Speed of light problem

[RpgGamer]

the whole universe would explode :roll:

 

 

 

in reality, i doubt anything special would happen...with a gravitational pull, the objects would simply stop, then drop;

 

in a vacuum, they would probably just stop and float

[darkmage099]

Answer to the gravity/light question.

 

 

 

Interesting...

[Kingtygy]

Watch someone speed billions of dollars to do this, only to have the two objects hit each other, make a little clink noise, and fall to the ground like nothing ever happened.

 

 

 

But seriously, the first thing that comes to mind is explosion, but think about it, unless you use explosives, that doesn't seem like the most likely thing to happen, unless you take into consideration of all that energy, inertia, force, and whatnot, but that makes my head hurt. I think the most likely outcomes would be that they both disintegrate, or maybe they would go through each other! That'd be cool. My little joke actually seems likely to me too.

 

 

 

If that is even physically possible, by the way. Oh, you were talking about, like, oh say two objects like the size of a marble or something right? Maybe metal balls? Thats what i thought you were talking about, if not, dont listen to any of this.......

[doomy]

Nothing can get to the speed of light because before it reaches it the object gains infinite mass which requires an infinite amount of force to move it.

 

 

 

Or so our science techers says, but if not, BOOM!

[tryto]

Im pretty sure that this is the whole concept of atomic fusion, however it doesnt seem to be working for scientists atm.

[indy500fan]

Gah, so much bad physics dotted around here.

 

 

 

Sorry about that, the only thing I have read (and remembered) was Newton's theory of gravity. The way my professor was talking about just lead me to assume the stuff that I mentioned, but we never talked about the "speed of gravity." We never went further than Newton's theories when dealing with gravity either. I've also mentioned Newton throughout all of this, but now that I think about it, it might have been someone else. Who made the F~(m1xm2)/(d^2) proportion?

[Rebdragon]

Gah, so much bad physics dotted around here.

 

 

 

Sorry about that, the only thing I have read (and remembered) was Newton's theory of gravity. The way my professor was talking about just lead me to assume the stuff that I mentioned, but we never talked about the "speed of gravity." We never went further than Newton's theories when dealing with gravity either. I've also mentioned Newton throughout all of this, but now that I think about it, it might have been someone else. Who made the F~(m1xm2)/(d^2) proportion?

 

Well, first it's F=G(m1*m2)/d^2, not sure if that's a typo or not. G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.636*10^-11. The equation was formulated by Newton, while the G constant was calculated by Henry Cavendish (after Newton had died).

[indy500fan]

Gah, so much bad physics dotted around here.

 

 

 

Sorry about that, the only thing I have read (and remembered) was Newton's theory of gravity. The way my professor was talking about just lead me to assume the stuff that I mentioned, but we never talked about the "speed of gravity." We never went further than Newton's theories when dealing with gravity either. I've also mentioned Newton throughout all of this, but now that I think about it, it might have been someone else. Who made the F~(m1xm2)/(d^2) proportion?

 

Well, first it's F=G(m1*m2)/d^2, not sure if that's a typo or not. G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.636*10^-11. The equation was formulated by Newton, while the G constant was calculated by Henry Cavendish (after Newton had died).

 

 

 

That's why I used the ~ instead of the = sign. I was just pointing out the proportion.

[lord_ownage]

well they would both just stop and fall down 8-)

[assassin_696]

Gah, so much bad physics dotted around here.

 

 

 

Sorry about that, the only thing I have read (and remembered) was Newton's theory of gravity. The way my professor was talking about just lead me to assume the stuff that I mentioned, but we never talked about the "speed of gravity." We never went further than Newton's theories when dealing with gravity either. I've also mentioned Newton throughout all of this, but now that I think about it, it might have been someone else. Who made the F~(m1xm2)/(d^2) proportion?

 

 

 

Nah your posts were fine, I wasn't really referring to them. Newton's laws are still the only ones taught in school so I wouldn't really expect anyone else to know about relativity and stuff unless they'd read a lot of popular science.

 

 

 

And yeah, the inverse square law you referred to was formulated by Newton.

[m1cha34l]

CERN built a 27km long tunnel under geneva to try to do this, maybe not at the speed of light but very close to it.

 

 

 

Somehow they create positrons (opposite of electrons) and then fire the positrons at the electrons. Because they are both opposites of each other they 'vanish' and release huge amounts of 'pure' but unstable energy.

 

 

 

Unfortunatly in 11 years they managed to produce enough electricity to boil two cups of tea.

 

 

 

Cuppa anyone?

 

 

 

Anyway, you should look it up on the 'net.

[DragonFirenze]

Yeah as someone previously mentioned this has already happened. They're called Particle Accelerators, and i think the largest built is at CERN and can accelerate particles to 8 TeV or something ridiculous. About 99.999% the speed of light. Smashing particles at speeds like that results in a huge release of energy as well as the creation (?) of new particles, often smaller than the last. It was using particle accelerators that they found the charm, strange, top and bottom quarks. Very freakish stuff. I believe they're using this technology to try and create anti-matter but i couldnt tell you exactly how. Very interesting to read up on though.

[flying_death_bombs55]

I personally think it will destroy all of reality, but thats just my opinion.

[Futurama]

Black hole I bet. Probably.

[Magical_Phat]

Um... Boom? :D

[Rebdragon]

I personally think it will destroy all of reality, but thats just my opinion.

 

Yes, it'll destroy the entire universe :ohnoes: *.

 

 

 

Anyone else sick of hearing that line in TV shows :lol: ? I mean, I can understand some character saying the world is going to blow up, or maybe even the solar system, possibly even the galaxy if there's a logical futuristic reason, but the universe? It's an overused plot device, and it's kind of too much of a stretch for anyone to care :-w .

 

 

 

*Use Professor Farnsworth voice here for added enjoyment. Waving hands: optional.

 

[/moronic, abrupt tangent]

 

 

 

Black hole I bet. Probably.

 

Nope : .

 

 

 

Black holes arise from the compression of matter, not the collision of it.

[Master_Smither]

[hide=Big Picture]

 

 

 

This duh

 

 

 

[/hide]

[kam42705]

In order to accelerate an object to the speed of light, and infinite amount of energy is required, since as the object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, eventually topping out at infinity. So with two infinite masses with an infinite amount of energy propelling them, would cause each object to have an infinite amount of gravity radiating from it. This would result in a bend in the space-time continuum, resulting in an object known as a black hole. Amazing isn't it? :lol:

 

 

 

Now, two black holes that are close together would eventually combine, releasing amounts of energy that are only inferior to that produced by the Big Bang. The resulting cataclysmic explosion would rock the universe, sending gravitational waves throughout the universe. This would result in a temporary distortion of time and space, after which, only one massive black hole would exist.

[Will H]

In order to accelerate an object to the speed of light, and infinite amount of energy is required, since as the object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, eventually topping out at infinity. So with two infinite masses with an infinite amount of energy propelling them, would cause each object to have an infinite amount of gravity radiating from it. This would result in a bend in the space-time continuum, resulting in an object known as a black hole. Amazing isn't it? :lol:

 

 

 

 

Correction: Not infinite kinetic energy, it's the speed of light. The speed of light is a rational number, but it just requires infinite energy to accelerate an object to that amount.

 

 

 

It's unproven physics, but i think most likely result would probably be annihilation (Both masses will collide and the mass will be converted into energy) at the exchange rate of the speed of light squared, or E=mcÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâò. This would result in quite a significant explosion, but the size of it of course depends on the mass of the colliding objects.

 

 

 

CERN built a 27km long tunnel under geneva to try to do this, maybe not at the speed of light but very close to it.

 

 

 

Somehow they create positrons (opposite of electrons) and then fire the positrons at the electrons. Because they are both opposites of each other they 'vanish' and release huge amounts of 'pure' but unstable energy.

 

 

 

Unfortunatly in 11 years they managed to produce enough electricity to boil two cups of tea.

 

 

 

Cuppa anyone?

 

 

 

Anyway, you should look it up on the 'net.

