Faster than light ... again?

a p garcia — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:45:00 GMT

Does this mean that E=MC^2 has to be re-evaluated?

Faster than light ... again?

Marty Cox, Moline, IL — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:46:47 GMT

JOB by Heinlein is a good read always. Not his best book but very good. It ties in fairly well to this subject matter also... In a weird sort of way, which is appropriate.

Faster than light ... again?

Funzilla — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:59:48 GMT

OK, here's an idea for a short story...
Scientists at long last arrive at an ability to transform a physical object into an atomic collection of matter which they then attempt to tunnel to a destinatiion some feet away.

They crank up the gizmo, all eyes first on the subject, a bar of metal, and second on the glass chamber on the destination table, the prizm lights and lazers bathing everything in a theatric glow.

They hit the button.

Before their eyes, the metal bar in the test chamber is surrounded in mist, and a mist forms in the destination chamber.

Slowly a ghostly image shows up in the destination box, opaque and hovering.

Then the scientist are greatly startled when the matter in the second chamber suddenly turns solid. This is the last moment before the destruction.

The tunneled metal bar fell straight through the bottom of the chamber and the table on which it sat. If fell straight through the floor and the ground beneath, through dirt and rock, blazing a hole as it travelled all the way to the mantle.

The resulting volcano was massive and rendered total annihilation to all but a few microscopic life forms, after the cloud blocked out the sun and the planet turned to solid ice.

Maybe we shouldn't fool around with this stuff?

Peace babies, all in the name of humor! ;-)
-funz

Faster than light ... again?

Tim - Colorado,USA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:50:08 GMT

Hi!!! I have been thinking about how to eccelerate a signal faster than light speed for a short while and I believe that if you use a particle accelerator and induce the speed of the particle with an electromagnetic flow via electromagnetic induction as in tesla's coil and his step-up transformer design which increases the volts and amperes via the number of wraps of the secondary winding to the primary winding for the volts and the size (diameter) of the wire to influence the amperes, that if you run the electromagnetic field along the path of the eccelerator in the direction of the particle to be accelerated and increase the voltage of the induced field suffeciently then you can influence the speed of the particle.,,, Please realize that Tesla's design of a step-up transformer was a true step-up transformer which amplified volts and amperes at the same time, that was before the corrupt power companies of the time squashed his designs according to my dad who was a Master engineer and was personally involved in Tesla's case. So GOD Bless and the Peace of JESUS to you!!!

Faster than light ... again?

Philip, Newark, California — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:44:17 GMT

Relativity says only that nothing can move THROUGH space faster than "c". Tunneling, or wormholes, or other methods that let you travel a shorter path than a straight line, are still valid.

Faster than light ... again?

Reader, San Francisco, CA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:49:19 GMT

Some kind of search feature with three buttons is appearing over the first lines of text of this article. It has happened before, please fix, I'd like to get the whole story, and it's blotted out by the way you've set up your web page.

Faster than light ... again?

Steve Tidwell, Raleigh, NC — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:41:59 GMT

One of the best books about FTL communication, quantum wierdness, the contradictions against "non-local" communications, a possible Cosmic Censor bent on not allowing it, and how Big science is actually done, is Gregory Benford's classic novel "Timescape", where scientists in the near future try to use a stream of tachyons to communicate to a past (1960s to be exact) Earth to warn of an global ecological disaster if things don't change.

Faster than light ... again?

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:20:53 GMT

I was wondering when the next Book Club announcement was coming, because I have a suggestion ready to go.

"Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" by R. Buckminster Fuller. As a paperback, it's a tiny little thing. But anyone familiar with Bucky's work knows better than to judge based on that. This little book is one of the most conceptually dense works I've ever read. As in his other works, Fuller sets out to explain as much as possible as comprehensively as possible in as short a space as possible, and he succeeds. From the history of the world that most people never hear about, he embarks on a trail to state how the world came to work as it does, and how it can be made to work not just more efficiently, but regeneratively. We know of this concept as "renewable resources" but Bucky doesn't stop at wood, wind and solar vs. oil, gas and coal power. He argues that we can operate the entire planet at a net "profit", the basis for value being energy itself. One can certainly find the book used, or order it from the Buckminster Fuller Institute's book store. But, just as with many other of his works, they give it away for free. One can read it online at

http://bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/
online_resources/operating_manual_
for_spaceship_earth_by_r_buckminster_fuller

In fact, I would hope people would read it online, so that they would pass through the main page at BFI (http://www.bfi.org/) and see the announcement for the first Buckminster Fuller Challenge competition. Starting September 4, they're taking proposals for workable ideas that "support the development and implementation of a solution with significant potential to solve the world's most pressing problems in the shortest possible time while enhancing the Earth's ecological integrity." Winner takes home $100,000.

So there you go. A used book that costs nothing, and you have a chance to earn money besides, while contributing to a better planet for everyone. This is just the kind of idea Bucky loved.

Faster than light ... again?

Audrius ,Kaunas,Lithuania — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:06:22 GMT

Essential principles of Enstein theory were made by measurement of ratio between electron charge and mass. He imagined that e charge is constant, but mass at speed 299000km/s is infinity. It is wrong and absurd-any speed change only electromagnetical characteristics of body.

Faster than light ... again?

Robert G. Wiliscroft, Los Angles, CA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:55:13 GMT

Please consider "The Chicken Little Agenda - Debunking Experts' Lies" for the book club. This book is not entirely about cosmic things, although one chapter in particular deals directly with the subject. The book examines the environmental movement from an historical basis, takes a close look at nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and generally pokes a critical finger at many commonly accepted notions.

Faster than light ... again?

Dee, Seattle, WA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:20:08 GMT

I nominate A Wrinkle in Time by Madelein L'Engle as a Cosmic Log Used-Book Club selection. Timely!

Faster than light ... again?

Richard W Kennedy, Pawleys Island SC — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:48:18 GMT

IN my way of thinking a black hole is something that "MUST HAVE" something in it that has something that is faster the light. Even if it is just going about .01mph faster then light it has got to be going faster because if it wasn't then you could see an outline at the very least.

Faster than light ... again?

Collier Hageman, Arlington, Virginia. — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:11:36 GMT

I would suggest as a selection for your book club Alfred Bester's classic "The Stars My Destination". It DOES deal with a method of faster then light travel (i.e. instantaneous teleportation) though it is not addressed as such in the story. Bester was not as prolific as some of the other 'giants' in the field, but his stories stand the test of time.

Faster than light ... again?

