Faster that light travel Possible!!

gpjordanf1

So it seems faster than light travel is possible!

Seem to remember alot of people saying this was impossible and others saying that we dont know enough about the universe to make that claim!

Discuss!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Samich

Usain Bolt does not count :pac:

gpjordanf1

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So it seems faster than light travel is possible!

Seem to remember alot of people saying this was impossible and others saying that we dont know enough about the universe to make that claim!

Discuss!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Well reading the article there's nothing about speed of light travel, just about a weird result from an experiment that the scientists running it can't find an explanation for.
In fact the article says:

But the group understands that what are known as "systematic errors" could easily make an erroneous result look like a breaking of the ultimate speed limit, and that has motivated them to publish their measurements.

"My dream would be that another, independent experiment finds the same thing - then I would be relieved," Dr Ereditato said.

But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".

But this is not the first time something looked like it was going faster than the speed of light when it actually wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion

The notion that the speed of light as a limit is not something plucked out of the air or something just held out of convention, it's derived from well understood mathematics and every single experiment and observation on the matter.

What I don't get is why do you think this is a conspiracy.

gpjordanf1

King Mob wrote: »

What I don't get is why do you think this is a conspiracy.

Doesn't alot of CT's regarding UFO's involve the theory of faster than light travel?

"Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists."

Ya left out that part where the story actually says that faster than light travel actually occured and they need people like yourself to show them where they obviously went wrong!

Looking forward to your and others responses, since its obviously worng!

Soulja boy

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So it seems faster than light travel is possible!

Seem to remember alot of people saying this was impossible and others saying that we dont know enough about the universe to make that claim!

Discuss!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

How is this news? obviously in E = m x (c x c) if you reduce the m you can get a faster speed

gpjordanf1

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Doesn't alot of CT's regarding UFO's involve the theory of faster than light travel?

So physicists all over the world work together to somehow keep the lie that nothing goes faster than light alive so no one would believe in aliens...?

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Ya left out that part where the story actually says that faster than light travel actually occured and they need people like yourself to show them where they obviously went wrong!

Looking forward to your and others responses, since its obviously worng!

Well I didn't leave that out, I just highlighted the bit in the article where the
scientists say that it's possible that the observed effect is due to a systematic error, hence they can't conclude definitely that the particles are breaking the speed of light.

Kernel

Soulja boy wrote: »

How is this news? obviously in E = m x (c x c) if you reduce the m you can get a faster speed

Eh? Energy = Mass * (Speed of light)2, does not imply that surely, does it mathematicians and physicists out there?

mufcboy1999

but its very possible, it makes sense to subtract y from f mulitpied by the speed of light taken away from the speed of sound = linford christy:eek:

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

How is this news? obviously in E = m x (c x c) if you reduce the m you can get a faster speed

That's not quite right.

Long story short, the faster you go, the more massive you get (as in the particle gains more mass). And the more massive you are the more energy you need to accelerate to a higher speed and this requirement increases exponentially. Eventually to get to a certain speed it would require infinite energy, which is impossible.
And this certain speed is the speed of light.

The reason light travels at this speed is that it has no mass. And since you can't have less mass than zero (at least as far as we know) you can't go faster than a massless particle, hence you can't go faster than light.

Soulja boy

Kernel wrote: »

Eh? Energy = Mass * (Speed of light)2, does not imply that surely, does it mathematicians and physicists out there?

Why not? The speed of light isn't some magical number that can't be beaten, it is speed to match the energy and mass of the smallest particles we had at the time (Not sure about which ones but at a guess I'd say photons).
It has been measured and and is provable experimentally, its just a case that we are finally reaching the point where we can describe the behaviour of sub atomic particles as our sensor technology has advanced along with it. But this isn't a new idea. Oh and I am a physicist.

mufcboy1999

Oh and I am a physicist.

woah mama i taught you were actually soulja boy

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

That's not quite right.

Long story short, the faster you go, the more massive you get (as in the particle gains more mass). And the more massive you are the more energy you need to accelerate to a higher speed and this requirement increases exponentially. Eventually to get to a certain speed it would require infinite energy, which is impossible.
And this certain speed is the speed of light.

The reason light travels at this speed is that it has no mass. And since you can't have less mass than zero (at least as far as we know) you can't go faster than a massless particle, hence you can't go faster than light.

There are a couple of misunderstandings in this

The faster you go the more mass you gain is a misunderstanding of the equation. Mathematically mass approaches infinity in the equations because the speed of light is a constant. There is no physical gain of mass.

Light does have mass, light is composed of photons which have a mass, although it is almost negligable (in the range of like 10 to the minus 18), theoretically that puts light as almost the absolute fastest speed but not quite there.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

There are a couple of misunderstandings in this

The faster you go the more mass you gain is a misunderstanding of the equation. Mathematically mass approaches infinity in the equations because the speed of light is a constant. There is no physical gain of mass.

