It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


There has to be a particle that can travel faster than light

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:40 PM
reply to post by beezzer

yes, as a matter of fact, in e=mc^2 "c" stands for "the speed of light in a vacuum" because under normal conditions, light passing through air or water will slow it's overall speed down, but i don't believe it's actual speed can be affected by anything other than a change in distance or time.

say you're driving on a straight highway for 5 miles at 70mph, now imagine that there are cars you have to dodge, while your speed never changes from 70mph, it will take you longer than the straight path with no cars because the distance you actually traveled increased.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
My point though, is if we can find an environment that can slow down the speed of light yet one where we can accelerate mass through, then in essence, we'd have mass going faster than the speed of light.
Not by going faster than 186,000 mps (?) but by just going faster than the light wave in that micro environment we theoretically created.

Then the problem wouldn't be so much acceleration, but creating a macro environment from the micro that we could utilize.

(don't be afraid to slam, I didn't stay at a Holliday Inn Express last night

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by beezzer

yes, theoretically you might be able to have an environment where something like neutrinos could travel slower than the speed of light, but beat light to the finish line because neutrinos simply don't give a $#!T about what they're going through.

lets say i want to travel to a far away star. it's 10 light years away. luckily i have this space-bending technology that considerably shortens the distance between the star and my current position so that i arrive in 5 years traveling at 99.9% the speed of light. did i actually break the speed of light? not really, because velocity is distance divided by time, and the distance i traveled was greatly shortened. i would beat light traveling the traditional way, but i wouldn't have actually broken the speed of light.

the only thing that can truly change the absolute speed of light is time. if time were to speed up, then light would slow down.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:17 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

The force of a black hole is so strong light cannot escape it...therefore light is not always constant, one can filter out certain wave lengths from the spectrum, hence they are not constant. All particles have a vibratory rate or a wave length. I am suppose you were saying all colors of the light spectrum arrive at the same time? Sorry but that notion is short sighted...there are 101 classes that can show you the error of that thought, other than the above examples.

I personally do not believe space is a vacuum or that it is void of oxygen. Certain gases cause elements to burn different colors depending on exposures to certain gases...looking at current models and data as I often do, I see that eventually these old ideas too will be over turned by the community.

When trying to explain things look at all of the available science in its entirety and formulate theories; then employ the scientific method...not merely expand what others have already stated or spout current data like a parrot, waiting for a pat on the head and a cracker for memorization, it's a stagnant boring practice.

From doing just that I theorized; in 1992 what nebula are and what they do and my college professor laughed in my face, and my paper got a D. What I theorized back in 1992 is now the currently accepted standard for nebula theory.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Right. You're talking about taking a shortcut.

I'm interested though, in actually going faster. Not by traditional acceleration, but by (perhaps) slowing everything else down in the immediate area.

Silly thought, perhaps.

But thanks for some learnin' that I didn't have.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:26 AM
Time itself is relative; depending on what one is trying to measure; atomically time is just a radioactive decay of an elemental isotope from one form into another. Such as plutonium eventually turning into lead. Or the amount of time a particles wave length takes to reach another particle. Take them all into account, not just one type.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by beezzer

Your thought reminds me of how the delivery ship on Futurerama is supposed to work. The ship sits still and everything else moves around it.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
quantum entanglement says otherwise. we don't know what triggers wave function collapse, nor much about it at all.

No, it doesn't, and yes, we do. We've understood it for almost a century. I can't understand why people keep saying such crazy things. No remotely competent physicist says anything else. Wave function collapse is very easily described in a number of equivalent ways; evaluating conditional probabilities, diagonalization of density matrices, decoherence, etc.

It's not only well-understood mathematically and theoretically, it's actually used to make devices!

the other particle changed instantaneously so that both the position and momentum of a particle could not be known at the same time

This isn't what happens at all. Please pick up an introductory quantum mechanics textbook and read it.

the issues between quantum mechanics and relativity haven't been sorted out yet.

