What is the max speed that anything can move?
- Thread starter IamQ
- Start date
Speed of light is the top limit of the speed anything can move in the universe.
As you get close to that some weird stuff starts to happen with Time and Mass, yes.
Edit: Oh, 300,000 Km/H is the speed of light. Ok then, yeah, you're right.
Edit again!: Ok, no, just looked it up on Wikipedia, the speed of light is 300,000 kilometres per second rather than per hour.
As you get close to that some weird stuff starts to happen with Time and Mass, yes.
Edit: Oh, 300,000 Km/H is the speed of light. Ok then, yeah, you're right.
Edit again!: Ok, no, just looked it up on Wikipedia, the speed of light is 300,000 kilometres per second rather than per hour.
I thought it was supernovas that moved hella quick. Don't hold me to that though, I study law & criminology, not pysics.
Well 300'000km/h is the speed of light, and if I remember basic Physics right E=MC^2 means that anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. That is, if I remember right.
Calumon: ...I'm confused.
Calumon: ...I'm confused.
I'm not very good in this subject, but I think that as long as there is no air resistance, like say in space, then you can't be slowed down.
The air resistance is in direct proportion to the kinetic energy put in the moving object. The higher the kinetic energy, the higher the air resistance. No air resistance, nothing slowing it down.
Otherwise, I think the object slows down once the kinetic input isn't enough to accelerate the object.
And this is all presuming that speed of light isn't the limit. Which it probably is.
So.... my comment right now was pretty pointless.
The air resistance is in direct proportion to the kinetic energy put in the moving object. The higher the kinetic energy, the higher the air resistance. No air resistance, nothing slowing it down.
Otherwise, I think the object slows down once the kinetic input isn't enough to accelerate the object.
And this is all presuming that speed of light isn't the limit. Which it probably is.
So.... my comment right now was pretty pointless.
I don't follow Einstein closely, so don't quote me. But I think it's something like this.
Time, AND space, are relative. When we say something is "going really fast" it is only going fast when compared to the object next to it. If those two objects were the only two in the universe, you could just as easily say the second object is the one moving fast. When an object is going close to the speed of light, time would appear to speed up for them because of the relativity. (this is demonstrated with the "light bouncing around inside a tube while travelling in a spaceship" example) Thus someone could leave Earth, go at lightspeed for a minute or so, then come back and find it's the year 3480.
Time, AND space, are relative. When we say something is "going really fast" it is only going fast when compared to the object next to it. If those two objects were the only two in the universe, you could just as easily say the second object is the one moving fast. When an object is going close to the speed of light, time would appear to speed up for them because of the relativity. (this is demonstrated with the "light bouncing around inside a tube while travelling in a spaceship" example) Thus someone could leave Earth, go at lightspeed for a minute or so, then come back and find it's the year 3480.
If it has rest mass (that is, mass while it is not moving), then the maximum speed is just under the speed of light in a vacuum (the figure already stated ~300k km/s): it can get close and with constant acceleration would asymptotically approach the speed of light, but never quite achieve it.
An object with NO rest mass (such as a photon) can travel at the speed of light.
Anything faster would require tricks or gimmicks, such as bending space to a sufficient degree, or boring wormholes or somesuch to achieve an FTL-like effect from the perspective of distant observers, but not even a Star Trek-esque Alqubierre Warp Drive would change these figures: the maximum speed of the object, as measured by the object, in relation to the space it is in would still be limited by the speed of light in vacuum.
An object with NO rest mass (such as a photon) can travel at the speed of light.
Anything faster would require tricks or gimmicks, such as bending space to a sufficient degree, or boring wormholes or somesuch to achieve an FTL-like effect from the perspective of distant observers, but not even a Star Trek-esque Alqubierre Warp Drive would change these figures: the maximum speed of the object, as measured by the object, in relation to the space it is in would still be limited by the speed of light in vacuum.
Okay... wow. We gotta get a physicist in here. It's been awhile since i've studied it (i switched to med and never looked back) but i remember enough to know that 99% of what's been said here is wrong. What *is* true is that no object can go faster than the speed of light. But for example
1. someone can't go at light speed 'for a second' because time dilation at that point is infinite
2. there is friction in space
3. there is no number 'near' light speed that one can go. The amount of energy required to accelerate an object increases the closer it gets to light speed (by an amount that is irrelevant in day to day life but very relevant when near light speed), approaching infinity.
