'We have broken speed of light'

[waste gate]

A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml

[AVGWarhawk]

I'll believe it when see it?;)

[waste gate]

It does kind of remind me of the 'cold fussion' break through.

[AVGWarhawk]

It does kind of remind me of the 'cold fussion' break through.

I have heard of cold brewing.....what is cold fusion?

[waste gate]

You know that fusion is hot (h-bombs, the sun), but cold fusion was the 'holy grail' of unlimited benign power. The evil oil companies bought up all the rights, and have buried it.

[Etienne]

This'll probably turn out like those americans who'd discovered teleportation a few years back. Meaning we'll never hear about it again.

[AVGWarhawk]

You know that fusion is hot (h-bombs, the sun), but cold fusion was the 'holy grail' of unlimited benign power. The evil oil companies bought up all the rights, and have buried it.
Now isn't that something.....unlimited supply of energy? Side affect of this? Oh yeah, I thought the closer you reach the speed of light the heavier the object gets therefore we can not reach that speed or am I off on this?

[donut]

"The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws".
Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."

[Tchocky]

Possibly (http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html) not

[waste gate]

I thought the problem was that an infinite amount of energy was required and as one approaches c the energy just isn't available anywhere in the universe. Maybe this is where cold fusion comes in.

Come to think of it my lights were flickering a few days ago:hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Possibly (http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html) not
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. I truely believe we can not hit the speed of light...only light can do that and go no faster. Good article!!!

[Rhodes]

"Warp factor 1, Mr.Sulu!"

[Chock]

This is an outrage, how dare they break the speed of light! I demand they fix the speed of light immediately!

It is not theirs, and now they've gone and broken it, bloody typical.

:D Chock

[Oberon]

Possibly (http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html) not
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Erm...but...if it IS going faster than the speed of light...how will you see it? :hmm:

[kiwi_2005]

I reckon we will be able to travel at the speed of light one day, probably in a thousand yrs from now, but we will. If its impossible we make it possible:hmm:

[Skybird]

I live by the conviction that nothing is impossible and that man's science does not describe limits of the universe, but describes limits of man's understanding of it. I also subscribe to the view of the universe to be a space not of empty void and matter, suns and stars, but to be a space of mind in which the material universe is "embedded", like memories and fanatsies can appear ihn our minds. I could imagine that one day travelling from one side of the galaxy to the other maybe one day will prove to mean not boarding a super-fast space-taxi, but a relocation of mind.

Or an alteration of state of mind.

Or a state of evolution where these terms have lost any meaning for our mind(?s) then. Arthur C. Clarke has been a great visionary of technical SF, and I left his mmark in ma fantasies when I was young, but I always felt that he cannot describe a realistic future - more a transition phase towards the future, that depends on all that techno-stuff as crutches. In Clarke's own words (foreword to 2001): "The truth, as always, will be far stranger."

That's why I find UFO-believer's statements on little grey gnomes travelling in spaceships from planet A to planet B so naive. Very possible there are UFOs (or elfs, or mental projections, or dimension or time travellers, or a combination of all). But it certainly works much different than the NY Subway pushed onto a stellar levels.

A wonderful visualization, maybe you have seen it back then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVK7rXSiCCA

"I don't know!"
"That's a very good answer!"

[antikristuseke]

Theoretical physics is a fun thing to discuss when thuroughly drunk. Anyhow about traveling faster than the speed of light, im very sceptical that it is possible.

[Sailor Steve]

And if you did, how would you see where you were going?

[Sea Demon]

This is interesting. I wonder how they intend to apply their results.

[waste gate]

This is interesting. I wonder how they intend to apply their results.




Time machine. Many problems solved, many started.

[STEED]

This is interesting. I wonder how they intend to apply their results.







Time machine. Many problems solved, many started.

Better off going forward in time, hang on the future dose not exists because it has not happen yet and there for you can not. :-?

[Iceman]

http://cyberallies.com/miscpics/time.jpg
[7] But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

TIME Shall be no longer.....Eternity is reality.

