Just when you thought breaking light speed was impossible (1 Viewer)

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/news-item6.htm

 

[jfuh]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/news-item6.htm

That's not quite going faster then the speed of light. Relativity has not been broken. The "matter" that is going faster then the record of the speed of light is still light. Relativity states that nothing can go faster then the speed of light. So it is only that a new record of the speed of light has been observed. But it's not anything else that is going faster.

 

[Tashah]

The speed of light (c) is invariant. There are a handful of physicists who ascribe to the Varying Speed of Light (VSL) theory, but many pertinint questions remain unanswered by the proponents of VSL.

It is well known that space-time (3:1) is not bound by the invariance of (c). This means that while everything in the universe is subject to the laws of relativity, the fabric of space-time itself is not bound by relativistic constraints. This implies that the expansion of the universe itself can indeed exceed the speed of light.

It is also well known that intervening matter such as water or gas clouds slow down photons and thus they travel at less than (c) through these media.

The experimental paper by the NEC Research Institute has not to date been approved by the referees at the journal Nature. If and when this transpires, I will peruse their methodology and measurements. It would be interesting to discover how NEC coaxed cesium electrons to interact with massless photons in a manner that would result in a positive variance of (c). This would infer that the paper that garnered Einstein a Nobel Prize in Physics (the Photo-Electric Effect) is possibly in error. I will access the second experiment paper at Physical Review and peruse its information.

 

[alphieb]

The speed of light (c) is invariant. There are a handful of physicists who ascribe to the Varying Speed of Light (VSL) theory, but many pertinint questions remain unanswered by the proponents of VSL.

It is well known that space-time (3:1) is not bound by the invariance of (c). This means that while everything in the universe is subject to the laws of relativity, the fabric of space-time itself is not bound by relativistic constraints. This implies that the expansion of the universe itself can indeed exceed the speed of light.

It is also well known that intervening matter such as water or gas clouds slow down photons and thus they travel at less than (c) through these media.

The experimental paper by the NEC Research Institute has not to date been approved by the referees at the journal Nature. If and when this transpires, I will peruse their methodology and measurements. It would be interesting to discover how NEC coaxed cesium electrons to interact with massless photons in a manner that would result in a positive variance of (c). This would infer that the paper that garnered Einstein a Nobel Prize in Physics (the Photo-Electric Effect) is possibly in error. I will access the second experiment paper at Physical Review and peruse its information.

What I gathered was no naturally occuring element can travel that fast, but only a man made one, thus backing up that theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jfuh]

The speed of light (c) is invariant. There are a handful of physicists who ascribe to the Varying Speed of Light (VSL) theory, but many pertinint questions remain unanswered by the proponents of VSL.

It is well known that space-time (3:1) is not bound by the invariance of (c). This means that while everything in the universe is subject to the laws of relativity, the fabric of space-time itself is not bound by relativistic constraints. This implies that the expansion of the universe itself can indeed exceed the speed of light.

It is also well known that intervening matter such as water or gas clouds slow down photons and thus they travel at less than (c) through these media.

The experimental paper by the NEC Research Institute has not to date been approved by the referees at the journal Nature. If and when this transpires, I will peruse their methodology and measurements. It would be interesting to discover how NEC coaxed cesium electrons to interact with massless photons in a manner that would result in a positive variance of (c). This would infer that the paper that garnered Einstein a Nobel Prize in Physics (the Photo-Electric Effect) is possibly in error. I will access the second experiment paper at Physical Review and peruse its information.

