Everyone knows that Einstein said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, right? Well, I spent many years studying relativity and cosmology, and eventually I came to realize that Albert Einstein and H.A. Lorentz shared one simple misconception involving Lorentz’ relativistic velocity equations, which stand as the foundation for all of relativity theory. That misconception led to Einstein’s assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That is why we still can’t find 95% of the mass that must be out there somewhere, in the universe, even with all our great telescopes and particle accelerators humming away in the frantic search. That is why I wrote my book, describing the reality of what I call our hyper-dimensional universe. This post summarizes some of the fascinating, and enlightening, ramifications of that one little misconception. More background and supporting details are in some of the other posts, as well as in the book itself.
The great majority of matter in the universe is traveling faster than the speed of light (“c” in scientific parlance), relative to Earth. This matter has been invisible and unknown to us, until now.
From our own physical perspective, we are only able to perceive and directly interact with the tiny amount of matter in the universe which is traveling at relative velocities of less than c. This is the matter which we know as the observable universe—the only universe we’ve ever known.
The unseen bulk of matter in the universe, which travels at relative velocities above c, exists within entirely separate physical dimensions from our own. We cannot see it, measure it, or directly interact with it in any way, but the totality of this matter does have a significant, measurable gravitational effect on us, which we have labeled as ‘dark matter” and “dark energy.”
Our own galaxy, as must be the case with virtually all galaxies in the universe, is multi-dimensional. That is, the great majority of the mass/energy in the Milky Way spirals around the center of the galaxy faster than the speed of light, relative to Earth. Logically, all the mass/energy spiraling around the center exists in “plates,” equally separated by a velocity of 2c, or a difference of twice the speed of light. Think of “plates” of mass/energy, stacked on top of one another, but each plate invisible to all the others due to their velocity differences. If these spiraling plates of mass/energy were any closer together (in terms of velocity), everything would collapse together due to gravitational forces, and the galaxy wouldn’t have formed in the first place. If the plates were any farther apart (in terms of velocity), everything would eventually drift apart, and, again, the galaxy wouldn’t have formed in the first place. All these spiraling plates feed into a common, multi-dimensional black hole, which connects the entire structure.
As stable galaxies form, they naturally (must) assume this form of spiraling plates of mass/energy, each separated from its neighboring plates by 2c. At either end of the velocity spectrum, there is a “final plate”. The plate at one “end” spirals faster than all other plates, and so it only has a neighboring plate on one side. The plate at the other “end” spirals slower than all other plates, and so it only has a neighboring plate on one side, as well.
Eventually, probably virtually always on the scale of billions of years, instability may set in and a galaxy will disperse or experience a full multi-dimensional gravitational collapse. That will result in the dissipation of the central black hole (dispersion scenario), or the creation of an enormously powerful “naked” black hole without an accompanying galaxy (collapse scenario).
We should know that this extra-dimensional mass/energy exists, because although we cannot directly perceive it, from our perspective, its gravitational effects carry through multi-dimensional space-time. Our galaxy’s gravitational cohesion, which we attribute to “dark matter”, is in fact due to this dimensionally obscured mass/energy. Likewise, extra-dimensional mass/energy courses through the universe in its entirety, and its movement creates a multi-dimensional streaming “current” which we attribute to the “dark energy” which is responsible for the accelerating expansion we have detected via recent astronomical observations. Astoundingly, this demonstrates that we, here on Earth, are someone else’s dark matter, and dark energy.
Does this mean that Albert Einstein’s gravitational field equations are incorrect? Well, they are correct enough for us to use quite accurately for local gravitational phenomena. But on larger scales, the equations will require some modification to allow for the gravitational effects (dark matter/ dark energy) from multi-dimensional mass/energy.
Does this also mean that Albert Einstein was incorrect by saying that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? Well, that is sort of a “yes and no” answer. The Lorentz transformations, which Einstein based that idea upon, describe the entire physical dimension experienced by any observer, at their specific reference frame, limited by the velocity of c.
It is correct that an observer cannot impel an object to move faster than c. On a simplistic level, a stationary object cannot physically move any portion of itself, or another object, faster than c, due to the relativistic mass increase transformation equation. In that limited sense, Einstein was correct.
However, Einstein had a problem, which is, what if the observer accelerates, while continuing to impel the movement of the object? Or what if the moving object itself, while traveling at nearly c, impels another object “B”, in turn, to move away at nearly c? Einstein had an answer in his Relativistic Addition of Velocities equation.
Does this mean that the Relativistic Addition of Velocities equation is incorrect? Again, yes and no. For a stationary observer, the RAV works just fine. In fact, the principle of the RAV is used to calculate the increasing difficulty of continuing to accelerate particles within a particle accelerator. As a particle approaches c, it becomes more and more difficult to accelerate further, again due to the relativistic mass increase transformation equation. In that limited sense, again, Einstein was correct.
But what happens if we accelerate a particle up to 0.99999c within the accelerator, and then accelerate a portion of the accelerator itself, say to 0.00005c, while continuing to accelerate the particle within that moving section, so that it reaches 0.99999c again, but this time relative to the moving portion of the accelerator? That particle now has just violated the precept established by the RAV. It is now, in fact, traveling at 1.00004c, which is faster than “light speed,” relative to the stationary portion of the accelerator.
The truth of the matter is that the particle has just entered an entirely different physical dimension, relative to the stationary portion, or relative to an observer on the ground. The observer on the ground can no longer interact with, or measure, the particle. The length of the object is “0” to the observer. The mass of the object is effectively “infinite,” relative to the observer, since it cannot be moved by the observer (the definition of infinite mass). Clocks cannot be compared, between the object and the observer, since they are now out of direct contact, entirely. Therefore, the Lorentz transformations are not in conflict with observations.
Does this mean that a spaceship could travel faster than c, if it had the proper propulsion system and/or technology? Yes, absolutely. A spaceship is not in an “observer/ object” situation. A spaceship is a singular object, carrying its propulsion system along with it. Therefore, it is not mediated by the Transformations, or by the RAV. So a starship could travel beyond c—to twice the speed of light, or ten times the speed of light, or 100 times the speed of light, if it has the technology.
This is one of the secrets of space-time in the universe.
Is there astronomical evidence that this contention is correct? Yes, there is. Dark matter and dark energy are two of the best pieces of evidence.
Another potential piece of evidence are two apparently diffuse galaxies nicknamed “DF2” and “DF4.” These may be two galaxies where one of the “ends,” as described above, shares a space/time reference frame with Earth. Certainly, the end of a multi-dimensional galaxy would take on a more diffuse appearance, since it would have no multidimensional gravitational attraction on one side, and would therefore look a little like the frayed end of a shoelace.
Another piece of evidence is the apparent supra-luminal velocity (faster than c) of observed plasma jets coming from distant stellar objects. Rather than the convoluted explanations that have been floated for these observations, perhaps the jets are simply traveling faster than c, as you would expect would happen with a multi-dimensional galaxy, with a multi-dimensional black hole at the center, emitting multi-dimensional plasma jets.
An interesting experiment to consider is the famous “Sagnac effect,” where a beam of light is split in a ring interferometry. On the surface, it appears that the one beam ends up traveling faster than the speed of light. Convoluted explanations have been offered for the observation, but, as you can see from this post, the true answer is that the one beam is actually, truly, traveling faster than c, just as it appears.
Occam’s razor applies to the entire concept of this model of matter within the multi-dimensional matrix of space-time. Rather than postulating bizarre, exotic particles (which have never been found) for dark matter, we should now see that dark matter is just ordinary, common matter, simply traveling at higher relative velocities than previously theorized. Relativistic plasma jets seem to be traveling faster than c? Because they are traveling faster than c. The Sagnac Effect experiment seems to throw the invariance of light speed for a loop? Because light actually can, and does, travel faster than c, depending on the velocity of the light source, which is elucidated at much greater length in The Enlightening, and may be a good subject for a future post. This is simply a simpler—and better– idea than the convoluted rationalizations of the past.