According to the theorys of man "Time" slows to a stand still as the speed of light is approached...hum makes sense to me. As well as that speed not able for flesh to attain...again makes sense. my 2cents on that

[antikristuseke]

And if you did, how would you see where you were going?

Thats the thing about theoretical physics, its a lot more complicated than one might think. For instance when you are traveling at the speed of light and the speed of light ins constant, relative to you light is still traveling C faster than you. This is one way to look at it.

[The Avon Lady]

Been there. Done that. (http://www.tvparty.com/recits.html)

:p

[Skybird]

It is about so-called "tunneling", whatever that is, and in the nineties the authors of the report here proved that they could tunnel micorwaves. It was debated very controversly, until their results were confirmed at the university in Berkley, where their results were validated.

It now is about tunneling of light photons.

In the end both scientist are following a project that aparpantly leads to a total reconstruction of classical quantum theory. One should not clean their results off the table too easily - their reputation has some weight in the community.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0681.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0681.pdf)

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526173.500-photons-challenge-the-light-barrier.html (subscription needed)

[TLAM Strike]

Possibly (http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html) not
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Erm...but...if it IS going faster than the speed of light...how will you see it? :hmm: Just like your hear an aircraft traveling faster than the speed of sound, you will see the object reach you at the speed of light while the object has already passed you.

Captian Jean-Luc Picard exploited this once to get the jump on some Ferangi. :rock:

You know that fusion is hot (h-bombs, the sun), but cold fusion was the 'holy grail' of unlimited benign power. The evil oil companies bought up all the rights, and have buried it.
Now isn't that something.....unlimited supply of energy? Side affect of this? Oh yeah, I thought the closer you reach the speed of light the heavier the object gets therefore we can not reach that speed or am I off on this? Your correct as you accelrate twoards the speed of light the amount of thrust required approaches infinite. Of course objects already traveling faster than light well thats another story... :yep:



This is interesting. I wonder how they intend to apply their results.


Time machine. Many problems solved, many started.

Better off going forward in time, hang on the future dose not exists because it has not happen yet and there for you can not. :-? Of course you can travel forwards in time! Were doing it right now! :p

[GlobalExplorer]

There have been many misinterpretions of phenomena on the quantum level, even mind boggling ones, but eventually they were all ironed out.

Imo it takes a lot more to shatter theory of relativity. I dont understand the maths involved, but logically there must be a maximum velocity, otherwise it would be possible to see things before they actually happen.

Einstein realized that long before he started any scientific work, when he still went to school, simply by thinking through the consequences of riding on a light beam.

[Oberon]

Of course! How could I forget the Picard Maneuver!! :damn:

Tugging his shirt at beyond the speed of light! :rock:

[Skybird]

In the end, science never describes an objective, final "reality", but is the attempt only to put perceptions and obeservations that are more or less systemtically obtained into arbitrary, artificial orders. In other words: our complete view of the world and universe is nothing but just the best theory we so far could have shown up with, the way we see the world is not the reality itself, but our way to arrange our perceptions. Quantum theory will not last, so will Einstein's theory. They are just two necessary steps on the stairs that we need to take in order to reach the higher ones, once we are up there, we will not look back. And since we depend on percpetions of sound and light for the most, and these need time to reach our senses, we all are out of tune anyway, everyone of us living in his own shift of time phase, so to speak. In other words: the universe i live in is not the univwerse that you live in, and whatever I perceive, already is just an echo of the past. The further I look into space, the more I look into the past. In the end, the "present" cannot be reached by this. It is a minimum quantum of a quality that comes as a function of mind, and which tends to be an infinite minimum. One could also say: the absence of time.

Mystics understand this.

as an anectodic remark: originally, in sufism the sufi was sometimes called the "son of all time", in the meaning of having stepped out of it, and so being no longer caught by the illusion of time. Eternity is not the infinite availabiliuty of time, an infinte quantum of it: but it is the absence of time, the overcoming of the illusion that there is something like the time-arrow ponting from the past to the future. Even as a small child I already as convinced that it cannot be like this (which caused me some trouble with physics teachers and religion teachers as well :lol: Becasue of this and some other reasons, after some time, I was banned from religion classes. :lol:).

