Faster than Light?

[Baja28]

I'm still waiting for the matter transporters... Live Long and Prosper.

I want a replicator. There's a few female forumites I wanna ......replicate.

 

[desertrat]

I want a replicator. There's a few female forumites I wanna ......replicate.

You would just replicate yourself so you could do two at once.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Scientists: Particles appear to travel faster than light - CNN.com



I've always felt that the speed of light was not a finite barrier to speed, but just another 'level' to be broken. In early days, no one thought you could go faster than the speed of sound, that traveling 30mph in an open buggy would boil your blood....

You didn't see this headline on the same page as that Conan interview with Nicole Scherzinger, did you?

 

[Mongo53]

So are the scientists that reported it.

Yes, we should NOT fall into the single study trap or in this case, the single experiment trap. The scientist, I'm guessing, are still skeptical of their own results because they likely know they may have mis-measured or screwed something up in their experiment, despite reviewing everything trying to find out what hey possibly did wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

• The Speed of Light is 186,000 mile/sec.
• The Speed of Light is a known quantity, BUT it is relative, the closer you get to the speed of light; you, yourself, will be traveling faster than someone that is NOT traveling as fast observes you. OR, am I confusing time slowing down, or does that matter, its the same effect?
• The Speed of Light Barrier has to do with energy, the closer you approach that speed, the more energy it takes to travel that speed, and the more mass of the object traveling that speed, the more energy it takes to reach the speed of light. Basically, any object of any real mass, like a person or small spaceship, it would take all the energy in the universe to get them to the speed of light. That is why we only see the absolute tiny mass sub-atomic particles actually moving at the speed of light.

The Neutrinos being low mass, less then Photons?, and the speed of light was measured using photons? wasn't it? As well, Neutrinos have a mass at rest but appear to have no mass while moving, may all play into that maybe they have discovered something new about the speed of light.

My guess, either, we measured the speed of light wrong and have to change it, OR, neutrinos or other similar particles that have no mass while moving, is a property that allows them to exceed the speed of light, because they don't need more energy with no mass. OR, more likely, I'm playing junior scientist and any real particle physicist that reads this will fall over laughing.

 

[GWguy]

Yes, we should NOT fall into the single study trap or in this case, the single experiment trap. The scientist, I'm guessing, are still skeptical of their own results because they likely know they may have mis-measured or screwed something up in their experiment, despite reviewing everything trying to find out what hey possibly did wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

• The Speed of Light is 186,000 mile/sec.
• The Speed of Light is a known quantity, BUT it is relative, the closer you get to the speed of light; you, yourself, will be traveling faster than someone that is NOT traveling as fast observes you. OR, am I confusing time slowing down, or does that matter, its the same effect?
• The Speed of Light Barrier has to do with energy, the closer you approach that speed, the more energy it takes to travel that speed, and the more mass of the object traveling that speed, the more energy it takes to reach the speed of light. Basically, any object of any real mass, like a person or small spaceship, it would take all the energy in the universe to get them to the speed of light. That is why we only see the absolute tiny mass sub-atomic particles actually moving at the speed of light.

The Neutrinos being low mass, less then Photons?, and the speed of light was measured using photons? wasn't it? As well, Neutrinos have a mass at rest but appear to have no mass while moving, may all play into that maybe they have discovered something new about the speed of light.

My guess, either, we measured the speed of light wrong and have to change it, OR, neutrinos or other similar particles that have no mass while moving, is a property that allows them to exceed the speed of light, because they don't need more energy with no mass. OR, more likely, I'm playing junior scientist and any real particle physicist that reads this will fall over laughing.

* Items 2 and 3 above are exactly what I do not subscribe to. At this point, it's just mathematical formulas with no actual test data, because it's not possible to test that theory at present. I still believe it's possible to surpass the speed of light.

 

[Mongo53]

* Items 2 and 3 above are exactly what I do not subscribe to. At this point, it's just mathematical formulas with no actual test data, because it's not possible to test that theory at present. I still believe it's possible to surpass the speed of light.

Thanks, I did NOT point out that 2 and 3 is still theory, although the accepted theory at this point.

I know there has been people that have proposed hypothesis of it might be possible to exceed the speed of light, so I don't cling to the theory of the speed light is unbreakable. Nor do I know enough, even close to being qualified, to reject the accepted theories, just consider as we learn more, those theories may need to be modified and updated.

