Like Newtonian mechanics that hold up to .1C, we believe Einsteinian relativity holds up to the infinity aspects of the speed of light c. It's likely there's a jump that takes place over light, where the speed of light is never reached but is surpassed. We cannot predict the variables of time time travel when traveling faster than c, or causality, using Einstein's time travel equation, as it may not, and likely does not, hold true for anything at or over the speed of light. Someone will need to rewrite the rules of Physics for faster than light travel.
There's a totally different world on the other side of the speed of light remaining to be discovered. I think over light is much like over the rainbow. (Dorothy) "Do you suppose there is such a place, Toto? There must be. It's not a place you can get to by a boat, or a train. It's far, far away. Behind the moon, beyond the rain.....", commencing with singing the song. (Over the Rainbow - Judy Garland) - Wizard of Oz, Book by L. Frank Baum, music by Harold Arlen, lyrics by E.Y. Harburg.
...We cannot predict the variables of time time travel when traveling faster than c, or causality, using Einstein's time travel equation...
Won't we all feel silly if there is a handful of particles, traveling faster than light, that operate by some fairly mundane, common-sensical rules that even a middle school student could understand?
Won't we all feel silly if there is a handful of particles, traveling faster than light, that operate by some fairly mundane, common-sensical rules that even a middle school student could understand?
I expected Hawking will come up with this, considering his work with gravity, black holes and space time. FTL travel probably will have an equation as simple as E=MC^2. And the particles that travel faster than the speed of light are here, just beyond our visibility. Maybe CERN will have something to say about it.
What if we have detected the first few particles--or the first particle type--of an entire alternate universe of particles, with the common characteristic of a constant c faster than "ours?"
It's impossible to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but it is possible to exceed the speed of light in a medium like rock or water. When this happens the superluminal particle emits Cherenkov radiation, loses energy, and slows below the speed of light in that medium. Although neutrinos are weakly interacting odd ducks, superluminal neutrinos should still radiate and lose energy through Cherenkov effects. Since no such radiation was detected, it again points to an experimental error of some sort.
It has been known the speed of light varies in different mediums for a long time. Cherenkov radiation has been known for a long time. (Just as long?) Do you think the fact that no Cherenkov radiation was detected points to experimental error or might it be another "impossible" observation? (Or, non-observation in this case.)
Bill, the problem is that some existing neutrino detectors use Cherenkov radiation to detect the arrival of supernova generated neutrinos. So these neutrinos should have emitted it as well if they were superluminal and act like neutrinos normally do. So there's an impossible observation coupled with a missing observation that should be there if the first measurement were correct.
Most of us have seen the vapor plumes created when a plane is flying at 'transonic' speeds .... if it were at all possible I wonder what the 'transluminal' plume, assuming there is such a thing, would look like? :-)
If this was in error, it's likely someone would have disproved it by now. The experiment has repeated numerous times, even over a year, and always leads to the same number one conclusion of faster than light travel. It would be a good idea to immediately start looking at the immense applications and get started right away.
eBay, it was Erco's deal of the day a few weeks back.
I'm sure he posted the FTL thing-a-ma-jiggy a while back. There's no doubt it sold out right away. The question is which side bought it? While we're debating the obvious right under our noses, other countries are harnessing it. The question is, will it be friend or foe?
Speed of light is one thing, C is another.. in vacuum the speed of light is C, in a medium like rock or water the speed of light is lower but C is still C. Think of it as light being slower because the photons keeps getting absorbed and re-emitted by all the atoms in the way.
To have Cherenkov radiation you also need some kind of interaction with the matter in between.. neutrinos aren't easily detected by Cherenkov radiation - they generally don't interact with anything (you can send neutrinos through a light year's thickness of lead and still half of them get through). Otherwise (because of their speed, even not taking into account the current experiment) we should all be bathed in blue Cherenkov light because of the billions of neutrinos passing through not only the atmosphere and the earth but also our bodies every fraction of a second.
Tor, we probably are glowing very dimly from cosmic rays and neutrinos that impact with us, but it is lost among all the photons around us. The detectors work because they are underground to isolate them from cosmic rays, and can detect miniscule amounts of light.
