Do you think there are things faster then the speed of light?

Question

With a huge universe that hasnt all been discovered yet it is very possible for somthing to be faster then the speed of light.
I mean There is somthing faster then the speed of light. A black hole can suck up light which leaves light slow compared to it. If a black hole can suck up light then is it possible to pull the light closer to where you are and find out what the current state is? May seem impossible but as we know Black holes have a range limit of what it sucks in. If a minature star can be accellerated to the point of collapsing with a supernova then it can be possible to steal the light as in like pulling a string.
If that string can be pulled time will be accellerated between the Hole and the light of the planet or star. In which I think is a wormhole? Do you think that could be possible of all means in any way at all? Which such a huge universe? Think of all the possiblities of things like that happening in the huge universe.

Answer 1

Sorry to waffle here, but I have to say yes *and* no to this one. To elaborate:

--No, no object with mass is going to go at the speed of light or faster, for much the reasons Einstein outlined. Under relativity, inertia, or the resistance mass has to accelerating, and gravity, or the way mass bends space just by being in it, are shown to be mathematically identical. The same even.

This means that, as you accelerate a mass and increase its speed closer to the speed of light, the *inertia* you have to overcome to accelerate it again (and the energy needed to do so) increases geometrically in the same way gravity does as more mass occupies less volume. As you approach the speed of light, the inertia and energy requirements end up being functionally the same as they would be to escape a black hole--inertia becomes undefined, too large a number to calculate, never mind overcome. All the energy that *could be* in the universe just won't be enough, *even if* the matter involved *could* survive being crushed like that.

But....

--Yes, I do think there's a loophole to this that almost nobody considers.

Everybody knows that the speed of light changes *very slightly* as it passes through different mediums. It's slightly slower as it passes through air, than what it is when it passes through a vacuum, and it becomes slower still as it passes through clear water, or glass, or crystal.

Now, to look at it from the other angle.

Researchers studying quantum physics have been able to demonstrate that "quantum tunneling" works at the subatomic *and also* the atomic level (with single atoms of silver). Search the sites below for the *whole phrases, quotes and all*, of "quantum tunneling" and "particle accelerator tests".

http://www.sciam.com/

http://www.sciencenews.org/

The point of it is, in some of these tests, particles with mass have been briefly accelerated to speeds calculated to be 300 *times* faster than Einstein's "c" or the "speed of light in a vacuum". So what's going on here? Does the speed of light just not *matter* at the subatomic level?

Well, no, I wouldn't say that. What I think is happening is...that "c" or that "speed of light in a vacuum" isn't *as* constant as what Einstein thought it was. We already know that the vacuum inside of a light bulb isn't *as* rarefied or void of mass as the vacuum between planets is. We already *think* or have inferred that the vacuum between solar systems is thinner, or more void of mass, than the vacuum between planets is. Likewise, astronomers have recently spotted a void of space where it just looks like a *hole* there because there just doesn't seem to be any mass there at all compared to the space around it.

In short, "Vacuum" is not a constant term. The vacuum inside of a light bulb is not the same as the vacuum between the earth and the moon, and *that* vacuum isn't the same as the one that lies between our solar system and say, Gliese 581's.

And *none* of those vacuums is going to be *as* void of mass as the void is between electron layers of an atom, or between isolated atoms. *That* is what's going on with these quantum tunneling experiments....we're witnessing what the speed of light *really is* in a True Void where literally NOTHING, as in *No Mass At All*, is there. And it isn't *as slow* as "c" because "c" was based on a "thicker" vacuum, relatively speaking, that had isolated masses in it.

Not that it was Einstein's fault. ^_^ There's no way he could have guessed that *single atoms* would curve space that much to make a *slightly impure* Void *that much* slower for light. He couldn't have guessed that the space between *sub-atomic particles* would truely be that flat, that light itself would move *that* much faster in a True Void-Of-ALL-Mass-Void.

After all, "c" was his *constant*, the one thing he had to assume *a priori* in order for his calculations to *work*.