[AVGWarhawk]

Possibly (http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html) not
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.
Erm...but...if it IS going faster than the speed of light...how will you see it? :hmm:

That was the joke sir:D

[GlobalExplorer]

To clarify, science today sees light as a probability field (not as a wave or particle as we were taught in school), meaning that there is a very high probability that a light photon will be where you would expect it (i.e. very close to the perceived path of the light beam). However, there is also a very small probability that it will dissappear and appear somewhere else, possibly even at a completely random, far out place in the universe. This has led to claims that it is against the laws of relativity (because it must have moved with a speed much higher than the speed of light). But relativity should stay uncontested, theres rather the possibility of major breakthroughs on the structure of space. There is still a lot movement in this area of physics, with the possibility of extra dimensions at very small scales, the rebirth of the theory of a cosmic ether (superstrings), and energy and matter being just a strange stir in its fabric, something statistical rather than physical.

I'd say the experiment described by the two germans is a yet undigested new find related to quantum effects, which cannot break the laws of relativity, because quantum physics and relativity have never been united into one consistent theory. As Einstein did not disprove Newton (in fact the two working together might have made even more profound breathroughs), modern physics will not disprove Einstein, but rather extend towards the blueprint of space, which was beyond what he could study or experiment with at the time he lived.

[Sailor Steve]

And if you did, how would you see where you were going?

Thats the thing about theoretical physics, its a lot more complicated than one might think. For instance when you are traveling at the speed of light and the speed of light ins constant, relative to you light is still traveling C faster than you. This is one way to look at it.
But if it's travelling C faster than you, then it's not constant...but if it's not constant, then it has to be...I'm so confused.:rotfl:

It's kind of like a favorite old conundrum: There's an exception to every rule...except that one.

[Oberon]

Possibly (http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html) not
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.
Erm...but...if it IS going faster than the speed of light...how will you see it? :hmm:

That was the joke sir:D

And I put it to you, sir, that it was a good one :rock:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

doesnt enyone know that by the time we even get to the technological potential to travel even close to the speed of light the human race would have wiped itself offthe face of the planet...:shifty::shifty: (whatch the movie the time machine...we wipe ourselves out.. gonna happen sooner or later):shifty:

[Yahoshua]

Science is organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits on mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined.

[AVGWarhawk]

Science is organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits on mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined.


Yeah....what he said.....what did he say?:hmm:

[bradclark1]

Science is organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits on mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined.
Is that original Yahoshua?:hmm: :)

[micky1up]

You know that fusion is hot (h-bombs, the sun), but cold fusion was the 'holy grail' of unlimited benign power. The evil oil companies bought up all the rights, and have buried it.


wrong my fiend h-bombs are fission not fusion the sun is fusion

[GlobalExplorer]

doesnt enyone know that by the time we even get to the technological potential to travel even close to the speed of light the human race would have wiped itself offthe face of the planet...:shifty::shifty: (whatch the movie the time machine...we wipe ourselves out.. gonna happen sooner or later):shifty:

No one can know that now. Humanity could live for another billion years, possibly transformed into another form of being but I agree we might as well be wiped out in a decade.

[waste gate]

You know that fusion is hot (h-bombs, the sun), but cold fusion was the 'holy grail' of unlimited benign power. The evil oil companies bought up all the rights, and have buried it.


wrong my fiend h-bombs are fission not fusion the sun is fusion

I think you have your A's and H's mixed:

A-bombs, or fission bombs;
H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs, or fusion bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

[Oberon]

You know that fusion is hot (h-bombs, the sun), but cold fusion was the 'holy grail' of unlimited benign power. The evil oil companies bought up all the rights, and have buried it.


wrong my fiend h-bombs are fission not fusion the sun is fusion

I think you have your A's and H's mixed:

A-bombs, or fission bombs;
H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs, or fusion bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Well..in the Teller-Ulam design it's both technically... :hmm:

[micky1up]

ok you got me there but the difference between that and cold fussion is immense

[AVGWarhawk]

Fission, fussion whats the confusion?

[The Avon Lady]

Fission, fussion whats the confusion?
It all clear to me!

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/255/eatalaskasalmonsf7.jpg