I've got this nagging series of questions/answers in my head which must either be known, or wrong.

Why is it that we assume C is the upper ceiling of speed, and not just the upper limit for speed within the confines of 3 dimensional space time? This brought me to a thought on relativity of time for moving bodies.

Draw a square and mark the upper limit as C, and the lower limit as absolute 0 motion and inside the square a sine wave to represent a particle. Now, if we add energy it will increase the particles energy, pushing the wave towards the top of the box until it reaches .999C. Does the wave crush itself against the upper limits?

In my head I keep seeing the wave exceed C partially, exiting known space time until it returns on its down stroke. This would explain time seeming to passive relatively slower to an observer traveling at a slower speed, as our clock would only exist in space time for a portion of its wave form. To the particle itself it would never notice the effects of leaving, and time would appear to pass normally.

This doesn't interfere with the speed of light being a constant, because even if it was able to exist partially outside of our universe, it would still be tethered to its physical constraints. But it would help explain why light always travels at C, if you look at the bottom of the wave as a boat anchor of sorts and the rest of the energy pulling the photon along only limited by the physical constraints given to it on its down stroke.

Anyways, I'm really just looking for someone to point me in the right direction for reading materials to show why I'm wrong. I read and listen to a lot of physics lectures and follow along fairly well, but this one thing sticks out to me like crazy.

I say light is our bridge between the third and fourth dimension.

Why would the wave exit the cube?

What "down stroke" are you referring to?

Adding energy typically increases the amplitude, nothing else.  It does not "push to the top".

Done just right, the energy will double the wavelength but it still won't "push through the top".

The cat was always dead

North

In the end it just seems to me that a particle (with or without mass) would be able to exist simultaneously(or alternate very rapidly) inside and outside our 3 dimensional space if provided with enough energy and forced to the upper limits of universal speed. The research I'm seeing says that the particle takes exponentially more to accelerate as we approach the speed of light, but doesn't discuss much on how it might interact with that barrier specifically.

If it takes exponentially more energy to approach the speed of light, why are LED light bulbs so energy efficient?

I mean seriously? if going the speed of light is so impossible, why is light so cheap and easy?

OOps, I thought I was still in GD, my most sincere apology.

I don't have an answer, but I'm fairly certain your theoretical 'box' isn't conceptualized correctly. Also not sure what you're referring to: a box as in a closed entropic system or a physical box
 

A square, or box, was the only way I could think to explain how energy exists inside a closed system (our universe..Maybe.. sorta.. we used to think) and that the speed of light is an upper limit on the maximum potential energy or velocity that can be achieved within space time.

One limit being: 0 energy = 0 heat = No movement on the atomic level.
The other limit being : C = ~3.00×108 m/s = Maximum energy level or velocity.

With so much discussion on the existence of more than 4 dimensions, I started wondering if perhaps these limits were only pertaining to the 4 we commonly experience. Maybe at the limits things were jumping to other places, albeit temporarily.

We have lots of smart people on here, and I'm sure someone who's majored in physics. I dropped this here in hope he'd tell me (A) Why I'm wrong (B) Where to read about why I'm so wrong =P

I got a good laugh out of it.

I don't believe exceeding the speed of light is only a energy consideration, if that's what you're getting at
 

Consider the tevatron or any other particle accelerator: in a near total vacuum, with 0 friction to speak of, a particle is accelerated with ever increasing energy. acceleration is always >0, but they almost never break 0.9999~~~~ C, despite constant energy input

We don't.

The Lorentz contraction (the formula that calculates how much energy is needed to accelerate from a given speed) requires calculating the square root of -1 (negative 1) to get to the speed of light.  Since the square root of -1 is an imaginary number, the formula implies that we would need infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light (hereafter "c").

We have no calculations about going faster than c.

No such thing.  That's why it's called the theory of Relativity.

The speed of light (c) is an absolute.

If you are going "North" towards me at c, and I am going "South" towards you at c (directions are arbitrary and for illustration only) and I shine a light directly at you, it will approach you at c.  To remain consistent with the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy the light will blue shift (increase in frequency), but the speed of the beam of light coming at you will remain at 186,282 mile per second.

If we are heading away from each other, the speed of the beam will STILL be 186,282 mi/sec, but it will be red shifted.

did you just report c in miles/sec?

seems blasphemous....

Only in a vacuum.

It travels slower in anything with a dielectric constant larger than 1.

Get any text book titled, "Modern Physics" (or something similar).  This will present you with the "brick wall" you are up against.  Read and understand the material therein, then get back to us.  

The current state of theory places the onus on the claimant to show how to go "faster" than the speed of light or to travel distances at  a rate which exceeds 3E8 m/s.  No one says it can't be done, just that there are limits/boundaries/constraints.

People like to talk about faster than light travel, folding space, worm holes, and other ways to (hopefully) traverse the large distances we find in our universe.  The thing is, they have no idea how to do it (no technology, no system).

One more thing,...

A lot of the discussions about faster than light travel and a lot of the experiments apply only on the quantum level - photons and particles, not macroscopic, massive objects like human beings.

Note that photons have zero rest mass.
They DO have momentum when moving though.

These two statements are why I'm not satisfied with modern relative physics... it *should* apply to both uniformally. so we're missing a big part of the picture somewhere and I'm not educated enough to begin to help. Currently the theory seems to be probability.. both objects can tunnel... but a human sized object is so unlikely to ever tunnel as to be practically impossible.

"Satisfied"???  A lot of physics, modern or Newtonian, is merely descriptive.  You do not need to be satisfied with it, so much as understand the concepts and understand that they describe what we see in and from our portion of the universe.

Here's a factoid to ponder (it's just a tease to get you thinking).  This is from Wikipedia under the Phase Velocity topic.  "The phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation may – under certain circumstances (for example anomalous dispersion) – exceed the speed of light in a vacuum."


Anyone who purports to know it all is either a liar, a fool or both.