Will we ever exceed the speed of light-have there been any other experiments?

1.I know this question has been asked so many times,but does anyone know,what experiments said?
They said that radar travels faster than the speed of light,but the information travels exactly at the speed of light?

2.They said that encoding a faster than light pulse into a wave train does not actually cause any individual photon, nor any usable information, to travel faster than light.
Is that true?

3.There quite a few faster than light phenomena, for instance the shadows inside the Hubble Nebula; but these are just shadows and conjuring tricks, and can't be used to send information or physical objects like spaceships faster than light.
Is that true?


Here is what I found on the net:
http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/iwb9-9/light.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It will be a pain in the ass for an engineer to figure out the strain on a spaceship traveling at the speed of light.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this is a dead end question, your only causing another bitch fest, no one here, or anywhere else will be able to answer your title question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein's special theory of relativity states that an object cannot accelerate to the speed of light.

However recently particle physicists have been trying to get around that 'law' by creating particles that are already moving faster than the speed of light. Even so calculations show that such particles would move backward in time. This makes it quite impossible for such experiments to take place.

 

Its already been done, Fastr than speed of light, go to google news search

 

When you are in the quantum world Einstein's theory does not always work.

 

Those who have the knowledge to answer the question comprehensively, concisely and clearly, also have the intellect to avoid forums such as this.

 

first of all, light, as we see it, is just a form of radiation.

1. radar is another form of radiation, so it travels at the speed of light.

2. we have not been able to make photons travel faster than light in a vacuum, or c as it is called in physics. but we can make a photon travel faster than it normally travels through a different medium, such as water for instance (i believe that pertains to your post, Anomalous). but a light wave travelling faster than its normal speed in any medium can no longer carry information.

3. most, if not all the superluminal (faster than light) phenomena of deep space is explained by the expansion of the universe. the universe is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, so the distance between objects in the universe is expanding at the same rate. the larger the space between the earth and another object, the faster the other object appears to be going.

 

How about "will we ever reach speeds that make interplanetary travel practical"? There is a lot we can do in our own solar system.

 

1) How and r u sure that it was not fastr than in vaccum

2) yes, I was talking about the speed of light faster than light in a medium but with respect to vaccum

3) send it in pulses

 

1) the experiments you are talking about were conducted in fiber optic cables or water, where the speed of light is slower. http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8725

2) what do you mean by this? the speed of light through any medium is going to be slower than the speed of light through a vacuum. thats the point of using another medium, we can't even send a photon faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

3) yes, you could do this, creating a sort of morse code at the speed of light. this is being researched right now.

'So, has special relativity been disproved, now that FTL speeds have been measured? The first problem with this naive conclusion is that, while in special relativity neither information nor energy are allowed to be transmitted faster than light, but that certain velocities in connection with the phenomena of wave transmission may well excede light speed. For instance, the phase velocity of a wave or the group velocity of a wave packet are not in principle restricted below light speed. The speed connected with wave phenomena that, according to special relativity, must never exceed light speed, is the front velocity of the wave or wave packet, which roughly can be seen as the speed of the first little stirring that tells an observer "Hey, there's a wave coming".'
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html

 

We must remember this: Special Relativity was based on a postulate ( just another word for "unproven theory" ) that lightspeed is the same for all observers, which strongly implies that lightspeed is the maximum speed possible. SR does not PROVE c is maximal. It ASSUMES it.

In actual practice, particle accelerators have driven matter to speeds barely under c, and it does seem to be impossible to reach or exceed c. I have read that electrons have reached 10 mph less than c.

On the other hand, particles have been observed to execute quantum tunneling exceeding c. Entangled particles have been observed to reportedly interact exceeding c. Atomic electrons are said to instantaneously jump orbits when emitting or absorbing a photon. Although the subject is highly controversial, a contingent claims that gravity ( not gravitational waves ) must propagate at much over c.

When devising his famous set of equations, Maxwell started with standard wave mathematics and discovered that electromagetic disturbance should move through space at a speed exactly depending upon the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability of vacuum. A puzzling question is why anything else, charged particles, neutral matter, gravity, so on, would be obedient to the electromagnetic quality of space? :bugeye:

 

1.All these experiments you mentioned-have they been measured in space,or space-like vacuum conditions?Have quantum tunneling experiments been done in space-like vacuum conditions,since in space light speed can't be broken by any means!?
If not,than special relativity has been proven,at least part of,and it's no longer hypothesis/theory!

2.So,what does it all mean generally speaking,does this mean we can still hope of one day travelling at warp speeds with space ships?

3.What would be problems with space ships travelling at light speeds(I know that mass will increase,inertion and etc.,I meant what are other problems with space ships travelling at light speeds)?

4.What would be problems with space ships in travelling at warp speeds?
Thanks!

 

Gravage: You might read "SCHRODINGER'S KITTENS" by John Gribbin. It's a well written account on a non-technical level of current quantum physics and explains better than I can tunneling and entanglement and their FTL implications.