 

 

 

Yes, that's annihilation, but it's a different cause. Since positrons are the antimatter equivalent to electrons, it's a part of their nature that if they collide with it's equivalent particle, at any speed, they will annihilate each other. The reason why they only got a tiny amount of energy is because electrons are incredibly light. The useful thing about this energy reading though is that they can take this energy output, put it though a rearranged version of E=mcÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâò, which would be m=E/cÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâò. Replace E with your energy output and c with the speed of light, and voila, you've got the mass of both the positron and electron together in grams.

 

Now assuming that both the positron and electron are both the same mass (I can't think of why that wouldn't be the case), if you divide m by 2, you get the mass of a single electron/positron in grams.

[meol]

Hold on a second. You said that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object into the speed of light, right? Yet, it wouldn't have an infinite amount of kinetical Energy.

 

How isn't this violating the Energy-conservation law?

[assassin_696]

Hold on a second. You said that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object into the speed of light, right? Yet, it wouldn't have an infinite amount of kinetical Energy.

 

How isn't this violating the Energy-conservation law?

 

 

 

Excellent question, but the kinetic energy has two components: mass and velocity. As velocities (speeds) approach the speed of light the mass begins to increase, therefore requiring more energy to continue to accelerate the object. While the speed of light limits the velocity, the mass can increase indefinitely, so the kinetic energy continues to increase.

[kam42705]

Hold on a second. You said that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object into the speed of light, right? Yet, it wouldn't have an infinite amount of kinetical Energy.

 

How isn't this violating the Energy-conservation law?

 

 

 

Excellent question, but the kinetic energy has two components: mass and velocity. As velocities (speeds) approach the speed of light the mass begins to increase, therefore requiring more energy to continue to accelerate the object. While the speed of light limits the velocity, the mass can increase indefinitely, so the kinetic energy continues to increase.

 

 

 

So if you accelerate an object composed of exotic matter (with negative mass), would its mass decrease to negative infinity, thus propelling it faster, or would its mass, like that of normal matter composed of baryons, increase to infinity? And if the first case is true, then wouldn't exotic matter be shooting around the universe through time, since it would be going faster than the speed of light?

[Rebdragon]

So if you accelerate an object composed of exotic matter (with negative mass), would its mass decrease to negative infinity, thus propelling it faster, or would its mass, like that of normal matter composed of baryons, increase to infinity? And if the first case is true, then wouldn't exotic matter be shooting around the universe through time, since it would be going faster than the speed of light?

 

Okay, you lost me at the "negative mass" part.

[kam42705]

So if you accelerate an object composed of exotic matter (with negative mass), would its mass decrease to negative infinity, thus propelling it faster, or would its mass, like that of normal matter composed of baryons, increase to infinity? And if the first case is true, then wouldn't exotic matter be shooting around the universe through time, since it would be going faster than the speed of light?

 

Okay, you lost me at the "negative mass" part.

 

 

 

In that case, allow me to elaborate-

 

 

 

The matter that we are familiar with is composed of atoms-whose nucleus contains protons and neutrons. These particles, along with a few others, compose the family of baryons- a class of particles composed of three quarks. These quarks cannot exist alone- they must be bound with other quarks- and because of that, you won't find a 'quark soup.' Now, theoretically speaking, there may exist particles that are known as tachyons- they have an 'imaginary' mass, that is, a mass that is neither positive nor zero. These particles are hypothetically thought to exist, but have not been proven.

 

 

 

The negative mass would mean, in essence, that they would be like boots of lightness or a spottier cape, in RS terms- they would lower your mass. Now, these tachyons probably couldn't lower the mass of matter by combing with baryons, but, these tachyons would interact in strange ways with normal matter, if they do exist.

 

 

 

What I was wondering was what/how would a tachyon be propelled to/beyond light speed.

[Rebdragon]

These particles are hypothetically thought to exist, but have not been proven.

 

That was my point.

 

 

 

I know all that stuff about atoms; no need to explain it or simplify the concepts. But I've never heard of anything with, or hypothesized to have, "negative mass" in my life. What is the evidence that something like that would exist, beyond the existence of antimatter?

 

 

 

I.e., I don't think the existence of matter with an opposite charge is proof for negative mass (pardon me if this is not included in the reasoning behind the hyptheses). That's like saying that because there's positive, time, there has to be negative time. Time can't be negative. Neither can mass.