There is a physical gain in mass, just as there is a physical contraction in the direction of travel and a dilation of time.

Soulja boy wrote: »

Light does have mass, light is composed of photons which have a mass, although it is almost negligable (in the range of like 10 to the minus 18), theoretically that puts light as almost the absolute fastest speed but not quite there.

Photons have no mass.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

There is a physical gain in mass, just as there is a physical contraction in the direction of travel and a dilation of time.


Photons have no mass.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

The reason they do not have mass in that equation is because they use c in the equation. The photon is/was the fastest travelling wave/particle we knew of and c was based around that, we let its mass go to negligible but its not a complete picture because a photons momentum describes a particle undergoing the same effects as the others in the universe.
Gravity can be proven to act on photons, they do have a mass. Just not when you define c as 3 x 10 to the 8.

It was measurable and it gave really accurate predictions because it was approximately the fastest possible particle, but the true impassible speed is slightly above that.
Lower the mass, higher the speed assuming you keep the energy constant.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

The reason they do not have mass in that equation is because they use c in the equation. The photon is/was the fastest travelling wave/particle we knew of and c was based around that, we let its mass go to negligible but its not a complete picture because a photons momentum describes a particle undergoing the same effects as the others in the universe.
Gravity can be proven to act on photons, they do have a mass. Just not when you define c as 3 x 10 to the 8.

It was measurable and it gave really accurate predictions because it was approximately the fastest possible particle, but the true impassible speed is slightly above that.
Lower the mass, higher the speed assuming you keep the energy constant.

I'm seriously doubting you are a physicist as you claim.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html

Enter Albert Einstein. In 1915 he proposed the theory of general relativity. General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity affects light. We now knew that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum (so your statement about light not affecting matter is incorrect). We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension.

Where are you getting this idea that photons have mass?

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

I'm seriously doubting you are a physicist as you claim.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html


Where are you getting this idea that photons have mass?

Not to quote wikipedia, but they seem to have this verbatim, I cant get my hands on the pdf for this: "Relativity without light". American Journal of Physics 52

"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time"

This isn't a new concept, that paper was published in 1984 and wasn't ground breaking then either.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

Not to quote wikipedia, but they seem to have this verbatim, I cant get my hands on the pdf for this: "Relativity without light". American Journal of Physics 52

"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time"

This isn't a new concept, that paper was published in 1984 and wasn't ground breaking then either.

Well since you didn't actually understand why light is effected by gravity, I still very much doubt that you know much about physics at all.

And does this paper actually show that the photon's mass is non zero?

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

Well since you didn't actually understand why light is effected by gravity, I still very much doubt that you know much about physics at all.

And does this paper actually show that the photon's mass is non zero?

On the contrary, I know about gravitational lensing, I disagree with its conclusions.

The paper is old and is hypotheses only, and will remain so until we start getting more results out of cern.

As to what your opinion is of my physics background, it really doesn't concern me what you believe about me.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

On the contrary, I know about gravitational lensing, I disagree with its conclusions.

Why? Based on what?

Soulja boy wrote: »

The paper is old and is hypotheses only, and will remain so until we start getting more results out of cern.

So then where are you getting the idea that photons have mass?

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

Why? Based on what?

Research

So then where are you getting the idea that photons have mass?

I've already said why. The only reason they don't have mass in equations is because C is fixed for them, raise C a fraction, they gain a mass.

gpjordanf1

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So it seems faster than light travel is possible!

Seem to remember alot of people saying this was impossible and others saying that we dont know enough about the universe to make that claim!

Discuss!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

dear god they divided by ZEROOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

Research


I've already said why. The only reason they don't have mass in equations is because C is fixed for them, raise C a fraction, they gain a mass.

But unfortunately c is derived independently from other constants
http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/270/Deriving-the-Speed-of-Light

Not just set because of the observed speed.

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

But unfortunately c is derived independently from other constants
http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/270/Deriving-the-Speed-of-Light

Not just set because of the observed speed.

On the contrary, you cannot work out c in maxwell and faraday's equations without knowing a component such as the exact energy of the electric field.

C can be worked out for a wave but only by knowing other components, what you are describing is no better then Münchhausen lifting himself up out of the sea with his own hair.
C is set because it is calculated with variables calculated from c.

The absolute c would change should any of the other constants such as the magnetic and electric permeability be out by even the slightest amount.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

On the contrary, you cannot work out c in maxwell and faraday's equations without knowing a component such as the exact energy of the electric field.

C can be worked out for a wave but only by knowing other components, what you are describing is no better then Münchhausen lifting himself up out of the sea with his own hair.
C is set because it is calculated with variables calculated from c.

