Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: 'We have broken speed of light'

  1. #1 'We have broken speed of light' 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    This is really cool and way over my head scientifically.

    'We have broken speed of light'

    By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent

    A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

    According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.

    However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cispeed116.xml


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    It may be right, chances are that its not . Time will tell.

    Would be a momentous discovery.


    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    It may be right, chances are that its not . Time will tell.

    Would be a momentous discovery.
    well when I told my son about it he wasn't surprised. Related to some quantum stuff they have been doing with computers. A poster on another forum seemed to think it would confirm recent research in quantum physics.

    Like I said, all over my head. I do think we are due for a big break through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    It may be right, chances are that its not . Time will tell.

    Would be a momentous discovery.
    well when I told my son about it he wasn't surprised. Related to some quantum stuff they have been doing with computers. A poster on another forum seemed to think it would confirm recent research in quantum physics.

    Like I said, all over my head. I do think we are due for a big break through.
    I doubt it. It seem just to be that they were researching quantum tunneling and claim to have got a happy accident. Quantum computing or any other overt quantum research dont involve violating special relativity.


    Keep in mind that out-of-the-blue press claims are common and the least stringent place a scientist can get exposure.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    has anyone confirmed that the theory of relativity still holds at the quantum level ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Only about a century ago.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Basically, what is being suggested is that the two prisms represent the same space, according to the quantum. I have a theory (www download, follow link below), that uses such an "axiom" in it's construction of a theory of space-time. Such a feature people spend billions in researching; well, it's cheaper to just read about it........and more.

    As I said (in the "general discussion" post (looking for theoretical physicist....will pay)), those who read and understand this theory have full permission to undertake whatever research venture they wish, "patents included".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Nikolas_Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    33
    SreamS, I think you just spammed.
    Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
    --Henry Louis Mencken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    well well well. LOOK what we have here. first dark matter (a topic I voiced my opinions of previously), now relativity. Looks like William better find some other topics to be irrationally hostile about 8)

    Still, I'm skeptical. Research time!

    I found some better news articles.

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._c_000719.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    OK.

    Can someone please tell me why suggesting an article that can explain in theory recent research as "spamming"?

    Why, oh why, are we allowed to use the "www" button associated to each post?

    Stop being a troll....mr miller.

    I was cautioned by a moderator for making snide remarks, who pointed out that I should have made it clear to people I had a theory available on download to better explain my posts..........and now you are suggesting I am spamming?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    William better find some other topics to be irrationally hostile about l
    William?? Are you referring to this guy?:
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University argued that several specific problems exist with the experiment,

    Its funny how this article is dated july2000 yet I have been taught relativity in
    one of England's foremost Physics departments 2005, 2006, 2007.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Nikolas_Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    OK.

    Can someone please tell me why suggesting an article that can explain in theory recent research as "spamming"?

    Why, oh why, are we allowed to use the "www" button associated to each post?

    Stop being a troll....mr miller.

    I was cautioned by a moderator for making snide remarks, who pointed out that I should have made it clear to people I had a theory available on download to better explain my posts..........and now you are suggesting I am spamming?
    i guess i misunderstood. I just went to the www and it gave me that "spammer" aura.
    i suppose thats a problem of aesthetics and accusation.
    my apologies streams
    Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
    --Henry Louis Mencken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    The site is getting an upgrade. It is just a provisional site. The theory on it is the real emphasis. It's not the only problem I have found.

    I must admit though,I receive this aura also from people that I am challenging physics, when in fact I concur with all the theories associated to all the findings physics holds. I am merely presenting the case that another set of axioms for time can be used to explain space-time. I am not challenging any of physics' strong held theories.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    William better find some other topics to be irrationally hostile about l
    William?? Are you referring to this guy?:
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University argued that several specific problems exist with the experiment,

    Its funny how this article is dated july2000 yet I have been taught relativity in
    one of England's foremost Physics departments 2005, 2006, 2007.
    It's dated july 2007. The first one anyway. I'm not certain in regards to the second one, I think it's a typographical error, since most other sources date from this year (and that month).