Larry D. Maurer, Portland, Oregon — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:01:49 GMT

My coinventor, physicist, Michael E. miller and myself, Engineer, Larry D. Maurer have acquired international patents on our MW CPA laser system with (10) claims back in 1986 (US Pat. No. 4,817,102) and we have a technical book entitled "Laser Propulsion" that encorporates quantum tunneling for FTL spaceship dsign in 2002. Please visit our web site to read more. Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen have semi-proven what we wanted to do in the lab which we hope to do with our spaceship prototype soon. We have a contract to construct our AASL CPA-MW activated lens here in the Portland, OR area. We hope to be in touch with the two German scientists to hopefully gain their interest in our spaceship design that will encorporate MQT to traverse the vast distances across the universe to explore new habitable planets.

Faster than light ... again?

Ben Winter, Ardmore, OK — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:21:37 GMT

I appreciate very much the experiments testing Light Speed; however, such can only reflect a phenomenon quirk and not a true indication of super-speed. Truly, many physics adoptions are in need of refinement, but even CERN will find little more than
particles of light in its quest for the Ultimate Particle. I would quantize Light Particles at a conservative 4.77 x 10 to 33rd power lp/eV--but always limited to 'c' maximum.
Ben Winter

Faster than light ... again?

Mike McLaughlin, Albany, NY — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:52:28 GMT

Faster than light? That would make me believe this research team needs a new and better stopwatch. I would guess -without having read their experimental procedure- that their detectors weren't sensitive enough to notice the difference in the arrival times of the microwaves.

Faster than light ... again?

Richard H. Magee — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:16:26 GMT

Theoretically the concept of faster then light speed capabilities have been understood as the "quantum effect" for quite some time. Namely that an event happening here and now can be known across the universe instantaneously. So it is not so strange to say that quantum tunneling is already a very understood principle that is trying to empirically proof itself and maybe finally has. I believe in faster then light speed capabilities.

Faster than light ... again?

Justin Merrifield Fort Worth, TX — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:37:57 GMT

Two Sci-Fi books I would recommend:

One I'm sure you know - The Martian Chronicles

One you might not - Beyond the Fall of Night (Awesome)

Faster than light ... again?

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:40:07 GMT

There is a difference between phase velocity and group velocity. Who knew?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=phase%20velocity

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm

http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~7364eb/Math113/groupvelocity.html

Faster than light ... again?

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:00:42 GMT

We&#8217;re nerds at heart. So when we read these articles from Cosmic Log and Slashdot about possible quantum tunneling, where particles move faster than the speed of light, we immediately thought of Star Trek: DS9. Although there&#8217;s a lot

Faster than light ... again?

JAMES CONYERS, ATLANTA, GA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:36:13 GMT

Mostly impressive responses. Tim is 100% correct. These guys are not accounting for something though I cannot describe what they ar missing. I guess future generations won't master time/space travel any more than we have since none of them have made it back to this time in one piece. I am not disagreeing with Dr. Maurer et al, however, that they can make space travel much faster (it would have to be to be practical) but I don't have the inclination to be one of the first to attempt it. I keep thinking there is a decent chance I couldn't return and/or wouldn't survive. Dr. Maurer-good luck and I hope you succeed.

Faster than light ... again?

huh? — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:01:06 GMT

I am still tyring to go over the speed limit in my CAR without getting caught breaking any laws. Does this mean two objects can occupy the same space at the same time??? And if for every reaction there is an equal and---well you know, does that mean something someplace else slows down?? All in fun--

Faster than light ... again?

Andrews Gunj — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:39:33 GMT

I am not surprised. Many nerdy sages travelled at the speed of THOUGHT in the Indus Valley Civilization.

The concept may be foreign/unique and subject to ridicule by intellectually challenged in the western science community but worth looking into by open minded scientists.

It requires a lot of Yoga practice of the Mind. The ancient scriptures talk of Yogis materializing at will.

Something to think about!

Faster than light ... again?

jeff g — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:15:46 GMT

If only it were true, think of the possibilities of a way to go faster than light? If only we could be so lucky.

Faster than light ... again?

Don Andrews, Fontana, Ca. — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:40:10 GMT

The world is perfectly flat. Light cannot be seen by the human eye; e-0 "To the Moon. Alice" Bottom Line - "Who cares?" Time is almost up - where will you go? Yikes!

Faster than light ... again?

Lisa, CA — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:00:19 GMT

to Justin Merrifield: I thought it was Against the Fall of Night. Or is that a different book? If my books were in better order, I could find out, but unfortunately they were shelved by someone who has absolutely no concept of order (my daughter, whom I love to distraction).

Faster than light ... again?

Weetie, Lakeland, Florida — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:36:36 GMT

Everybody keeps saying that nothing can travel faster than light, because as an object approaches lightspeed it increases in mass until, at c, it has infinite mass & requires infinite energy to accelerate further. My question: WHY?? Why does mass increase with speed? Why is the speed of light 186,000 miles per second & not some other speed?

Faster than light ... again?

Charlie Z - Washington, IL — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:46:07 GMT

Robert A Heinlein really caught my imagination early on and has inspired my vision of what could be, for better or worse. I know two or more of his titles are already on the list, but several more titles deserve consideration. Here are a few that I would nominate for the CLUB Club:

Red Planet - The first RAH book I ever read, checked out from my library, recounting the relationship between a human and Martian with an unexpected twist of intelligence where least expected. His other juvenile fiction is fun and imagination-inducing, especially for teenage boys (like I was): "Citizen of the Galaxy" and "Starman Jones" are on my re-read list.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - A tale of lunar colonization with parallels to prison colonies on Earth and what happens when the colonists realize they don't have to "just take it" anymore. TANSTAAFL!

The Number of the Beast - Not as well received critically (like much of his later work), but still a fun romp of time travel and parallel universes, some being RAH's own worlds but also a few brushes with other well-known literary worlds such as Oz and the England of Lewis Carrol.

(Also "Time Enough for Love" and "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" - it's not so much Lazarus Long I like, but the rest of the cast of characters.)

Faster than light ... again?

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:11:36 GMT

So can Cramer get his results before the equipment is built?

Faster than light ... again?

Steven Wright — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:55:48 GMT

So if I'm traveling faster than light in a tunnel and turn on my headlights, what happens?

Faster than light ... again?

Alex Grigoriev, Irvine — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:48:26 GMT

I don't think the experiment means that the delay is zero for the transmitted beam. This more likely means the delay increases for the reflected beam because of second prism influence.

Faster than light ... again?

Dr. Emmett Brown, Altair IV — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:39:25 GMT

I don't know why anyone has a problem with these experiments, other than the elementary nature of the procedure. Quantum tunneling is no big deal. We've been using flux capacitors and Klystron relays with much greater effect for years. Oh wait, what year is it again?

