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.

 

Scientists break the speed of light

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Seems to me, present day physics reside under the product of continuing evolution and cannot be assumed fact. Mid-term fact maybe?, but nothing more.

Dallas




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
sry... but this is just a theory. I think it is possible that one day we will be able to travel faster than the speed of light... but time travel is also a possible theory... and i dont think we will be able to time travel any time soon... if so, then ill travel to this very minuite and slap me a good one.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
According to the theories that Einstein put forward, if two people were riding a light wave at the speed of light, side by side, they'd appear as stationary to one another. If one of them pushed the other one ahead of them, wouldn't they have sped up past the speed of light? I never understood how mass could have a critical speed like this. Granted, physics wasn't my best class, but I did learn a lot in it.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I read three links, all titled 'Scientists break the speed of light', and all later refuting that claim. Basically, the articles state the titles are not true. They use words like, 'demonstrate the possibility', 'suggest', and 'appear' when they discuss the feat.
I feel that our view of the universe is very limited and that there is far more we don't know than what we do. Time may be able to be manipulated, and I think that it can be. But that is just my opinion. It is because I see time as being momentary, and instantaneous, and not linear.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
technically they are probably right.
But I think what einstein was saying is that

'' this apple, will never travel at the speed of light ''

that sort of technology, along with gravity engines etc etc will never be created through humans... its something only aliens will deliver us.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If aliens can learn how to do it, then that means that it's physically possible. Given enough time, humans will learn how to do that, if it's possible, with or without the help of aliens.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
If aliens can learn how to do it, then that means that it's physically possible. Given enough time, humans will learn how to do that, if it's possible, with or without the help of aliens.

TheBorg



MM.. Id like to think aliens are smarter than us, understand something we cant..
IE the usage of our brains.
there's something physical or chemical that restricts us..
thus why retarded people and autistic people use different area's non-retarded/non-autistic do, thus giving them abilities foreign to us.

Id like to think aliens, or the other life out there uses more of their brain thus have the ability to look at a box in more ways then 3...

mankind, in my mind has stalled drastically since 1990.
Computers, data trade... ... we've only grown on these concepts.
we're still using the combustion engine, we're still using computers and radio waves etc etc...

until aliens make contact with us, we wont be able to travel at the speed of light, or put a human on another planet.

likewise with a gravity engine akin to ufo's...
we're restricted by our own abilities... in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Id like to think aliens, or the other life out there uses more of their brain thus have the ability to look at a box in more ways then 3...


To be fair to all species that exist in the cosmos, we must assume that we are a "middle of the road" species. What that means is that we're neither further advanced than everyone else, nor are we behind everyone else. With this in mind, it's quite likely that we're somewhere in the middle. It's a safe bet anyway.



mankind, in my mind has stalled drastically since 1990.
Computers, data trade... ... we've only grown on these concepts.
we're still using the combustion engine, we're still using computers and radio waves etc etc...


And why do you think that is? It's my belief that the Powers that Be are keeping technology from us that would enable us to break free of the combustion engine. For example, did you know that stealth technology was being experimented with during WW2? Where do we think all of those wedge-shaped UFO sightings came from?

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Cool! One small step, to traveling to the stars. I wont get to excited until someone independently verify this claim.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I knew an old man named Jack Barnes (of Georgetown, TX) back in '93-'95 who was a quantum physicist. He claimed to have discovered the frequencies of C cubed and C to the 4th power (C squared being the speed of light). According to him C cubed is the graviton; which creates anti-gravity. And C to the 4th power is the photon; which enables living beings to move through solid (or liquid) matter. I hope he was right. He was a righteous man, as far as I could tell.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Lightworth]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Quantum physics is beyond my mental capacity. However, all that fancy talk doesn't impress me. Einstein was and always will be in my mind the smartest person to live. If they prove him wrong they will need to do so over and over again to prove to me specifically that they have made ANYTHING move faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, is there no variables involved? I doubt that.


Quantum Physics is not my forté either but I don't think it's right relying everything we know on the workings of one man.. what if he was wrong? We just don't know it yet but it is possible eh?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Just a few remarks. I will not comment on the news report, because I haven't read the original article and furthermore, experiments like this one are very difficult to interpret correctly for a non-specialist like myself.


Originally posted by Jaruseleh
the backbone of quantum mechanics will have been broken.


Ordinary quantum mechanics doesn't include special relativity in its assumptions. In fact, attempts to include special relativity, especially the creation and annihilation of particles led to the formulation of quantum field theories.


Originally posted by dvk678
This is possible through fiber optics.
Even in natural environment: large black hole for instance. The Bekenstein-Hawking radiation still decays from them. And guess what, to beat the Event Horizon the particle must travel faster then the speed of light, and that’s escaping the black hole! What happens to the photon when it enters the Event Horizon, traveling on the direct trajectory to the gravitation source?


Could you give a reference to the speed of light (that is, group velocity, not phase velocity) being broken in fiber optics?

