taog

I know that you are not arguing that they are wrong. The original poster simply stated that he thinks we can go faster than the speed of light, without any type of backup. That kind of bothers me, because the only thing he reasoned was because physics might be wrong. It's too easy to say that. If something was said about fact that photons have been accelerated faster than the speed of light, or some situations in quantum mechanics where it might seem possible, which I have heard of, but will not quote, because I simply don't know enough about it, then I would have no problem with him stating that he thinks we can move faster than the speed of light. To me, if you think something like that, you should have a reason why you think it. If you don't have a good enough reason, you might end up making your own 'cosmological constant' mistake, like Einstein did.

I do agree that it could be possible to move faster than the speed of light with using some differnet type of technology. Something not thought of yet, and possibaly related to quantum mechanics. I, however, find that very unlikely. That's just an opinion, and the reasons why are all the reasons why relativity seems to work in todays physics, which I had stated. I am very open minded, so if I am given good reason as to why things might not work, I will take them into consideration.

I do agree that all physics might take a huge turn in the future. It's guaranteed that physics is going to change, especially relativity, but I really don't think that it will change as far as to say that we can travel faster than the speed of light.

Every time I think about how we could possibly travel faster than light, I think about the fact that light is always the same speed, no matter what reference point you take. If you are moving half the speed of light, someone else is standing still, and you both measure the same beam of light, you both get the same value.

I also think about black holes and what happens with them. ie., mass being sucked in and moving at or faster than the speed of light. What really happens there? What happens to that mass at the event horizon? If singularities exist (Hawking came up with them, and supposedly has disproved himself. I haven't read up on this yet, though), what happens there, in reality?

I'm not only basing my "we can't move faster than light" thoughts on a possibaly needed to be modified formula, I'm also basing it on observations that astronomers have made.

These questions are all valid in trying to figure out if we can move faster than light. The observations we have made leave little room for this case to be true. The easiest way to explain that is to refer to E=mc^2, since it shows the mass increase that happens with black holes and such, which is why I referred to that model.

Is it possible that we could figure out a way to do it? Yes, it could be possible. I just find it so unlikely that I will say that it is impossible.


However, lets look at that situation. Lets assume that a massive object can travel faster than the speed of light, and we'll assume that time dilation still hold true.

Since time dilation changes the rate of your time, would time reverse after you pass the speed of light?

Your time slows down as you move faster. In theory, if you reach the speed of light, your rate of time would then be 0. Does that mean your rate of time would be, lets say, -1 once you reached a curtain speed. Does this mean you would be travelling backwards in time?, or would the rate of your time just be moving at a decreasing speed?

If you take a person at rest. Their rate of time would be going at some speed. Your rate would be 0 at the speed of light, so you wouldn't age compared to them. If you went faster than light, would you start aging negatively? So, you would get younger, in other words?

I guess, if this is the case, you would go back in time, but only to make yourself age negatively. You would get younger, while everyone else around you gets older.

Hmm, this doesn't seem, if this is true, like you would be able to go back in time, in the classic way that this guy claims, using this model. I guess that would leave us with looking at wormholes, or using gravity in some way.

Of course, I may be totally wrong on this, and there could be another way that I haven't thought of. Or, time dilation could be wrong. Either way, I like thinking about things like this.