Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

Does anyone recall a few years back, actually I've seen it reported on a couple different occasions where a photon has exceeded the speed of light? I thought it was interesting that light could exceed it's own speed limit. Once if I recall a photon was fired into a tube filled with Xenon Gas and it exited before it entered. But that has nothing to do with the speed of light in a vacuum. Light in a medium can travel faster or slower than the speed of light in a vacuum based on the medium and the type of wave.

I think Einsteins major issue with information exceeding the speed of light was violating causality and causing a paradox. If information was sent FTL then the effect could happen before the cause, hence a paradox. What was the famous paradox, the tachyionic antitelephone. You could send yourself a message FTL so you would receive it in your past giving you the ability to alter your future which would cause a universe unraveling paradox.

Someone mentioned tachyon particles. The accepted theory is that they are too unstable to even be treated like they exist. There have never been an experiment which had results that supported the existence of tachyon particles so it's still a theoretical particle.

As far as the neutrinos moving FTL, i believe its possible. The prevailing thought is that a neutrino can exhibit tachyionic behavior if they experience a ciolation of the Lorentz invariance at high energy.

I think someone asked why an object traveling FTL couldn't slow down to sub light speeds. THat one's easy. It requires infinite energy to exceed the speed of light. So it requires infinite energy to simply reach the barrier from either side. But there seem to be some way's around that as well.

I don't believe in constants. There are theoretical circumstances which can turn any constant into a variable.

Works for me.
I never accepted that light is the fastest thing - just observably and now I want to ponder what observable is - to find the simplest answer.

Underlying it all - to me is the following rule.

There IS infinite smallness.
The smaller the 'thing' is the faster it will move.

Therefore there is already an infinite amount of things moving faster than we perceive time.
That's why I don't believe there are aliens in our observable universe. Moreover, if there are, they are not really far away - not much farther than a neutrino.

WE create reality. The pallet is already infinite.

From what I read in the article, this isn't..or may not be rather, ftl travel, but rather quantum tunneling being demonstrated there.
The theory behind quantum tunneling does not violate the theory of relativity (wormholes). So, hmm...

Well, I am too dumb to put a finger on what is happening here, so will let the professionals figure it out, then dumb it down for me to understand. Interesting times nonetheless. if the speed limit of the universe is lifted, that could lead to some interesting new studies, or it could be demonstrating tunneling, which in my opinion, is far more interesting...(I would rather have a star gate than warp drive)

Whoop Whoop... who here didn't know that einstein was a loser?

reply to post by DrJay1975


Yet again, let me explain this. A superposition of two or more waves has two velocities: phase velocity, and group velocity. The phase velocity is essentially the speed of propagation of whatever it is that comprises the wave. The group velocity is the speed of propagation of any given point on the wave that results from the superposition.

The phase velocity of light can exceed c. It can also be significantly less than c, even to the point of being almost completely stopped. The group velocity, however, must always be equal to c. And, since information travels with group velocity, information must also always travel at c.

When you read that someone has either "sped up" or "slowed down" light, the photons that comprise that light are moving at a constant velocity - c - in all cases. It's the phase velocity that's been changed, and this has no relevance on Relativity.

But you must also state that if Light is not a constant then all other forces which are also defined by this same constant must also be a variable and therefore all the current laws of physics are indeed variables as well...electro- magnetism...in this light could be challenged, opening up a whole new world of discoveries in conservation of energy...could perpetual motion be around the corner?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light.

So the way I calculate it, the time according to the speed of light to travel the distance of 730km (at 299,792 kilometers per second) is 2.4 milliseconds.

So the increase in speed is 0.0025 percent faster than it should have been.

I say this for no reason. I just wanted to calculate it for myself.

I would like to have uncertainty that precise, you know so you could fry an egg with certainty

What is the ratio of field size to actual mass that = close to massless? If there is one could we not just increase the field around an object until It reaches that ratio and becomes close to massless and there fore cappable of ftl travel? If that is whats happening here. Just a hypothectial. And does anyone know how many other left hand particules they have tried this with?

Originally posted by Andronian
But you must also state that if Light is not a constant then all other forces which are also defined by this same constant must also be a variable and therefore all the current laws of physics are indeed variables as well...electro- magnetism...in this light could be challenged, opening up a whole new world of discoveries in conservation of energy...could perpetual motion be around the corner?