Faster than light ... again?

Mike Florey, Dunnellon, Florida — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:44:58 GMT

As a particle accelerates to a respectable fraction of C, it gains apparent mass. As that velocity approaches C, the apparent mass of the particle could actually 'bridge' the distance from the launch point to the target. In effect, a train with enough cars to bridge the distance from Chicago to New York. As Einstein put it, "Infinite speed implies infinite mass". I, for one, would like to see tunneling explained in more detail, not just explained away. Its not at all silly as Mr. Lee stated.

Faster than light ... again?

George — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:40:51 GMT

something I have never heard explained before... if light traveling at 186kmps is caught by a suprmassive black hole... and can not escape... as it spirals into the singularity.. under extreme gravitational dymamics.. why would it's velocity not increase beyond 186kmps??? or does it just maintain its fixed speed contrary to the capturing forces of the black hole??? perhaps its my small mind.. but if a photon is capturable and drawn into a black hole.. it seems to me it could be excellerated beyond its original speed of 186kmps.... otherwise the photon would actually be, by its own limiting velocity be applying a reverse drag against the forces that captired it... much like a ant trying ot swim backwards out of a liquid whirl pool.... and that seem very unlikely... so I for one believe faster than fixed light speed is possble under conditions that can only be produced by super massive black hole or similar phenomena....

Faster than light ... again?

mthomas, USA — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:48:20 GMT

Germans invented E=mc^2 they should be allowed to break it !

By the way, How about Interstellar Travel ?

Faster than light ... again?

K Yeager, Jefferson City, Missouri — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:54:53 GMT

If Time is NOT linear - if Time simply is a human construct to list events. . . if sequence has no validity outside a chronological linear construct - then why should causality not go "both" ways?

According to one group of American Indians which conceives of Time as a spiral, causality neither can go backward nor forward. You can be in touch with (observe) past, present, and future yet influence the future only slightly (has to do with distance and proximity) and the past not at all, only your own perception of it.

Pardon me for turning philosophical. Couldn't resist.

Faster than light ... again?

Bond007jb, Bay Area, CA — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:06:49 GMT

How did they determine that the distance between the prisms was same as the internal distance (whithin the prism) covered by the photons when total internal reflection happens. I would also imagine that the photons might be travelling slower within the prism than in the gap (air) between the prisms. What say ????

Faster than light ... again?

Just A Guy — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:22:08 GMT

I thought that this was all kind of old news. I seem to recollect that 'faster than light' information transmission has been proven possible by manipulating the spin on a particle and its anti-particle twin....changing the spin on the particle causes the spin on the anti-particle to change instantly, no matter the physical 'distance' between the two....essentially conveying information faster than C.

Faster than light ... again?

John Charles Webb, Jr. — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:24:04 GMT

Alan,
I cannot recall any of Einstein's writings that assigned a permanent and fixed value to the speed of light. Einstein, it seems, always used (plugged in) the then current measurement of light speed in his famous equation. So, it seems that E=MC2 holds up (is valid) regardless of subsequent variations in measurements of the speed of light.

How-so-ever, it is curious to analyze Einstein's E=MC2 when "C" is instantaneous or zero. If "C" = zero (instantaneous) then "E" must equal zero for the equation to balance (zero = zero). "M" (mass) can be any value from zero to infinity. This presents us with the possibility of having infinite mass without the presence of either velocity or energy ( 0 = infinite mass times 0 squared).

The presence of mass (M) without either the presence of velocity (C) or energy (E) gives us the equation for a couch potato!

Faster than light ... again?

Byron, Pueblo, CO — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:43:37 GMT

Cool. So when do the DIY kits for these mad science projects hit stores like Spencer's or KayBee Toys? I want one! Just so I can experience the real-life version of "The Sound of Thunder," you see.

Faster than light ... again?

Alexandre Grigoriev, Irvine, CA — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:20:36 GMT

To explain that, one doesn't need to mention Heisenberg, but simply consider Huygens–Fresnel principle: "The propagation of a wave can be visualized by considering every point on a wavefront as a point source for a secondary radial wave", and Fermat's principle: "the path taken between two points by a ray of light is the path that can be traversed in the least time".

If you read the actual paper, you'll see that the author's fallacy is in assuming that the direct wave in that experiment propagates along a straight ray. In fact, it propagates in "least time" path, which is not linear and lays within sub-critical angle. This is why the same paradox will hold for sound wave, too.

Faster than light ... again?

zoltan vamos, bay harbor islands, florida — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:36:36 GMT

Stanislaw Lem: KIBERIADA

Faster than light ... again?

Michael Stuer — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:16:43 GMT

I think we are forgetting something when we speak of Einstein's THEORY of relativity: that it is a THEORY! Of course, this is not to say that there is no validity to it but it has yet to make the transition from theory to LAW (i.e. Newton's LAW of gravitation, for example, but then, Newton's ideas have yet to bridge the gap to become FACT.) There is soooooooooooooooo much we have yet to understand about the universe that we are better served to say that we know next to nothing rather than to brag about what we BELIEVE to be true. (Hmmmmm..... belief = religion????) Remember, Ptolome's ideas held sway over how our ancestors saw the world for thousands of years.....until he was proven wrong. He is STILL considered to be a brilliant man but are his ideas truly ANY different than Einstein's?? Another thing to remember is that when they were designing the atomic bomb, there were two schools of thought as to what the outcome would be: the first said that there was not enough fissionable material in the whole UNIVERSE to create an atomic weapon and the second was concerned that the reaction could go completely out of control and destroy the entire world. Sadly, we know the outcome. Keep in mind that ideas that sound totally outrageous TODAY may be what takes us forward to our FUTURE.

Ponder this: Kirk's communicator = cell phone. The only TRUE difference between the two? About 30 years.

Faster than light ... again?

JWC Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:00:00 GMT

Wow your all talking way over a poor dumb electricians head.
After scaning through this conglamaration of sceice fiction I feel that Albert may have been wrong about absolute speed. That is OK Albert would be thrilled at the advances that have been made.
Not Bad for a man who had to take a remeadialy math course, he's kept the rest of the world thinking.

Faster than light ... again?

Tom Arnold — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:32:45 GMT

I don't believe in the speed of light, I think it is instantaneous, for example the light from a galaxy 100 so called light years away takes 100 years to get to the earth, BUT if I go outside the next night I see the same light again so it didn't take even 24 hours to get here.

Faster than light ... again?

sreekanth nair,Bangalore,India — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:04:09 GMT

Moving faster than light means travelling back in time....Get ready to see the childhoods of your grandparents!!!!

