Scientists claim to have broken speed of light

Quote:

---

At least you can not see yourself appear before you start because the distance the light must travel is too big before reaching you in time before you left. At least I think, that's how I understood time travelling so far...

---

Quote:

---

As others have said, the speed of light is "broken" in many instances... heck you can do it as well... simply take a flash light, point it out and spin spin spin! The radial velocity of the light beam is faster than "c"...watch out that you don't blind your grandpa in 1930 or he'll never marry your grandma!!!

---

That was an ingenious joke! Hahaha

But if you can send things FTL, and really meassure the signal on the other side (else how did you know it was FTL?) then transportation of data is already possible right? you could sent signals on time intervals, and depending on the time it arrived determine what data has been sent...

Quote:

---

That was an ingenious joke! Hahaha

---

Quote:

---

But if you can send things FTL, and really meassure the signal on the other side (else how did you know it was FTL?) then transportation of data is already possible right? you could sent signals on time intervals, and depending on the time it arrived determine what data has been sent...

---

Quote:

---

It's not a joke. That's true.

---

You're not gonna tell me your grandpa never did marry your grandma because you stick your flashlight into the washmachine well I guess that if lightwaves went back in time by spinning a flashlight, the effect would be minimum. Else you would see a flash on the wall before you even rotated the lamp! I swear I never saw that happen. Even if you would spin a flashlight around near the speed of light, I doubt you would see a flash a few seconds before the machine starts spinning.

Quote:

---

Nope. The fact is that measurement is a form of information hence you can't measure a FTL signal. You know it's there, but you can't touch it in a sense.

---

Quote:

---

As others have said, the speed of light is "broken" in many instances... heck you can do it as well... simply take a flash light, point it out and spin spin spin! The radial velocity of the light beam is faster than "c"

---

Quote:

---

Arriving somewhere before even leaving got my mind a bit twisted though, but I guess what they mean is that because we need light in order to see things, we would see the thing that moved at it's new location before the light of it's old location is totally exhausted so to speak

---

under the laws of Newtonian physics you're absolutely right, and that's what makes most sense.

however, by Einstein's theory of Relativity, time is dependent on relative speed while the relative speed of light to everyone is constant (and therefore is different to everyone who's moving at different speeds, because it is always 'c' relative to them; this brings about sci-fi ideas of alternate universes), and that time as it appears to be experienced by one object (as well as mass and inversely length) dilates according to its relative speed to the observer (though this is only really apparent at very-near light-speeds).

basically, time is infinitely slowed down (ie, stopped) for something moving at the speed of light exactly, and so the idea is that time would reverse for something moving beyond the speed of light. however, the formula doesn't hold for that because time would need to become a complex number.

fastlane is absolutely right, though, that light-particles don't have mass (or at least no rest-mass -- they obtain momentum through their speed and their frequency which determines how penetrating they are, which is why gamma rays are dangerous and radio waves aren't). like he said, its only considered a problem for anything that has mass, because that object's mass dilates (becomes bigger) approaching infinity as the speed of light is approached, requiring an infinite amount of force (F = ma) to accelerate it that high. anything of such a high mass would theoretically become a black-hole. it's all relative, though. someone approaching the speed of light would see everything else approaching the speed of light (relative to them), obtaining infinite mass and becoming black-holes. so in both alternate observations everything's doomed

but that's all just according to Einstein. most examples ignore the mass dilation and just play with time dilation, because that's groovier . tests seem to support his theory of Relativity but i won't bother making some sort of decision because there's way too much to think about.

anyway, that's high-school physics for ya ^^

julz

Quote:

---

like he said, its only considered a problem for anything that has mass, because that object's mass dilates (becomes bigger) approaching infinity as the speed of light is approached, requiring an infinite amount of force (F = ma) to accelerate it that high. anything of such a high mass would theoretically become a black-hole.

---

Quote:

---

as fun as that idea is, it doesn't make sense, because the beam of light isn't an object. the photons are still moving at exactly the speed of light (as Einstein would have you think). they don't spin around with the flashlight.

---

Quote:

---

Light is very much an object, as real as you and I. Just because something is massless doesn't mean it's not real

---

Quote:

---

but by no means claims that it IS breaking the speed-of-light barrier.

---

From the site:

"The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light.

Others things which can go faster than the speed of light include the spot of a laser which is pointed at the surface of the moon.
[...]

These are all examples of things which can go faster than light, but which are not physical objects."

So they are breaking the light speed barrier but cannot be used to transmit information since they are no "physical" even though they are "real". Or is it the other way around: that because they can break the light speed barrier, they are not physical?

Who knows. The point is that there are plenty of phenomena that break the light speed barrier but none can be used to transmit information. That is all I'm saying...

Quote:

---

Anyone remember the first look at a Muon?

---

Huh? Muons are massive elementary particles and AFAIK were never thought to be super-luminal.

Quote:

---

I cant see how such info could ever have been released in the first place if it was incorrect.

---

Inaccurate information on the internet? Impossible!
Muons were discoverd in the 30's. There is no scientific publication of that time that I could find that even hinted at them being tachyon candidates.

Julz: I think we are both saying the same thing. The definition of Speed is a change in position over time... it doesn't matter what is changing position. In fact, your dragonball example, technically, also has a speed faster than the speed of light. The basic fact that I'm trying to impress (and you may already know) is that information cannot travel from one place to another FTL. The DB example, the flashlight example, all of these are FTL but cannot be used to transfer information FTL. So again, FTL speeds are possible but not to transfer information... hence teleportaion or massive FTL (both of which could carry a message) are impossible under current physical laws.

Quote:

---

What the net has to do with this when it didnt exist at the time is beyond

---

Quote:

---

This information was from the scientists journals at the time and also included in subsequent public encyclopaedias during the same time period.

---

...so could you provide a citation or reference where he states that muons are FTL?

The discoverer of the Muon was Nobel Prize winner Carl D. Anderson in 1937 and I can find no reference on the net or in journals of that time where he or anyone else at that time proposed Muons to be tachyons. They have always been massive and detectible and where always referenced as such, never Tachyons that I could find. I would be facinated to find references to the contrary though!

Quote:

---

Julz: I think we are both saying the same thing.

---

you're right

i guess i forgot that you said something along the lines of this from the beginning:

Quote:

---

hence teleportaion or massive FTL (both of which could carry a message) are impossible under current physical laws.

---

Quote:

---

Lol, "massive" is overrated ... isn't matter just all these vacuums of space next to eachother and such?

---

Quote:

---

Lol, "massive" is overrated ... isn't matter just all these vacuums of space next to eachother and such?

Cheers

---

Quote:

---

Vacuun has been banned by quantum physics as a direct consequence of the Heisenberg's principle of indetermination

---

Quote:

---

... but that doesn't mean that a lowest energy state doesn't exist, just that it's not always zero and not always constant.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Lol, "massive" is overrated ... isn't matter just all these vacuums of space next to eachother and such?

---

We really don't know what Mass is! At the lowest level, mass is categorized into leptons and quarks. Leptons are like the electron and neutrino while quarks are the constituents of protons and neutrons (and many many more).

However, the standard model has NO firm explanation for what gives these particles mass nor what mass "is". Right now, there is a very important experiement at the LHIC trying to find the Higg's particle, a theoretical particle/field that gives leptons and quarks their mass. But still, this is further deconstruction and why mass behaives the way it does (and it's connection to gravity) are still mysteries.

---