Travelling faster than light...

[ldavidcooke]

Thank you, I reviewed the site. I still am more classic physics in mind. UT still has some work to go yet, though I believe that String Theory will play a part. From a laymans point of view the probability that quanta energy are particles that move between planes seems to hold my interest most. I think the reason relates to a FTL limitation. Logic regarding a mass/energy balance seems to point to the possibility that there has to be room for deviations, the problem is our current understanding of the universal rules do not allow for deviations without a mystical extra dimension.

 

The String Theory allows for different planes; however, I don't know if the current definition of those dimensions is accurate. I suggest that the planes may actually be different combinations of the basic four, Width, Height, Depth and Time. For instance one plane may simply be a segment of infinite width. Another may be a combination of width and time. If you take all the various combinations you would have 16 planes of reality. If quanta energy could move freely between these planes a lot of observeable phenomena begin to

make sense.

 

I am sure the mathematical experts will achieve Nirvana in my lifetime and

an UT will emerge. Who knows we may actually have already fallen through

a black hole and the limitations are due to the constraints of existing inside of a singularity... I don't mean to be trite, the realities have yet to be discovered and sometimes we end up going through a lot of imaginary possibilities until they are linked through experimentation or proof into fact.

This is science at it's best.

 

Dave Cooke

[swansont]

The reason was the laser was a coherent single frequency tuned emitter in the UV range. If I recall correctly the frequency of the laser was tuned to the Photon emission frequency of the Cesium. If the emitter was single mode then there would not have been the mixture of frequencies as indicated in your link. Your link would be appropriate if the emitter had been a multi-modal source.

 

Even a single-frequency laser has a linewidth - the only way to have an infinitely narrow line is for the wave to be infinite in length.

 

IIRC the system was prepared to give a very narrow resonance and a correspondingly steep dispersion curve' date=' but the experiments I know of used vapors. Here's one

[ldavidcooke]

I'm sorry I could not launch your link. I understand that the there would be an amplitude change; however, I thought the fundemental frequency was fairly tight and single mode. (Meaning that the phase angle was constant.) Did I misunderstand your post?

 

If it was vapor my error, it must have been a pollution of my memory by junk movies like "Real Science". And though it was five years ago I seem to remember that the target was about a meter in length and not the 6" that I have seen referenced elsewhere in here, of course that may have been the chamber apparatus and not the cessium container itself.

 

In any case this does not appear to be a situation where the wave front and wave peak were displaced, or did I get that wrong as well?

 

Dave Cooke

[CPL.Luke]

you may be thinking of experiments where they altered the speed of light using bose-einstein condensates made out of cessium, to my knowledge they only slowed it in those experiments, but I could be wrong.

[Proof of One]

Thank you, I reviewed the site. I still am more classic physics in mind. UT still has some work to go yet, though I believe that String Theory will play a part. From a laymans point of view the probability that quanta energy are particles that move between planes seems to hold my interest most.

I am not sure what you mean by “quanta energy,” “particles,” and “planes.” I understand the etiology of energy to mass, in a straightforward manner, that involves energy waves that are complex oscillations of elliptical structures that comprise the internal geometry of the first two states of light.

 

I think the reason relates to a FTL limitation.

I understand no such limitation. The photon effect, EPR, and myriad other anomalies, such as non-locality and universal entanglement, have no rationalization or reconciliation with observation with such an FTL limitation. If such were the case the Cosmos would seem as a “billiard table” rather than the clockwork that observation confirms. Can SR or GR explain the observed "speed" of the gravitational illusion of universal attraction?

 

Logic regarding a mass/energy balance seems to point to the possibility that there has to be room for deviations, the problem is our current understanding of the universal rules do not allow for deviations without a mystical extra dimension.

There is a much simpler explanation, with a logical etiology, however, to begin, there is a requirement that the ludicrous Big Bang be discarded as a paradigm.

 

The String Theory allows for different planes; however, I don't know if the current definition of those dimensions is accurate. I suggest that the planes may actually be different combinations of the basic four, Width, Height, Depth and Time. For instance one plane may simply be a segment of infinite width. Another may be a combination of width and time. If you take all the various combinations you would have 16 planes of reality. If quanta energy could move freely between these planes a lot of observeable phenomena begin to make sense.

ST can never unify forces that are metaphysical; before unification by the pomo elite, they must be able to define and rationalize the forces with observation . . . and their own standard models.

