the effects of gravity traveled at the speed of light. Thus if the sun were to vanish into nothingness in an instant, the gravitational effects would reach earth at the same time that the light went out.

But, on the other hand, this isn't my field and I only understand what I read. At least, I understand what math doesn't exceed my abilities. For the rest, I await the debate between scientists in the field.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Median We have not measured the speed of the force of gravity, but we have measured the speed of light. I have no problem with gravity as " waves " but I also think that anything that has mass, especially celestial bodies, produce gravity "waves" but I do not think that if you instantly placed a sun into space, it would take any amount of time for that respective gravity wave to form, it would be formed almost instantly simply because that mass was there almost instantly. This is a very interesting subject, I am not sure if anyone has actually measured gravity from an object in terms of speed.

We have not detected gravity waves. How do you measure the speed of something that has never been detected? There are really bad science statements regarding the non detection of gravity waves by LIGO. LIGO Sheds Light on Cosmic Event | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
Check out these statements regarding the non-detection of gravity waves.

Quote by: from the article During the intense blast of gamma rays, known as GRB070201, the 4-km and 2-km gravitational-wave interferometers at the Hanford facility were in science mode and collecting data. They did not, however, measure any gravitational waves in the aftermath of the burst. That non-detection was itself significant. The burst had occurred along a line of sight that was consistent with it originating from one of Andromeda's spiral arms, and a binary coalescence event--the merger of two neutron stars or black holes, for example--was considered among the most likely explanations. Such a monumental cosmic event occurring in a nearby galaxy should have generated gravitational waves that would be easily measured by the ultrasensitive LIGO detectors. The absence of a gravitational-wave signal meant GRB070201 could not have originated in this way in Andromeda. Other causes for the event, such as a soft gamma-ray repeater or a binary merger from a much further distance, are now the most likely contenders. LIGO's contribution to the study of GRB070201 marks a milestone for the project, says Caltech's Jay Marx, LIGO's executive director: "Having achieved its design goals two years ago, LIGO is now producing significant scientific results. The nondetection of a signal from GRB070201 is an important step toward a very productive synergy between gravitational-wave and other astronomical communities that will contribute to our understanding of the most energetic events in the cosmos." "This is the first time that the field of gravitational-wave physics has made a significant contribution to the gamma-ray astronomical community, by searching for GRBs in a way that electromagnetic observations cannot," adds David Reitze, a professor of physics at the University of Florida and spokesperson for the LIGO Collaboration.

Now how in the hell does that work? LIGO has never detected a gravity wave. Ever. These guys must be really desperate to save their jobs. I can't blame them for that. But give me a break. How is non-detection significant, when there has never been a detection? WTF?

[Jinei]

Quote by: minorwork We have not detected gravity waves. How do you measure the speed of something that has never been detected? There are really bad science statements regarding the non detection of gravity waves by LIGO. LIGO Sheds Light on Cosmic Event | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference Check out these statements regarding the non-detection of gravity waves. Now how in the hell does that work? LIGO has never detected a gravity wave. Ever. These guys must be really desperate to save their jobs. I can't blame them for that. But give me a break. How is non-detection significant, when there has never been a detection? WTF?

I suppose negative results in science are not necessarily "bad" results. By making an experimental failure in one respect, they've made progress in another - the "gamma-ray astronomical community." I guess you're right, they haven't detected gravitational waves. But what I speak of is not the observations of gravitational waves, but the theoretical aspects of them. Theoretically, they should travel at the speed of light.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Jinei I suppose negative results in science are not necessarily "bad" results. By making an experimental failure in one respect, they've made progress in another - the "gamma-ray astronomical community." I guess you're right, they haven't detected gravitational waves. But what I speak of is not the observations of gravitational waves, but the theoretical aspects of them. Theoretically, they should travel at the speed of light.

Don't you mean hypothetically? Seems a more accurate term , or is that precise? There is no empirical evidence for gravity waves. Hopefully there will be, but when do we call the game? After Gravity Probe-B, LIGO, LISA fail to detect gravity waves?