Faster than light ... again?

Chris Clarke Perry, MI — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:17:08 GMT

Why are there no visitors in the present from the future? Not because time travel is impossible. But, in all probability the human race will wipe itself out before we can make the discovery.

Faster than light ... again?

Prof. Tanstaafl, Colorado Springs, CO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:25:20 GMT

The Universe is a closed system (by definition) and thus the following MUST be true:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Matter that approaches the speed of light gains apparent mass (experimentally verified). Thus the only way to maintain the energy / matter balance in the universe is for the matter to convert to energy as it it reaches apparent infinite mass. Thus we see bursts of x-ray energy when matter reaches the event horizon of a black hole. Immutable physical laws maintain order in the universe.

If the photons carrying the microwave energy exceeded the speed of light there should have been a burst of radiation. I have not read of that occurring.

I suspect what this experiment is actually demonstrating is that the setup has some hidden flaw that either a.) allowed for leakage of microwave energy, b.) failed to detect variations in phase of the waveform, c.) is actually observing another phenomena that is well understood, but being manifested in an unusual way or d.)some combination of some or all of the above.

Occam's Razor still applies (The simplest explanation is usually the correct one).

Faster than light ... again?

Paul Davis, Millington, TN — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:31:56 GMT

I'd suggest "What Mad Universe?" by Fredric Brown as a book selection. It is one of the very first treatments of the possibilities inherent in a multiple universe cosmos.

Faster than light ... again?

TheFallibleFiend LORTON, VA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:46:29 GMT

Weetie,
If you want to understand where c comes from better, a book you can read is "It's about Time" by N. David Mermin. You don't need anything more than HS algebra to understand the book. The answer to the question is "we don't know." So far as we can tell it is a fundamental constant.

mthomas, the germans didn't actually discover c. It was James Clerk Maxwell, a Scotsman, we have to blame for that, while he was working out the math behind his famous equations. If I understand correctly, Einstein took the constancy of c as an assumption and tried to work out a consistent mathematics for it.

One factoid from the book I mention above: Einstein didn't "invent" or "discover" relativity, which was first expressed formally by Galileo, for DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS. What he did was extend the already existing concept of relativity to electro-dynamical systems.

Faster than light ... again?

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:46:44 GMT

A couple of things:

1) since e=mc^2 was 1st written, a lot has been discovered about quantum physics. I bet, if somebody were to check, the real equation looks something like e=mc^2 + amc^3 + bmc^4... etc, etc, etc.

2) The laws of physics currently known only restrict movement of matter at "c" itself. There's nothing stopping anything from moving faster that c, just as there is nothing about going slower than c.

Faster than light ... again?

Gphillip — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:32:54 GMT

Just to clarify, relativity doesn't say "nothing" can move faster than the speed of light. But one can't gain any information from things that move faster than the speed of light (which could be configured into retrocausality). This is because there is always a requirement that another regular signal move at light speed to make sense of the signal that moved faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, the signal that moved faster than the speed of light can't be interpreted or distinguished from random noise. This second piece of information that moves only at light speed is often not apparent. Depending on how the experiment is set up, that second piece of information which can travel at light speed at most (the "key") may only exist in the observations of the person doing the measurement. It's a simple concept really, but many good minds can be confused by it.

So yes, you can send today's stock averages into yesterday, but you have to wait until today for the data to make any sense, which sort of defeats the purpose. So in conclusion, a photon or the quantum state of a photon can travel faster than the speed of light (since quantum tunneling and entanglement isn't time dependent), but information can't travel faster than the speed of light. Ergo, both relativity and quantum physics are correct, and there is no violation.

Coments are welcome.

Faster than light ... again?

TOM HARRELL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:53:50 GMT

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GUYS AND GALS....ANYONE INVOLVED IN QUANTUM PHYSICS RESEARCH. THE SPEED OF LIGHT STYMIED EINSTEIN, HE COULD GO NO FURTHER. QUESTION. WHY HAVE OUR ASTROPHYSISTS ALREADY STATED THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. DUH ??? IF PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND
THE "AGES OLD THEORY" WILL REQUIRE A FEW REVISIONS TO THE EQUATION, LIKE ALL OTHER THEORIES HAVE. ONCE, PEOPLE THOUGHT THE HUMAN BODY COULD NOT WITHSTAND A SPEED MUCH GREATER THAN 40 MPH WITHOUT COMING APART....(FAST HORSE)...GUESS THERE WERE A FEW REVISIONS TO THAT ONE !

DON'T LET PEOPLE GET YOU DOWN GUYS, KEEP ON PLUGGING. I BELIEVE IN YOU !!!!!!

Faster than light ... again?

Michael Kristafor, Pretoria, South Africa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:23:42 GMT

I've heard of the same thing happening with light tunneling through a thin opaque barrier.

Faster than light ... again?

Gordon Davis, Macon, georgia — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:47:15 GMT

There once was a lady named White
Who found she could travel faster than light
So she set off one day,
In her own relative way,
And returned the previous night.

Faster than light ... again?

Gordon Davis, Macon, GA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:50:30 GMT

I recommend as a book "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman.
It deals with soldiers who fight a war that never ends, and how the soldiers fighting the war slowly become increasingly estranged from their families, communities, society, etc.
With the current war in Iraq, and the growth of 12 month, 18 month deployments within the military, the book is as relevant today as it was when written after Vietnam.
Time dilation due to relativistic effects plays a main role in the book.

Faster than light ... again?

Computer Geek — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:31:12 GMT

Dont see why this could be completely shot out of the water. With all the advances in technology, why would it not be feasible for all of this. I think time will tell. Its like the people who use to say the earth was flat. I mean come on guys just explore the possibilities before you shoot them down.

Faster than light ... again?

Michael Z — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:21:11 GMT

"The speed of light" usually describes the speed of light in a vacuum. Under certain curcumstances, and in certain substances, the speed of light can be slowed to the point where I can drive faster than the speed of light (just not in the same medium).
In 1966, the Science Fiction author Bob Shaw created a fictional material called "slow glass". The glass would slow light to the point where it could take years or decades for the light to emerge on the other side. You could take a piece of slow glass, expose it to an outdoor scene for a considerable lenght of time, then as the scene started to emerge on the far side, hang it as a window in your living room.

Faster than light ... again?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:59:29 GMT

Wheetie: We can only say that te physical constants are what they are. At this time, we can't say WHY they are, but we do know that if you change any of them very much, you get a universe where life as we know it can't exist (Change the gravitational constant by much, for example, and stars either don't form, or they burn out too fast. [though some think it *may* have changed slightly over time] Changing the sped of light would tend to have similar results.)