 

Your thoughts are too complex; you must look for simplicity. Begin with seminal motion (exotic “dark” energy); describe its geometry; describes its complex, hyper-relativistic oscillations; explain coalescence of this energy; then, explain the mathematics of resonance, which underlies the morphing to the manifestation of mass (exotic “dark” matter); then, matter compresses until atoms are formed at Critical Compression within quasars and gamma-ray bursts . . . and the cycle continues ad infinitum. Of course, this is a bit simplistic; however it sure beats trying to explain accelerating, galactic recession with something that only “banged” once.

 

I am sure the mathematical experts will achieve Nirvana in my lifetime and a UT will emerge.

Not if peer revue has the last word.

 

Who knows we may actually have already fallen through a black hole and the limitations are due to the constraints of existing inside of a singularity... I don't mean to be trite, the realities have yet to be discovered and sometimes we end up going through a lot of imaginary possibilities until they are linked through experimentation or proof into fact. This is science at it's best.

Or worst, depending upon your perspective. If you can believe in “black holes” as defined by overextending GR beyond its minimal limitations, you can also believe that a mortal can be resurrected.

[Locrian]

Only disadvantage here is, that many people in this forum won´t consider it scientific enough as it uses neither multiple dimensions nor exotic matter nor magnetotachyonic stringgravity fluctuations.

 

No, it would not be considered because it is not the same subject as the rest of the group would be adressing. When scientists discuss faster than light travel, they aren't discussing whether you can beat a photon to a destination. They are discussing whether your instantaneous velocity can be greater than c in a vacuum. Your thought experiment in no way suggests that this can be possible.

 

Whoops: See my last post

[Proof of One]

No, it would not be considered because it is not the same subject as the rest of the group would be adressing. When scientists discuss faster than light travel, they aren't discussing whether you can beat a photon to a destination. They are discussing whether your instantaneous velocity[/i'] can be greater than c in a vacuum. Your thought experiment in no way suggests that this can be possible.

I can not imagine that universal gravitational attraction can be as smoothly effective (your instantaneous velocity) as observation demonstrates, throughout the vastness of the Cosmos, if the effects of this illusional “attraction” were limited to the speed of light.

 

It is just as inconceivable that when such distances, those across the entire Cosmos, are considered, that the speed of light can be constant; more likely, the variation in light’s speed, like Cosmic Inertia, is minuscule, from the anthropic locus; while, quite noticeable from the perspective of super-galactic clusters.

 

As far as discussing “greater than c in a vacuum,” the concept of a vacuum is only in the minds of physicists; as there is nowhere, within the Universe, that exotic “dark” energy is not present; nor, where this energy would not have an effect on light in any of its four states.

[Locrian]

I can not imagine that universal gravitational attraction can be as smoothly effective (your instantaneous velocity[/i'])

 

The phrase "instantaneous velocity" did not have anything to do with universal gravitation. How you put these two together is beyond me, but you need to focus on the content of my post.

 

It is just as inconceivable that when such distances, those across the entire Cosmos, are considered, that the speed of light can be constant;

 

No it isn't. I can conceive of many things. Some are real, some aren't, but you telling me what I can and can't conceive of is absurd. Please keep your comments related to something other than what I'm capable of conceiving of.

 

As far as discussing “greater than c in a vacuum,” the concept of a vacuum is only in the minds of physicists; as there is nowhere, within the Universe, that exotic “dark” energy is not present; nor, where this energy would not have an effect on light in any of its four states.

 

This is untrue. You assumed that when I wrote "vacuum" I meant something absolute. I did not. Please do not assume I mean absurd things without at least checking with me first. Just because you have an absurd definition of "vacuum" does not mean I do.

 

Nothing you wrote had anything to do with the content of my reply to Atheist.

[Proof of One]

The phrase "instantaneous velocity" did not have anything to do with universal gravitation. How you put these two together is beyond me, but you need to focus on the content of my post.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. I was addressing velocity in excess of the speed of light; my contention is that the speed of the gravitational effect is just such a speed.

 

No it isn't. I can conceive of many things. Some are real, some aren't, but you telling me what I can and can't conceive of is absurd. Please keep your comments related to something other than what I'm capable of conceiving of.

Again, if I was not clear, I am sorry. I certainly did not intend to imply what you can conceive of; I was referring to what “I” found to be inconceivable, not what you might find inconceivable.

