It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faster Than Light Speed

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Erno86


ROMULAN! I always got the impression gravitics and magnetics did the job by reducing (somehow) the mass of the object.



KLINGON! Possibly...with a weightless graviitic phenomena [anti-grav starship], that is surrounded by twin magnetic shields, along with a magnetically encased fusion plasma shield.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
If a black hole can draw in light, doesn't that mean that the black hole is pulling faster than the speed of light?

No, black holes warp spacetime, and light travels in a straight line through the warped spacetime, so it appears to follow a curved path. It's just an extreme case of gravitational lensing.



If light can't be seen directly in outer space (which has been theorized recently), then who's to say that light has a definite speed at all? Maybe light only has the properties we know of in Earth's atmosphere. Outside of Earths matrix, it could be infinite.


Theorised by whom, exactly? Light is perfectly visible in space, and the speed of light, c, is the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, in space. This has been measured and is well known. In the atmosphere, light travels slightly slower than c. (Only very slightly slower: about 99.97% of c.)

Here is a photograph of the sun from deep space (about 4 billion miles away, courtesy of Voyager 1)




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
This may be a stupid question. I'm sure if it is it will be pointed out by some of the great minds that frequent this site. Based on what I've been told, the speed of light is an absolute speed. Nothing can move faster. Now, say I am driving my car a 50 mph and turn on the headlights. Are the beams from my lights not traveling at the speed of light + 50 mph?


No. Each photon will merely start its journey from a different relative position, but you won't have increased their speed.

Here's a simple way to look at it. And for the sake of argument assume the headlights turn on instantaneously and the photons from the headlight actually move at the speed of light.

Now you're driving down a road at 50 miles an hour. Down the road is a target for your lights to hit. A marker indicates when you're one light second from that target. You flip on your lights at that second.

The first photons emanating from the headlights hit the target in a second. Seconds or minutes later, the photons now emanating from the headlights will reach the target in less than a second. Not because you've increased their speed, but because you've changed the headlights relative position to the target. No matter how fast you go, the photons will be limited by the speed of light. You can get nearer the target. But you cannot increase their speed.

Understand?

It's a great question. Einstein asked himself questions like that. And it led to the theory of relativity.


edit on 3-6-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23

The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.


Slowing the speed of light must be done under conditions that don't exist in space. Also, no matter what WHO tells you? An actual physicist or people making statements that are outdated? It's a mistake to confuse the public's understanding of current scientific models or principles with what the actual scientists in the field claim.

Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light.

According to relativity theory, an astronaut traveling at close to the speed of light will not get old as fast as those she leaves behind on Earth. But driving at 38 miles an hour, as everyone knows, will not affect anyone's rate of aging.

"However, slowing light can certainly help our understanding of the bizarre state of matter of a Bose-Einstein condensate," Hau points out.


As for the rest, you are simply spreading a common misconception about the implications of quantum entanglement and non-locality. Unfortunately, it is easy to see that is not true of matter at the scales we all perceive as reality. I don't need to tell a person what they will see at a locale for the observer to see it. I can simply ask a number of people to go to the same coordinates and ask them to record what they see when looking in a certain direction. While there may be some that add/subtract some details, if I ask them to look toward a mountain . . . they will all see the mountain. Throwing the "What the bleep do we Know" version of quantum physics and the psuedo-science behind "nothing is real and matter is generated by the observation" into the well. You can look at this principle in the same way that Newtonian physics isn't "wrong", but it certainly doesn't apply to the Cosmos where Relativity reigns.

In the media and popular science, quantum nonlocality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While it is true that a bipartite quantum state must be entangled in order for it to produce nonlocal correlations, there exist entangled states which do not produce such correlations. A well-known example of this is constituted by a subset of Werner states that are entangled but whose correlations can always be described using local hidden variables.[18] On the other hand, reasonably simple examples of Bell inequalities have been found for which the quantum state giving the largest violation is never a maximally entangled state, showing that entanglement is, in some sense, not even proportional to nonlocality.[25][26][27]

In short, entanglement of a two-party state is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be nonlocal. It is important to recognise that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a precedent to nonlocality as well as quantum teleportation and superdense coding, whereas nonlocality is interpreted according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.


Too many people are quick to jump on the philosophical implications of quantum theory, even though they do not show any real world function or evidence. But hey . . . sounds sci-fi-y and cool . . . so what the hell.

Quantum . . . physics of the small
Relative . . . physics of the large
Newtonian . . . physics under conditions present on Earth . . . which equals reality

They do not need to all "agree" and not all things true of one theory are true of the others when in their natural state of observance.

edit on 6/3/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/3/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
No. Einstein proved that light moves at an absolute speed no matter how fast a craft that shoots a beam of light is moving. So you could have a spacecraft travelling near the speed of light that shoots a beam of light, and that beam will still be travelling at the speed of light. But, there are strange properties that manifest at such high rates of speed. These are time dilation and length contraction if I remember correctly. It can all be quite confusing and I am by no means well-versed on the topic, but I am relatively certain that I am correct in this instance.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
This may be a stupid question. I'm sure if it is it will be pointed out by some of the great minds that frequent this site. Based on what I've been told, the speed of light is an absolute speed. Nothing can move faster. Now, say I am driving my car a 50 mph and turn on the headlights. Are the beams from my lights not traveling at the speed of light + 50 mph?


One of the reasons that light is discussed in Einsteins theory is that light is, well, relative. It's speed is relative no matter where it is, or how fast "it's going". Even if two masses both approaching each other at the speed of light, their combined closing speeds will not be C x2. BECAUSE their speed is relative.

Take that into your brain and wrap it around a few gazillion times!!



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

The laws of physics are not laws at all, but rules in certain places in time space ,if you look other places you will find they are violated and can not be used as constants.Even well understood law of gravity is now out the window because the expansion of the universe has been found to be INCREASING instead of slowing, now the super intelligent scientist are shown they know nothing and have to start from scratch because everything is not what it seems.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ctdannyd

originally posted by: skunkape23
This may be a stupid question. I'm sure if it is it will be pointed out by some of the great minds that frequent this site. Based on what I've been told, the speed of light is an absolute speed. Nothing can move faster. Now, say I am driving my car a 50 mph and turn on the headlights. Are the beams from my lights not traveling at the speed of light + 50 mph?


One of the reasons that light is discussed in Einsteins theory is that light is, well, relative. It's speed is relative no matter where it is, or how fast "it's going". Even if two masses both approaching each other at the speed of light, their combined closing speeds will not be C x2. BECAUSE their speed is relative.

Take that into your brain and wrap it around a few gazillion times!!


Yes, the speed of light appears to be such an immutable speed limit of the universe that time itself (and distance, and mass too!) gets "adjusted" to ensure that nothing can exceed it. That is part of what makes relativity so unintuitive.

It also does raise the question of whether something bigger is at work to "enforce" this limit... see also the way in which the universe seems to "conspire" to prevent faster-than-light communication, which would essentially be time-travel.

But that is getting into philosophical territory



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luciddream
Speed is simply distance over time,but time in and of itself does not exist.Ref.Wheeler-De Whitt and Rovelli.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Thanks a lot guys. I really do appreciate the replies. Now my brain hurts.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23
I'm not sure if anybody answered your question yet. I read all the replies and only found one that contained the solution to your question, sort of:


originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
But, there are strange properties that manifest at such high rates of speed. These are time dilation and length contraction if I remember correctly. It can all be quite confusing and I am by no means well-versed on the topic, but I am relatively certain that I am correct in this instance.
Time dilation is the effect that I didn't see anybody else mention, and some answers were completely wrong. While JiggyPotamus is correct that high rates of speed manifest relativistic properties, I'm not sure it was clear from the answer that ANY rate of speed has time dilation, it's just more noticeable at higher speeds.

One of the recent advances in experimental science is that this time dilation has been measured in a laboratory at speeds slower than you drive a car.

So if a person on the ground shines a flashlight, and a person drives by them at 55mph with headlights on, the ground observer would see the clock in the car ticking slightly slower if they had accurate enough clocks (again within the last decade or so we've developed sufficiently accurate clocks to confirm this).

Since speed = distance/time, it always works out that the clock runs at different rates when things are in motion relative to each other, so that time will adjust to keep the speed of light a constant.

edit on 4-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
i would have thought so too. i would have thought that the properties of space and the vacuum could not be altered. it turns out it is not true. for example; Dr Harold White has as part of his calculations the effects of a contracting and expanding field which he says alters a property of space known as permitivity. which when dealing with space as opposed to dielectrics or magnetic material controls the "stiffness" of space or it's resistance to deformation or warping. he plans to cycle his field in a waveform that he says will enormously reduce the energy needed to create and sustain a warp field.


originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23

The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.