Some say the reason we just happened to get the right physical laws to allow life was just dumb luck. Some think *all* possibilites happened, and there are a large (if not infinite) number of other universes, undetectable by any known means, with all possible combinations (univeses with much larger gravitational constants have already undergone Big Crunches), and we are in one of that narrow range of possible universes where we *could* exist. And some...invoke a Deity. Take your pick.

Faster than light ... again?

salvador — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:18:50 GMT

light travels at lower speeds than visible mass

Faster than light ... again?

Mr. Knowitall, Houston, TX — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:52:38 GMT

Prof. Tanstaafl, I agree with your analysis, but what if a photon (which is massless) tunnels from one point in space to another without having to travel through the intervening space? This can be proven to happen in many different ways, and indeed it's what happened in this experiment. That doesn't mean that the photon traveled through space faster than light, it simply disappeared from one position and reappeared at another, as all particles have some probability of doing under quantum mechanics. The probability of the particle appearing at another point in space decreases with the distance from the point where the particle tunneled in. Thus in theory, a particle could tunnel in at the lab here on earth and tunnel out on the other side of the universe in an instant without ever exceeding the speed of light through space. Of course, the probability of the particle tunneling that far away is very remote, but if one tests trillions of particles, as was done in this experiment, there is an expectation that several will tunnel a meter. However, the speed of light traveling through space was never really exceeded since the particle did not travel through the intervening space from where it tunneled in and where it tunneled out.

But for anyone who thinks this will allow time travel, you'll be disappointed to hear that the tunneling particle is not distinguishable from noise without the signal (particle) that arrived at regular old light speed. So the bad news is we can't look at our grandparents' lives, the good news is our grandchildren can't look at ours.

Faster than light ... again?

Frank, Dallas, TX — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:07:19 GMT

"My question: WHY?? Why does mass increase with speed? Why is the speed of light 186,000 miles per second & not some other speed?"

Because of radiation pressure: It may be shown by electromagnetic theory, by quantum theory, or by thermodynamics, making no assumptions as to the nature of the radiation, that the pressure against a surface exposed in a space traversed by radiation uniformly in all directions is equal to one third of the total radiant energy per unit volume within that space.

For black body radiation, in equilibrium with the exposed surface, the energy density is, in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, equal to σT4/3c; in which σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, c is the speed of light, and T is the absolute temperature of the space. One third of this energy is equal to 6.305×10−17T4 J/(m3K4), which is therefore equal to the pressure in pascals.

"The Universe is a closed system (by definition)"

Well... a single universe is a closed system, but a multiverse might have openings (black holes?) that allow matter/energy/information to transit.

Faster than light ... again?

Frank Glover — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:16:01 GMT

Tom, we can easily measure the round trip time from Earth to Moon witht he laser retroreflectors left there from Apollo. It's perfectly consistent with the accepted value of c. (And if you don't believe in Moon landings, even Amateur Radio operators can get reflections from the Lunar surface at those wavelengths...

the Universe would behave very differently (and likely in a way that would make our existence impossible) if you were right.

Faster than light ... again?

Thom Arnold Glendale AZ — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:45:33 GMT

The speed of light is not a constant, it depends upon how thick the darkness is. Dark matter varies in density, it is thicker in fog and heavier in cold climates. Also if I have a flash light and turn it on while running, the light will go faster.

Faster than light ... again?

Steve B, Chicagoland, IL — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:54:46 GMT

A long-time favorite book of mine that I'd like to nominate for the club is "Disturbing the Universe", by Freeman Dyson (Colophon, 1979). It's a jewel of perspective and understanding of many aspects of space, science, and people. An example quote: "The fifteen months I spent working on Orion [an atomic bomb-powered spaceship program at General Atomic in the late 1950's] were the most exciting and in many ways the happiest of my scientific life. I particularly enjoyed being immersed in the ethos of engineering, which is very different from the ethos of science. A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible". (In engineering projects, we often call that "risk management" :-). The book includes recollections of Richard Feynman, with whom Dyson worked, of the stir that a student in one of Dyson's classes caused when he assembled from public sources enough information to build an atomic bomb, and a lot more. You will recognize many of the ideas in science fiction stories you've read in these pages.

Faster than light ... again?

John — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:34:53 GMT

Of course light can travel faster than the speed of light just as sound can travel faster than the speed of sound. If you were sitting in an SR72 traveling three times faster than sound can travel; and then you hear a warning sound in the instrument panal, you could hear it. If you were in one of those fancy new UFO's from Nevada that could go faster than lightspeed and turned on the landing lights, you would see the illumination because no matter how fast light travels, it surely will stop when it hits a solid object such as a planet.

Faster than light ... again?

Ben H. Auburn, NH — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:25:34 GMT

Hello All.

It is becoming very obvious the media monster is getting to this observation very quickly. If you notice, in all the articles they blow it all up to make it seem like magic, making science into entertainment. So take articles like these with a grain of rice.

So, when just looking at the facts, they did in fact accelerate the signal beyond the speed of light in our space,it becomes easier to think. This brings me to my point. The Theory of Relativity tells us that, in our space, matter can not travel faster than light. Then, looking at the quantum tunneling idea, we see that the signal does it's traveling out of our universe, bypassing the said law. Instantaneous travel without the signal, from it's perspective, traveling fater than light.

Faster than light ... again?

Kulkarni — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:23:18 GMT

When a signal travels from one medium to other, its velocity changes.so when microwave signal entered the prism its velocity changed.The velocity of most of signal reflected decreased and it will be less than speed of light and the signal which tunneled through the gap had greater velocity than the reflected signal but less than velocity of light and hence the tunneled signal reached the photodetectors at the same time when the reflected signal reached,but not with the velocity greater than velocity of light......

Faster than light ... again?

Barry Johnson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:23:48 GMT

CLUB nomination: "Brightness Reef", by David Brin.

At one level, it's a feel-good book about a group of kids succeeding where adults failed. On the other hand, each kid just happens to be of a different alien species (none human), growing up in a fugitive cooperative society hiding their past sins from a galaxy filled with warring, competing clans.

James Gunn described Brin's vision in this book as "more sophisiticated, dealing in shades of gray [in the battle between good and evil] rather than black and white, and focusing on the long struggle of life striving upward toward intelligence and the stars."

Brin's principal topic is the condition of intelligent life in the universe. Ruminations on the difference between "received truth" and "truth that has been tested", on the influence of languange upon creative thought and Darwinian evolution on the grandest scales are integral parts of the plot.

