Why you can't go faster than light (with equations) - Sixty Symbols

Can a neutron star rotate faster than the speed of light?

His beard is growing less than the speed of light.

Very nice and interesting video. Many thanks.

I believe dark matter is faster than light in the case of a black hole light is consumed. So maybe we should take a look at how fast does dark matter moves

John 8:12 + Malachi 3:6/ 2 Peter 3:9

QUESTION: Let's say there is a transparent ship moving away from you. The ship is traveling at 100,000mph. On board this ship, a flashlight is also shined away from you. This means the photos from the flashlight are moving at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) plus the speed the ship is moving at (100,000mph) according to the Theory of Relativity. I fully realize that according to the Theory of Special Relativity, the photons "seen" by you at your location will only be traveling at the "speed of light" rather than "the speed of light plus the speed of the ship." However, there seems to be no doubt the photons from the flashlight on board the ship are actually moving at "the speed of light plus the speed of the ship." In fact, all photons from all objects on the ship will be moving at the "the speed of light plus the speed of the ship" when those photons are traveling in that particular direction away from you.

With that in mind, my "question" is whether or not is is possible to actually be "moving" faster than the speed of light, even though you would not actually be "seen" moving at only the speed of light?

In other words, I'm saying it seems to be possible to travel much faster than the speed of light and reach your destination, even though it would "appear" to take much longer to an observer.

For example, let's say I left the planet Earth in a ship using technology where all matter is changed so that it no longer contains mass and requires very little energy to move. This ship has the ability to travel at a speed of 1,000 times the speed of light. I reach my destination on another planet in 10 hours. I live on this planet for many years and build a home on this planet. In about 1,000 years telescopes on the planet Earth will be able to "see" my home on this planet, even though my home on the planet will have existed that entire time. As far as the planet Earth is concerned, the images from that planet are like looking 1,000 years into the past, just as looking at the Sun provides an image about 8 minutes into the past. From the point of view of people on Earth, they will be able to see me in their telescopes and see the "photons" from my ship traveling to the planet for 1,000 years, even though it only took me 10 hours to get to the planet. The reason for this is because the "photons" from my ship would be traveling at only the speed of light, while the ship itself would be traveling at a rate of 1,000 times the speed of light.

Is that example accurate? Please tell me why the example would not be possible to actually move faster than the speed of light, even though others would only "see" me moving at the speed of light due to the fact that the photos from my ship would be traveling at only the speed of light.

QUESTION: Thermodynamics tells us that at the Temperature of 0 Kelvin, there is no movement at all - both Space and Time stop. So, there is a "Minimum" Temperature 0 Kelvin. However, Thermodynamics also tells us there is no "Maximum" Temperature. As a result, it would theoretically be possible to have a Temperature so high that an object moved faster than the speed of light. Is this correct?

According to Thermodynamics and this concept of "No Maximum Temperature," it would theoretically be possible for an object to have a Temperature so high that it occupied all points of Space in the Universe simultaneously at all moments of Time.

I realize there would never be enough energy to do such a thing. However, let's just say that a form of technology has been invented so matter no longer contains mass, which allows it to be moved with virtually no energy. And, let's just say the technology has been invented so an object can be heated by a device that has access to an alternate dimension filled with an infinite supply of energy.

In that scenario, would it be possible to move faster than the speed of light? ... I realize that to "observers" the object would only be "seen" moving at the speed of light. However, the object itself that had such a high Temperature would be travelling much faster than the speed of light, wouldn't it?

No. You can't go faster than light even with relativity, where time stops when speed increases.

Sorry, I could not follow your explanation because you have a scattered way of saying what you want to say. And I do not realy know why so many enthusiastic comments are posted. Hmmm. pretty weird. Sorry, I really cannot understand.

Actually faster then light travel IS possible...not for our primitive science, but it is possible you'll learn in time 😉

So the equations continue, (another frame of reference) because the train is on a planet that's spinning, and also moving through space in it's orbit around it's primary, and the primary is moving in orbit of it's galaxy, and it's galaxy is moving in it's own direction, and it's universe is heading off to who knows where. Many frames of reference we don't take into account, and probably a few we don't and can't even imagine. whew I need a cup of coffee.

Well causality would break, without a speed limit, right?

To me the whole point of this video (why is it that nothing can physically go faster than light) was glossed over with math equations that many people probably couldn't even follow.