Who said that light is not a constant?

reply to post by repressed


Light is not a constant its a wave form and there many diffrent waves visable uv etc... the speed the wave can travel at is supose to be a constant, however unless all waves of light travel at the same exact speed it is a variable also ( I have never tested the speed of all light waves individually so I would not know I am not sure that anyone has) but its a good aproximation for calculations.

einsteins equations do not work in the quantum realm because there is no time as we humans measure it.this realm is a higher dimension.for the sake of argument,the fifth dimension.as the universe has order,the equation will be simple like e=mcsqared.to look at a tub of water is futile.this experiment needs to be done on the macro size.instead of looking for it.make it happen on a grand scale.plus how do you build a sensor for something unsensible.until we recognize and understand fifth dimension matter ,the struggle will be hard.also unless you can make universes run backward or create a time bubble,time travel backwards is not possible.only forwards.if the partical does travel back in time ,you would not be able to find it because of our planet,solar system,galaxy velocities.the particle would end up out in space somewhere when it reappeared.same way if it traveled forward in time.the chances of finding a stray particle may increase in an extreme enviroment but our sensors cannot handle the extremes of the magnitude i propose.best bet dont bother or risk creating a blackhole or worse.

Originally posted by CeeRZ
So we get Speed of Neutrino? Not catchy. I mean, we already have "faster than the speed of light"... but that takes too long to say and is incredibly broad in case they find multiple things with speeds that are faster than light. So what should we call this new speed? How about the speed of energy? Or is that already calculated?

Faster than light travel is commonly called: simply "FTL".

reply to post by jonco6


The speed of all electromagnetic radiation (all wavelengths of light) is constant and equal to c - always, according to all observers, in all reference frames. If this were not the case, electromagnetism would be unable to self-propagate. The constancy of the speed of light is a necessary result of Maxwell's equations.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by DrJay1975

 

When you read that someone has either "sped up" or "slowed down" light, the photons that comprise that light are moving at a constant velocity - c - in all cases. It's the phase velocity that's been changed, and this has no relevance on Relativity.

So they just change the frequency of light?

reply to post by DragonFire1024


awesome news from the world of science! just the fact that its been mentioned is a wonder in itself. looks like more and more each day the world of star trek-like technology seems to be creeping out. this might open opportunities in the areas of energy and transportation...if not in the far, but near future. the rate at which computing capabilities are evolving can only mean we can investigate and experiment more now in record breaking times.going to be nice to see what can come of this in the next few decades. a truly good find! thanks OP!

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


No, they change its phase velocity. Photons in a given beam of light always travel at c, and their frequency has nothing to do with this. But, the fact that photons are waves is important. Essentially, when you combine two or more beams of light, you superimpose multiple waves. The resultant wave can have any velocity (called the phase velocity) that we want it to have. The group velocity, though, which is the velocity of the individual photons, is always equal to c.

Think of it this way. The velocity of a wave can be measured in two ways. It can either be measured by following a specific point on the wave as it travels. This is phase velocity. Or, it can be measured by following one of its nodes. This point can move through the wave, itself, and the wave travels, is called the group velocity, and, in the case of light, is always equal to c

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by jonco6

 

The speed of all electromagnetic radiation (all wavelengths of light) is constant and equal to c - always, according to all observers, in all reference frames. If this were not the case, electromagnetism would be unable to self-propagate. The constancy of the speed of light is a necessary result of Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell's equations are necessary? What variables and or derivatives of light's functions are unknown? Can you elaborate?

And so it begins.... seems " Science " is not all it's made out to be....

Guess, perhaps, " God " holds all the keys....

After all is said and done, what is true, will be done.....

reply to post by CLPrime


I under stand that I do but have you tested each wave of light to be sure for all we know there could be a .1x10^999999999999999999999999999 variation we would never know. I never met maxwell so I am not to keen on taking his word at face value did he test each wave of light to know that. I get it that thats what the math tells us but who made math us and we are not perfect who would expect a rep. of logic made by us to be 100% acurate at all times I would not. Even tho I agree with you that its probably just an error.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

No, they change its phase velocity. Photons in a given beam of light always travel at c, and their frequency has nothing to do with this. But, the fact that photons are waves is important. Essentially, when you combine two or more beams of light, you superimpose multiple waves. The resultant wave can have any velocity (called the phase velocity) that we want it to have. The group velocity, though, which is the velocity of the individual photons, is always equal to c.

Think of it this way. The velocity of a wave can be measured in two ways. It can either be measured by following a specific point on the wave as it travels. This is phase velocity. Or, it can be measured by following one of its nodes. This point can move through the wave, itself, and the wave travels, is called the group velocity, and, in the case of light, is always equal to c

Okay like taking minutes of swells on the ocean, and the other is like measuring surface current? Okay, got it, I think.

I'm going to have to follow your posts from now on. You explain things very well... comprehensively that is. A rare breed in deed these days.