Yes, it has, for a long time. Refusing to understand the past 100 years of science doesn't change that.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:34 AM

The force of a black hole is so strong light cannot escape it

black holes bend space around themselves, it has nothing to do with light being too slow to escape.

one can filter out certain wave lengths from the spectrum, hence they are not constant.

light can be filtered because it can be absorbed by electrons in certain materials. this is regulated by planck's constant which is 6.626 x 10^ -34 j/s. certain materials can absorb only certain wavelengths, for instance, clear glass can't absorb any of the visible spectrum, so the light passes through.

All particles have a vibratory rate or a wave length. I am suppose you were saying all colors of the light spectrum arrive at the same time? Sorry but that notion is short sighted...there are 101 classes that can show you the error of that thought, other than the above examples.

yes. it's called relativity. the speed of light is constant to all observers, no matter their speed.

I personally do not believe space is a vacuum or that it is void of oxygen.

space isn't completely devoid of particles. there is space between atoms in a solid. in a gas, there is much more space and the atoms are freely moving. space isn't a perfect vacuum, and it has different concentrations of particles in different places, just as there are galaxies, then clusters of galaxies grouped together. in the quantum sense, a vacuum isn't empty. there is a low energy field that--through quantum fluctuations due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle--can produce a virtual particle pair that ends up annihilating so fast that they can't be observed.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by Moduli

There is no theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity. In quantum mechanics the greater the accuracy of a measurement of location the more uncertainty there is a in the measurement of energy. The uncertainty principle applies not just to particles but also to empty space. Over very short intervals phantom or virtual particles can appear. The shorter the time, the more massive the particles can be. At very short intervals, virtual particles will be massive enough to form black holes. One cannot extrapolate simultaneously both quantum mechanics and general relativity to minute distances. The theories explode or diverge.

Quantum field theory combines special relativity and quantum mechanics in a problematic structure. Practical experiments can test the questionable aspects of quantum field theory using Bell's inequality (see Section 8.4). It is only the predictions of quantum field theory and not the mechanism that generates those predictions that are relativistic.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

More parrot talk, do you have any independent theories? I am happy people can use google to refresh their mind on what current theories are, or wing it as in some of your posts and miss entirely current accepted theory, which I said is boring...because it is still repeated theory spouting of current or sometimes old data...let go of the grab rail of safety and step out of those limitations sometimes.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by Darkchemistry

i suppose saying the world is round is also parrot talk? logical fallacy much?

we can safely say we're all wrong, as no theory explains everything perfectly, but saying that different wavelengths of light travel at different speeds is completely incorrect. saying that you don't believe the vacuum of space is truly empty is a no-brainer, as there are particles, clouds of gasses, and whole galaxies in the "vacuum".

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:32 AM
reply to post by beezzer

interesting thought. i will think on it for a few days, though it doesn't seem possible. there are only a few variables, and physics applies equally to all reference frames (so far as we know). there's distance, and then there's time. you can't have one without the other in any meaningful sense. without time, the distance between places becomes moot and vice versa.

if you mean making some craft that could both change spacetime AND avoid being part of the change (if you've seen the modern remake of H.G Well's "the time machine", it would be something like that bubble), then yes, what you're suggesting might be possible. the acceleration of the craft relative to normal spacetime might be able to break the speed of light without the craft breaking it in it's own reference frame.

if anyone made such a thing i don't know what would happen if it collided with something in normal spacetime, and theoretically you could create a bubble inside a bubble to infinity, so the speed could be limitless so long as you had the energy.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there are things that do travel faster than light through a vacuum, it's just that nothing with mass can do this. light has been made to travel 300 times the speed of light through a non-vacuum (excited cesium gas if i remember correctly), and the pulse of light exited the far side of the chamber before the main pulse entered the front, then the main pulse was cancelled out because the light exiting emitted the exact opposite frequency backwards, or something. pretty cool stuff.

I have never heard of this before, can you give a source?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:03 AM
No faster than light travel is needed as long as one takes into account multiple dimensions past the four we live in.

Quantum entanglement occurs when two particles, one of matter and one of antimatter, are created simultaneously. If one particle has its spin altered, the corresponding particle also alters its spin instantaneously regardless of the distance separating the particles at the time. This is because the distance we measure between the particles is in 4-D spacetime; the particles are not separated in other dimensions. Thus, no physical law is being violated.

