swansont Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 As far as I can tell, the material was only submitted to ArXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681 and the there is a rebuttal to it there as well http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.2736 (the latter is a pdf file; the former links to an abstract where you can get the pdf file) Even though this isn't anomalous dispersion, it is pulse reshaping (so I can say HA! and note that I blogged about this earlier today — before these posts). Basically, the measurements were done by timing the pulse peaks, and not accounting for the reshaping that happened when the pulse was attenuated, so that the peak occurs closer to the front in one of the wave trains.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Found it on New Scientist's website, but it's subscription only. They do have an arXiv link though: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681 edit: blast you, swansont.
Graviphoton Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Some more web reference for source material that is related Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAs with the Alcubierre drive, travelers moving through the wormhole would not locally move faster than light which travels through the wormhole alongside ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light_travel - 100k - Cached - Similar pages Take a leap into hyperspace - fundamentals - 05 January 2006 - New ...5 Jan 2006 ... New Scientist Space uncovers the curious tale of the rocket driven ... the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. ... space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages Faster than the speed of light - 01 April 1995 - New ScientistSo if light can travel faster than light, shouldn't it be possible to send .... The angles of incidence for both photon tracks are arranged to be the same, ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619714.200-faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html - 64k - Cached - Similar pages Me: The new physics provides a world not permitted by Einstein, even though his theories allowed them. Einstein personally believed that nothing could travel faster than ''c'', and since we know through quantum actions to move at superluminal speeds, like a photon, then certain information has been proven to move faster than light.
Klaynos Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Have you read and understood any of these references or are you copying from a search engine? Because they're all pretty much variations on what swansont has already explained.
Graviphoton Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Yes, i know that they cite these things, but some of the information in these references needs to be looked at the point, where photons can and do travel faster than light. This is an incontravertible, irrefutable proof we have observed in the lab.
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 This is an incontravertible, irrefutable proof we have observed in the lab. Cite the peer reviewed article then.... Because I'm sure I've never seen one on this. Also who is "we"?
Graviphoton Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 There you go It Is All Relative! Speed Of Light Beaten |Sky News|World News16 Aug 2007 ... Sky News - Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel ... Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible? ... news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1280079,00.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) Sky news is NOT a good reference, and if you'd care to read swansonts replies to where you quoted that reference before, both him and Cap'n found the article in newsci and then the arxiv article that was based on and explained how it WASN'T faster than light, and that it was just the popular media getting things wrong! Swansont also bloged on a similar subject earlier today. Here's a link to the final post on the matter, the rest is discussed in the thread... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=414712#post414712 OH **** that's this thread, have you actually read any of the replies made here at all? Edited June 11, 2008 by Klaynos added link -and comment
Graviphoton Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 If you mean, it doesn't travel faster than light, because it doesn't move through spacetime, it actually does, but a subspacetime channel, in which must be within the fabric of spacetime itself.
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 If you mean, it doesn't travel faster than light, because it doesn't move through spacetime, it actually does, but a subspacetime channel, in which must be within the fabric of spacetime itself. Nope that's not what I or anyone else here means, read swansonts replies above.
Graviphoton Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Or unless, the spacetime fabric itself was dragging the photon... and that would mean it didn't exceed ''c''. So many options open, the debates will continue.
iNow Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Graviphoton, your reference said nothing of the sort. Are you just making this up, or do you have a citation?
ydoaPs Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Or unless, the spacetime fabric itself was dragging the photon... and that would mean it didn't exceed ''c''. So many options open, the debates will continue. Oh? Cite peer review.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 If you mean, it doesn't travel faster than light, because it doesn't move through spacetime, it actually does, but a subspacetime channel, in which must be within the fabric of spacetime itself. You don't seem to understand the paper swansont linked to earlier.
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Or unless, the spacetime fabric itself was dragging the photon... and that would mean it didn't exceed ''c''. So many options open, the debates will continue. Have you read and understood this: As far as I can tell, the material was only submitted to ArXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681 and the there is a rebuttal to it there as well http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.2736 (the latter is a pdf file; the former links to an abstract where you can get the pdf file) Even though this isn't anomalous dispersion, it is pulse reshaping (so I can say HA! and note that I blogged about this earlier today — before these posts). Basically, the measurements were done by timing the pulse peaks, and not accounting for the reshaping that happened when the pulse was attenuated, so that the peak occurs closer to the front in one of the wave trains.
Graviphoton Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 And i say, in Dr Hawking's book, ''Baby Universes and Black Holes, among other essays, '' he states that we can make photons travel faster than light, using the Uncertainty Principle. It, is, again, incontravertible.
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 OK, that doesn't have any relevance here, and that's not a decent citation.
iNow Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 And i say, in Dr Hawking's book, ''Baby Universes and Black Holes, among other essays, '' he states that we can make photons travel faster than light, using the Uncertainty Principle. It, is, again, incontravertible. I'll take that to mean, "No, I don't understand that post."
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Not understanding something is nothing to be ashamed of. Most of biology and chemistry is not understood by me, but if I wanted to know I'd ask, and I wouldn't (and don't) post with authority on the subjects.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now