Also, I think you misunderstood the nature of Hawking radiation. In QFT's, there are random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. This basically means that particle/anti-particle pairs are formed. Normally these particles annihilate each other again within the timescale associated with their energy. However, if one of the particles falls into a black hole, while the other doesn't, this annihilation is no longer possible. The other particle flies off into space, taking some of the energy of the black hole with it.

Notice that during this entire process, the particle that gets away is never inside the horizon of the black hole. Therefore, no speed faster than that of light is needed.


Originally posted by TheBorg
According to the theories that Einstein put forward, if two people were riding a light wave at the speed of light, side by side, they'd appear as stationary to one another. If one of them pushed the other one ahead of them, wouldn't they have sped up past the speed of light?


Well, first of all, people, being matter, can't travel at the speed of light. However, imagine a similar situation. One observer travels at 0.99c and one is stationary. Now the latter exerts a force on the first observer. Can he push the first observer over the speed of light? Well, using Newtonian laws, this should be true, but in special relativity the formulas to add velocities (a not-so-good explanation on Wikipedia) and to calculate the effect of acceleration are different (and contrary to popular belief, you can calculate with accelerations, albeit constant ones, in special relativity without resorting to general relativity). These new laws make sure the moving observer can never be pushed over the speed of light.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Latest "faster than the speed of light" claims wrong (again) (link for full info)


A paper submitted to the physics arXiv has been picked up by a number of major news outlets (e.g., the Daily Mail) because the paper suggests that its authors have measured something traveling faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately, the claim is worse than weak; it is silly. I'll talk about why that is after briefly discussing their research.

The paper in question has no data at all so; although it asserts that it has measured superluminal velocities, it offers nothing to back that up. It also has very little in the way of experimental detail, so we can't determine with certainty what they are measuring, making it very difficult to evaluate their claims. We'll take as close a look as we can, given these limitations.

...

So, how are these authors measuring an excessive speed of light? In practical terms, most experiments measure light in terms of what is called the group velocity, which is how fast a pulse propagates along an underlying carrier frequency. This can, in some circumstances, lead to the pulses traveling faster than the speed of light in the medium they're in, but not faster than light in vacuum. Although the setup in the new paper is not entirely clear, they were measuring the arrival time of pulses, which means we're talking about group velocity rather than the actual speed of light.




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
When are they going to fix it?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Why does everybody says you can travel into to future? My question: Define "future" first....

My opinion about this:
You cant travel into the future. I mean the "conscience future" or your "soul future" for example. Your soul just IS.
Maybe you can travel faster then time would go. But time is not conscience, its relative. It's "invented" to measure change of a soul or your conscience!
Going faster then light? You will just arrive faster then light. The journey will be black likewiseley'? You will be traveling through "Hyperspace" or a "Worm hole" or whatever you want to call it?

My simple statement: You can travel faster then light. Maybe via Hyperspace you can go to a certain point at instance! So, you can in this theorie go faster then 10000 times the speed of light, just point a destination further away.
Its about Moving from to one point to another, it has nothing to do with travelling into the "real" future.


Anyone?

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Lunica]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Lunica]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Personally, I don't think that this experiment "broke" any laws. The photons may have appeared to have gone faster than light, but in reality, they probably just took a "short cut". Thats the thing about relativity. In relation to us, they may have seemed to travel at whatever speed, but they probably travelled at the same speed, but somewhere else for a little while...
I agree with you. Until we know more, I don't think we can assume that this is anything but another "optical illusion" of quantum mechanics; we've seen them before.

But if this does work outside the standard models, as the scientists seem to be claiming, that blows my mind.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Like the old adage about "hyperspace" and the piece of paper. The didn't directly travel from point A to point B, but went via point Q....


If I were traveling to the Pleiades, personally I wouldn't care if I broke the speed of light or not. If going from point A to point B took 40 years and point Q got me there in 4 years, I'd be a happy traveler.

Even if this article is many years old, I hope they continue with the theory and eventually work on altering the frequency of mass in order for "universal" travel ... or at least "galatic" travel.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lunica
Why does everybody says you can travel into to future? My question: Define "future" first....

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Lunica]


The future is a moment or period of time that has not arrived yet.

Yea we are travelling into the future all the time, we can even travel faster into the future by increasing our velocity. The closer to the speed of light the slow time slow down for you. This is basic Relativity that has been confirmed time and time again I don't know why people still think it's a Hypothesis still(they call it theory as if it was a guess, but the correct word for Educated Guess is Hypothesis).



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by amantine
 


Excellent explanation there. I know quantum entanglement experiments have already proven that quantum particles do communicate faster than light but that effect has not been demonstrated on the macro scale.

What would you say about gravity waves though? Would GWs not travel faster than light? A hypothetical example remember reading somewhere, the sun suddenly disappeared, would the earth continue to stay in orbit? The waves in the space-time fabric would travel faster than light. If that is correct, and lets say we could come up with a way to manufacture GWs, we could, at the very least, communicate faster than light!



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Einstein was a routine opium user. When he vacationed in Europe, he would frequent opium houses. This is where he formed the basis of his theories.

On another note, photons must have mass if gravity can effect them and even slow them down. If photons were massless their course would not be altered by gravity alone.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join