Slowing the speed of light must be done under conditions that don't exist in space. Also, no matter what WHO tells you? An actual physicist or people making statements that are outdated? It's a mistake to confuse the public's understanding of current scientific models or principles with what the actual scientists in the field claim.

Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light.

According to relativity theory, an astronaut traveling at close to the speed of light will not get old as fast as those she leaves behind on Earth. But driving at 38 miles an hour, as everyone knows, will not affect anyone's rate of aging.

"However, slowing light can certainly help our understanding of the bizarre state of matter of a Bose-Einstein condensate," Hau points out.


As for the rest, you are simply spreading a common misconception about the implications of quantum entanglement and non-locality. Unfortunately, it is easy to see that is not true of matter at the scales we all perceive as reality. I don't need to tell a person what they will see at a locale for the observer to see it. I can simply ask a number of people to go to the same coordinates and ask them to record what they see when looking in a certain direction. While there may be some that add/subtract some details, if I ask them to look toward a mountain . . . they will all see the mountain. Throwing the "What the bleep do we Know" version of quantum physics and the psuedo-science behind "nothing is real and matter is generated by the observation" into the well. You can look at this principle in the same way that Newtonian physics isn't "wrong", but it certainly doesn't apply to the Cosmos where Relativity reigns.

In the media and popular science, quantum nonlocality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While it is true that a bipartite quantum state must be entangled in order for it to produce nonlocal correlations, there exist entangled states which do not produce such correlations. A well-known example of this is constituted by a subset of Werner states that are entangled but whose correlations can always be described using local hidden variables.[18] On the other hand, reasonably simple examples of Bell inequalities have been found for which the quantum state giving the largest violation is never a maximally entangled state, showing that entanglement is, in some sense, not even proportional to nonlocality.[25][26][27]

In short, entanglement of a two-party state is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be nonlocal. It is important to recognise that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a precedent to nonlocality as well as quantum teleportation and superdense coding, whereas nonlocality is interpreted according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.


Too many people are quick to jump on the philosophical implications of quantum theory, even though they do not show any real world function or evidence. But hey . . . sounds sci-fi-y and cool . . . so what the hell.

Quantum . . . physics of the small
Relative . . . physics of the large
Newtonian . . . physics under conditions present on Earth . . . which equals reality

They do not need to all "agree" and not all things true of one theory are true of the others when in their natural state of observance.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Go home light. You are drunk.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
When you consider the speed of light to be absolute, do not consider the light itself. The speed of sound is determined by the medium through which the sound wave travels. For example, the speed of sound is greater at sea level than it is a 30,000 feet because the medium (atmosphere) is more dense. In water, the speed of sound is greater still, because water is much more dense than atmosphere.



The speed of light is what it is because of the medium through which the light wave travels. Bring the flames, mainstream science people!


Why would any mainstream person flame you for being ignorant about the fact that is exactly what MS science says.

To answer the OP ... no, the headlights would go the speed of light not the speed of light +50, very counterintuitive.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23

The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.


Nobody claims the speed of light is constant. Ever heard of refraction? That is caused by the speed of light changing as it goes from one medium to another, eg from air to glass or water.

Particles can travel faster than the speed of light in, say, water, because light travels slower if it is not in a vacuum: look up Cherenkov radiation for a neat illustration of that.

What is constant is the speed of light IN A VACUUM, and nothing can exceed that.
edit on 5-6-2014 by Rob48 because: Cherenkov



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   
We are talking about the Meatloaf song, right?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23

The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.


Nobody claims the speed of light is constant. Ever heard of refraction? That is caused by the speed of light changing as it goes from one medium to another, eg from air to glass or water.

Particles can travel faster than the speed of light in, say, water, because light travels slower if it is not in a vacuum: look up Cherenkov radiation for a neat illustration of that.

