Relativity,

Time and Speed Limits

Lee Patrick Cline Published by November 23, 2011

For the bulk of the past decade, I have oft pondered some exciting and somewhat troubling questions
regarding iconic principles lying at the intersection of physics and theoretical physics. Pondering is one thing, one might assert, that is healthy and fundamental to all science. In science, we study, we consider, we measure, we develop new ideas and test them, and we reveal. Pondering some things, though, might seem a little like acts of heresy. Perhaps, its time to engage in a little heresy. Then, again, I am not a physicist. Perhaps slightly less provocatively, then, by looking at some fundamental principles in a new and relatively simple way, perhaps it is time to ask some new questions even if only to provoke some thought. You may note the italicized word time in the preceding paragraphs. Well get back to that in a moment. Einstein, with his expression E=MC2, revolutionized human understanding of what he theorized was a fundamental relationship between mass and energy. He predicted, to the extent possible given the resources of his time, the amount of energy that might be output if one were capable of unleashing it, unlocking it, from a known mass. That watershed expression, simple and straightforward as it was, in time became engrained and even cherished with fervor approaching that of a religion, among the scientific community even beyond his fellow physicists. Today, E=MC2 is taught to our young and not-so-young essentially as scientific fact. But, it is important to acknowledge that relativity and special relativity remain categorized by science as theories. Theories remain open to scrutiny. They invite it. Its actually quite essential to do, even in these fiscally challenging times when resources might not be as readily available to those willing to challenge icons. When one considers a formula to embody a fundamental truth or, less philosophically, to describe a fact that formula must be consistent and that consistency should be tested. The formula must be accurate and function predictably under rational permutations or arrangements. By way of example, we may consider the fundamental truths revealed or facts described by: If E=MC2 then E / C2=M and E / M= C2

and so on. These (and other manipulations of the basic formula) have been tested and are viewed as reliable. There may be simple truth within the simple formula. It may describe fact. Can we take things a bit further, though, as purported within special relativity? Are the relationships more profound and flexible than their ability to predict outcomes when fixed, known quantities are available? Einsteins work in special relativity led to the principle that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, and therefore, it would never happen. It also led to the principle that if an object were to travel the speed of light, the objects mass would be (relative to at least our perspective) infinite. As with infinite energy, this means it would never happen.

Copyright 2011 Lee Patrick Cline, All Rights Reserved

Page 1 of 3

Velocity

C
Figure 1: Simplified depiction of velocity limitation under special relativity

Time

For his simple formula to work, Einstein found utility and compelling reasons to apply a universal constant. He had initially sought to predict energy yields. He could readily determine mass presumably via simple measurement. The speed of light emerged as the winning choice. Okay it wasnt anywhere near that simple, but at least as far as the vast majority of experiments have demonstrated between 1905 and today, it was a very good choice. As far as the scientific community is concerned, 299,792,458 meters per second is definitively the speed of light in a vacuum. Its a reliable constant. Copious measurement has confirmed this fact. According to special relativity, the speed of light is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. In other words, special relativity imposes a speed limit. Break it, and not only do you risk getting a speeding ticket from the nearest physicist, but you just might be guilty of a bit of heresy. But, wait. What if the venerable Einstein was wrong? He was, after all, another fallible human just like the rest of us bright and dedicated as he was. After all, no scientist operates in an environment wherein they have access to perfect or complete information. Its one thing to propose the use of a universally constant speed or velocity in a formula. It is quite another to make a leap that results in establishment of a new physical impossibility, to propose a limitation upon everything, everywhere, forever. The law of conservation of mass states that the mass of an isolated system will remain constant over time. The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. Now, this might seem a little simplistic to some, but the law of conservation of mass would appear to be at odds with the notion of a finite mass becoming an infinite mass, as suggested in special relativity. The math might seem to work, but is the logic entirely sound? If the logic does not appear sound, isnt it reasonable to investigate to test the theory a bit more? There have been a number of experiments claiming to have measured particles traveling at greater-thanlight velocities, the most recent of which was Opera (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) at Grand Sasso, which may have detected neutrinos breaking the special relativity speed limit in

Copyright 2011 Lee Patrick Cline, All Rights Reserved

Page 2 of 3


September 2011. The results of that project remain under intense scrutiny. New experiments designed to further test the Opera results are being assembled in the United States and Japan. Observing that these are interesting developments would be an understatement of epic magnitude. And, as mentioned previously, touches upon a principle I have pondered for a rather long time. It all has to do with time, in fact. Entertaining the notion that Einstein got it wrong by setting a de facto universal speed limit of C, imagine this: I can postulate that, if velocity is simply a component of a vector (along with a direction) and we are not limited by a universal speed limit, we can forget about time travel, folding space, and wormholes to someday explore the stars. We can essentially nullify the effect of time upon travelers. We should, then, think in terms of the speed of time. The explanation of this concept is pretty simple and there is a scientific basis for it. Time dilation is a wellestablished principle, having been demonstrated in the HafeleKeating experiment and later validation by the University of Maryland. In fact, relativistic impacts on the measurable passage of time due to highspeed travel are so well established, that they are accounted for in calculations used for the Global Positioning System. Because the HafeleKeating experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods over the years, there is a consensus among physicists that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. In other words, ample evidence exists that you can slow time by moving very, very fast. Think of it this way. If you, in a manner of speaking, take what special relativity says about speed limitation and turn it on its head, you can see that extreme high velocity travel should bring the traveler very close to total nullification of the passage of, or change in, time. Between the sheer speed involved and time dilation effects, travel at near speed of time seems a theoretical possibility. To illustrate this relationship: Change in Time (t)

C
Just another velocity Velocity

Figure 2: Postulated relationship between supra-light speed velocity and time

Should additional experiments verify the results of projects like Opera, and given the now broadly accepted implications of HafeleKeating, this postulate may bear weight. The potential implications are profound. Humans could, for all intents and purposes, someday reach out to the stars and return within their own lifetimes to share their experiences.

Copyright 2011 Lee Patrick Cline, All Rights Reserved

Page 3 of 3