    Also, I meant william the FORUM MEMBER.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Scientists Claim To Break Speed-of-Light Barrier
    By Maia Weinstock
    Staff Writer
    posted: 06:06 pm ET
    19 July 2000
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Scientists Claim To Break Speed-of-Light Barrier
    By Maia Weinstock
    Staff Writer
    posted: 06:06 pm ET
    19 July 2000
    You need to read. I think it's a typographical error. Since other news sources all date from around that same month but 07.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Scientists Claim To Break Speed-of-Light Barrier
    By Maia Weinstock
    Staff Writer
    posted: 06:06 pm ET
    19 July 2000
    You need to read. I think it's a typographical error. Since other news sources all date from around that same month but 07.
    Its not an earlier claim of the same ilk then??


    What am I supposed to be psychic? As well as to jump onto every non peer reviewed band wagon that crops up in the media and from the uneducated members of an internet forum? :wink:
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    One of my non scientific friends on another forum seemed to think because this dealt with quantum tunneling it wasn't necessarily breaking the light speed barrier. He compared it to someone going over the mountain at 75 mph while someone going through the mountain at 45 might get there earlier it didn't mean they broke the 75 mph speed limit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    One of my non scientific friends on another forum seemed to think because this dealt with quantum tunneling it wasn't necessarily breaking the light speed barrier. He compared it to someone going over the mountain at 75 mph while someone going through the mountain at 45 might get there earlier it didn't mean they broke the 75 mph speed limit.
    Yes indeed! indeed! Thats precisely why Im surprised by the violation of relativity claim in the first place.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Yes indeed! indeed! Thats precisely why Im surprised by the violation of relativity claim in the first place.
    Well the reporter, and even the scientists really, have to make it interesting for the general public. We went slowly through a tunnel and got there faster is uninteresting. We went faster than 75 mph gets healine attention. How many times have you read a headline then read the article and wondered how they got the headline in the first place? Ok I know this has some of it in the article too.

    On a side note, I think this happens with global warming science a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Excuse me? a medium shortcut rather then underdimensional quickpath?
    Why don't you derive a roomtime shortcut of that size? A line on a linear path in N-dimensional space that is shorter, rather then underdimensional and faster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Its not an earlier claim of the same ilk then??
    As far as I know, no it isn't. But if it is I would like to know what came as a result of the theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    No disrespect, but has anyone told you that you use the word "theory" far too readily for a scientist/prospective scientist.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Guest
    none taken. Actually I've gotten into the bad habit of just using theory instead of hypothesis when so deserves. Might I ask why you're obsessively picking at minute mistakes in semantics? trying to make yourself seem more credible?

    As for scientist, I don't plan on being one in regards to Quantum Physics. Psychology, philosophy, and similar cognitive sciences are more my goal. But later in life perhaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    none taken. Actually I've gotten into the bad habit of just using theory instead of hypothesis when so deserves. Might I ask why you're obsessively picking at minute mistakes in semantics? trying to make yourself seem more credible?

    As for scientist, I don't plan on being one in regards to Quantum Physics. Psychology, philosophy, and similar cognitive sciences are more my goal. But later in life perhaps.
    I dont know, I think Physicists just hate upon the frivolous layman's use of the word "theory". It makes for all kinds of confusion and false credibility when its misapplied to describe a piece of science.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    Ah I see. Understandable, I hate it when people throw around psychology/psychiatry terms without understanding what they mean (My father, for example, keeps saying I study child psychology when in reality I do not).

    anyway, this is off topic so...^^;
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    anyway, this is off topic so...^^;
    totally acceptable on threads I start, at least as far as I'm concerned anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02

    totally acceptable on threads I start, at least as far as I'm concerned anyway.
    Well, lightspeed may or may not vary localy because of wormholes, isn't this a more global experiment? Admit it: Not wormhole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Wasn't that just the wave front and not the entire wave? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5
    I seem to recall the story that explained that the wave front reached the detector faster than the time it took the entire wave to travel the distance; but that the wave front isn't divisible from the wave as a whole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •