Speed of light broken with basic lab kit

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department.

Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500.


www.newscientist.com...


[Edited on 18-9-2002 by mad scientist]




posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 09:42 AM
link   
But it wasn't any with mass going faster than light, it was a wave. Still interesting tho...



posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 11:40 AM
link   
its all a matter of group velocity and phase velocity. whilst, yes, what they say is technically true, it has no real faster-than-light applications. you can't pass ~information~ faster than light, and as such can't be used for communications, for example.

i hate pigeon-science for the masses....

- qo.



posted on Nov, 4 2002 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Listen to quiet one.

Einstein should have said 'No *information* can be transmitted at a speed higher than that of light' , as opposed to 'nothing can travel faster than light'



posted on Nov, 4 2002 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I think Einstein was just too afraid to say that time travel was possible. If a mass/information can go faster than light, then it can potentially travel backwards in time. He didn't want to tell the world that you could travel in time, so he just said nothing can travel that fast. Well, that's my take on it. Plus, mass stretches into infinity (possibly), which isn't good.



posted on Nov, 4 2002 @ 05:44 PM
link   
What does electric signals mean? Doesn't that require elecctricity? Isn't electricity made of electrons? Don't electrons have mass?

I admit I don't understand the article... Please explain :p



posted on Nov, 4 2002 @ 06:07 PM
link   
No information can be passed, you just have to find some way to rig it so that you transfer the information to the "oscillation" and then once received it is retranslated back into the information.

And FD, waves have mass, technically you are a wave as can everything be, especially particles, such as electrons. It's all based on the duality of particles.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon
Listen to quiet one.

Einstein should have said 'No *information* can be transmitted at a speed higher than that of light' , as opposed to 'nothing can travel faster than light'


What Einstein said is just right. For some reason most people seem to think that what Einstein said was "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light", but it should actually be read "No thing, with rest mass, can travel faster than the speed of light". So this in turn covers all grounds, but doese not exclude things allready moving at the speed of light or faster. Just wanted to clear that up.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 10:05 AM
link   
to add to that, lets all bear in mind that most of what einstein said has been proven false. or rather, i should say that the series of appoximations that are physics according to einstein have been superseded by more accurate approximations.

E = mc^2 my arse ....

- qo.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Eintsein theory of relativity was later debunked by his himself...BUT scientists now realize he was right the first time around...IM pretty positive..we can travel NOT AT the speed of light for that is impossible BUT HEY we CAN travel FASTer than the speed of light.
Here, when i think faster than the speed of light...i always think of wormholes.
It is possible, but time travel, i am not so sure off..when we figure how to conquer time..that would be a day to be afraid of!
OrionSIrius



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by OrionSirius:

"IM pretty positive..we can travel NOT AT the speed of light for that is impossible BUT HEY we CAN travel FASTer than the speed of light. "

we can't travel at the speed of light, but we can travel faster than the speed of light? that suggests that there is some sort of singularity at velocity = speed of light. given that we currently travel slower than the speed of light, how do you propose that we can attain faster-than-light speeds, without going through the speed of light, in a manner that does not allow us to move at the speed of light?

- qo.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 05:12 PM
link   
E does = mc^2 you ARSE....as for why people can't grasp the fact you can't go the speed of light??? They are all scared of being STUCK in this solar system...even I would like to feel that I not my great great great grandchildren will have the ability to leave here, provided we had the technology.

The fact of the matter is is that we must find a different means of travelling through space "literally"
speed is usless in any form of long distant travel.

Hmm perhaps dark energy will aid us in conquering gravity? Our first step in folding space perhaps?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 11 2002 @ 07:10 PM
link   
radio telescopes can see many light years away of course. Then why do we get info from those places so fast? *I know this may be a very stupid question.*



posted on Nov, 11 2002 @ 09:03 PM
link   
What do you mean???? The info radio telescopes or anything recieves, is VERY old...take the hubble, every galaxie you see in those pictures...some might not even EXIST anymore....their light (or radio waves, x-rays etc.) began its journey before our sun was even BORN!


You gotta love this universe.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Originally posted by Cammo Dude:

"radio telescopes can see many light years away of course. Then why do we get info from those places so fast? *I know this may be a very stupid question.*"

as one of my lecturers used to say: "no questions is stupid, just some of the answers you get to them." FreeMason has already answered your question but perhaps i can cover it a little bit more ... elloquently?

take one person (A) and have him stand on one edge of a field. take another person (B) and stand them on the other side of the field. A shouts to B, but it takes time 't' for the sound to travel from A to B, and hence for B to hear it.

what am i saying? that sound travels at a finite speed, and as such you can hear sound NOW that was produced sometime in the past. the same goes for radio / light / any e-m radiation detected from space.

so, your radio telescope for example can pick up radio waves produced by stellar bodies many many light years away, but it has also taken a great deal of time for those radio waves to reach Earth. hence, astronomers and astrophysicists often talk of 'looking back in time' with their measurements.

understand?

- qo.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 06:41 AM
link   
FreeMason:

your post stipulating that E = mc^2 is in error. in fact, its so much in error that i want you to say it again. why? because i think it qualifies for an entry into the Moron Awards. however, since the post was made prior to the start of the award its inelligible. so, if you still think E = mc^2 please feel free to say so, loud and clear. i'll then dig up the information to "prove" you wrong.

- qo.
(i say "prove" because having been a physicist for a number of years i've become very pedantic on what is "proved" and what is ... well ... accepted because we haven't got anything better.)



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 06:55 AM
link   
"given that we currently travel slower than the speed of light"

bullpoo Q.O.
Its impossible for us to be travelling slower than the speed of light as clearly demonstrated by the fact that we can observe the world around us and other people.

oh hang on, your talking about running and stuff arent you.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 07:05 AM
link   
*hands lupe several great big pieces of foam*

knock yourself out.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 07:10 AM
link   
sweet sweet foam.
oh how my heart yearns for your soft polymer caress.



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one
if you still think E = mc^2 please feel free to say so, loud and clear. i'll then dig up the information to "prove" you wrong.


Let's see it... start a new thread.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum