Encrypted Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 FTL is possible! I think this proves a majority of Einstein's theories wrong! Read this article: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796 Encrypted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 FTL is possible! I think this proves a majority of Einstein's theories wrong! Read this article: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796 Encrypted No it doesn't. it's just an example of quanutm tunneling, a phenoumenum that's been known abou for mnay years. You have to ask what is specifically travelling faster than the speed of light? Is causality violatd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAQ Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 What about the EPR paradox? This has been shown to exist but I have never seen a rationalisation as to why or how . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 What about the EPR paradox? This has been shown to exist but I have never seen a rationalisation as to why or how . EPR paradox does not violate causality or relativty as no information is transmitted faster than c. What it does illustrate is the non-local nature of quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrand Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Actually NASA currently funds a development team that studys the possibilities of faster then light travel. They hypothesize that antimater reactors or worm holes might hold a key in getting us to the other side of the galaxy. Pure speculation at this point, but they seem to agree that it is worth looking into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon. This has also been mentioned in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philbo1965uk Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Silly really travel faster than light is impossible........didnt you learn anything at all at school.....And dont post idiotic quotes Einstein was wrong...your not qualified in anywere near his capasitie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Old Chinese Proverb says: 'Wise man never chastises fool on first post, especially not with bad spelling' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philbo1965uk Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 mmm Old Chinese Proverb says no such thing,your just making that up Severian because ive read them all....anyway ive sent you a pm....."nasty fat little hobbit..eez always watchin us" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickinfinit Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I think from what I know that faster than light velocities are possible just from what science already knows, example a black hole? think about it the theoretical weight of a black hole creates gravity to flux and most likely space and time to fluxuate making the surrounding space warped and wont allow light to escape. When we can explain what a black hole does exactly we will be able to make something go beyond lightspeed either signal or vessel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubJunk Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 when we're actually able to prove that black holes exist even don't get me wrong, i think they do, and scientifically it's very probably, but it's not a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 when we're actually able to prove that black holes exist even don't get me wrong' date=' i think they do, and scientifically it's very probably, but it's not a fact.[/quote'] Are you sure? I thought this was proven 8 years ago (or so). A black hole resides at the center of our galaxy. I will have to double check to make sure it is fact, I knew it was only theory for awhile but I am pretty sure we have located a few. EDIT: I cannot seem to find anything stating that it is a fact. I found alot of contradicting stuff. Anyone know forsure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARDBATTY Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I think this experiment gives the same illusion as the light through ceasium gas one. Its just a phase shift where the leading edge of the wave becomes the peak and it looks like the peak got to the end sooner than it should. I'm probably wrong and this is just an idea but I thought it might help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mak10 Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 what about tachyons? heard their slowest speed, itself, is the speed of light!! so they do violate causality and special relativity, don't they? just curious... -mak10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 what about tachyons? heard their slowest speed' date=' itself, is the speed of light!! so they do violate causality and special relativity, don't they? just curious... -mak10[/quote'] Show me one. And do a search on tachyon on the boards; this has been discussed before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Are you sure? I thought this was proven 8 years ago (or so). A black hole resides at the center of our galaxy. I will have to double check to make sure it is fact' date=' I knew it was only theory for awhile but I am pretty sure we have located a few. EDIT: I cannot seem to find anything stating that it is a fact. I found alot of contradicting stuff. Anyone know forsure?