This is nothing particularly new IIRC, it's been postulated for a few years that "just because matter breaks down at C, that doesn't mean it's a limit".
Just remember that science has very few facts and many, many theories, both sides of this being examples.

I'm pretty sure tbf that the paper published by Hill and Cox is the first time this extension of the maths of Einstein's theory has been done.

What interests me is that if the theory holds good at sub-light speeds and faster than light speeds, then it seems to me infinitely (sorry!) more likely, all of a sudden, that although the theory breaks down when objects approach at relativistic light speeds, that the theory could be developed and refined to describe the overlap period crossing the light barrier.

Once you realise that the speed of light is not in fact the ultimate speed limit, then to me it seems illogical that of all speeds, there's just one at which it isn't possible to travel.

Or maybe there is a barrier, and maybe the stuff careering about at greater-than-light speeds is forever doomed to do so, and maybe that's why we can't see it, maybe that's the dark energy and/or dark matter that comprises 95% of the Universe?

What with dried riverbeds on Mars, this, and the recent published research indicating that most likely the Universe is in fact infinite, it's a weirdly exciting time if you are interested in such things.

Photons don't achieve infinite mass. Largely because they are massless under most conditions. Trust me - any object that achieves infinite mass will have the Universe collapsing in on it.

You're not far off in your interpretation actually. The increase in mass as an object closely approaches the speed of light is not mass as we normally understand it but a consequence of the immense amount of energy that object is accumulating. If you were stood on (or in) the object the mass would be unchanged. This is commonly referred to as relativistic mass although Einstein himself hated the term. The 'universal collapse' idea stems from the fact that for an observer at rest the object would appear to attain infinite mass and as the rest of the mass in the Universe would effectively be at rest compared to the moving object it would theoretically behave as if the object had infinite mass and therefore infinite gravity. There's a fair degree of differing opinion over this and I think that current thinking is that no such effect would occur. I'm a bit out of touch with the cutting edge though.

The sound barrier is a terrible analogy as we already knew that objects could cross it with no ill effects - bullets being the prime example, but also the tips of whips, the tips of propellers... you get the idea. The concerns were pretty much all to do with engineering an airframe that could deal with the shockwave.

All they've done is demonstrate the the underlying maths of relativity still functions if you feed it numbers for velocity greater than c. It's sound theoretical work but doesn't indicate that velocities above c are actually attainable. And having c as an upper limit is perfectly logical - as Einstein explained in his theory.

So could someone answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question...

"Does E=mc2?"

Or is it not as simple as that?

Heheh you'll need to definitively show what a photon actually even IS before you can start that discussion. Interesting though if something can have zero mass but then suddenly acquire a mass, and presumably then be able to just as easily lose it. Maybe photons are related to my kids.


Rubbish. What if one million objects achieved infinite mass all at the same time?


All I understood it to say is that it turns out, if you extend the maths, Einstein's theory does not exclude faster-than-light speeds; of course it doesn't indicate that such speeds "are actually attainable". All it could ever do is exclude the possibility. And it turns out that it doesn't.

We already know that, in terms of things the human eye can see, the universe is filled with light. This light is doomed to forever travel, vacuum permitting, at light speed. That's what it does. There wasn't always light, it must have originated somewhere, but since then it just goes on non-stop until any given bit is absorbed by, say, your retina. (And of course "new" light is continually "created" by stars etc.)

What's to say that expansion of the early universe didn't also create super-photons which are forever doomed to zoom around at faster than light speeds, for which reason we can never see them?

Simples. It's a quantum of electromagnetic radiation, innit.


That's more or less what I said. They've managed to exclude an interpretation of relativity that nobody has ever made.


What's to say that the expansion of the early Universe didn't create goblins and werewolves? Current theory and observable phenomena.

Einstein a gogo.

Better call for ' Buzz ' then

That doesn't tell you much though. Maybe it's a moving two-dimensional field, alternately a free standing electrical field and then a free standing magnetic field, each mutually generated by each other?


Can I phone a friend?