 

[PsyOps]

e/m=c2?

They only way I know of gravity influencing light is by changing it's course.

Since we know light can't escape a black hole, what happens to light that tries to escape a black hole? Does it just bend back at the same rate or does it slow down and get pulled back?

 

[Baja28]

Yes, we should NOT fall into the single study trap or in this case, the single experiment trap. The scientist, I'm guessing, are still skeptical of their own results because they likely know they may have mis-measured or screwed something up in their experiment, despite reviewing everything trying to find out what hey possibly did wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

• The Speed of Light is 186,000 mile/sec.
• The Speed of Light is a known quantity, BUT it is relative, the closer you get to the speed of light; you, yourself, will be traveling faster than someone that is NOT traveling as fast observes you. OR, am I confusing time slowing down, or does that matter, its the same effect?
• The Speed of Light Barrier has to do with energy, the closer you approach that speed, the more energy it takes to travel that speed, and the more mass of the object traveling that speed, the more energy it takes to reach the speed of light. Basically, any object of any real mass, like a person or small spaceship, it would take all the energy in the universe to get them to the speed of light. That is why we only see the absolute tiny mass sub-atomic particles actually moving at the speed of light.

The Neutrinos being low mass, less then Photons?, and the speed of light was measured using photons? wasn't it? As well, Neutrinos have a mass at rest but appear to have no mass while moving, may all play into that maybe they have discovered something new about the speed of light.

My guess, either, we measured the speed of light wrong and have to change it, OR, neutrinos or other similar particles that have no mass while moving, is a property that allows them to exceed the speed of light, because they don't need more energy with no mass. OR, more likely, I'm playing junior scientist and any real particle physicist that reads this will fall over laughing.

 

[Mongo53]

Since we know light can't escape a black hole, what happens to light that tries to escape a black hole? Does it just bend back at the same rate or does it slow down and get pulled back?

Well, a black hole is a singularity, it has no dimensions, so what in it would be generating light trying to escape it's gravity.

But, if light was trying to escape, yes, I guess it would either NOT move at all or move only a little bit and bend backwards and go back into the black hole.

Its like if you tried to escape the gravity of the earth, try as hard as you could, you'd get about a foot, maybe a foot and half and you'd get pulled right back down to the earth again.

 

[FromTexas]

I'm still skeptical. I find it hard to believe a tiny particle that has mass can move across the Earth (through whatever medium stood in its path) FASTER than light (which does not have mass) moves in a complete vacuum.

My gut says that there's a sound explanation for why this phenomenon occurred based on science we already know - say, the Earth warps space and the neutrino isn't affected by gravity or something dumb like that.

Neutrinos, which are emitted during the process of radioactive decay, have only a tiny mass and usually pass through matter without interacting with anything else, making them very hard to detect.

Being electrically neutral, it is able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected, "like a bullet passing through a bank of fog"

 

[BOP]

They've had warp speeds since the 60's. Didn't you never watch Star Trek!?

 

[BOP]

I believe you. Otherwise there would be no black holes. Except I don't think there is anything in a black hole. It is an entrance to another universe. No, not really, but maybe.

Racist!

 

[Baja28]

There's Klingons on the starboard bow, the starboard bow, the starboard bow ...
There's Klingons on the starboard bow, the starboard bow, the starboard bow ...

It's life Jim but not as we know it, as we know it, as we know it...
It's life Jim but not as we know it, as we know it, as we know it...

 

[PsyOps]

Well, a black hole is a singularity, it has no dimensions, so what in it would be generating light trying to escape it's gravity.

But, if light was trying to escape, yes, I guess it would either NOT move at all or move only a little bit and bend backwards and go back into the black hole.

Its like if you tried to escape the gravity of the earth, try as hard as you could, you'd get about a foot, maybe a foot and half and you'd get pulled right back down to the earth again.

It's a theory. No one really knows. A black hole is a dying star, which at one time emitted light. In theory the star still emits light but can’t escape because of the immense gravity. If I throw a ball in the air it will, for a short period accelerate, then eventually slow down and get pulled back to earth. Since light is still made up of particles (just as a ball is made up of particles) it would travel upwards then slow and get pulled back to earth. And I would assume accelerate on the way back down… in theory.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm still skeptical. I find it hard to believe a tiny particle that has mass can move across the Earth (through whatever medium stood in its path) FASTER than light (which does not have mass) moves in a complete vacuum.