LIGO - Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory
Laser Interferometer Space Antenna
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe
I'd say we don't understand gravity. More accurately, I don't. I do not know how the problem with sensitivities presents in LIGO. I do know that in the data there is noise to which various statistical algorithms are applied to detect a signal that can be related to other data gathered in the gamma ray band at, roughly, the same time. That would work if gravity flux travels at the same speed as the gamma electromagnetic quanta. If not, then, depending on the lag of one over the other, some constant might be applied to the formula relating the two. High Energy Gamma Rays Go Slower Than the Speed of Light? | Universe Today

The experimental failure adds nothing to our understanding of "gamma-ray astronomy" due to no detection, ever, by LIGO. The non-detection has nothing to say about gamma ray sources if there has never been a detection. Maybe LISA would detect gravity waves. Maybe applying laser comb technology to LIGO's interferometers will help. Laser Frequency Combs for Astronomical Observations

But if the apparatus is designed to detect something that gravity is not, then no conclusions can be drawn from a non-detection. I know there is more going on here than the equivalent situation where theists say the bible is evidence for god, but calculations(bible) without empirical evidence in tests make the gravity waves seem no better. Again, hopefully, detection is imminent.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Median Faster than the speed of light

Here it is my concept of the Light.
The Light is a matter and/or substance and/or fabric, etc. that the Universe is filled with. The Light limits the Universe's activity, to a certain edge that no element is able to cross over.
The Time is being used to measure a distance between elements, and Not the value of Space (between those elements), as is being done today.
If we would break the Light speed, then we enter a completely different dimension.

(A hypothetical) Example :
- subject :
Highway <===> Universe
- element :
Element <===> Homo Sapiens
Element is limited to travel at an appx. speed of 186.000m/s <===> 330.000km/s
- objective :
Element to break that speed limit
- result :
Element goes beyond that Highway

We trapped ourselves within the limitations imposed by ourselves.
We have become our own mind's limitations prisoners.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Rainbow Here it is my concept of the Light. The Light is a matter and/or substance and/or fabric, etc. that the Universe is filled with. The Light limits the Universe's activity, to a certain edge that no element is able to cross over. The Time is being used to measure a distance between elements, and Not the value of Space (between those elements), as is being done today. If we would break the Light speed, then we enter a completely different dimension. (A hypothetical) Example : - subject : Highway <===> Universe - element : Element <===> Homo Sapiens Element is limited to travel at an appx. speed of 186.000m/s <===> 330.000km/s - objective : Element to break that speed limit - result : Element goes beyond that Highway We trapped ourselves within the limitations imposed by ourselves. We have become our own mind's limitations prisoners.

So if you don't believe in relativity....you can go faster than light and you'll wind up in another universe?

[minorwork]

a) Things can go faster than the speed of light.
b) Nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
c) If a thing goes faster than light, it quickly slows to a speed less than that of light.

Only the last statement violates the law of relativity. This is because the speed of light is a barrier that cannot be crossed.

[Jinei]

Quote by: minorwork a) Things can go faster than the speed of light. b) Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. c) If a thing goes faster than light, it quickly slows to a speed less than that of light. Only the last statement violates the law of relativity. This is because the speed of light is a barrier that cannot be crossed.

If (a) is referring to theoretical tachyons, things that are already traveling faster than the speed of light and never were traveling slower at any given time, then I would agree. But nothing can accelerate from a speed of x<c to x>or=c, where x is velocity and c is the speed of light. It just won't happen.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Jinei If (a) is referring to theoretical tachyons, things that are already traveling faster than the speed of light and never were traveling slower at any given time, then I would agree. But nothing can accelerate from a speed of x<c to x>or=c, where x is velocity and c is the speed of light. It just won't happen.

I thought that is what I said. Only the answer c) violates the theory or law of relativity. Nothing can decelerate thru c either. Tachyons are theoretical particles, yes? Never been observed, yes? At least I've not heard of a tachyon detector being built, but I am limited.

The only quibbling over this might come from someone not realizing that c is in a vacuum. Cerenkov radiation is due to particles traveling faster than the speed of light in the medium it is traversing. A cool picture at Wiki: ÄŒerenkov radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think this would be neat to see in person, but not sure if it would be healthy.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Rainbow Element is limited to travel at an appx. speed of 186.000m/s <===> 330.000km/s

Nah: the limit is still 299,793,458 m/s here. Neutrons from space, or protons in particle accelerators can travel at 0.999999999c without problem.

For the rest of the post, I'm not sure if I can understand anything.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: minorwork a) Things can go faster than the speed of light.

Talking about tachyon? Well they are pretty hypothetical (as you said the very theory predicting those particles predict that since they travel faster than the speed of light we cannot detect them), but I'm not against the idea.

As for the [very pretty] Cherenkov radiation, I think it would be even more unhealthy if you couldn't see the blues light. At least water can stop those hyperkinetic beta particles. Of course there is gamma ray with them, but every nice show has its cost...

[minorwork]

Quote by: nerdvincent Talking about tachyon? Well they are pretty hypothetical (as you said the very theory predicting those particles predict that since they travel faster than the speed of light we cannot detect them), but I'm not against the idea. As for the [very pretty] Cherenkov radiation, I think it would be even more unhealthy if you couldn't see the blues light. At least water can stop those hyperkinetic beta particles. Of course there is gamma ray with them, but every nice show has its cost...

Good point. No, I wouldn't want to be hit by those particles.

Tachyons. Do you have a good basic site that you like for the derivation of the tachyon. I figure it is a complex math entity and I flunked calculus. Keep in mind that I've been in the coal mine electrics field for 31 years. Be kind.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: minorwork Good point. No, I wouldn't want to be hit by those particles. Tachyons. Do you have a good basic site that you like for the derivation of the tachyon. I figure it is a complex math entity and I flunked calculus. Keep in mind that I've been in the coal mine electrics field for 31 years. Be kind.

Well tachyons are dealing with worse than calculus, they're about complex number (ever heard of the square root of -1?). I'll try to look for a good website, but meanwhile I can send you "Calculus for Dummies" via email if you wanna refresh your memory. It helped me a lot to learn calculus 2 years before I'd learn it at school.

Edit:I don't know much about particle physics, I've been involved more into relativity than quantum physics. I'm learning with you.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: nerdvincent Nah: the limit is still 299,793,458 m/s here. Neutrons from space, or protons in particle accelerators can travel at 0.999999999c without problem. For the rest of the post, I'm not sure if I can understand anything.

I am not certain what is that you question.
It is appx. 186.000 MilesPerSecond what is the equivalent of appx. 330.000 KilometersPerSecond, what correspondents to appx. 299.793.458 MetersPerSecond in vacuum (as you posted).
Link : Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Rainbow I am not certain what is that you question. It is appx. 186.000 MilesPerSecond what is the equivalent of appx. 330.000 KilometersPerSecond, what correspondents to appx. 299.793.458 MetersPerSecond in vacuum (as you posted). Link : Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh miles per sec. . Sorry I thought it was meter per sec and then 330,000 kilometer per sec... I was just as confused as you are.
But there is 330,000 km/s which is 30,000 km/s too fast...

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Thanatos So if you don't believe in relativity....you can go faster than light and you'll wind up in another universe?

I take under consideration a fact that Homo Sapiens has Not sufficient knowledge to cristalize all the scientific notions. That is why I think that Einstein's theory will be modified (several times, at least).
Hint :
- DarkEnergy/Matter (as an example)

I am not certain whether we will enter a different Universe. However, since the Light is one of the fundamental factors Homo Sapiens percepts the Universe (we are part of) as we experience it today, then by exceeding the speed of Light speed we will percept that Environment differently, most likely, seeing it through/within a different dimension.

Example :
- environment : A
- light speed : 1.000 MilesPerSecond
What makes you for certain that Homo Sapiens would percept that "A" environment the same way it interact within an environment with a light speed of 186.000 MilesPerSecond
???

[Rainbow]

Quote by: nerdvincent Oh miles per sec. . Sorry I thought it was meter per sec and then 330,000 kilometer per sec... I was just as confused as you are. But there is 330,000 km/s which is 30,000 km/s too fast...

You can keep that 30.000 km/s :-)
(I hit that digit "3" twice. Sorry :-) )

[Rainbow]

Quote by: minorwork a) Things can go faster than the speed of light. b) Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. c) If a thing goes faster than light, it quickly slows to a speed less than that of light. Only the last statement violates the law of relativity. This is because the speed of light is a barrier that cannot be crossed.

How about : vibration ?