If this was in error, it's likely someone would have disproved it by now. The experiment has repeated numerous times, even over a year, and always leads to the same number one conclusion of faster than light travel. It would be a good idea to immediately start looking at the immense applications and get started right away.
I hate to a wet blanket on this thread, but science requires skepticism. The Opera team are the only ones to produce this result, other experimenters (e.g. the ICARUS scientists) have not reproduced these results. The Opera measurement is close to the limits of the resolution of their equipment, so the burden of proof is on them to show that they do not have some sort of systematic error in their measurement. Their own confidence in the results seems low because they announced the results and didn't publish them.
Einstein never said nothing can travel faster than light. What he said (in a lot of mathematics) was: No useable information can travel faster than light. Since this is difficult to understand it is usually simplified to "nothing" - seeing has how electromagnetic radiation or solid particles contain information.
Here's an article arguing against the faster-than-light results, based on lack of Cherenkov radiation that should have been detected coming from such particles:
"...After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed...."
Wow, that must've been one heck of a tightening job. Considering light travels roughly 60 feet in 60 nanoseconds. So what could account for so much time difference at that connector?
Comments
There's a totally different world on the other side of the speed of light remaining to be discovered. I think over light is much like over the rainbow. (Dorothy) "Do you suppose there is such a place, Toto? There must be. It's not a place you can get to by a boat, or a train. It's far, far away. Behind the moon, beyond the rain.....", commencing with singing the song. (Over the Rainbow - Judy Garland) - Wizard of Oz, Book by L. Frank Baum, music by Harold Arlen, lyrics by E.Y. Harburg.
Won't we all feel silly if there is a handful of particles, traveling faster than light, that operate by some fairly mundane, common-sensical rules that even a middle school student could understand?
What if we have detected the first few particles--or the first particle type--of an entire alternate universe of particles, with the common characteristic of a constant c faster than "ours?"
--Bill
It's impossible to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but it is possible to exceed the speed of light in a medium like rock or water. When this happens the superluminal particle emits Cherenkov radiation, loses energy, and slows below the speed of light in that medium. Although neutrinos are weakly interacting odd ducks, superluminal neutrinos should still radiate and lose energy through Cherenkov effects. Since no such radiation was detected, it again points to an experimental error of some sort.
It has been known the speed of light varies in different mediums for a long time. Cherenkov radiation has been known for a long time. (Just as long?) Do you think the fact that no Cherenkov radiation was detected points to experimental error or might it be another "impossible" observation? (Or, non-observation in this case.)
--Bill
You have one of those, too? Where did you get yours?
--Bill
ps Mine has different style electrodes. Other than that, they look pretty much the same.
Yeah. He's always tuned into the best stuff.
--Bill
To have Cherenkov radiation you also need some kind of interaction with the matter in between.. neutrinos aren't easily detected by Cherenkov radiation - they generally don't interact with anything (you can send neutrinos through a light year's thickness of lead and still half of them get through). Otherwise (because of their speed, even not taking into account the current experiment) we should all be bathed in blue Cherenkov light because of the billions of neutrinos passing through not only the atmosphere and the earth but also our bodies every fraction of a second.
-Tor
I hate to a wet blanket on this thread, but science requires skepticism. The Opera team are the only ones to produce this result, other experimenters (e.g. the ICARUS scientists) have not reproduced these results. The Opera measurement is close to the limits of the resolution of their equipment, so the burden of proof is on them to show that they do not have some sort of systematic error in their measurement. Their own confidence in the results seems low because they announced the results and didn't publish them.
Einstein never said nothing can travel faster than light. What he said (in a lot of mathematics) was: No useable information can travel faster than light. Since this is difficult to understand it is usually simplified to "nothing" - seeing has how electromagnetic radiation or solid particles contain information.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2
I wonder how certain they are of that since I don't think anyone has ever measured such phenomena in the past - and known about it, anyway.
/satire
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html?ref=hp#.T0U_N0pYVRc.twitter
-Phil
Nothing to see here? Are you kidding?
"...After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed...."
Wow, that must've been one heck of a tightening job. Considering light travels roughly 60 feet in 60 nanoseconds. So what could account for so much time difference at that connector?