The absolute c would change should any of the other constants such as the magnetic and electric permeability be out by even the slightest amount.

Nope, it relies on the Vacuum permittivity and the Vaccum permeabillity, both universal constants and both are derived independently of c and mass.
And both have known values.

Here's a good article on the actual topic.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-than-light-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, it relies on the Vacuum permittivity and the Vaccum permeabillity, both universal constants and both are derived independently of c and mass.
And both have known values.

ro and mu 0 are the electric and magnetic permettivity in a vacuum, And they are not universal constants, all the constants on an atomic or lower level have been identified through measurments and approximation of particles energies.
They are not absolute.

hooradiation

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So it seems faster than light travel is possible!

Seem to remember alot of people saying this was impossible and others saying that we dont know enough about the universe to make that claim!

Discuss!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Either someone forgot to carry the one or we have a very big drawing board to get back to.

My money is on the former.

Tea_Bag

So far in physics I've learnt that everything is an approximation. Being 60 billionths of a sec too fast is interesting but not unforeseeable.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

ro and mu 0 are the electric and magnetic permettivity in a vacuum, And they are not universal constants, all the constants on an atomic or lower level have been identified through measurments and approximation of particles energies.
They are not absolute.

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

Vacuum permeability is derived from production of a magnetic field by an electric current or by a moving electric charge and in all other formulas for magnetic-field production in a vacuum. When the permeability is that of the vacuum, denoted µ0 has an exact defined value:[1][2]

µ0 = 4π×10−7 V·s/(A·m) ≈ 1.2566370614...×10−6 H·m−1 or N·A−2 or T·m/A or Wb/(A·m)

in the SI system of units.

As a constant, it can also be defined as a fundamental invariant quantity, and is also one of three components that defines free space through Maxwell's equations.

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

The physical constant ε0, commonly called the vacuum permittivity, permittivity of free space or electric constant, relates the units for electric charge to mechanical quantities such as length and force.[1]

They are fundamental universal physical constants.
You aren't a physicist and are talking out of your ass.

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

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


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


They are fundamental universal physical constants.
You aren't a physicist and are talking out of your ass.

If you are going to quote wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

There is your dispute on the mass of a photon, this isn't new research its a schism that has existed for some time. As I said, that paper was from 1984.

You aren't a physicist and are talking out of your ass.

Yeah well thats just like your opinion man, I'm not going to post info on my employment.

fontanalis

Let's see if they can replicate it, f so then it's a big deal.

mcmoustache

This point was originally made on slashdot so I can't take the credit for it.

If the gap between the neutrinos and photons arriving is as they say, then the same experiment can be done with supernovae and the gap would be in the order of years. I say this because supernovae are normally detected in other galaxies which are very, very far away and it can take billions of years for the light to get here.

When this was tested, the neutrinos arrived earlier than the light but the difference was in the order of hours and this can be accounted for by the fact that light bounces around inside the star and the explosion before it starts making its way to us.

For this reason, I think that the experiment went a bit wrong. I would like it to be true though because it would allow for some cool things in physics. Alas, the universe doesn't care how I'd like it to be.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Extra! Extra! Major gaffe by scientists as science demonstrates faster than light speed! Scientists running scared! Extra!


There aren't enough facepalms in the universe.


PS: The finding has yet to be replicated by peers. If you know anything about science (you seem like an expert), you would know why this is crucial.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Soulja boy wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

I'm seriously doubting you are a physicist as you claim.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html


Where are you getting this idea that photons have mass?

Not to quote wikipedia, but they seem to have this verbatim, I cant get my hands on the pdf for this: "Relativity without light". American Journal of Physics 52

"The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time"

This isn't a new concept, that paper was published in 1984 and wasn't ground breaking then either.

You don't have access to physics journals? What sort of a physicist are you?


*chortle*

Duke Leonal Felmet

Soulja boy wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

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


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


They are fundamental universal physical constants.
You aren't a physicist and are talking out of your ass.

If you are going to quote wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

There is your dispute on the mass of a photon, this isn't new research its a schism that has existed for some time. As I said, that paper was from 1984.

You aren't a physicist and are talking out of your ass.

Yeah well thats just like your opinion man, I'm not going to post info on my employment.

The fact that you seemingly cannot access physics journals is all the evidence I need, Mr. Newton.

Soulja boy

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You don't have access to physics journals? What sort of a physicist are you?


*chortle*

One who doesn't have his work Jstor login on his home machine at midnight last night?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Soulja boy wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You don't have access to physics journals? What sort of a physicist are you?


*chortle*

One who doesn't have his work Jstor login on his home machine at midnight last night?

And you can't login via a proxy like any other pro can? Tsk, you sound like a former undergrad physics student, at best. One who got a 3rd class honours, or something.

