What would happen if you went the speed of light, or faster

When we get that fast, if ever lol

Hi Dude, welcome too the forum!

Reaching the speed if light is indeed an impossibility. (Even thought someone is going to come by and say it is improbable)

If you could I believe you would just turn into photons...

__________________

Thx lol this site looks very nice, Ill probably be on often

Im thinking time will slow down or stop, but thats me

Your mass would become so infinitly huge that it would cancel out reaching the speed of light altogether.But instead of traveling by way of lightspeed why not search for a shortcut within the fabric of space? Kind of like the story of the race between the Hare and the turtle.You will be the rabbit traveling at light speed and I will be the turtle taking a shortcut.Wanna race?

Read the following:

What happens to a substance if its speed is more than the speed of light?
Is Faster Than Light Travel or Communication Possible?
Faster than Light?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

If we could find a way to detect Tachyons(if they exist) we would have a better way to determine the age of our universe until something new comes along (and most likely it will).As you dwell into the fascinating world of physics and Astronomy you start to realize how much we really dont know, and how much we do know is based on scientific sound assumations, but none the less assumations and theories which change faster as we learn more.

Yea but there are all of These problems with that because of causality.

__________________

Nothing will hapen if you go faster than light. For this you should have negative mass what means negative energy, some talk about time travell nonsenses, but if you have negative mass then time flow is reverse anyway.
In neither way you can reach speed of light. if your mass positive you will always have less than c (usualy 0), if negative always more than c (ususlay infinite), so you cant go in c speed unless your mass is zero.

Anyway theory of relativity forbids to transfer mass in more than c speed, but you can send data faster, if you manage to send it without using energy.

Faster than Light Data

__________________

If you had a negative mass, you would still need infinite energy to accelerate it to light speed; you just point the rocket in the opposite direction -- pull instead of push. Time would run just the same, not backwards.

It's an imaginary mass that would always travel faster than light.

I dont talk about implementation of negative mass rocket, I just say how to move faster than light, and why this do not violates casuality.
Anyway you are wrong, you need energy to decelerate your rocket not accelerate, if you have no energy you already have infinite speed.

Negative mass cannot be collected in one place, because each particle will have infinite realtive speed to each other.

Digix,

What is negative mass? Antimatter?

When we say "your mass aproaches infinity as you aproach c" aren't we really talking about energy, a.k.a. "relativistic mass"?

Isn't energy (i.e. rest & relativistc mass) a scalar? If so, how can it even be negative?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Antimater is not negative mass, it is same as normal matter just patricles have oposite charge they release lots of energy when touch our mater.
Negative mass is just hypotetical, since energy and mass are equal things, ir is also negative energy. Negative mass particles are usualy named tachions.

Rest mass and relativistic mass is almost same thing, for example if you heat piece of iron, thermal energy is stored in relativistic mass, more celar example is flywhel.

Tachyons have imaginary rest mass, as said in the aforelinked wikipedia article. And, since they have not yet been confirmed, atleast for now, we can say nothing can travel faster than light.

__________________
Limericks, written by me: http://limericker.blogspot.com

Unfortunately nature of negative mass do not allow us to confirm its exsitense,
neither use it for some purpose. I saw complete mathematical prof of that somewhere. So there is no differense if they exsist or not.

Something with negative mass never exists guys.

__________________

If it cannot be confirmed and used... why engage in an unnecessary hypothesis? As far as we are concerned, anything cannot travel faster than light.

__________________
Limericks, written by me: http://limericker.blogspot.com

That is not correct. A negative mass with zero kenetic energy will be at rest; when given some kenetic energy will move. However, a force will operate in the wrong direction!

Your description doesn't resemble tachyons either (imaginary mass) because their speed is not infinite and not invariant (only the light vector is invariant).

Much was exponded about negative mass in some articles by Robert L. Forward, in Analog magazine I beleive. It also featured in a novel of his. Looks like some of it is reprinted in "Indistinguishable From Magic."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass.

Yes, you are correct, negative mass does not mean infinite speed. I misplaced it with imaginary mass.

First of all you cannot travel at the speed of light. According to Einstein's equation E=mc^2 threr is an equivalence between mass and energy. If an object travels at about 10%the sopeed of light it's increase in mass is about 0.5%. But when it travels at about 90% the speed of light the increase in mass is about twice the original mass. As it nears the speed of light it's mass becomes infinite and therefore would take infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. Therefore an object canno travel at the speed of light.

Any way to go faster than light implies a way of traveling back in time. If Special Relativity holds, that is.

Suppose that I had some contraption which allowed me to hop from my present location to another location one light year away, and only one week in the future. This would mean that I would effectively have traveled at 52 * c. In my own frame of reference, that is.

Now suppose that I take my contraption on board a spaceship and accelerate it (by "normal" means) to 0.8 * c. When the ship is coasting again, it defines a new frame of reference, and Special Relativity demands that my contraption must be able to do the same in this new frame as it was able to do in the old one. That is, I must be able to jump away from the ship to a point one light year distant and one week in the future. In the ship frame of reference.

If my jump is perpendicular to the course of the ship, nothing very interesting happens. But if my jump is parallel to the course of the ship, it is another story, because the various points that are a week into my future are not at all simultaneous in the rest frame.

If I jump "forward", it will seem to an observer in the rest frame that I covered only 0.8 light year + 0.6 light week, taking 0.8 week + 0.6 year to do so -- traveling only a little bit faster than light.

But if I jump "backward" it will appear to the observer that I covered 0.8 light year - 0.6 light week, taking 0.8 week - 0.6 year to do so -- traveling backwards in time.

If I timed my jump just right, I might jump back to Earth and arrive there at a moment before I had left.

I dont agree with time trawel.

if we use most known formula t=t/sqrt(1-vv/cc) it does not allow backward time. you will go into imaginary time if you go faster than light.
in other way, if you have mass and want to traver farter than light you must have more than infinite speed from your own reference point. when for other observers you will be only little faster than light.