My gut says that there's a sound explanation for why this phenomenon occurred based on science we already know - say, the Earth warps space and the neutrino isn't affected by gravity or something dumb like that.

I am always skeptical about what science produces. It's sort of like the global warming nonsense. When they feel they are becoming irrelevant they have to conjure up some crazy new discovery to arouse interest. And their funding depends on it. Now that they have this new discovery certainly more money will have to be funneled to them for further research.

I’m certainly not saying this discovery isn’t true, I’m just skeptical.

 

[desertrat]

It's a theory. No one really knows. A black hole is a dying star, which at one time emitted light. In theory the star still emits light but can’t escape because of the immense gravity. If I throw a ball in the air it will, for a short period accelerate, then eventually slow down and get pulled back to earth. Since light is still made up of particles (just as a ball is made up of particles) it would travel upwards then slow and get pulled back to earth. And I would assume accelerate on the way back down… in theory.

I don't think you really meant to say that did you? If so what force causes the ball to accelerate once it leaves your hand?

And light ie photon is considered to have no mass. If it did Einsteins theory that says if an obect with mass nears the speed of light it becomes nearly infinitely massive would be way wrong.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't think you really meant to say that did you? If so what force causes the ball to accelerate once it leaves your hand?

And light ie photon is considered to have no mass. If it did Einsteins theory that says if an obect with mass nears the speed of light it becomes nearly infinitely massive would be way wrong.

The ball is still in my hands. When I initially throw it, there is a short period of acceleration is there not? Otherwise it would not be able to break gravity's pull for that short period. :shrug:

The scientific community still isn't convinced one way or the other whether photons have mass. In fact they have a calculation that esitmates some mass.

How Gravity Affects Photons

Now, being scientists, we do not just accept theories like general relativity or conclusions like photons have no mass. We constantly test them, trying to definitively prove or disprove. So far, general relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to "weigh the photon". The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 x 10-28 grams.

Even if there were the slightest bit of mass, wouldn't gravity still affect in the same manner as any other object with more mass? It would travel at a certain speed. If gravity were strong enough, it would slow it and pull it back to earth. Although this article claims it would bend back, it doesn't imply that the velosity remains the same.

These are theories. I don't claim anything as truth because I don't have that level of trust in science. Everytime science thinks they have it figured out, something comes along to tear down these paradigms. The point is, with all of the science that has been designed around 'relativity' how will this change our understanding of the universe.

 

[desertrat]

The ball is still in my hands. When I initially throw it, there is a short period of acceleration is there not? Otherwise it would not be able to break gravity's pull for that short period. :shrug:

The scientific community still isn't convinced one way or the other whether photons have mass. In fact they have a calculation that esitmates some mass.

How Gravity Affects Photons



Even if there were the slightest bit of mass, wouldn't gravity still affect in the same manner as any other object with more mass? It would travel at a certain speed. If gravity were strong enough, it would slow it and pull it back to earth. Although this article claims it would bend back, it doesn't imply that the velosity remains the same.

These are theories. I don't claim anything as truth because I don't have that level of trust in science. Everytime science thinks they have it figured out, something comes along to tear down these paradigms. The point is, with all of the science that has been designed around 'relativity' how will this change our understanding of the universe.

Ok as long as you don't think it speeds up after it leaves your hand.

Yeah, that whole photon thing is rather confusing even to those that have spent their lives studying it, so I don't even try to keep up. It still blows my mind to think that the light leaving a safety light on an airliner traveling 600mph is going behind the airliner at the same speed as the light going the same direction it is traveling.

 

[GWguy]

It still blows my mind to think that the light leaving a safety light on an airliner traveling 600mph is going behind the airliner at the same speed as the light going the same direction it is traveling.

It's not really, there is a 600 mph offset in each direction, but 600mph is absolutely negligible when compared to the speed of light.

 

[desertrat]

It's not really, there is a 600 mph offset in each direction, but 600mph is absolutely negligible when compared to the speed of light.

So if you were in theory traveling at 186,281.9mps, .1 mps less than the speed of light and turned on your flashlight you would see the light leave at .1 mps?
I know, I remembered red shift etc. a bit ago.