Soulja boy

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

And you can't login via a proxy like any other pro can? Tsk, you sound like a former undergrad physics student, at best. One who got a 3rd class honours, or something.

Then I'm horribly overpaid .

And what concern is it of yours who I am?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Soulja boy wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

And you can't login via a proxy like any other pro can? Tsk, you sound like a former undergrad physics student, at best. One who got a 3rd class honours, or something.

Then I'm horribly overpaid .

And what concern is it of yours who I am?

Why are you so passionately defending an experiment that has yet to be replicated by peers? Did you learn nothing at correspondence college? ;-)

Let's face it, those UFOs will remain whizzing around peoples minds, with or without this.

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

If you are going to quote wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

There is your dispute on the mass of a photon, this isn't new research its a schism that has existed for some time. As I said, that paper was from 1984.

Fro the first line of that section:

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question.

Soulja boy wrote: »

Yeah well thats just like your opinion man, I'm not going to post info on my employment.

No need, the fact you don't know what fundemental constants are tells me enough.

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

Fro the first line of that section:



No need, the can you don't know what fundemental constants are tells me enough.

The can you dont know.

Soulja boy

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Did you learn nothing at correspondence college? ;-)

You tried that one, if I cared about your speculations I'd have answered it the first time.

Soulja boy

King Mob wrote: »

No need, the fact you don't know what fundemental constants are tells me enough.

I know the fundamental constants, and have closely monitored issues on the absolute value of C. It is a distinct possibility.
Or do you believe QM is a complete picture of what's going on?

Soulja boy

Soulja boy wrote: »

I know the fundamental constants, ...

Yet you said the electric and magnetic constants weren't.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Soulja boy wrote: »

You tried that one, if I cared about your speculations I'd have answered it the first time.

Never posted in the physics forum, either.

http://www.boards.ie/search/?u=218541&sort=newest

In fact, the only mention of a physics degree is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60588509

Where you are talking about school teaching? Why would you want to do that when you clearly make so much money as a physicist?

I'm very surprised that, as a wealthy physicist, this is your very first discussion on the topic, here on boards. Very surprised indeed. On top of all this, you said the electric and magnetic constants weren't fundamental constants.

The evidence continues to stack...

gpjordanf1

King Mob wrote: »

So physicists all over the world work together to somehow keep the lie that nothing goes faster than light alive so no one would believe in aliens...?

Who said anything about Aliens?? I said UFO's! And there's no conspiracy amongst physicists to cover up anything. As this as it turns out to be news to them also! HA!

Soulja boy

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Never posted in the physics forum, either.

http://www.boards.ie/search/?u=218541&sort=newest

In fact, the only mention of a physics degree is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60588509

Where you are talking about school teaching? Why would you want to do that when you clearly make so much money as a physicist?

I'm very surprised that, as a wealthy physicist, this is your very first discussion on the topic, here on boards. Very surprised indeed. On top of all this, you said the electric and magnetic constants weren't fundamental constants.

The evidence continues to stack...

I'm sorry that I haven't fulfilled my obligation to you to post in the physics forum, how negligent of me.

So while you were wasting your time stalking me, did you find any other gems from 2009?

And I do ascertain that C is not a fundamental constant.

Jonny7

christ.. don't mess with physicists

exaisle

Children....children! Behave, please.

I was enjoying this until the personal insults started flying...and they were well below the speed of light. Maybe ignore who's what and stick to the point?

By the way, what has gravitational lensing got to do with this? Or to put it another way, how does the fact that the gravity of a star is big enough to bend light affect this argument?

I'm not a physicist so dont slag me off for asking!

Enkidu

Soulja boy wrote: »

I'm sorry that I haven't fulfilled my obligation to you to post in the physics forum, how negligent of me.

So while you were wasting your time stalking me, did you find any other gems from 2009?

And I do ascertain that C is not a fundamental constant.

This is moronic and indicates that you are not a physicist as you claim. In special relativity speed is, like in all other areas of physics, distance divided by time. However in special relativity time and space are both unified in spacetime and hence they are both measured in meters, so speed is unitless in special relativity, since the units divide out. And the speed of light is 1.

However humans, for the historical reasons coming from how we perceive the universe, do not measure time in meters but in seconds. However a second is actually 300,000,000 meters in the temporal direction. Due to this our space and time units are out of scale and so we need the conversion factor of c = 300,000,000 m/s in all relativistic formulas. In the "real" units of the universe, Einstein's equation is E = m.

So saying c can change is nonsense.

robtri

Soulja boy wrote: »

And I do ascertain that C is not a fundamental constant.

I would agree that c can be variable in certain situations,
but the limiting speed of c in a vacum is a constant....

heres a nice article about it

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/c.pdf