Photons are not massless - if they were, there would be no photo-electric transfer of energy.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Photons are not massless - if they were, there would be no photo-electric transfer of energy.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae180.cfm

 

[jfuh]

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae180.cfm

Very true, it's one of those really bizzare phenomenons of high energy physics.
E=mC^2
Photons obviously have energy and travel at C.
However in this case the energy of a photon is E=hf. H being the plank's constant with f being the frequency of the wave.
Plug the two together and hf=mC^2 where as m = hf/C^2.
But believe it or not, this equation is not correct even though the relationship of E for both.
The actual equation should be E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 where p = the inertia of the "particle".
Thus when the photon is at rest, p=0, we get back E=mc^2.
Yeah it's pretty bizzare. So what would be even more bizzare is the freezing of light suspended within a Cs cloud admist a laser trap.......
Then there's also the explaination that super massive photons existed in the wanning moments of the early universe which is what results in the massive background magnet "field" in the universe.
General relativity does a really lousy job between linking the super massive and supper small - quantum level.
Dunno it's really bizzare to me as well, which is why I never chose to be a physicist.

 

[Tashah]

It would be interesting to discover in what frame of reference the measurement was accomplished, and what specific metric was measured and by what methodology. Time? Distance? Concurrance?

 

[justone]

It would be interesting to discover in what frame of reference the measurement was accomplished, and what specific metric was measured and by what methodology. Time? Distance? Concurrance?

I don't think they EVER claimed breaking speed of light. For some reason - I have not figured out what was the original idea- they were working on conducting information - they were trying to pass information faster that light could do.... using light
i don't know what was the original idea to inhace the speed of light, or I should say light...

And i understand they were talking about some hand made short distance -- of a few meters can you imagine or not. Was their idea coming from the 8th grade experement -- a raw of still balls on strings - you hit the first one and the last one moves getting the momentum while the others stay in place, - was it coming from photons living thier levels to construct a laser beam - they were experementing with light in gas - i don't know, - and i think that would be the most interesting to know, - who knows if they failed it may not mean that the failure was embedded in the idea itself.
But i am pretty much sure the journalists have mixed everything up in thier reports as the most ingnorant part of public.

 

[Tashah]

I don't think they EVER claimed breaking speed of light. For some reason - I have not figured out what was the original idea- they were working on conducting information - they were trying to pass information faster that light could do.... using light.

Information has already been transfered faster than (c) via quantum entanglement.

 

[justone]

Information has already been transfered faster than (c) via quantum entanglement.

Information has already been transfered faster than (c) via quantum entanglement.

Tasha you are unreachable in your sophistication. I would break my tounque, trying to prononce those words. I don't even think about trying to spell. Wow, enta… antage..


I guess it has been transferred on you cloud in your heaven.
Not here, on the earth, I am sorry. We still have to yell to be heard. We still have to hurt our nuckles knocking on the door. Knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door





Knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door



But the idea is very entertaining. Like cold fusion. Thank you for informing me.


Knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door

does it happen to you - you get some song in you head - and cannot shake it off for a while.

 

[tecoyah]

It would be interesting to discover in what frame of reference the measurement was accomplished, and what specific metric was measured and by what methodology. Time? Distance? Concurrance?

I just noticed this thread....so apologies for the Bump. This might be of interest to you Tashah, I remember this a couple years ago, but its still easy to find:

" In recent years, some physicists have conducted experiments in which faster-than-light (FTL) speeds were measured. On the other hand, Einstein's theory of special relativity gives light speed as the absolute speed limit for matter and information! If information is transmitted faster, then a host of strange effects can be produced, e.g. for some observers it looks like the information was received even before it was sent (how this comes about should be described in elementary literature on special relativity). This violation of causality is very worrysome, and thus special relativity's demand that neither matter nor information should move faster than light is a pretty fundamental one, not at all comparable to the objections some physicists had about faster-than-sound travel in the first half of this century.

So, has special relativity been disproved, now that FTL speeds have been measured? The first problem with this naive conclusion is that, while in special relativity neither information nor energy are allowed to be transmitted faster than light, but that certain velocities in connection with the phenomena of wave transmission may well excede light speed. For instance, the phase velocity of a wave or the group velocity of a wave packet are not in principle restricted below light speed. The speed connected with wave phenomena that, according to special relativity, must never exceed light speed, is the front velocity of the wave or wave packet, which roughly can be seen as the speed of the first little stirring that tells an observer "Hey, there's a wave coming". Detailled examinations of the differences between the velocities useful to describe waves can be found in the classic book

* Brillouin, L. 1960 Wave Propagation and Group Velocity. NY: Academic Press.

Basic information on quantum tunneling can be found in the introductory quantum theory literature.

Characteristic of the discussion of the FTL/tunneling experiments is that the experimental results are relatively uncontroversial - it is their interpretation that the debate is about. As far as I can see, right now there is a consensus that in neither of the experiments, FTL-front velocities have been measured, and that thus there is no contradiction to Einstein causality or to special relativity's claim that no front speed can exceed light speed. The discussion how much time a particle needs to tunnel through a barrier has been going on since the thirties and still goes on today, as far as I can tell. This discussion is about "real" tunneling experiments, like the ones a Berkeley group around Raymond Chiao has done, as well as experiments with microwaves in waveguides (that do not involve quantum mechanics) like those of Günter Nimtz et al. An overview of the discussion (including lots of further references) can be found in

* Hauge, E.H. & Støvneng 1989, Review of Modern Physics 61, S. 917--936.

The Berkeley group gives a general overview of their research at

* http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/research.html

An experiment of theirs, where a single photon tunnelled through a barrier and its tunneling speed (not a signal speed!) was 1.7 times light speed, is described in

* Steinberg, A.M., Kwiat, P.G. & R.Y. Chiao 1993: "Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time" in Physical Review Letter 71, S. 708--711 "

http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html


Still....I am endlessly fascinated by Einsteins description of "Spooky action at a distance".

"Action at a distance (physics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, action at a distance, or actio in distans, is the interaction of two objects which are separated in space with no known mediator of the interaction. This term was used most often with early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object could "know" the mass (in the case of gravity) or charge (in electromagnetism) of another distant object.

According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were suddenly displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light."

Heres a handy link for those who are interested:
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html

 

[conquer]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/news-item6.htm

Lots of fantasies are found in the article as well the mention of the fact that "c" (speed of light in vacuum: 186,000miles per second) has been broken already. This individual Einstein has been proven wrong one more time.

First, The idea that the speed of light was the top limit was created in the mind of Einstein by logic instead of observable evidence.
See? light traveling through vacuum (read: no resistance) was the sure winner according to his theory, however, by making experiments with light through caesium gas it has been proved that his ideas were solely scientific assumptions waiting to be discarded by our new technology.

Second, Einstein was a complete ignorant about reality when he created his famous theories of relativity. Today, with a simple review, one can easily find a hoax around those theories from their very beginning. For example he thought that traveling through outer space was like taking a train from New York to Washington DC. In his mind which corresponded to the BC era (Before Castro) when space traveling wasn't a reality yet, humans can even maintain their age unaffected because their faster speed in the spaceship. Today, when reality is at hand about space traveling, it has been observed that astronauts returned sick, with osteoporosis, deformed discs, disorientation, lower production of blood cells, in other words, they returned with health symptoms which correspond to a health status twenty years over their age. Then, they practically returned "much older" instead of younger than the rest of people who stayed on earth.

Third, the principle of causality in physics discards completely the sole idea of an effect preceeding its cause as the interpretation about this fast light is given in the article as well. It appears that this light is so fast that can be simultaneously in its return when it exits, however, there is a big difference between "appearance and fact ." It looks like that scientists are simply trying to take advantage over their lost cause of a top "c" and are becoming fantasists enforcing the idea of a possible travel in time.

Fourth, there is not a single law of physics supporting the theories of relativity, time traveling, light traveling through millions and millions of years, a constant speed of light, and more. By consequence, his theories are pseudoscience.

Fifth, time traveling, space-time, and similar ideas are nothing but assumptions invented by Einstein and other relativists, in reality, time doesn't exist physically. With this solid fact that time is a concept and a parameter, the rest of ideas about Einstein and his theories are (again) a "brilliant pseudoscience."

The goverment should regulate what scientists spread out in journals, books and conferences, by enforcing a law that theorists must explain their ideas with a clear statement like "it is assumed that time exists and by consequence the theory of such and such speculates that this and that."

Some theorists have repeated to themselves their own assumptions so many times that it appears that they now believe them as facts. Sigh*

 

[Andy]

Second, Einstein was a complete ignorant about reality when he created his famous theories of relativity. Today, with a simple review, one can easily find a hoax around those theories from their very beginning. For example he thought that traveling through outer space was like taking a train from New York to Washington DC. In his mind which corresponded to the BC era (Before Castro) when space traveling wasn't a reality yet, humans can even maintain their age unaffected because their faster speed in the spaceship. Today, when reality is at hand about space traveling, it has been observed that astronauts returned sick, with osteoporosis, deformed discs, disorientation, lower production of blood cells, in other words, they returned with health symptoms which correspond to a health status twenty years over their age. Then, they practically returned "much older" instead of younger than the rest of people who stayed on earth.

The negative health affects associated with space travel are attributed to the lack of gravity on the body, as well as increased radiation, not relativity. In addition, the speed at which the shuttle moves in comparison to the Earth is not great enough to cause a noticeable difference in time or aging. Relativity has nothing to do with why astronauts come back with the problems they have, it's the stresses of the environment.

 

[teacher]

So you eggheads...

What is the speed of gravity?

 

[conquer]

The negative health affects associated with space travel are attributed to the lack of gravity on the body, as well as increased radiation, not relativity. In addition, the speed at which the shuttle moves in comparison to the Earth is not great enough to cause a noticeable difference in time or aging. Relativity has nothing to do with why astronauts come back with the problems they have, it's the stresses of the environment.

I must correct such a point of yours which is found deviated from what is going on with relativity in reference to time traveling.

Einstein had not a single clue that the difference of gravity -compared to earth's gravity when you live on the ground- would affect the human body when humans stay for long periods of time in outer space. He was an ignorant about it and his ignorance caused the creation of ideas which are found to be reaching the limits of the absurd.

Even more, this individual Einstein did not know that matter in general will suffer chages when is exposed to the difference of gravity in outer space.

In his ignorance, he imagined that speed alone in a spaceship should cause the effect of slowing aging in humans.

In the beginning of the space traveling era, J. R. Gott wrote a book supporting the belief that astronauts "were indeed" slowing already their aging by ttraveling in spaceships.

Allow me to write his own words worthy of pseudoscience:

"Astronauts experience the effect of aging a little less than the rest of us. Because the Russian cosmonaut Sergei Avdeyev was in orbit a total of 748 days during three spaceflights, he's about one fiftieth of a second younger than he would be if he hadn't gone on those trips." (J. R. Gott, Time Travel in Einstein's Universe, page 75)

This is a ridiculous statement made by J.R. Gott. As we can easily check in his words, this individual Gott is talking mere words from his imagination. Nothing is at hand to prove his statement, but there is a lot of evidence (read medical records) that traveling to outerspace indeed accelerates your process of aging instead of slowing it.

Regardless of the cause, facts rule. And, between the fact that your body degenerates faster in outer space against the imaginary event of a slowing aging by traveling in spaceships, knowledge (adquired by observing and reviewing facts) rules over imagination.

If you check the veracity of the statements of the supporters of relativity doing a review asking for "real evidence" about their words, you can find out that this matter of relativity is nothing but an expensive propaganda made about silly imaginations.

The goverment must rule that theorists shall state clearly that their ideas are assumptions, instead of writing books of science presenting their imaginations as facts.

 

[teacher]

This individual Einstein has been proven wrong one more time.

He had theories, not proofs. A lot of what he has said I've never been able to wrap my brain aroun, just don't make sence, know what I mean?

And that fabric of space/time? Bowling ball on a trampoline junk? Proove it.

