It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 3
3
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:00 AM
If you think of energy as particles only, you will miss it. Particles cannot go faster than light because light is the fastest particle. However, energy can and does go faster than light because energy is what light travels on, in, and through all the time. It is the backdrop of the entire universe. The distance between one point of energy and the other is instantaneous. And someday, a machine may be built that will create the anti energy needed to pass through energy from one point of the universe to the other.

Let's explain all this this way. let's say that a light particle was a car, and that the energy background was air. The car screams through the air at awesome speed, but hits a barrier when it then begins to melt and disintegrate into the energy field. Let's say that speed was 15,000 MPH. We could say that no car can go faster than 15K-MPH. Now let's say that someone invents a machine that forces air outwards from the car and causes the air coming towards it to deflect on either side of the car, but at the same time uses that same air to push itself from behind. The car is now traveling so fast the it cannot be measured as the continual flow of energy is redirected into forward propulsion motion.

When they figure out how to make the energy that the universe moves through and warp it, they will travel from any point in the universe to any other point almost instantly. Some say this energy is dark matter and others say it is gravity. But I think it is something not yet discovered.

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

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Also, no faster than light communication happens in quantum mechanics. Wave function collapse does not transmit any information of any kind.

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

an experiment was performed where two particles traveling the exact same speed on a collision course was set up in an attempt to get around the heisenburg uncertainty principle. they were going to measure the position of one, and the momentum of the other and thereby know both for each particle. they found when they measured one, the other particle changed instantaneously so that both the position and momentum of a particle could not be known at the same time. this hints at a higher structure to the universe than we have yet described.

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

we know that observation will collapse the wave function, we just have no idea why aside from the fact that it will make it our reality. i totally agree with u that there is a higher structure to the universe than we have discovered and described yet.

i love this discussion.

i agree that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is a religious concept. Entanglement is an amazing thing. It explains everything for me - including entanglement through other dimensions and *possibly* through many multi-verses. I have no proof of that, I just minored in theoretical physics in college before med school.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by IndieA
Time and space co-exist. When you look at the stars, you are seeing what they looked like in the past.

Therefore anything that exists in the physical realm is subject to the speed of light constraint.

Perhaps the soul can travel faster then light.

edit on 15-3-2012 by IndieA because: sp

Are you sure that time and space co-exist? What about yesterday? Right, it's gone. It doesn't exist anymore. What about tomorrow? It's a whole day until tomorrow exists.
What about a second ago? Or the next second? The only existance is what exists right now. Every moment can be split up into past and future. The moment which really exists is infinately small? It's 0. Time doesn't exist. Space-time, just maybe.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:01 AM
To say that no particle can travel faster than light is implying that all science in the universe is on planet Earth and we have all of the equipment to measure everything in the universe. The universe is too large to imply that planet Earth houses the fastest anything. To say that light travels faster than anything else known to man is more accurate.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:04 AM

Yesterday exists in your memory doesn't it. So, to say your brain travels in time, you are a time traveler.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by neoholographic
There has to be a particle that travels faster than light because of non locality. Many people talk about non locality as "spooky action at a distance."

How about the entanglement link goes backwards in time rather than something travelling faster than light, making the link appear instantaneous whatever the distance?

I think that would be easier to incorporate in our current physics knowledge than something travelling faster than light.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM

Scientists have finally exceeded the speed of light, causing a light pulse to travel hundreds of times faster than normal. It raced so fast the pulse exited a specially-prepared chamber before it even finished entering it.

www.cbc.ca...

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:37 PM

we know that observation will collapse the wave function, we just have no idea why aside from the fact that it will make it our reality.

yes, but the concept of "observation" is sketchy because no one has been able to accurately define what it's parameters are. why does a measuring device collapse the wave function when it's made of the same regular atoms as everything else? can you observe something without being aware that you observed it?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:55 PM

Are you sure that time and space co-exist? What about yesterday? Right, it's gone. It doesn't exist anymore. What about tomorrow? It's a whole day until tomorrow exists. What about a second ago? Or the next second? The only existance is what exists right now. Every moment can be split up into past and future. The moment which really exists is infinately small? It's 0. Time doesn't exist. Space-time, just maybe.

time IS a direction/location/movement. the past and future are both physical locations that we travel through along the 4th dimension. it's like watching a movie, the image you see is considered the "present" but movies are 2D, and in the 3rd dimension we can see the past and future pictures that have been, and will be, the present. 2D characters cannot see past their frames, just as we cannot see past our box. the dimension directly above yours always serves as linear time relative to you.

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

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Thanks, I already did some reading in the meanwhile. Its interesting, though I have let to sink it in a bit more. Its also too bad that all sources I could find are 2000. Do you know of any more recent progress in this area?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Seems to me there is a distinct difference between spatial and temporal dimensions, and I think your analogy fails at this point. There is no causality in the second dimension, there is no telling what the next "slice" will look like. Things pop into existence without having any obvious cause, while other things disappear. Of course in our 3d world + time this is not the case. So seeing time as just another dimension seems wrong. There are similarities, but there are also differences.
edit on 16-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:38 PM

the past and future have to be just as solid as the present for them to have happened, just "farther away".

2D is to 3D as 3D is to 4D. dimensions form a repeating pattern of lines, squares, and cubes. a straight line moved in a new direction makes a square, a square moved in a new direction makes a cube, a cube becomes a new "point" that forms a line when moved in a new direction, then that line of cubes becomes a square, then the square becomes a cube etc.

if you exist in a dimension, you can only truly see lower dimensions completely. for instance, i can draw a square on a piece of paper and see both inside and outside at the same time, but if a 2D dot is placed in the square, it could only "see" the inside. in the same way, a person inside a cube of concrete cannot see both the inside and outside, but someone in the 4th dimension could.

it's all theory at this point, and we're limited by our perceptions, but the above is the best i've been able to reason.

Its also too bad that all sources I could find are 2000. Do you know of any more recent progress in this area?

no. the best i can figure is that the initial research began in the late 90's and continued till about 2003 or so. it doesn't seem to have any practical applications yet and it doesn't violate relativity, quantum mechanics, or the conservation of energy, so i think they stopped researching it.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

the past and future have to be just as solid as the present for them to have happened, just "farther away".

2D is to 3D as 3D is to 4D. dimensions form a repeating pattern of lines, squares, and cubes. a straight line moved in a new direction makes a square, a square moved in a new direction makes a cube, a cube becomes a new "point" that forms a line when moved in a new direction, then that line of cubes becomes a square, then the square becomes a cube etc.

if you exist in a dimension, you can only truly see lower dimensions completely. for instance, i can draw a square on a piece of paper and see both inside and outside at the same time, but if a 2D dot is placed in the square, it could only "see" the inside. in the same way, a person inside a cube of concrete cannot see both the inside and outside, but someone in the 4th dimension could.

it's all theory at this point, and we're limited by our perceptions, but the above is the best i've been able to reason.

My point is that a 2d dot moving along the 3rd dimension sees no causality or consistency in what passes by at all. The 2d dot can not say "I see a 2d line, so I expect this line to still be there when I move a very small distance along the 3rd dimension". While we, in the 3d world, can say such a thing for any 3d object we see when moving in the 4th dimension (time). So this 4th dimension has an additional property, which is causality. This property is not found in the 3rd dimension seen from a 2d world. Therefor, the fourth dimension is not just another dimension, it is an additional dimension with a very different property compared the other 3 dimensions we know of.

top topics

3