Can Anything Go Faster Than the Speed of Light?

any opinion?

This is a really interesting scientific debate that examines the speed of light and possibilities of traveling faster.  There have been some far out explanations about black holes that can warp light and the like but perhaps is that faster or slower than light itself?  And recently there have been discussions about “tachyons” or some kind of mysterious cosmic particle that indeed does travel faster.

 

The ever adventurous scientific video maker “Vsauce” asks this very question.  His explanations and examples may surprise you.

Do you think he is too far out there or does he pose some strong examples to ponder over?

Let’s find out what the narrator thinks could go faster in the video on page 2

Next Page »



Pages: 1 2

392 Comments

  1. Joshua Sherlock said:

    a sub atomic particle called a neutrino? is what ive heard can travel faster…its released just before a supernova..i may be wrong so dont quote me on this

    Reply
  9. Phil Rabon said:

    Let my wife find out there is a big sale somewhere close by…she will travel faster than the speed of light to get there ! .

    Reply
  22. Kevin Kadrmas said:

    I’m not an astrophysicist but we haven’t found or been able to measure anything that can come close to travel at the speed of light.

    Reply
  24. Peter Truman-Osness said:

    Well, it depends.

    If the fabric of space is a literal fabric, meaning that we move through it but it has a real physical existence, then it is possible that the resistance of that fabric could create a maximum speed known as the speed of light. This would also beg the question; is that material that makes the faboc of space an even “density”, meaning that at a lower density light could travel faster and at a higher density it would travel slower. However, it would be impossible to measure a difference in speed since molecular decay is our way of measuring time and would decay at a rate relative to that density. Unless we could loop around an object large enough to detect anomalies in thedensity relative to an objet that has traveled a different path. Which would explain the difference in clock times for the experiment that flew one atomic clock around the globe while the other remained stationary, on a larger scale using several paths in tandem a series of clocks could show if the fabric of space might be real and physical, if two or more of the travelling clocks registered different times having passed based on their different paths rather than just their distance travelled. In this universe, 2x the speed of light is the maximum relative velocity, since one object can travel in a direction at the speed of light and the other can travel the opposite direction at the speed of light.

    Option 2; the fabric of space is not physical, but just a way for us to measure locations. In this universe object Alpha can travel at the speed of light relative to object Beta, which is travelling at the speed of light relative to object Delta, which is traveling at the speed of light relative to object Omega. Therefore, is now moving at 3x the speed of light from object Omega, leaving the speed of light as simply an illusion of the speed of particle decay when introduced to pure energy.

    Option 3; we may live in some form of a holographic universe, where the three dimensions are just a projection of a flat surface or even a single dimension. While it does dive deep into quantum realms, if the universe is only one dimensional then the speed of light could be the decay rate of matter exposed to pure energy, and because that is the rate it is not possible to travel at any higher relative speed. This only really works in a projected 1 dimensional universe, as 2 dimensions allow for at least a potential relative speed of 2xC.

    Just the thoughts of a farm boy who didn’t get to college, so please step in to correct anything if I messed it up.

    Reply
  25. Peter Truman-Osness said:

    That theory is actually there to explain redshifts and blueshifts in the color spectrum of stars. Space under that theory expands at a constant rate everywhere, meaning only far away objects travel faster than the speed of light. But this is only relative to us, while not being relative to space itself because they stay in the same place, but the space between them expands. It’s a hard to explain theory, and personally I don’t agree with it fully, but it is the commonly accepted one because it has more evidence currently than the others.

    Reply
  27. John Armstrong said:

    Speef? lol..what has happened to todays world where people just can’t seem to spell properly anymore….blame it on today’s technology is guess…we have all been reprogrammed…..we are all being brainwashed by are own Tech gadgets….

    Reply
  28. Ira Townsend said:

    I have to disagree. Just because light is affected by gravity has no bearing to the speed of either. Prisms affect light. I do find it interesting though that photons have been slowed in an experiment earlier this year.

    Reply
  29. Ira Townsend said:

    Not at all. E=MC2 states that matter gains infinite mass$#%&!@*it approaches the speed of light. That is the crux of the problem. No mass is able to achieve light speed

    Reply
  31. Ira Townsend said:

    This is actually a brilliant question. Many scientist are going around the problem of achieving light speed by manipulating space-time instead, or as we understand it…the fabric of space. My question is, what is the absence of space?

    Reply
  32. Ira Townsend said:

    Centrifugal force keeps the orbiting planet in place. Should it stop it would take the earth approximately 84 days to fall into the sun

    Reply
  36. Ira Townsend said:

    Unfortunately unless we can somehow bypass the laws of physics it will never be achievable. The only obstacles in the way we’ve had were building something within the laws of physics. I

    Reply
  44. Daniel Gall said:

    Anything is possible, once upon a time we believed the sound barrier couldn’t be broken and we do that on a regular basis today but I think that even if we did break the light barrier it would be very dangerous when you consider that you could crash into so many different forms of objects in space and that you wouldn’t see them until it is too late the idea of wormholes is a more feasible method of interstellar travel over vast distances but FTL could be used for short jumps, like around the solar system for example, you have a greater chance of plotting a clear path before making the jump.
    At the moment it is science fiction but there has been so many things that were pure fantasy at one point that we have today as everyday household items but still, they are vastly different to the imaginations of of the writers, movie and TV show makers of the past have conceived but still serve the same purpose in the end.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Bert McGilvray Cancel reply

*

*

Top