 

This is untrue. You assumed that when I wrote "vacuum" I meant something absolute. I did not. Please do not assume I mean absurd things without at least checking with me first.

It appears we are somewhat in agreement as to the concept “vacuum.” This being a forum, my assumption was that the post was a manner of “checking with” you as to your meaning.

 

Just because you have an absurd definition of "vacuum" does not mean I do.

What is it about my definition that you consider absurd? This would seem to be a legitimate discussion; rather than quibbling over intent in such a limited environment as a forum.

[Locrian]

Atheist, looking closer I think what you were writing may have been an example of why that thinking is wrong in response to Tim, and therefore not meant to be an argument why it was right. If that's the case I'm sorry I didn't pick it up quicker.

[Locrian]

rather than quibbling over intent in such a limited environment as a forum.

 

No one is quibbling over anything. You misinterpreted and misrepresented what I wrote and I responded.

[YT2095]

now appologise for saying "Sorry" so much

 

I think it`s readily accepted as there`s no such beast as a "perfect vacuum" or even "Abosulte Zero" other than on paper.

 

and so, having overcome That little obsticle, let`s get this thread back on track

[zegulas]

Guys have a look at this article:

 

 

By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse

 

New experiments show that some things can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

But the Universe always manages to ensure that we can never use the effect for anything useful, like building a faster-than-light starship or travelling back in time.

 

It is a fundamental law of physics, a fact that is built into the architecture of the Universe and taught to every student, that nothing can travel faster than light which is roughly 300,000 km a second (186,000 miles).

 

Well not exactly. The Universe does have this speed limit but recent experiments would seem to suggest that in certain circumstances something can travel a bit quicker.

 

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a faster-than-light signal would violate the "causality principle," which states that "causes" always precede "effects."

 

The recent experiments are not especially new. Physicists have been making light pulses that travel faster than c (the speed of light in a vacuum) for years. They key point however, is that none of the experiments could be used to send information faster than c.

 

Difficult experiments

 

In one experiment, led by Anedio Ranfagni, of the Italian National Research Council, microwaves were sent through a narrow, ring-shaped opening onto a large mirror, sent the waves back to and behind the source. The arrival times of these pulses showed that they travelled at speeds 5% above c.

 

The work is described in a recent issue of the Physical Review Letters.

 

But some researchers say the effect may be an illusion caused by light taking a shorter route through the optical system than expected. However, the Italian researchers do not believe this and say there is a "a shadow of a doubt" about faster than light effects.

 

In the other experiment, a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds 300 times the normal speed of light.

 

According to the researchers, the main part of the light pulse leaves the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side!

 

A research paper on the experiment, by Lijun Wang of the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US, is reported to have been submitted to a major science journal, though it remains to be seen how far it will get.

 

Flashing lights

 

There is some debate about these type of experiments because they are very difficult to do and could be plagued by many unknown errors. Most physicists would say they are interesting but that in every case there will be a loophole that will allow nature to protect the causality effect.

 

For years, scientists have been gathering evidence of faster than light, so-called superluminal, phenomenon.

 

On a simple level, a flashing row of lights can display signals that move from one end of the row to the other end faster than c if the lights flash on and off in time.

 

But scientists point out that the effect is an illusion and that nothing physical is travelling faster than c.

 

In space, some 20 years ago, astronomers were puzzled, briefly, by distant objects that appeared to go faster than c.

 

The explanation was that when an explosion occurs at speeds comparable to c then it can appear from the outside that the lightspeed limit is being violated.

[5614]

But scientists point out that the effect is an illusion and that nothing physical is travelling faster than c[/b'].

I added bold. I assume this was your point? (And if not is should be!)

[swansont]

The NEC experiment is the one I referred to earlier when I mentioned anomalous dispersion.

[Proof of One]

No one is quibbling over anything. You misinterpreted and misrepresented what I wrote and I responded.

I have reproduced the original discussion, below, back through several posts.

 

Best that I can determine you have taken a snippet of mine (“rather than quibbling over intent in such a limited environment as a forum”) out of context (see last quote of this post that is now emphasized in bold.); or, your logic is beyond me. Maybe, you can explain?

 

I asked a direct question (“What is it about my definition (of a vacuum) that you consider absurd?”) that you ignored.

 

I considered your quibbling to be over the definition of said vacuum, after I had conceded that we seemed to be somewhat in agreement.

 

Where have I misinterpreted and misrepresented? I don’t believe that I took anything out of context.