I believe most of the above is true, but given that I'm no longer physicsey i wouldn't even swear by that. Can someone please post a nice mathematical explanation?
1. someone can't go at light speed 'for a second' because time dilation at that point is infinite
2. there is friction in space
3. there is no number 'near' light speed that one can go. The amount of energy required to accelerate an object increases the closer it gets to light speed (by an amount that is irrelevant in day to day life but very relevant when near light speed), approaching infinity.
I believe most of the above is true, but given that I'm no longer physicsey i wouldn't even swear by that. Can someone please post a nice mathematical explanation?
Good question. Quantum entanglement shows effect can move faster than the speed of light, if you count that as something.
It depends on what kind of moving we're talking about here.
If it's physical movement, then I suppose the speed of light is the limit. And given our current technology, it's not something we could achieve any time soon if ever... But a lot of other people already explained it anyways.
Then we get into theoretical stuff, and it's a huge mindfuck. Stuff like moving everything else while you remain stationary.
[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive[/link]
If it's physical movement, then I suppose the speed of light is the limit. And given our current technology, it's not something we could achieve any time soon if ever... But a lot of other people already explained it anyways.
Then we get into theoretical stuff, and it's a huge mindfuck. Stuff like moving everything else while you remain stationary.
[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive[/link]
E=MC2
Means that If any mass tries to move at the speed of light, it would have added 1 kg in mass...
And eatch Kg of mass has the energy of the speed of light...
Its a kinda prover of the Big bang theory. For if the universe expanded with an incredible speed, that means that the spare energy would turn into matter, therefor giving the foundations of planets and stars and stuff.. XD
Means that If any mass tries to move at the speed of light, it would have added 1 kg in mass...
And eatch Kg of mass has the energy of the speed of light...
Its a kinda prover of the Big bang theory. For if the universe expanded with an incredible speed, that means that the spare energy would turn into matter, therefor giving the foundations of planets and stars and stuff.. XD
The fastest anything can travel is the speed of light, and the only thing that can travel at that speed is because Light has no mass (even though it has momentum, which is a whole different kettle of fish). If we were to travel at the speed of light, the density of our mass would increase to the point at which we would collapse in upon ourselves, creating a black hole
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
In an atmosphere, it varies depending on the make up of the atmosphere, since eventually friction will make the object too hot and it will burn up.
In space, it's the speed of light (~186,000 miles/second) since once anything goes faster than that, it starts requiring more and more energy and will start consuming the energy around it, eventually consuming the universe.
Leastways, that's what I remember from physics.
In space, it's the speed of light (~186,000 miles/second) since once anything goes faster than that, it starts requiring more and more energy and will start consuming the energy around it, eventually consuming the universe.
Leastways, that's what I remember from physics.
Speed limit is the SoL. Stuff travelling near that speed will slow down so it can not exceed it.
Its bizarre but true.
Its bizarre but true.
E=mc^2 is not basic physics, and that formula does not indicate any limits for the speed of mass. It only connects mass, energy and the speed of lightJack and Calumon said:
Only simple prediction of that formula is, that if you start pumping the energy and the c is the constant light speed in vacuum, the mass need to grow. Or other way around.
Speed of light is always 1 x the speed of light. And you mean 0.9999c?azncutthroat said:
And with that c you are referring to the vacuum speed of light. With projectiles that have mass that might be reality. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't have mass, only momentum so it is another topic, and the 0.99999c... might be realistic answer.[edit] Confused. Are we talking about anything as the title asks or projectiles that have mass like original post asks?
Everything moving at considerable fractions of c have mass. For the precise reason you stated:SpecklePattern said:
"that if you start pumping the energy and the c is the constant light speed in vacuum, the mass need to grow."
EDIT: that is why there is a differentitation between rest mass (mass while the object is at rest) and mass.
Ugh... epic decimal mistake. Forgive me, I'm a little fried after finals.SpecklePattern said:Speed of light is always 1 x the speed of light. And you mean 0.9999c?azncutthroat said:
[edit] Confused. Are we talking about anything as the title asks or projectiles that have mass like original post asks?