But yeah....it would seem that some vacuums are *faster* for the speed of light than others, much faster. Meaning that upper speed limit need not be *such* a stifling constant.

(and this doesn't even mention Hawking radiation, which has been shown to *escape* from black holes, that is, from places where not only is there *no mass*, but from which mass is supposed to *vanish from the universe* for all practical purposes...no telling what the speed of light becomes inside of a black hole where mass *can't* exist because space has curved itself *completely off*)

So yeah....it's complicated, but I hope this helps. ^_^

Thanks for your time.

Answer 2

No. You could look up the hypothetical tachyon particles but there's zero evidence at all that they exist. You say its a huge universe and it hasn't all been discovered yet - That's true but you have to remember that physics is not like zoology where you can look in to a deep forest and find some strange animal - if we understand a law of physics - and many of them we understand extremely well - then they must hold everywhere. Here and at the opposite end of the universe. Einstein showed that light was a cosmic speed limit with his special theory of relativity. To accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light would take an infinite amount of energy - and that does not exist. Black holes may suck in light as you say, but that doesn't mean that the light changes its speed at all. The speed of light is variable - but not in the normal vacuum of space, we have slowed it down to a few metres a second in exotic substances called 'bose-einstein condensates' which are a different form of matter from solids, liquids, gases or plasma. So no, nothing can go faster directly. Though there may be ways around it. You mention wormholes - well if you enter a wormhole and come out another one a million miles away one second later, then you've basically travelled faster than light, right? Remember huge universe - but one set of physical laws that runs the show.

Answer 3

I don't believe there will ever be a way to travel faster than the speed of light, just like there will never be a way to make 2 + 2 = 5. The speed of light limit is the resolution of a paradox that two objects traveling at near light speeds both experience time slower than the other. This is an impossible paradox that is only resolved by the fact that both object cannot communicate instantaeously. If they could, then they would both seem slower than each other, which is impossible.

Answer 4

All the answers have elements of truth in them, and I dare say very intelligent. As it currently stands, for all the reasons listed by the readers, no known object with mass can ever travel faster than the speed of light....AS LONG AS, space and time are considered a constant. The fabric and space and time must be held constant for our laws of physics to hold true, but as soon as we consider space-time as variables, than all known laws must be closely scrutinized once again for validity. Most of the laws that govern physics of our known world have a "as long as this holds true" caveat held to them. The speed of light question is simply another example.

Answer 5

its impossible. if anything with mass approaches the speed of light it gets more massive so it requires more energy. if it ever reaches the speed of light it would have an infinite mass and an infinite energy. thats, obviously, more energy than is in the universe. and something with infinite mass would create quite the black hole, big enough to suck in the whole universe. so light speed for anything with mass, no matter how small, is impossible. thats why the photon is massless.

so no, there is nothing faster than the speed of light.

Answer 6

Nothing is faster than the speed of light.

Black holes suck up light, but they do not suck it up at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Their speed is not what gives them the ability to suck up light.

Answer 7

No, I think the theory of Relativity is the correct theory of motion (being consistent with ALL available observations of anything, ever), and it does not permit travel faster than c.

It's great that you're using your imagination to mentally explore things like this, but science is about more than mere imagination. It's about using experiment and observation to disprove imagined ideas that happen to be wrong. In this case, every experiment performed since 1930 has disproven the concept of faster than light travel.

Answer 8

With everything that you said being considered, there is still nothing faster than the speed of light.

Answer 9

The speed of light is determined by a quantum space-time pulse of minimum size and duration.
Beyond a quantum effect if you try to divide these entities they will go out of existence.
Unless you can divide the basic space-time pulse you can't increase the speed of light.
You would have to be able to change a basic principal of the universe.

Answer 10

Tachyon's.

Well, okay, Tachyon's are only theoretical. But they are particles that exist at beyond the speed of light, and can never slow down to the speed of light, or below speed of light.

Nothing with mass, made of ordinary baryonic matter can ever accelerate TO the speed of light, let alone beyond it.