Tunneling experiments have executed particle movement faster enough than lightspeed that it doesn't make any difference if they were in vacuum or an atmosphere, but I have to admit that I don't know. The difference between c and lightspeed in air is very small.

The reaction between entangled and then separated particles is accepted universally by quantum physics to be instantaneous regardless of the distance.

Practically any college physics textbook will have a description of the apparently instantaneous quantum leap that electrons perform when changing orbits around an atomic nucleus. Briefly, very well proven parts of quantum physics say that an electron may only have specific energy states and therefore orbits. They simply cannot exist in an in-between orbit, therefore they cannot move smoothly through space between orbits but rather must cease to exist in one orbit and instantaneously begin to exist in the new orbit. I have a small reference library in which one college physics textbook is 45 years old which contains this so any one you pick up should tell you about it.

There are professional scientists currently studying the speculative possibility of warping space around a vehicle to thereby effectively move between stars FTL. The speculation is that if spacetime could be manipulated, the vehicle could be surrounded in a bubble of space which possibly could go FTL whereas the vehicle itself would be going slower than light within the bubble space. Needless to say, such is extremely speculative.

A vehicle traveling at great speed through space without any kind of protective "bubble" would be continually colliding with photons, electrons, protons, atoms ( mostly hydrogen ), dust particles and even occaisionally micrometeors and larger meteors. All these things would have a huge kinetic energy due to their great relative speed. A bare vehicle traveling at a respectable part of lightspeed might as well be colliding with a star.

There is so little information available from the professional scientists working on a warping concept that I just cannot even guess what it would be like. It does seem to me that the warp or bubble might isolate the vehicle from any external influence, including gravity. Since highly respected scientists have, beginning with Newton, strongly believed that inertia is caused by the total gravitational force of the universe, anything that could be isolated would probably lose inertia, including electrons orbiting atoms. With no inertia to act as the widely known "centrifugal force", electrons would possibly immediately be drawn into their atoms. It is beyond my ability to theorize whether somehow losing inertia would also cause momentum and kinetic energy to vanish. However, simply effectively turning every atom into a group of neutrons would be a disaster.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My comments regarding relativity and exceeding c reflect one of my pet peeves: I claim that relativity PROVES NOTHING about FTL but rather is based on the ASSUMPTION that it cannot be done.

It is my opinion that practical difficulties are insurmountable for anything vaguely resembling current off-the shelf technology to move a vehicle through space at c or FTL. However, I also opine that there is not a proven theoretical obstacle.

A frequently raised objection to FTL is the subject of increased inertia as c is approached. This has been proven in many particle accelerator experiments. However special relativity permits the moving observer to consider themself at rest while the universe whizzes by. When I am driving and accelerate, I can consider myself and my car to be sitting still while the planet accelerates under my wheels. Do you have the faintest idea of how much torque my motor needs to make the entire planet spin 30 MPH faster? This and a number of other points have convinced me personally that special relativity is capable of proclaiming things that just cannot be true. So, I allow myself to say that relativity does not PROVE theoretical impossibility of FTL.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gravage: My book habit is so strong that I forget about how useful the net is. I have just Googled "quantum tunneling" and "entangled particles" and found substantial amounts of reference material. Live long and prosper. And read some interesting stuff.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gravage: Google "interstellar ramjet".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks a lot for your answer.However,allow me one more question:Yes,I heard about that instanteous quantum leap of electrons you've been talking about.You said the reaction between entangled and then separated particles is accepted universally by quantum physics to be instantaneous regardless of the distance.Now that's true.But has this ever been measured with the distances of billions of light years away?I think this where quantum physics is wrong.There has never been and can never be measured if these entangled particles truly do instanteously travel on the distance of 10 billion light years,for example?
Do you maybe know has the speed of these entangled particles ever been measured-how do they know it was faster than light,and how sure they are,have they measured apparently instantaneous quantum leap that electrons perform when changing orbits around an atomic nucleus?
Thanks again!
And yes,if you mean special relativity is only assumption that nothing travel faster than light,than you're correct.However,if we look for practical examples than there are no speeds greater than the speed of light.
For example

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eople used to think nothing what is heavier than air can fly-because of the laws of physics said so.But than they saw birds,flying.That was the first,initial inspiration to make a first step.
In assumption that might we able to to travel faster than speed of light,we haven't discovered anything in nature that would enable us to hope that one day we will find out and travel at speeds faster than light.I mean nothing,literally nothing in nature travels faster than light.If we could find in practice something that truly travels faster than light,than I would be sure that one day humans will travel at FTL speeds.
Any thoughts?
Thanks again!

 

i thought the theorys about how to travel faster than light involved colapsing and exstending space in front of and behind the ship so you dont travel ANYWHERE but the space does

 

we will exceed the speed of light, you just have to wait til 2024 when i discover Warp theory.

Arc

 

Yes,I think the same thing.