I think : Mechanics( quantum) of light :


The light is the limit(the border,of things,the edge of the matter)
Over the limit are no more things,( there is no matter anymore )
If you want to pass( break) the limit, you should use : not matter anymore, ( not particles anymore)
(Light speed ) It can't be reached with mechanical movement( mechanical particles movement). Mechanical movement( motion) is for things under the light's limit,( things with mass, volume etc... For matter,)light is the "wall"( limit) between matter and " No matter " . Don't waste time to break the light's limit with particles ( like neutrino, tachyon etc..) In this state( situation) you don't have to do with particles , because you want to go over( beyond ) the light ( over the particles) therefore is wasting of time
.
Another parallel thought :

The possible outcome :
C= constant means :
The light doesn't move,( doesn't travel )
The photons doesn't move, therefore ( speed of) light is constant, because they don't move , is just as to turn the page, light just display it( unveils it) , but doesn't move ( doesn't travel)

The book 91:3

This is a new point of view



So you should make another math system, another physical system ( over{ beyond} the matter) , should find new sources .

If you will approach to the limit( to the border), the limit doesn't have sense anymore, if you pass the limit, the things will change, the system doesn't work anymore, a new system will be applied( will be working) , for example : if you want to become smaller and smaller and smaller , until you become a string, that is the edge, there is nothing beyond it, if you want to go beyond it, you should leave the entire system, and take a new( different) system .
It is like to travel with a car, you can travel with the car until in front of you there is the sea, now you should leave the car and take a new vehicle ( a ship) , because the car doesn't work beyond the edge ( beyond the limit ,the land ), there is different environment beyond the land, the car doesn't work there, same is your system, you want to go there but your system doesn't work there, need a new system, new variables, "new tools "... 🦩

if you consider the universe is expanding faster than speed of light then most likely we are moving faster than light right now :)

But, the video didn't explain why you can't go faster than light. :(
Actually, you CAN go faster than light, you just can't go AT the speed of light. (Of course, things get weird if you are going faster than light. Such as your momentum becomes negative, but there is no theoretical reason that is impossible.

I'm probably going to get burned at the stake for saying this, but the professor didn't prove why you can't go faster than the speed of light, he only used specific equations to demonstrate that you only observe the speed of light to be constant by the manipulation of these equations.

How you prove the equations are valid would prove that you can't exceed the speed of light. Just sayin'...

Aren't you using relativity equations that are based on the hypothesis that speed of light can't be exceeded to prove you can't go than the speed of light?!
Maxwell equations show why you can't exceed the speed of light.

I like your videos and have learned a lot from them BUT..... your reasoning here is surely CIRCULAR. For example the formula you use to show that 'c' cannot be added to the speed of any moving object already contains 'c' and can only be derived ON THE ASSUMPTION that 'c' is some kind of special case!! This is circular....

I have predıcted with my theory and my formula 6.3 tımes greater speed of light which is measured as if apparently inside of M87 black hole. I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN, we need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it

What would the universe be like if gallilean transformation was right?
It would be possible for younger light to overtake older light if the emitter changes direction. Thus we'd see some distant processes reversed. Causality would be broken

But why is it that the Lorentz transformations apply in the first place? Or, to phrase the question differently, why does electrodynamics work the way it does? Relativity doesn't explain why nothing can go faster than light, it only quantifies how much reality differs from the Galilean/Newtonian model. For example, it doesn't explain what causes the astronaut in the twin paradox to age more slowly than his earthbound sibling.

The space of velocities is hyperbolic geometry.

Could we get to Proxima Centauri the second nearest star to planet Earth?
To travel a light year in a day you would have to be in a spacecraft that could travel at 299,792.3344km/s or 0.99999625214054 the speed of light.
Below are the time dilations found using the Lorentz Transformation equation. The years are as measured on the space craft compared to 1 year using the Earth’s space-time (A.K.A. the Universe ‘PROPER TIME’).
0.1c = 0.9499years