Matter and antimatter are linked through higher dimensions forming tiny conduits (some call them 'wormholes') which are not affected by 4-D movements through spacetime. As a matter of fact, it is my hypothesis that the abundance of matter we observe is due to the gravitational force between matter (which in reality is the source of the conduit) and the anti-gravitational force many scientists believe to exist between antimatter particles (the end of the conduit). These forces would cause antimatter to exist along the edges (loose term) of the Universe, while matter would naturally gravitate over time toward the center of the Universe where we live.

No, this does not lend itself to Star Trek: Deep Space 9... sorry, that wormhole used a tremendous amount of writers' license. It does indicate that information may be transmitted faster than light-speed - and that in itself would be a fantastic breakthrough.

For more information, examine the concepts behind Einstein's field equations and where he derived them from.


posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:21 AM
Scientific American - Particles Found to Travel Faster Than Speed of Light

BBC News - Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

..But I thought that I had heard the results were negated by some flaw in the experiement. Anyone have more info on this?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:34 AM
don't they say matter information energy are all interchangable
so maybe you have to convert the particle to a wave, then to information, then to a wave, then back to being a particle
What is the equation that states that matter and energy are interchangeable?

This is an attempt to get clearer about the vexed question of the relationship between information and energy. The problem concerns synergetics, and also afflicts many discussions about the possibilities of paranormal communications. We start with a few definitions.

bit: the amount of information required to specify one of two alternatives, such as the 0 and 1 in the binary system.
Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary:

Bateson's definition of information is "a difference which makes a difference

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:39 AM
This may be relevant to your topic:

Quite old though.

With the global media's announcement this year of faster-than-light signalling, commencing in the Scientific American September issue's reportage, as well as their announcement of the multidimensional universe, to be tested in 2005, at the CERN particle accelerator in Switzerland, there appears to be a revolution at hand, amidst mainstream discoveries. A revolution that began some 7 years earlier, and that could be set to shake the very foundation of what we call reality, depending on further research.

edit on 16-3-2012 by OmegaSynthesis because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by neoholographic

ACtually, according to quantum theory and string theory, the better solution is that the particle we see as a point, is actually operating at a higher, or lower, dimensional plane than us, allowing the "spooky" action.

To explain for peeps....

spooky action refers to quantum entanglement. Meaning, two particles are "entangle" or linked at the quantum level and no amount of distance between then changes the fact that if you spin particle A clockwise, particle B would spin counter clockwise because of the entanglement.

Even if this is related to another, as of yet undiscovered, level of particle physics, it still doesn't have to travel faster than light, it merely needs to be able to move about the extra dimensions.

Hell, it can even be argued that the Higgs field plays a role in this.

Most people assume space, the universe, is a giant sphere. In fact, according to the math, it's more like a bent plane stacked upon other "branes" and inside these "branes" is our universe, like slices of bread in a loaf.

A strong theory points to the fact that gravity is so weak, which is it, you are fighting the mass of the entire earth each time you stand up. To explain this, the theory suggests that gravity isn't limited to our universe, it's actually functioning through ALL of them, spreading it's power out over them all making it appear weak.

Quantum entanglement could take advantage of this.

edit on 16-3-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by Blarneystoner

..But I thought that I had heard the results were negated by some flaw in the experiement. Anyone have more info on this?

Ok, so when they did the tests, the neutrinos were appearing faster than they should have, without breaking the speed of light.

In fact, this was tested and retested, and a faulty data cable was the culprit, once that was replaced, no more faster than light neutrinos.

Neutrinos are still being looked at for communications aspects because of the fact that they can travel through anything, unimpeded. Why bounce a single off a series of satellites to contact a ship on the other side of the globe, when you can just point down and send the signal right through the earth.

Anyways, back to faster than light....

It's not possible for a very simple reason.

The faster an object travels, the more mass is has, the more mass it has, the more fuel or energy required to accelerate the object. To push the object past the speed of light, you would need an infinite amount of energy as the object would have an infinite amount of mass.

But, we CAN distort time and space.

for example.....

The faster an object travels, the slower time passes relative to that object. You blast away from earth and time passes as normal for you, but it passes at an accelerated rate for those not traveling with you.

You travel out and back and for you, it takes 1 year, but for earth, 100 years have passed. For the people on earth, you disappeared, for you, you traveled 9 years into the future.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in