Speed of Light Broken?

[The Doctor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3303699/We-have-broken-speed-of-light.html


Yeah, no. Is the universe still here? Then these two crackpots didn't shoot shit faster than the speed of light. And speaking of shooting shit faster than the speed of light: the new Black Jack taco from Taco Bell. Plumber!!

[Derek The Infamous]

BLACK TACO!

And yeah, I seriously doubt they've broken the light barrier. Like the article says, the item would've appeared in it's new spot before it even left. According to the people in the article, it moved instantaneously...but there's no mention of it being in two places at one time (which is how the human eye would've perceived it..since it was "faster than light") so these scientists = fail.

Try again scientists. You lose. Do not pass go, and do not collect 200 dollars.

[The Doctor]

Lets see, faster than speed of light = time travel. Since we have NEITHER, I'm pretty sure these guys are full of shit.

[Derek The Infamous]

Exactly. And for anybody who's head wants to melt; here's Stephen Hawking's explanation of why Time Travel doesn't exist:

"Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never in fact developed; and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future." "

And also:

Several experiments have been carried out to try to entice future humans, who might invent time travel technology, to come back and demonstrate it to people of the present time. Events such as Perth's Destination Day or MIT's Time Traveler Convention heavily publicized permanent "advertisements" of a meeting time and place for future time travelers to meet. These experiments only stood the possibility of generating a positive result demonstrating the existence of time travel, but have failed so far--no time travelers are known to have attended either event. Although it is theoretically possible that future humans have traveled back in time, but have traveled back to the meeting time and place in a parallel universe.[28] Another factor is that not all time travel devices under current physics (such as those that operate using wormholes) permit their users to travel back to before the time machine was actually made[29], rendering such tests useless.

[Todd]

I did pretty well in science in school, but whenever I read anything written by Stephen Hawking, my head explodes.

And just because we're talking about time travel:
KLni3wbndls

[Derek The Infamous]

Everytime Stephen Hawking speaks, you wonder where you are because your mind just got blown.

And I cant watch that video, y00t00b is banned at work.

[Todd]

Oh, it's just they "They took our jobs!" bit from the South Park episode where people from the future came :lol:

[Dean]

Exactly. And for anybody who's head wants to melt; here's Stephen Hawking's explanation of why Time Travel doesn't exist:

"Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never in fact developed; and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future." "

And also:

Several experiments have been carried out to try to entice future humans, who might invent time travel technology, to come back and demonstrate it to people of the present time. Events such as Perth's Destination Day or MIT's Time Traveler Convention heavily publicized permanent "advertisements" of a meeting time and place for future time travelers to meet. These experiments only stood the possibility of generating a positive result demonstrating the existence of time travel, but have failed so far--no time travelers are known to have attended either event. Although it is theoretically possible that future humans have traveled back in time, but have traveled back to the meeting time and place in a parallel universe.[28] Another factor is that not all time travel devices under current physics (such as those that operate using wormholes) permit their users to travel back to before the time machine was actually made[29], rendering such tests useless.
vY_Ry8J_jdw
pwnt

[esaul17]

It is well known that quantum physics violates special relativity. The Bell Results showed this.

[Dedicated]

Exactly. And for anybody who's head wants to melt; here's Stephen Hawking's explanation of why Time Travel doesn't exist:

"Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never in fact developed; and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future." "

And also:

Several experiments have been carried out to try to entice future humans, who might invent time travel technology, to come back and demonstrate it to people of the present time. Events such as Perth's Destination Day or MIT's Time Traveler Convention heavily publicized permanent "advertisements" of a meeting time and place for future time travelers to meet. These experiments only stood the possibility of generating a positive result demonstrating the existence of time travel, but have failed so far--no time travelers are known to have attended either event. Although it is theoretically possible that future humans have traveled back in time, but have traveled back to the meeting time and place in a parallel universe.[28] Another factor is that not all time travel devices under current physics (such as those that operate using wormholes) permit their users to travel back to before the time machine was actually made[29], rendering such tests useless.


That's all well and good, but it's all just theory. No one actually knows what happens when you travel at the speed of light because it's never been done before.


Edit: Also, surely the photons would only be in two places at once is if they travelled faster than the speed of light? The only reason I think this is because light is what we see.

[esaul17]

Dedicated:


You don't have to go the speed of light to appear to be in who placed at once. wave your hand in front of your face and you get an after-image :P

[Derek The Infamous]

Who placed? :P

Is that like Hoof Arted?

[The Doctor]

vY_Ry8J_jdw
pwnt
I love you for posting that.

[Iain]

My thing is that people need to stop fucking with that shit, because if it supposedly will destroy the universe to do this kind of thing...

MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T DO IT, HUH?

[Dedicated]

Dedicated:


You don't have to go the speed of light to appear to be in who placed at once. wave your hand in front of your face and you get an after-image :P


That's not actually being in two places at once though.

[Derek The Infamous]

That's not actually being in two places at once though.

Yeah that's just your hand moving really fast.

Something I'm sure esaul is very familiar with :lol:.

[esaul17]

Har har :lol:.

I am not sure what vision has to do with something actually being in two places at once then, if not just appearing so?

[Derek The Infamous]

Har har :lol:.

I am not sure what vision has to do with something actually being in two places at once then, if not just appearing so?

I stated that because the human eye, in terms of a moving picture can really only see up to 24 frames per second. In movies and video games, sometimes movies or games run at faster than that....so it translates to very fast or very smooth movement because the eye can't see more than 24FPS.

Therefore in theory, since light appears to us instantaneous, if something is faster than light...in my opinion, its not ludicrous to believe that our brain would briefly see the same object in two places at the same time or more feasibly...a temporary visual trail created by the object moving at a high rate of speed. I would imagine the effect to be similar to that of taking a picture of an object moving at high velocity with a camera set at a very low shutter speed. Example:

http://peggyfleischauer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/canada-day-042-1024x680.jpg

Keep in mind, this is my OWN theory, and may differ from what exists currently in the scientific community.

There are also risks with going faster than the speed of light and that's why nobody should ever attempt it, because nobody knows what could happen. Google "wormholes".

[Harlz]

You cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

E=MCsquared.

It's a fact, the faster an object travels, the more it's mass increases. You cannot reach the speed of light because the objects mass becomes too heavy for whatever is propelling it.

I know that isn't a very good explanation, but hey, high school physics only gives me so much to work with...

[Iain]

You cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

E=MCsquared.

It's a fact, the faster an object travels, the more it's mass increases. You cannot reach the speed of light because the objects mass becomes too heavy for whatever is propelling it.

I know that isn't a very good explanation, but hey, high school physics only gives me so much to work with...

Except if there's no resistance. Like in space.

[think i'm a fire engine]

While I don't necessarily believe these findings will pan out to anything spectacularly noteworthy, I must say this. It's never good to dismiss scientific findings out of hand just because they don't fit in with what you already "know" to be true.

[Harlz]

Good point.

See: Flat Earth Society
:lol:

[Derek The Infamous]

Except if there's no resistance. Like in space.

Resistance like most things on this earth are subject to the laws of physics and gravity. With E=MC2 the speed of light never changes. In that equation the energy and the mass will change...but the speed of light remains at a constant, making the idea of time travel...or breaking the light barrier while on earth a theoretical impossibility.

In a situation where Earth bound physics do not apply (i.e. space) it is reasonable to believe that we could one day achieve light speed, but I feel such a breakthrough is far off and wont be seen for thousands of years.

[Harlz]

Except if there's no resistance. Like in space.

Valid point, but then you have other facts too.
Time dilation for a start, is actually a fact.
Rather than the speed of light being broken, time actually lengthens. Look up Einsteins thought experiment. It's been tested, and actually does happen.

[Derek The Infamous]

Nothing like a good science discussion in the morning :lol:.

[Harlz]

Haha does this count as studying for my final physics exam? :lol:

[Dr. Octogonapus]

Except if there's no resistance. Like in space.

Even space isn't a perfect vacuum with zero resistance, there are still particles floating around and whatnot.

But that doesn't necessarily render the speed of light impossible to reach. There are almost always holes in any scientific theory. Look at quarks, not only do they break the theory of relativity, they also break the law of conservation of mass. They can be in two places at once, and they can pop into and out of existence at random.

The only real "law" in science is that there's pretty much always an exception, whether we know about it or not.

[Theazninvasion68]

If anything went faster than the speed of light, that'd be SOME impressive results on what the mass came to be (Given Atoms quarks ect)
In conclusion, if there anything faster than light, it itself would be obliterated before it matched the speed, even in a zero-resistant vaccum.

OR I need to update my science.



edit: And if it were Faster, it would have to be a certain Constant, also called unbreakable laws. (such as gravity, speed of light, ect ) And it too must be stable as it would decelerate quickly to match or slower of the speed of light.

Given this speed is infinite too, and not from point A to point B, but rather to Point A to point Infinity, would it remain true?

[esaul17]

I stated that because the human eye, in terms of a moving picture can really only see up to 24 frames per second. In movies and video games, sometimes movies or games run at faster than that....so it translates to very fast or very smooth movement because the eye can't see more than 24FPS.

Therefore in theory, since light appears to us instantaneous, if something is faster than light...in my opinion, its not ludicrous to believe that our brain would briefly see the same object in two places at the same time or more feasibly...a temporary visual trail created by the object moving at a high rate of speed. I would imagine the effect to be similar to that of taking a picture of an object moving at high velocity with a camera set at a very low shutter speed. Example:

http://peggyfleischauer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/canada-day-042-1024x680.jpg

Keep in mind, this is my OWN theory, and may differ from what exists currently in the scientific community.

There are also risks with going faster than the speed of light and that's why nobody should ever attempt it, because nobody knows what could happen. Google "wormholes".

I understand the visual trail thing, I just am saying we get to see a visual trail with objects moving far below light speed. I am not sure why something moving faster than light would be in any way remarkable insofar as giving us an after-image.


And I'll repeat that quantum physics and special relativity are at odds with one another because quantum theory says that effects can travel faster than the speed of light, and this has proven to be the case.

[Omar]

If you could see it, then you'd understand.