If, hypothetically, we could make something go faster than the

>>7756965
We cannot, theoretically.

>>7756965
We don't serve your kind here!
So, a tachyon walks into a bar.

>>7756965
>If, hypothetically, we could make something go faster than the speed of light, would it go back in time?
We can't use physics to predict things that break the laws of physics.

>>7756965
Going faster than the maximum speed allowed in the universe is obviously impossible.
If there are ways they not involved moving at all.. Just like the space-warping theory.
But if we make huge spaceships that can travel 20 - 50% of C then we already have the technical capacity to colonize the entire milky way galaxy and still allow time for complex races to evolve from the colonists before things even start to get a little worse.

No, because light around you is still traveling as well.

>>7756966
But what if

>>7756986
There is no physical answer because no modern theory (at least that I know of) accounts for FTL speeds, mainly because the speed limit is in perfect accordance with expiermental data.

>>7756976
>this
thank you for saving my time writing that

>>7756965
go back to popsci

>>7756965
Time doesn't exist, it is merely a concept. If it did exist then yes, you could time travel backwards, just not by traveling faster than the speed of light.

>>7756979
>Going faster than the maximum speed allowed in the universe is obviously impossible.

True, but I'm betting C isn't the max speed.

>>7756976
Thank you.

Go home, pseudo-intellectuals.

My guess is no.

You might be able to travel to a point where you experience forces as if the event didn't happen, but when you return to the original location you will find the event has still occurred.

Like, you could hypothetically start at a star just before a supernova, then travel out to a point where, on looking back, you see the star as it was and not as the exploded mess, but if you travel back, even faster than light, the star will still be post nova.

>>7757079
F=ma
m=0
F≠0
a=>infinite

Why wouldn't photons travel at maximum velocity?

[spoiler]Nevermind the shit physics there.

You could take a look at RNS Superstring theory pre GSO projection. That has a tachyon as the NS-sector ground state. If you play around with it you might be able to get some (completely unphysical) quantum equations of motions you could use to examine the hypothetical behavior of a tachyon.

>>7757367
>F=ma
... in an inertial frame
>Why wouldn't photons be in an inertial frame?
... because no inertia.

I believe that the only way we could go faster than light is to just pull space around you.
therefore, you wouldn't actually be going fast at all.
But I wonder what that would look like to an observer...

You might as well be asking what's north of the North Pole. The question doesn't make any sense. Going faster than light is impossible, the question itself doesn't even make a lot of sense.

One thing I never understood about the whole time dilation thing: supposedly if you go on a space trip at near light speed for a while and then come back, you'll have aged slower than everyone back on earth. But what if you have two astronauts in intergalactic space moving away from each other at near light speed. Let's just imagine there's no galaxies around so it's impossible to say whether one astronaut is stationary or moving. They're just moving away from each other. Which astronaut ages slower?

So I just had a thought that made me realize why time dilation exists at all. Everyone is moving through time at light speed. Well, through the time dimension of space-time. So when we move through the space dimensions, some of that velocity gets transferred to our space movement, so we lose some time velocity. So that's why time "moves slower" when you go at a substantial portion to the speed of light.

File: he's right you know.png (303KB, 268x200px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 268x200px

>>7756976

>>7757079
>Time doesn't exist
Stop with this meme. Time exists, although it's different than how most people perceive and understand it.

>>7757591
Basically this. There is even a good analogy for it. If you travel, let's say north with velocity of 60 km/h for 60 min, you will travel 60 km to the north in 60 min. But if you let's say travel to the north-east with the same velocity, your position an hour later won't be 60 km more north than you started but less, since you've also traveled some distance to the east. Sorry for terrible English, I hope you get what I mean.

>>7757886
That would also explain why you can't go faster than light speed because you only have so much time speed to draw from. And the sum total of your speed in space and time is always c. But that still doesn't explain why it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to c.

>>7758406

You hit the nail on the head.

The previous posters idea was nonsense.