Scientists have a way of setting themselves on a pedestle and the mindless wandering public just agrees with them because, well, they're scientists. They HAVE to be right. They went to school.

Fu*kers can't build a pyramid worth a ***** though.

Ah well.

So, my gravity question I've been asking for years that some claim to know but can't seem to show why, lemme put it like this...

Plunk down an object 1 light year from another object. Will that object be affected immeadiatly or will it take a year? Or something else? Does gravity travel at 55 million miles per second? Could Sammy Hager get there quicker?

Where's Tashah?

She's supposed to know this stuff.

 

[Andy]

No, your looking at it wrong. Sure, medically astronauts aren't as fit as when they first enter space, but it's due to the lack of gravity. Relativity is still in effect. Their bodies may deteriorate, but the actual passage of time is slightly slower.

Here's a link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/168

 

[teacher]

No, your looking at it wrong. Sure, medically astronauts aren't as fit as when they first enter space, but it's due to the lack of gravity. Relativity is still in effect. Their bodies may deteriorate, but the actual passage of time is slightly slower.

Here's a link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/168

Is there some sort of debate going on about gravity NOT affecting people in space?

In short, makes your muscles atophy and your bones get all honeycombed.

I want my damned speed of gravity answered. Screw this common knowledge stuff.

 

[bandaidwoman]

...... Einstein was a complete ignorant about reality when he created his famous theories of relativity. Today, with a simple review, one can easily find a hoax around those theories from their very beginning.........

I hate to break it to you but there is a a lot experimental proof going for his general relativity.


Say what you will of special relativity but his general relativity theory has experimental or observational proof. I am just a lowly ex research chemist but we had to learn general relativity pretty damn well because we had to understand spectrography cold. Newton could never explain Mercury's funcky orbit and voila, Einstein's computations explained them. Don't forget Sir A. S. Eddington's experimental confirmation that a ray of light is deflected by a gravitational field during his trip to the North Pole for the eclipse of 1919.. (Look at the primary data) Einstein predicted that in a gravitational field spectral lines of substances would be shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This has been confirmed by observation of light from white dwarf stars. Then there have been tons of stuff obtained in recent years from precision measurements using artificial satellites and the Viking lander on Mars, and from detailed observations of pulsars etc etc. I like my emperic data too, and every time I look around, his general relativity seems to be validated all the time. I don't claim to be an expert on special relativity since we chemists never had much use for it, but, jeesh, cut him a break. He was thinking up this stuff at the turn of the century they were still binding us women's feet in china!

And no I don't put him on any kind of pedastal since he could never accept the validity of quantum mechanics even though he ushered that field in with his famous photoelectric experiment!

 

[bandaidwoman]

Although I have to admit, I always thought Eddington above was a little bit of a political kiss up and people criticise his methodology but it doesn't matter since modern cosmology uses the bending of the images of distant galaxies around large intermediate galaxies to create "double" images as a well established tool in deep-space surveys. :mrgreen: (And no I didn't get that from my past chemistry training, my brother used to be a Princeton physicist.)

 

[Andy]

Is there some sort of debate going on about gravity NOT affecting people in space?

In short, makes your muscles atophy and your bones get all honeycombed.

I want my damned speed of gravity answered. Screw this common knowledge stuff.

That's what I'm saying. The muscular degeneration, eye problems, and arthritis common in many astronauts isn't do to any relativistic effects. It's because of the lack of gravity on the body (astronauts in orbit experience freefall) as well as increased exposure to radiation.

Now, as to your question, I can't answer you, I haven't taken any indepth physics yet.

 

[bandaidwoman]

That's what I'm saying. The muscular degeneration, eye problems, and arthritis common in many astronauts isn't do to any relativistic effects. It's because of the lack of gravity on the body (astronauts in orbit experience freefall) as well as increased exposure to radiation.

Now, as to your question, I can't answer you, I haven't taken any indepth physics yet.