If you're looking for escapism sci-fi that's engaging and entertaining while still filled with deep philosophical questions, this is your book. I haven't read another book that operates on nearly as many levels in a long, long time.

Faster than light ... again?

Philo, Colorado, Earth — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:03:05 GMT

Some forms of energy are instantaneous, like gravity. Gravity has an instant and powerful effect on distant objects. Not inconceivable that other unknown forms of instantaneous energy exist.

Faster than light ... again?

Al, Secaucus, NJ — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:38:08 GMT

Maybe they have the origins of the Flux Capacitor. All they need now is a used Delorean. All kidding aside, in Quantum Physics, two sub-atomic particles that are entangled can influence their movements instantly even at large distances like across the universe. This is already moving faster than the speed of light.

Faster than light ... again?

Laubsch, Portland, Oregon — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:58:28 GMT

Well, space (and the time to traverse it and therefore speed) definitely seem treated differently as the angle is changed from transmission to total internal reflection.

The train analogy for speeds seems an absolutely poor one. However, the fact that light slows down to below absolute speed of light in the medium at least complicates Nimtz' claim of nonlocality in the overall system.

However, at the least, this fascinating experiment casts some serious doubt on the locality assumption in Bell's theorem and opens the possibility for hidden variables interpretation.

Faster than light ... again?

Adam, Lictchfield, CT — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:27:17 GMT

If there were particles or whatever traveling faster than light I doubt we have the technology to detect them. We can't even detect dark matter or dark energy which are suppose to make up most of the universe according to current theory. The accepted value for the speed of light might only be valid for our region of space where we have measured it. There may be many loopholes to the light barrier beyond wormholes that have yet to be discovered or theorized

Faster than light ... again?

dave [rural nc] — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:51:26 GMT

"now we make another cubejust like the first one, and the two of them will be two sides of the tasseract."
heinlein... from "-and he built a crooked house-"

what if the two sides of the tasseract were, somehow, either defined or existent as the two sides of a prismic device which could be connected to simulate a tasseract [a three dimensional represumption of a four dimensional object -???] would the measurement of light sent through, in, around and beyond the boarders of the original two prisms not be measured as somehow slowing down or, in the very least exceeding the expectations of normal photonic activity [whatever that is]; humm... could [whatever this experiment yields] not be focused in some sort of way as to simulate, if not simple c-speed vs mass, an excelleration {maybe in a different way than wrapping wire to increase volts... amps; but, juxtaposeable to it}. of course, seems only logical that what is yielded could only be used in this way if there is an expectation that something, at least an idea, will be yielded beyond thae already accepted theoriy of light speed or photon preformance

Faster than light ... again?

Jim, Erie, Pa. — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:57:25 GMT

to tim from colorado,
if your father invented a step up transformer that steped up voltage and current, we need to talk about investments immediately.

Faster than light ... again?

Zane Coker — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:43:30 GMT

The misconceptions about going faster than c--and, for that matter, most anything related to the universe so perceived--is the actual observer in question. This is the brick wall with modern physics. It would be challenging if not impossible to remove all things known in a gravitational environment in order to understand holistically what the universe is all about, for mere word association distorts understanding in a true sense that very concept which so evades. Perhaps it best to become as sterile as possible, to remove all sentient concepts: weight, size, speed, distance, and so on. Understanding the universe as a state of "being", where none of these other things exist would be a starting point. So speed becomes nothing but a form of being whereby when object is interjected thus becomes a point of being between it and that object…and when the human element suddenly appears, we then come up with things like speed, distance…the sentient concept of life unfolding before our very eyes, like a friction itself. The universe presents no mystery, ironically, but that of the perception of it.

Faster than light ... again?

JingZhou,nankai university ,Tianjin,China — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:50:39 GMT

I have a question that how can group velocity succeed the speed of the light ?And how can the reason be that?

Faster than light ... again?

Carlos Canas, Marrero, LA — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:32:24 GMT

As I understand, the universe went through a period of inflation in which it grew at a speed faster than that of light. Supposedly at this stage the universe went from being a "point" to the size of a "grape fruit" in an instant. This implies that the amount of energy concentrated in this "point" was infinite. Or maybe that the physical rules that apply within our universe do not apply outside it.

Faster than light ... again?

Carlos Canas, Marrero, LA — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:59:40 GMT

What about gravity waves?? We are supposed to feel the gravity effects from all other bodies in the universe, including black matter, instantaneously. If this is so, then gravity waves are transmitted throughout the universe at far greater speed than light. Since there is a gravity particle responsible for gravity, then either the particle or its effects must be traveling faster than light. Hum, this is beginning to sound like Ptolomeic cosmography, we just add another spin to explain the unexplainable with our current theories.

Faster than light ... again?

fred, carlsbad, ca — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:26:52 GMT

Required reading: Naked Lunch

Faster than light ... again?

Pony R. Horton, Lancaster, CA — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:02:47 GMT

I'd like to toss my book suggestion into the ring: "BACK TO THE MOON" by Homer Hickam, the author who gave us THE ROCKET BOYS which became the film OCTOBER SKY. BACK TO THE MOON is a fun, intriguing, thoughtful look at our energy needs and the viability of continued lunar development wrapped in a wonderfully fun heist-caper revolving around stealing an American Space Shuttle and flying it to the moon in an effort to harvest Helium-3 as the fuel to power a new era of cold fusion.
Great, thought-provoking story.

Faster than light ... again?

Dustin Williams, Beckley, West Virginia — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:31:33 GMT

ok after reading all of this and from what i can wrap my mind around the comment about a black hole could poke a few holes in the speed of light theory that nothing can travel faster that that set speed if light traveling away from a black hole gets trapped in the gravitational field and gets pulled back in to the black hole then we could say that the force of the field was faster than the speed of light. imagine a car on a treadmill the car is locked into a max speed of 55 mph the treadmill is running at 55 mph and that laws of physics said that this speed was the maximum that anything in the universe can travel. the car would stay in one set spot. now leave the car running at 55mph and turn up the speed of the treadmill to say about 58 mph the car now slowly gets pulled backwards loosing ground. the force of the treadmill has now went past the stated force and speed that was once said was a constant maximum that the laws of physics said was impossible. that could prove that that cap on the speed of light might have just been a bottleneck that science was unable to have a viable workaround untill now.

Faster than light ... again?

Esther Nash, Denver, CO — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:03:54 GMT

I've always believed that time travel is possible. So is returning the dead to life and travelling to space and travelling to the moon. Yep -- the last thing has already happened, (and when it did, even I was surprised...I knew it would happen eventually...but didn't expect it to happen in my lifetime!) Now, a bit of the possiblity of time travel is coming true, as well. I wonder if anyone else has this feeling I've had for the last few years...."Help! The Future is here -- and I'm not ready for it!" : ) Well, actually I am....but it is sort of a shock when your dreams actually are beginning, slowly, to come true!!!!!

