Exceeding Light!

[xXAsherahXx]

What do you think would happen if a machine were to be invented that could travel faster than light itself? I can't find any articles on theories of what would happen, so I'll ask you fine scientists.

First of all, the ship would turn black since the lights are now following it, and second, space would start to visibly warp around it. That is my interpretation. Yours is?

 

[Swarley]

According to Stephen Hawking traveling faster than the speed of light is the basis of time travel.

So I'll go with that.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Time travel doesn't exist because time doesn't exist.

Quantum theory provides for more interesting theoretical travel than traditional FTL theory. Plus you start getting into the notion of whether or not we have "souls"; if a group of particles realign into your exact configuration hundreds of thousands of miles away, is it you?

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[aruseusx]

Same thing would happen when you break the sound barrier. Fuck all.

 

[Tharwen]

It is impossible for anything in this universe to travel faster than light. It would approach the speed, then become extremely heavy as the energy became mass instead (e = mc[sup]2[/sup]).

The only way to 'go faster' would be to go there by a shorter route, by not obeying the ordinary laws of physics in some way and effectively teleporting there. In that case, you could look back at your previous location and see yourself.

 

[Dexiro]

Time travel doesn't exist because time doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure it does. Are you using the "time is man-made" argument because that only refers to it being used as a measurement.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Obhraonian]

It would tear the universe a new one.

 

[Dexiro]

I'm pretty sure it does. Are you using the "time is man-made" argument because that only refers to it being used as a measurement.

How can we know for sure.
Maybe time actually doesn't exist.
Maybe we just relive the same second (second because we have no other term for short period of what we call "time") over and over?

We can't know.

Time does exist because without it i wouldn't have finished writing this post. There's a gap between when i started writing this and when i hit the 'post' button.

The space between those 2 events is what we measure with seconds or minutes. Those are just a man-made measurements applied to a pre-existing construct.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Time travel doesn't exist because time doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure it does. Are you using the "time is man-made" argument because that only refers to it being used as a measurement.

No, I'm using the theory that invariably crops up whenever physicists attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.

The way I see it: there is no good reason (read: no mathematical necessity) for time to move forward rather than backward. Observation pretty clearly demonstrates that it does not move backwards. In the absence of proper reason for trajectory, dismissal of the construct of "time" is a perfectly acceptable stance - for now.

Of course, I'm welcome to change my mind when new data emerges.

 

[Calgetorix]

Time does exist because without it i wouldn't have finished writing this post. There's a gap between when i started writing this and when i hit the 'post' button.

The space between those 2 events is what we measure with seconds or minutes. Those are just a man-made measurements applied to a pre-existing construct.

Actually time is a funny concept. The feeling that it flows is perhaps more linked to human perception rather than any physical unit.

What defines a second if time flows differently for observers moving at different speeds or are under different gravitational pulls? Well, the rate of change you could say. A quick look in Wikipedia says that a second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".

That said, time is not, as far as our current models go and like FieryTrainwreck said, required to only go forward in time but also backwards. That does not happen though, evident by everyday experience.

 

[Tharwen]

I'm pretty sure it does. Are you using the "time is man-made" argument because that only refers to it being used as a measurement.

How can we know for sure.
Maybe time actually doesn't exist.
Maybe we just relive the same second (second because we have no other term for short period of what we call "time") over and over?

We can't know.

Time does exist because without it i wouldn't have finished writing this post. There's a gap between when i started writing this and when i hit the 'post' button.

The space between those 2 events is what we measure with seconds or minutes. Those are just a man-made measurements applied to a pre-existing construct.

But what defines the existence of that construct? There is nothing that binds time to what we say it is. For all we know, what we call a second could have multiplied in length by a factor of 10000 in the time I took to write this post.

Even that statement only applies if you take time to be a constant flow or line.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm pretty sure it does. Are you using the "time is man-made" argument because that only refers to it being used as a measurement.

How can we know for sure.
Maybe time actually doesn't exist.
Maybe we just relive the same second (second because we have no other term for short period of what we call "time") over and over?

We can't know.

Time does exist because without it i wouldn't have finished writing this post. There's a gap between when i started writing this and when i hit the 'post' button.

The space between those 2 events is what we measure with seconds or minutes. Those are just a man-made measurements applied to a pre-existing construct.

That's not an actual proof of anything.

The only indication of "time" is change. Time equals change. Change equals... change? You could easily argue that "time" is just a murky, unnecessary term for something we've already defined - and the questions surrounding it hinge mostly on ill- conceived language.

This could be why they can't seem to identify the proper trajectory of "time". It is, after all, very hard to figure out which way something necessarily goes if it doesn't fucking exist.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Doclector]

Space would dissolve, and in the unending cosmos, a huge golden sign would appear, saying "level 2"

 

[Calgetorix]

The ship wouldn't go black, it would go invisible, as the light would move around it, not be absorbed by it.

As for my theory...
I dunno.

Headache?

I can't see why it go invisible. Surely photons would still be able to bounce off the spaceship, although it depends on the angle and velocity.

 

[-AC80-]

you can not travel faster than light. The faster you go the slower in time you travel.
technically it is time travel as you will be slower so you can servive for longer periods of time
if you could travel just UNDER the speed of light you could reach the outer barrier of our galexy by the end of a generations life est. 80 years.
[/thread]

 

[skeliton112]

It would become very heavy as dictated by e=mc^2

And even if you could reach it everything behind you would be black and everything in front white (if there was light).