Like you Andy, I am not sure how special relativity and zero gravity health effects have somehow become associated ?

 

[conquer]

He had theories, not proofs. A lot of what he has said I've never been able to wrap my brain aroun, just don't make sence, know what I mean?

And that fabric of space/time? Bowling ball on a trampoline junk? Proove it.

Scientists have a way of setting themselves on a pedestle and the mindless wandering public just agrees with them because, well, they're scientists. They HAVE to be right. They went to school.

Ignorance is not only the lack of knowledge about something but is also the incorrect learning about something.

It is not my fault if some of those scientists are ignorants because they learned incorrectly about what time is in reality.

Proving that the fabric of space/time is false? Piece of cake!

First, before going further, you must provide the solid evidence that time exists physically.

For this purpose, you must provide the following:

1)- The experiments, (the exprimenter name, place of the experiment, date of the experiment) made before Einstein invented his ideas of such fabric of the universe. Reasons for this request:

a)- A scientific theory is an attempt to explain a certain class of phenomena by deducing them as necessary consequences of other phenomena as more primitive and less in need of explanation.

b)- From point "a" above, we must find the primitive phenomena as an observed, perceived or experimented event or thing from which the theory was be based on.

c)- Einstein must have to have the solid evidence that time exists physically and that flows or travels through experimental data. The lack of this primitive phenomena as factual event will discard automatically any theory based in assumptions.

d)- Assumptions in science (read theories) must be based in facts (primitive phenomena), and not so in other assumptions.

2)- Having the theories of relativity leaning on clocks as devices measuring the physical passage of time, you must provide the following as well:

a)- Explain in an ordered statement how clocks are connected to such physical passage of time in order to measure it.

b)- Evidence that clocks indeed measure such "physical" passage of time. Let me help you with this part. For example, the anemometer has a sensor which mesures the passage of winds, so this device measures when winds speeds up or goes slower. You must provide the evidence that clocks has a similar sensor. (I will guarantee you without doubt that the atomic clock and the bunny of the batteries brand which play drums in TV commercials are the same devices, this is to say, the only thing they do is tic, tic tic.)

Please feel free to review as many journals of science you want too, also you can check the entire web, take your time.

If you are not able to answer my request with the proper evidence, then you can discard yourself such imagination called "space/time" from your life.

I tell you this because before you come here and provide a "point" you must have at hand the solid background to support it. Please, do not fill up your reply with silly copy and paste of web links, you must provide in an ordered way the answers to my request.

Your failure to answer properly my request will automatically discard your point as valid.

(Note= My request is a simple task which does not need further experimenttion but a simple recollection of records to answer it. No records to answer my request will mean that the theory in question (relativity) is based in mere imaginations)

The goverment must regulate that theorical scientists must explain their ideas wihtout implying that their ideas are facts. Scientists must use in their releases phrases as "this is an educated guess, it is assumed, we speculate, and similar, when they explain their theories

 

[conquer]

No, your looking at it wrong. Sure, medically astronauts aren't as fit as when they first enter space, but it's due to the lack of gravity. Relativity is still in effect. Their bodies may deteriorate, but the actual passage of time is slightly slower.

Here's a link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/168

What I can see in the article is that the clocks malfunction.

Look, when you travel in an airplane you suffer changes due to the different environment inside the flying plane which is different to ground.

Do not expect less with matter in general.

Besides, having that clocks change that way in fron of such different environment, don't expect that your body reaction will show similar effects.

For example, turn on the gas burner in a stove and put a pot over it for 30 minutes to a full flame . The metal will heat up, expand and maybe will turn red. Now, put your hand over the same flame over the same period of time, your hand won't expand but it will burn. See? they have different consequences in front of the same change of environment, because clocks are made of metal and humans are organic compounds.

As a conclusion for that imaginary "twin paradox", you cannot imply that because the clocks showed failures or slowing data in the flying airplanes your body is having the same effects, To say so is to spread out silly assumptions.