P.S. For more explorations of the unusual, and a delightful radio program, please see:
www.coasttocoastam.com

Faster than light ... again?

Marty Williams lake B.C. — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:37:52 GMT

When light passes a black hole itcan be pulled in. If you can pull it you can push it ie accelerate by force. Oh yeah what constants actually exist?
Marty.

Faster than light ... again?

Just Me — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:38:44 GMT

Someone named "huh?" wrote: I am still tyring to go over the speed limit in my CAR without getting caught breaking any laws. Does this mean two objects can occupy the same space at the same time??? And if for every reaction there is an equal and---well you know, does that mean something someplace else slows down?? All in fun--
__________________________________

So when you get pulled over tell the cop theres no way that was you speeding and it had to be another car, then explain the article... haha

I still want to know what would happen if I was to paint my car with the same stuff they use on the stealth bombers... could the radar detect my speed? haha

all in fun again, but that article was an interesting read. I'm not very read on physics but if something grabs my interest I'll read it. the above comments were all very interesting as well... well, the ones that had something to do with physics and the one about speeding anyway...

Faster than light ... again?

Kearn Larkin — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:29:06 GMT

there appear to be a few minor misconceptions floating around. Theoretically, mass cannot cross the speed of light barrier (tachyons, if there are any, are on the other side already. They're still going "forward" in time, but their "forward" is our "backward" Photons have mass and they are already at light speed, so - perahaps - they can "slow down" on either side?). Not to say nothing can - do the thought experiment: If I have a long bar of rigid material and I push on one end, the other end moves simultaneously. Hence, information can be transferred from one place to another instantaneously without violating any law of physics. The information itself has no mass. Are entangled electrons extradimensionally physically linked? That would explain the transfer of information instantaneously.
Transubstantiation of a metal bar - if it re-locates the bar, why would the bar in a new location exhibit characteristics different from in the previous location - and if it did, could it be considered the same bar?
Headlights in the tunnel - speed of light is relative. That is, the speed of light relative to the driver in the tunnel would remain the same and the driver would perceive no difference. The rate at which he moved through time would change, but he wouldn't observe that. Tunnel walls would certainly go by quickle... And his mass would be infinite, so if he collided with anything...
Einstein had a marvelous gift of explaining the incomprehensible so clearly as to make it seem obvious. His example of a person on a moving train dropping an object and observing its fall as being vertical...
As far as time travel goes, the question is not whether it's possible since we're all doing it right now. The question is not can we change the rate of travel, which we have already accomplished in the physics lab. The remaining question seems to be can we get from one place in time to another without traversing the intermediate physical "dimension" of time, which presents some rather significant non-philosophical obstacles, the greatest one of which (as I see it) is that if I could abruptly leave this phisical location and re-appear in it a minute earlier or later, "here" wouldn't have gotten here yet or would have left here a minute ago. Ignoring many astronomical movements and limiting myself to orbital rotation, if I could instantly go back in time half a year, I would find myself in the vacuum of space with the planet earth on the opposite side of the sun. I don't see anything in physics that would permit me to be three hundred million kilometers from where I am now instantaneously.
Lest I forget - we can neither create nor destroy energy or matter, (but artifacts in your cloud chambre do seem to pop in and out from the "nowhere" out there...) but there is an equivalence of one for the other, and we can change one to the other. We did this at, for instance, Eniwetok. The famous Einstein equation covers that.

Faster than light ... again?

John Cavanagh, Santa Fe, NM — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:04:52 GMT

If visitors from the future time-traveled to their past (our present), we would not perceive them since they exist only in our future.

Faster than light ... again?

Trevor Loughlin, Lymington, uNITED kINGDOM — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:07:32 GMT

Time travel is possible without paradox. Any alteration in the past switches the timeline to an alternate universe within the multiverse. However sending USEFUL imformation with the methods described is not possible, and the only way to prove a FTL link is to compare the signals after ther event-no use for retrocausal purposes. I have built a device that CAN send USEFUL data back in time however. But I intend to keep it to myself and blackmail the world into creating human rights for its citizens. Want to know when the next earthquake in Iran is? Stop executing women under sharia psuedo-law. Want to know where the next drug related shooting in the USA is? Reverse the asset seizure of farmers growing a small amount of marjuana. See the inquistion21 site for a list of other human rights abuse that MUST be addressed with compensation given to victims (and punishment of corrupt judges and political leaders) before I allow mankind the total eradication of crime and natural disaster from the earth using my precognitive device.

Faster than light ... again?

Luke — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:04:28 GMT

"since e=mc^2 was 1st written, a lot has been discovered about quantum physics. I bet, if somebody were to check, the real equation looks something like e=mc^2 + amc^3 + bmc^4... etc, etc, etc."

The energy mass equivalence has nothing to do with it. In that equation the speed of light squared is just a ratio. The mass multiplied by the speed of light squared is the potential energy of the system.
The equation is really E = 1/2mv^2 + mc^2, where 1/2mv^2 is the Kinetic energy of the system, if the system is at rest, the kinetic energy is zero, which makes the equation E=mc^2.

The lorentz factor is what prevents a system from moving faster than the speed of light. The rate at which time passes is a multiple of the lorentz factor. At rest, the lorentz factor is 1 and time passes as normal. However, as your velocity through space increases, the lorentz factor approaches Zero, and the rate at which time passes decreases. If your velocity were equal to the speed of light, then the lorentz factor would equal zero and time would not pass at all.

"2) The laws of physics currently known only restrict movement of matter at "c" itself. There's nothing stopping anything from moving faster that c, just as there is nothing about going slower than c. "

This is not true either. In theory, If for an instant your velocity exceeded the speed of light, the lorentz factor would become negative, and for that instant, time would move backwards until you are no longer exceeding the speed of light. This does not imply that your position in space would reverse, only your position in time.

It is true that the velocity of light is not constant. Light travels fastest through a vacuum, but slows through a gas, slows even more through a liquid, and slows the most through a solid. However, the change in velocity is not very significant.

It makes perfect sense that matter can not travel faster than the speed of light, because particles are just wave packets, including photons (light). In layman's terms: Matter and light are made of the same stuff.

I highly recommend that everyone take a modern physics class. It was the best thing I ever did. It will keep you from believing in things like aliens and time travel.

Faster than light ... again?

William — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:03:02 GMT

"QUESTION. WHY HAVE OUR ASTROPHYSISTS ALREADY STATED THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. DUH ??? "

It's because spacetime itself is expanding. DUH.

If you take some physics classes this will be explained to you.

Faster than light ... again?

Luke — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:02:48 GMT

"If Time is NOT linear - if Time simply is a human construct to list events. . . if sequence has no validity outside a chronological linear construct - then why should causality not go "both" ways? "

Because of Entropy.

"If "C" = zero (instantaneous) then "E" must equal zero for the equation to balance (zero = zero). "M" (mass) can be any value from zero to infinity. This presents us with the possibility of having infinite mass without the presence of either velocity or energy ( 0 = infinite mass times 0 squared). "

"C" represents the speed of light in a vacuum. It does not equal zero.

"I think we are forgetting something when we speak of Einstein's THEORY of relativity: that it is a THEORY! .... Newton's ideas have yet to bridge the gap to become FACT"

Relativity is no longer a theory, it is now proven fact. Einstein's relativity proved that Newton's laws did not hold true at high velocities. So technically, Einstein proved that Newtonian physics are incorrect, and many many many experiments have been done to confirm that Einstein's equations were the correct ones. Einstein's equations are basically Newtons laws to which we apply the Lorentz factor. When the speed of a system is zero, then the relativistic equations equal newtons equations.

"If you want to understand where c comes from better, a book you can read is "It's about Time" by N. David Mermin. You don't need anything more than HS algebra to understand the book"

You also do not need more than HS algebra to get a basic understanding of relativistic physics, since you are just adding a variable to newtons equations.

Faster than light ... again?

Luke — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:06:18 GMT

"What about gravity waves?? We are supposed to feel the gravity effects from all other bodies in the universe, including black matter, instantaneously"

This is not true. Gravity waves also travel at the speed of light.

Faster than light ... again?

Dr bellamy — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:56:59 GMT

Relativity is predictably incorrect. Every generation "knows everything about everything". Right, no MOJO.

I hypothesize that the illusive "graviton" and "dark matter" both are faster than light.

Certainly light is not the fastest speed in the universe by far. without even mentioning the spacial "jumps" etc: Muons, "dark energites", neutrinos and possibly even "dark matterites" are probably, if not certainly faster than light for example.

It's all but funny when they now say " big bang" happened everywhere at once" yet it should come from a "singularity"? They say this to compel relativity "laws" which are made to be broken. Otherwise all the stars and galaxies even should be instantly traveling millions of times the speed of light and then brake instantly again to be in their current positions. Let's all applaud the clowns.

Faster than light ... again?

Dr bellamy, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:09:31 GMT

The mere existence of a black hole proves that light is NOT the fastest thing, simply because it cannot escape the event horizon. Light can be affected by gravity and magnetic energy. Thereby it also has mass because it is being pulled or pushed, not oscillated or modulated.

And Gravity is faster than light because we have a constant pull from the sun, and even from our milky way core, light more than 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, so imagine the distance from our sun to the center of the galaxy. If Gravity were as slow as light then perhaps the center of our galaxy is already gone and we haven't noticed yet because it takes several million light years for light(in this case gravity) to travel to us. So the idea(theory) that light is the fastest thing is incorrect.

Faster than light ... again?

Dr bellamy, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:17:14 GMT

Time is not a constant and it is only our perception in our world of physics.

To assume that we know what time is or is not is ridiculous, just as is saying that LAWS of physics that we interpret are finite. So adding "Time" to "C" is like mixing oil and vinegar, HS level algebra? So funny. Lets just see what LHC tells us in the next few years. If they find the HIGGS then all bets are off!

Faster than light ... again?

Dr Bellamy, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:20:18 GMT

And how can someone say gravity "waves"?

Again so funny, we don't even know if gravity is a wave, a dimension or perhaps particles!

Somebody needs to go back to "HS algebra". Bo and Luke Duke, the good ole boys.

Faster than light ... again?

Bob, North Dakota — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:19:12 GMT

James Conyer, I think that if future people will discover how to travel in time they would go to a better time than this. They would go somewhere cool, like Pangea or the Roman Empire.

Faster than light ... again?

Bob, North Dakota — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:21:33 GMT

Or maybe because there is no future right now because time hasn't gotten that far

Faster than light ... again?

Real one — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:04:35 GMT

I like the laser ship, somebody have to explain those burocratic theoreticians what engineers can do. I'm ready to be your manager. But for inhabited planets is too early, excluding earth of course.

Faster than light ... again?

Physics fan — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:19:02 GMT

What about applying MOSS as a teleport to transform humans, Won't need money to buy a ticked and enjoy poor totalitarian service.

Faster than light ... again?

Foster Hoover, Flagstaff, AZ — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:01:49 GMT

For your cosmic log used book club I suggest you look at the book by Tom Hoover, titled "In the Beginning, a thrilling tale of the role of Dragons in space and time".. I think Amazon or Abe books might have them

Faster than light ... again?

Esther Nash, Denver, CO — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:47:39 GMT

I do wish I could actually UNDERSTAND how time-travel works. I understand what E = MC2 means...mathematically. (Engery = Matter x the speed of light squared)...but what does it all STAND for? Does viewing ice-skaters going around have anything to do with it? You know -- when 20 or so line up and start making a wide concentric circles... Those on the far end travel farther and faster....those in the centre hardly at all. DOES this have anything to do with time travel? (Does the skater in the middle go so fast that he or she begins to sink into a self-made black hole? And what do black holes have to do with time travel, anyway???? Another example (?): What about the optical illusion, sometimes seen when spinning a top or other object...you know, when, at a high enough speed, part of the top or other object appears to spin backwards? IS this just an optical illusion...or part of a time-travel explaination? Are there any (other????) SIMPLE explanations for time-travel, (back/forward) that you could recommend one read? (I'm fascinated by the concept...only I can't get a handle on it!)

And...where, (in time travel, and/or elsewhere), do science and the paranormal converge? (Infra-red pictures, anyone!?)

Faster than light ... again?

Bernie Misiura, Town of Tonawanda, NY — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:16:16 GMT

I will tell you what, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, we (earth) are at the center of our universe (oops no)OK then at the center of our cluster of galaxies (oops no)OK then we are at the center of our galaxy (oops, no again) OK then surly the center of our solar system (oops, no). All these theories have been believed at one time or another so I have always said that anything is possible as long as we keep an open m ind and keep learning we will break "C" perhaps by wormholes, warp, or whatever, possibly even time itself.

b

Faster than light ... again?

S.A. Brown, Missouri — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:55:56 GMT

The Anti-Gravity Handbook, by David Hatcher Childress.