[/quote'] several supermassive black holes have been found. there is one in the center of every galaxy(within testing range) that they checked. the mass of the black hole is exactly .5% of the mass of the rest of the galaxy. other blackholes have been found also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 "Actually NASA currently funds a development team that studys the possibilities of faster then light travel. They hypothesize that antimater reactors or worm holes might hold a key in getting us to the other side of the galaxy. Pure speculation at this point, but they seem to agree that it is worth looking into." I heard that a wormhole is quite possible, but they can't make it big enough for even an atom to fit through. However, if we're thinking about FTL communication in the aspect of sending photons through the hole, there's a problem with the photon's wavelength and charge, if my memory serves. So, that sort of wormhole would be quite useless. :< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyeokpeng Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Another possibility of a system faster than the speed of light. We know from our observable radius of the universe to be defined by the Hubble's radius. Hubble radius = speed of light c/Hubble's constant. That means that if there are galaxies further away than the Hubble's radius (should be since we know from the Big Bang theory that our universe is still expanding), the galaxies should be travelling away from us faster than the speed of light. How do we explain this phenomenon? Does this violate Einstein's postulate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonstar57 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Actually NASA currently funds a development team that studys the possibilities of faster then light travel. They hypothesize that antimater reactors or worm holes might hold a key in getting us to the other side of the galaxy. Pure speculation at this point, but they seem to agree that it is worth looking into. because for a space program to get to another star we're going to need travel faster than we can now. even if we just get used to the idea of traveling for 100 years we still need to go faster than we can now. nasa looks into it because no matter how far fetched it is because it's almost the only thing that could make an inter stellar mission possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarnaxus Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Another possibility of a system faster than the speed of light. We know from our observable radius of the universe to be defined by the Hubble's radius. Hubble radius = speed of light c/Hubble's constant. That means that if there are galaxies further away than the Hubble's radius (should be since we know from the Big Bang theory that our universe is still expanding), the galaxies should be travelling away from us faster than the speed of light. How do we explain this phenomenon? Does this violate Einstein's postulate? I believe that the space between us and those galaxies is expanding faster the speed of light, which is ok because space does not hold information. Also, since these galaxies gave off photons far before they started travelling away so fast, we still may be able to see them. It does not violate Einstein's postulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonstar57 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) I believe that the space between us and those galaxies is expanding faster the speed of light, which is ok because space does not hold information. Also, since these galaxies gave off photons far before they started travelling away so fast, we still may be able to see them. It does not violate Einstein's postulate. then by that logic if we were to travel 300kms we would be able to see another 300kms as we would be closer to the object (as insignificant as 300kms are in stellar terms)? and if this were true why does NASA not attempt to place A telescope in orbit of one of the outer planets to achieve extended range? Edited May 27, 2011 by dragonstar57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin111 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Silly really travel faster than light is impossible........didnt you learn anything at all at school.....And dont post idiotic quotes Einstein was wrong...your not qualified in anywere near his capasitie i highly disagree anything is possible 100 200 years did w thin we would have any of this technogly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonstar57 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think the problem is that people are trying to understand relativity in a a general way and unfortunately most modern physics is about as counter intuitive as it gets. don't ask questions just believe Einstein's squiggles they work as long as not sounding like BS isn't it's goal i think the whole idea of FTL being imposable is going to far. there isn't much that scientists say that certainly and i think there should be an admission that there may possibly be an error somewhere that we are as of yet unaware of if for nothing more than to preserve intellectual credibility after all i thought I heard somewhere on this site that science does not produce facts only theories that are almost certainly correct? how about "FTL is imposable by today's understanding of physics" -that sounds a little more optimistic doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 i think the whole idea of FTL being imposable is going to far. True, if you count using shortcuts through space. But if you're talking about an object with mass accelerating past the speed of light, then I wouldn't count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) I believe that the space between us and those galaxies is expanding faster the speed of light, which is ok because space does not hold information. Also, since these galaxies gave off photons far before they started travelling away so fast, we still may be able to see them. It does not violate Einstein's postulate. Special relativity says that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. That is, anything with mass must travel through space at speeds less than the speed of light. And particles with zero mass must travel through space at the speed of light. But general relativity says that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and it does. And per Quantum Electrodynamics(QED), photons do not travel at only the speed of light through space. Per Richard Feynman's QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter,(p. 89): "There is a (probability) amplitude for light to go faster or slower than the conventional speed of light. However, these amplitudes are very small and tend to cancel out over large distances." Edited June 7, 2011 by I ME 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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