0.2c= 0.9798 years

0.3c= 0.9539 years

0.4c= 0.9165 years

0.5c= 0.866 years

0.6c= 0.8 years

0.7c= 0.714 years

0.8c= 0.6 years

0.9c= 0.436 years

0.99c=0.141 years

0.999c= 0.04471years

0.9999c = 0.01414 years

At 0.99c the speed of light, time runs 7 times slower than on Earth. The nearest star, other than the Sun is Proxima Centauri which is just about 4.25 light years away.
If one twin stayed on Earth while the other twin travelled to Proxima Centauri, to the twin that stayed on Earth, 8.8 years will have passed, but to the astronaut twin only 1.27 years would have passed so the astronaut twin would be 7.53 years younger than his brother that stayed on Earth. To the astronaut twin, he has travelled into the future since he is seeing what his twin brother and everything else looks like, 7.53 years ahead of their time frame. If during the trip, the astronaut twin could see what was going on back on Earth, they would be seeing everything going 7 times faster even though both twins, where they are, perceive time to be unchanged with respect to the rate time passes.
The time taken to get to the star will be the same as the time taken to get back, so halve the whole journey times given earlier.
I have assumed that there have been no gravitational effects on time. Strong gravitational fields dilate time. Leaving the Earth’s gravitational field would speed up time, but for the whole trip, by less than a second so it is irrelevant.
I have also assumed the speed has been a constant 0.99c for the whole trip, so have not counted the time needed to accelerate both positively at the beginning and negatively at the end of the journey and have not worked out what the effect of the accelerations would have on time.

what about the speed of light in non inertial frames

Saying what we cannot do in science is the opposite of a explorative scientific mind. Saying we cannot go faster then light right now in this time is true, but saying it is impossible is closed minded. Who are you to say what we can and cannot do in thousand or a million years.

I only have one question. When the speed of light was determined was it done in basically the same space/time compression? Aka the surface of Earth.

What about relatively proving the speed of light can not be the fastest speed because there is no other example where velocity can not be increased if more energy is added.

ok so the maths is different but can you show what the maths say on the picture ,,,,,,go back to the torch and the train and write in the speeds .

This is misleading as it doesn’t explain why a body can’t travel faster than light. The Lorentz transformation was setup based on the assumption that nothing could be measured as traveling faster than light and the addition of velocities, as the professor has demonstrated, is therefore guaranteed to produce a result of c or less. To explain why nothing can accelerate past c you must justify that assumption. To illustrate my point. Suppose u’ was considered 2c and v was considered 3c. When you do the calculation you find the addition of velocities is 5/7c!!!!! In other words although the ship moving away is traveling at 3 times the speed of light and the object within the ship is traveling at 2 times the speed of light, the resultant calculation of the the speed of the object within the ship is five sevenths the speed of light. This formula hardly proves that traveling faster than light is impossible as this particular calculation is arrived at by assuming bodies are travelling faster than light.

With such thinking and math, how could we ever know if we were wrong? Maybe there is something faster than the speed of light. Or is that where the local ends and the non local begins?

what effect would it have if the speed of light was a twice as fast as it is.
would we get twice the amount of energy from mass?

We found the speed of light - how incredibly fast it was - but then we found out how incredibly slow it was - considering the size of the Universe,

WTF, YOU USED RELATIVITY TO PROVE THE ASSUMPTION ON WHICH THE RELATIVITY IS BASED? HOW DOES THIS PROVE THE SPEED OF LIGHT US THE ULTIMATE LIMIT

Well this video doesn't actually answer to the question "Why", because as a way of explaining you use the equations that are specifically set this way.

The curvature of space isnt a constant

You can't go faster than light because as your speed approaches c, you mass decreases. You can install a cooling system to prevent the loss of mass but at some point, your cooling system is going to be more massive than the ship's propulsion system, Gamma factor.
Without out any mass to push against, how can you accelerate. And watch you reach the speed of light, you become light. It's like asking how can car A go faster than car A. Car A needs to travel outside the universe in order for it to go faster than car A can go in this universe.

Special theory of relativity, assumes that speed of light is constant, but we are using the same thing, and proving it.. Isn't it a bit like circular reasoning..

Life would be weird if the speed of light was as slow as our walking pace...

Is it weird for something or someone in our universe that our walking pace is so much slower than the speed of light?

😂

Speak for yourself. What we don't know about the physical universe far exceeds what we do.

can C also be expressed as the resistance of the Higgs field?

I have two pet tachyons that disagree... Now I cannot find them. I saw them once.

The speed of light can also be seen as the speed of information. Going faster than the speed of light therefore outruns cause and effect. This doesn't even make sense.

You have wasted my time. Thought you were going to say something that everybody does not already know .

Relativity is actually very easy, arithmetically. They should not be a postulate but nothing can trouble faster than light, how does anyone know that, what is the theory?

Is length contraction compatible with quantum mechanics?

In case of torch... What will be the real calculated speed of train?

No one is going to travel at the speed of light, or faster than light, and humans aren't going anywhere in space except for orbiting the Earth or visiting the moon, which comes with great physical cost and degradation to the human body anyways.

listen, I don't need to go faster than light as long as I can ignite the mass of several jupiters in an antimatter reactor to create a spacetime warp bubble that I can accelerate to any speed the reactor can handle. Simple

Hello! Light speed can be passed in hyperbolic spaces! Relativity is Elliptic NOT hyperbolic.