## Faster Than Light Travel
## Going beyond light speedSo if an object, e.g. the electron in our accelerator, cannot even
accelerate to light speed, then how could it ever get past light speed? Consider the
bullet from the above example. A typical speed for a bullet from a handgun is 800m/s. For
a high power rifle the speed can be 1500 m/s [1]. Now consider the
speed of a man-made satellite, such as the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS
orbits the Earth at a speed of 7680 m/s [2]. The ISS was not originally
at this speed: it was in pieces on Earth and the fastest it was moving was that of the
equator, about 460 m/s, making the speed difference 7220 m/s. If you can’t get a
light-weight bullet beyond 1500 m/s then how could you get a much heavier ISS to 7220 m/s?
## A different take on relativity speed limitsIf my earlier arguments about time dilation and relativistic mass are
correct, I would like to propose a different set of theories regarding motion:
## Additive velocitiesSR also contends that velocities cannot be added together in the same way
as they are in classical mechanics. For example if two objects move in opposite directions
both at speed 0.8 Where v are the velocities of particles 1 and 2 and are in
opposite directions. I will leave out the derivation of this formula; suffice to say that
it comes from the time dilation and length contraction formulas, both of which come from
the Lorentz Transform (LT). In our example above, _{2}v and _{1}v
are both 0.8_{2}c, so the observed velocity will be 0.976c,
which is less than light. The formula guarantees that v<c.An obvious problem here is the phrase ‘observed velocity’ which implies that we don’t know how fast an object is travelling, but from the point of view of each particle, it looks like the other is travelling at less than light speed. This is misleading because we should not care what a speed looks like, only what it is.
It is also highly doubtful that it ‘looks’ like anything because the light from
a source moving away from an observer at faster than light speed could not reach the
observer.
## The lonely astronautTo overcome the confusion of appearance in velocities we need to set up an
experiment that removes the need to see a particle. This can be done with a ‘round
trip’ situation, which involves having a particle travel a known distance and then
return. In this way we can easily calculate the average speed of the journey.
## The rotating diskHere’s another approach. The disk is very massive so initially we shouldn’t expect much other than
some internal flexing. But providing we keep the force constant, at some point the disk
must begin to rotate as a whole.
## Breaking FTL on a microscopic scaleThere is a much easier way to break the light speed barrier; and one that probably occurs on a regular basis with charged particles. Consider these different arrangements of electrons: The first example (A) shows two electrons held close together. There is a
large opposing force between them and they would quickly fly apart if let go. As they move
apart, the force between them decreases. Classical mechanics tells us that the force
between them will always be greater than zero, no matter how far apart they are, and
therefore the electrons should move toward an infinite speed. But SR will say that their
mass will increase and keep speeds less than light. So at this point FTL has not been
achieved and we move to the next example...
## Experimental Evidence for FTLHaving speculated on the possibilities, we should now investigate what
evidence may be available to support FTL travel. Here we are concerned with particles
rather than light waves. We know that doing this in a laboratory as a multi-stage
acceleration is going to be difficult. So let’s look elsewhere: to outer space. Well SR is a whole different ball game. Everyone knows you can’t use the classical mechanics energy formula near light speeds. Instead you must use the E=mc
formula and deduct the rest energy ^{2}E from the total energy _{0}E.
For a particle of rest mass m having kinetic energy _{0}E,
this is what you must use:_{k}For low velocities this will approximate to the classical kinetic energy equation. What we want here is the velocity component, which can be extracted as: If you consider this equation carefully you’ll notice that for all
positive values of m, the
term inside the square root must always be less than 1. Therefore _{0}v must
always be less than c. Using this calculation there is no possibility of
velocity ever exceeding light speed!What has happened here? A series of steps starting with the assumption that velocity must always be less than light has led to equations that were then used in calculations to prove the original assumption. The LT appears in the equation to convert relativistic mass and this is the term that limits velocity to light speed. This is total nonsense. It doesn’t prove that v<c;
it only assumes it and then forces the assumption via an equation based on that
assumption. Here is the logic involved:1. Scientists postulate that light is the ultimate speed. 2. From this the LT is derived, and the relativistic energy equation E=mc ^{2}
follows from the LT.3. Scientists then search for evidence to test the postulate. 4. High energy particles are found. 5. Relativistic energy equation is used to calculate velocity of the particles. 6. The equations prove the postulate that they were based on. Basically the LT has been used to verify itself and the only thing it confirms is that LT=LT. A proof cannot be based on an assumption; it must be based on confirmed facts. If the classical mechanics energy equation had been used instead, a very different speed would have been calculated [4].
## Time dilation in Muons as Proof for FTL?In an earlier chapter we looked
at the decay of muons as proof for time dilation. Experimental evidence showed that muons
moving at 0.995
## ConclusionsFaster than Light travel relative to a fixed starting point is possible.
It cannot be done by applying a force from the starting point but can be done using
multi-stage accelerations. |

Copyright © 2011 Bernard Burchell, all rights reserved.