What is constant is the speed of light IN A VACUUM, and nothing can exceed that.


in ordinary circumstances it is true that light cannot travel faster than the commonly accepted speed of light in vacuum however; like relativity is an extension of newtonian rules where conditions were so extreme newtonian physics breaks down there apparently exists an edge beyond which relativisitc rules breaks down; e.g beyond the event horizon of black holes. and like newton before relativity is inadequate to describe that extreme realm.

we are approaching an era where extreme exceptions to relativity will be described by a new set of equations and rules. for example there are quantum two slit experiments where photons are forced to quantum tunnel in one arm of the experiment. the photons that tunnel travel faster than the photons that do not tunnel. they are estimated at 1.6 times the speed of light in a vacuum if i recall the literature properly. also recent articles in peer reviewed literature describe both gravity and quantum entanglement as being caused/transmitted via quantum scale wormholes. it is remarkably similar to Mach's principle.

while i am at it i have to mention that relativity's ban on FTL are not complete bans any way. in special relativity perhaps. in general relativity though there are solutions and frames of reference where both FTL and time travel are possible. to over simplify: locally FTL is forbidden. it is down to reference frames. globally FTL is *sometimes* allowed. frames of reference makes the whole thing murky seemingly absolute at times and other times it seems it's more of an illusion because of faulty understandings of the import of reference frames.

another thing i have seen argued is that some forms of motion are absolute as opposed to relative. relativity rules only apply to relative motion.
edit on 5-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we are approaching an era where extreme exceptions to relativity will be described by a new set of equations and rules.
I don't know about approaching, because I'm not sure if we've made much progress on a unified field theory, or a theory of quantum gravity, since Einstein tried to create a unified field theory last century. However it's nearly universally agreed that more theory is needed as you suggest. It's unclear if string theory will provide anything useful but that's another possibility.


for example there are quantum two slit experiments where photons are forced to quantum tunnel in one arm of the experiment. the photons that tunnel travel faster than the photons that do not tunnel. they are estimated at 1.6 times the speed of light in a vacuum if i recall the literature properly.
Sounds like you're talking about the Hartman effect, but if not please cite the research you're talking about. What appeared on the other side of the barrier aren't real photons, they are only virtual photons, so it's not really appropriate to count the gap in the velocity calculation.

Hartman Effect

an analysis by Herbert Winful suggests that the Hartman effect cannot actually be used to violate relativity by transmitting signals faster than the c, because the tunnelling time "should not be linked to a velocity since evanescent waves do not propagate". Winful means by this that the photons crossing the barrier are virtual photons, only existing in the interactions and could not be propagated into the outside world.
I can cite other research claiming superluminal velocities but it's never the photon that's superluminal, it's a waveform like phase velocities or group velocities.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we are approaching an era where extreme exceptions to relativity will be described by a new set of equations and rules.
I don't know about approaching, because I'm not sure if we've made much progress on a unified field theory, or a theory of quantum gravity, since Einstein tried to create a unified field theory last century. However it's nearly universally agreed that more theory is needed as you suggest. It's unclear if string theory will provide anything useful but that's another possibility.


for example there are quantum two slit experiments where photons are forced to quantum tunnel in one arm of the experiment. the photons that tunnel travel faster than the photons that do not tunnel. they are estimated at 1.6 times the speed of light in a vacuum if i recall the literature properly.
Sounds like you're talking about the Hartman effect, but if not please cite the research you're talking about. What appeared on the other side of the barrier aren't real photons, they are only virtual photons, so it's not really appropriate to count the gap in the velocity calculation.

Hartman Effect

an analysis by Herbert Winful suggests that the Hartman effect cannot actually be used to violate relativity by transmitting signals faster than the c, because the tunnelling time "should not be linked to a velocity since evanescent waves do not propagate". Winful means by this that the photons crossing the barrier are virtual photons, only existing in the interactions and could not be propagated into the outside world.
I can cite other research claiming superluminal velocities but it's never the photon that's superluminal, it's a waveform like phase velocities or group velocities.
this was several years ago. i'd play hell trying to find the exact cite now. but my memory says that the tunneling photon beam arrived 1.6 times faster than the unobstructed beam.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Let's assume it didn't, if you can't find any source for that. I'm sure it didn't. You seem to have the idea that the photon did that. It didn't. Another virtual particle re-appeared somewhere else, and someone made a velocity calculation from that, which isn't exactly valid. So I believe you read something along those lines, but you may have been misled. There are plenty of science writers out there who write about science they don't really understand, so if they wrote something wrong, and you're parroting that, it doesn't really help us.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join