Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
E=Mc^2 is a mathematical equation that specifies the conversion of energy into mass (or vice versa). c in this equation equates to the speed of light, but doesn't proffer proof that nothing can transcend it, or even that c, being a constant, is truly constant. It is constant in so much as our ability to view it's speed from our perspective... which is part of the "Special Theory of Relativity". People have already been able to slow the speed of light in laboratory settings. That would make it NOT a constant. Also, quantum mechanics could make this more or less true down the road.
Regardless, E=Mc^2 does not prove that nothing can be faster than c. It's a conversion specification.
|
You'll have to excuse me. I'm lazy, and sometimes I don't bother explaining things that I think people already know or are able to figure out by themselves. It's a sort of short-hand, but I shouldn't do it.
You're right that E=MC^2 is a conversion factor, however if we combine it with special relativity it does create a situation where nothing is able to accelerate past light. In particular, we know (or it has been theorized and tested, if you want to get quite specific) that an object's mass increases relative to it's velocity. Running the numbers indicates that the speed of light becomes a practical limit, largely because of said conversion factor. I suppose in the strictest sense this might not make it a proof -- mathematics isn't really my forte.
You're right that the speed of light is altered. In fact, you may find in your reading that relativity already accounts for this by stating that the speed of light is constant
in a vaccuum and not in all situations.
I don't claim to be an expert in any of this, but this is how I understand it. Ask me about cosmology and I'll tell you anything you want to know.
Regardless of which specific theorem we're discussing, the scientific method is a very sound er.. method for dealing with a very specific set of questions. It does very well in answering questions about the physical world, which is why it's so widely accepted today. It's been my experience in the past that people who take issue with 'scientists' do so due to a lack of understanding of how the method works and how and when it should be applied.