 

Original Discussion through several posts

Just because you have an absurd definition of "vacuum" does not mean I do

.

What is it about my definition that you consider absurd? This would seem to be a legitimate discussion; [b']rather than quibbling over intent in such a limited environment as a forum.[/b]

[Proof of One]

But scientists point out that the effect is an illusion and that nothing physical is travelling faster than c.[/b']

 

I added bold. I assume this was your point? [i'](And if not is should be!)[/i]

 

No it should not be. One must have an open mind, when considering how frought Pomo theoretical physics is with error.

 

All reality is based upon speeds faster than light (FTL). If such were not the case, there would be no enigmatic phenomena including the photon effect and all other non-local phenomena.

 

The "clock-work" of the Universe and universal entanglement depends upon such speeds: FTL.

 

It is ludicrous to think that "motion" arbitrarily stops at the speed of light; or, for that matter, that said speed is constant other than as an illusion at the anthropic scale, much like the constancy of ..... Cosmic Inertia is illusional at said scale.

 

To assume otherwise is not only ludicrous, but it flies in the face of philosophic logic and observation.

 

Pulsoid Theory (An overview) is a fine example of an alternative theory to replace the irreconcilable Standard Models (SM).

 

Pulsoid Theory (topic) is based upon hyper-relativistic speeds.

[CPL.Luke]

you are stopped right now, you are never moving unless you are accelerating (in which case SR can't be applied) therefore in a nutshell you could never go faster than light (your speed doesn't just stop like you said)

 

now more to this nothing can get away from you at a speed greater than c, this is caused by the mathmatics of SR and is readily viewable in reality. (it doesn't just stop, it never reaches it)

[Proof of One]

you are stopped right now' date=' you are never moving unless you are accelerating (in which case SR can't be applied) therefore in a nutshell you could never go faster than light (your speed doesn't just stop like you said)

 

now more to this nothing can get away from you at a speed greater than c, this is caused by the mathematics of SR and is readily viewable in reality. (it doesn't just stop, it never reaches it)[/quote']SR's mathematics are limited except within narrowly defined parameters. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to SR and all other standard models.

[CPL.Luke]

although it may be out of my ignorance it appears that the incompleteness theorem is about recursive functions, not anything to do with SR.

 

SR's mathematics are limited except within narrowly defined parameters.

 

of course, thats why its called special relativity general relativity includes acelerating bodies but I am wholly unfamiliar with the mathmatics of it.

[Proof of One]

although it may be out of my ignorance it appears that the incompleteness theorem is about recursive functions' date=' not anything to do with SR.

 

of course, thats why its called special relativity general relativity includes acelerating bodies but I am wholly unfamiliar with the mathmatics of it.[/quote']As I understand Nagel & Newman's interpretation, "Gödel's Proof", which Gödel never refuted, it extends to anything that involves mathematics. And, can be reduced to an inability to prove one; particularly, such that it is, system dependent, for any system.

[CPL.Luke]

I honestly can't comment on that bit, however how does this effect SR?

[Proof of One]

I honestly can't comment on that bit, however how does this effect SR?

Your original argument concerning SR is flawed.

 

Among, other reasons, I cited that SR, as with all Standard Models (SMs), is internally inconsistent; and, it does not reconcile with other SMs.

 

SR, also, fundamentally, as with all of theoretical physics, depends upon mathematics to demonstrate its powers. I cited Gödel to indicate that such dependence is murky or evapaporates at fundamental levels.

 

Einstein was well aware of the limitations and irreconcilability of SR, as well as GR, for most of his adult life.

 

I might add that Kurt Gödel was Einstein’s closest, learned confidant for most of Einstein’s last 16 years.

[YT2095]

Please do not make me have to move this thread to Pseudo-Science, it`s being going ever so well up until recently.

 

lose the Pulsoid garbage please!

[Proof of One]

Please do not make me have to move this thread to Pseudo-Science' date=' it`s being going ever so well up until recently.

 

lose the Pulsoid garbage please![/quote']You are the one that must make the decision regarding moving this thread.

 

Exactly, what post or statement are you referring to as "Pulsoid Garbage"?

 

What statement do you consider as Pseudo-Science?

 

I am most concerned that all dialogue conforms to IPSO (Individualism, Philosophic logic, Scientific method, and Observation).

 

It seems that the questions I've asked may lead to a lively discussion that should be of interest to everyone; regardless of where the Thread is moved to.