Light Drive.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Jolonar, Jul 5, 2004.

1. RawThinkTankBannedBanned

Messages:
429
If lasers can exist then Yes, Light drive is possible even today. The laser beams we create today doesn’t disintegrate the source device. If we create a huge array of lasers firing in one direction …

When we get thunder lightning we get powerful light. Can we use the same technique for creating fantastic amount of light, Kinda converting matter into direct light ?

It is said that the speed of light always remains constant relative to all speeding objects, according to that we may be able to travel faster that speed of light with the help of light drive. That’s because even at 99.99 % speed of light the light drive will be ejecting light at light speed in the opposite direction, Now as the light is being emitting in the other direction there is no question of that light breaking the light speed barrier, hope I am wrong ?

If U wana prove if light has mass then : Take a Light Drive, measure its weight, then zoom around the universe, come back and weight the LD again, If light has no mass then there should be no change in weight , what do U think, please correct me ?

Nasor:
If U think something can exist without being particles then U must also explain how something that is not a particle interacts with a particle ?

2. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. JolonarBeing of intellect.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
79
Thanks! This is helping me alot. But it changes my designs quite a bit in the size department!

Yes, that's right!!!! Lightning is a spark of electricity created from a posively negatively charged cloud. To re create in a closed space, it would kinda be like the spark of an arklight, but on a larger scale. That may work better.

With a light drive, you will not be able to break the speed of light. But with 2 light drives, then you may get to the speed of light. But then you would start to slow down because the light inside the drive will be almost motionless. So I would say that the speed of light is unreachable using a light drive!

Maybe.... That may work, but it may not since the particles are absorbed to give a forward thrust. Their kinetic energy is converteed into heat in the drive itself, so it would need to be cooled, thus external forces ware at work. The weight would be different as soon as the cooling device was turned on.

Thank you for this explanation.
When Nasor said this, I thought of black holes. If light had no mass it would travel at an infinite speed! Thus, black holes could not affect it!!!
Is this true RawThinkTank?

If anyone can understand this, please, tell me. Bucause, either I am right, or I have not understood something correctly, or else the laws of physics are totally skrewed up.

Regards,
J.

4. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. swansontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
35
No, things without mass travel at c. Why do you think the speed would be infinite?

6. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. JolonarBeing of intellect.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
79
Yes, they are factors that can not be calculated easily because of their tendancy to move around the systems, and withing the universes.

Yes, I 'd have to agree. However, I do not think that a light drive could go faster than the speed of light because it uses light itself to move. Thus it can't even reach the speed of light! So I'd say were pretty safe with that one!

Why would you say that?

Yes, I'd tend to agree.

No friction, no slowing down, no loss of energy or momentum!

Regards,
J.

8. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,230
The problem is that you get very little 'push' in terms of energy expended from a light drive. Even if we had a magic light bulb that could turn any amount of energy into light with no loss of efficiency, we don't have any power sources strong enough to impart a useful acceleration on a substantially massive object with a light drive.

And yes, we can make lights based on shooting a big spark through gas. It's called an arc light, and so far as I know they're the brightest sustained source of light that humans currently make.

9. JolonarBeing of intellect.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
79
Wouldn't a nuclear reactor be powerful enough to create a useful accelleration? Not too big of course. Or what about a Plasma core generator?

Aren't arc lights very bad for the eyes? They can cause blindness very easily.

Really? The brightest sustained source of light? Nice!

Maybe it will be easier to do than I had thought.

Regards,
J.

10. swansontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
35
That doesn't mean infinite speed. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and space has a finite permittivity and permeability for electric and magnetic fields, respectively.

11. RawThinkTankBannedBanned

Messages:
429
Light would only travel at the speed it is ejected from an electron even if it did not had any mass.

But if it has no mass then Light Drive should be able propel us at any speeds.

And yes if we can unlock the secret of why light is instigated at its speed then we may know how to over come light speed barrier.

That depends on speed of gravity.

U r right maths is gone astray hence the illusion of physics being so.

12. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,230
The most sophisticated reactor currently available for spacecraft is the SAFE-400, developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory a few years ago. It masses just 512 kg and can produce 100 kW of electricity.

Even if all of the energy was converted perfectly into light, it would accelerate at about 6.5*10^-7 m/s. At that rate it would take 14.6 million years to reach the speed of light. And that's only considering the mass of the reactor, ignoring the mass of the rest of the ship.

13. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,230
Is it just me, or did that not make any sense whatsoever?

14. swansontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
35
It's not you.

15. HeadacheI drink therefore I amRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
32
[ the enviorment that we see would become as invisable, and less visable the faster we travel. ]

Dwayne D.L.Rabon[/QUOTE]

youre getting at a "doppler" kind of thing, Ithink I understand, as a passenger on this craft,the stars around would redshift down into the infra red, so would the light bouncing off the objects in the craft, including yourself, eventually, as you approached the speed of light,you would become dimmer .

BUT according to other threads here,the speed ofl light is unaffected by even approaching tha velocity.

am I a retard? cant figure this

16. Brandon9000Registered Senior Member

Messages:
172
At very high speeds, the stars in front of you would be Doppler shifted to blue, the ones behind you to red, and the ones to your side to varying degrees in a continuum. Presumably the light shining on you personally is generated by sources inside the ship and so is not Doppler shifted at all.

Electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light, travels at the speed of light, at least in a vacuum, and matter cannot reach the speed of light, because it would take infinite energy.

17. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,230
Dwayne: No. The light would still reach you, it would just be lower in energy because of red shifting.

18. Rev PrezRegistered Member

Messages:
16
A particle's wave momentum is scaled by Planck's constant to a base order of 10^-34. You'd need a pretty intense source to produce any non-negligible thrust.

19. Brandon9000Registered Senior Member

Messages:
172
Why would light be less likely to reach you than if you were at home in a chair? I don't see your reasoning at all. Observers in the moving craft, measure light from any source to be propagating at c, regardless of the source's state of motion compared to them. This is one of the two postulate from which relativity was derived.

How is something "suggestive" that anything is travelling faster than the speed of light? Light travels at light speed, and matter cannot be accelerated up to light speed.

Please cite your sources for your assertions.

20. JolonarBeing of intellect.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
79
Sorry for not replying sooner, it's just that Australia was cut off from the rest of the net yesterday. Today I am unavailable.

You have some interesting inforation and theories, I will read them when I return!

Regrads,
J.

21. PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
:bugeye:

You must live in another Australia?

22. JolonarBeing of intellect.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
79
No, I think that Queensland remained up for most of the time!

The rest of the country was out for quite a while!

You might be wit telstras extra, not who we go thru! (And most of Australia too.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Regards,
J.

23. DwayneD.L.RabonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
999
locked

Last edited: Oct 28, 2005