Can something move faster than light?

[madazn89]

thanks

[sergey500]

EWright

 

Physics, well this area of physics at least, is all (mostly) theoritical. I agree that i should've provided some basis for my unusual assumption, but new ideas are all ways what push science to the limits.

 

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -Einstein

[CraigD]

Why don't you consider the possibility that photons are connected all the way back to the source of light and actually are particles?

Like most people who think about such things, I have considered this possibility, and for a fairly long time (up to age 14 or so), considered it to be true, because it was a sensible model that agreed well with my experience with slower, macroscopic objects.

 

I was started and puzzled upon hearing and reading of contradictory evidence such as the Michelson Morley experiment, which should have clearly confirmed a simple particle model of light if that were the case, but does not. I was likewise startled and puzzled by the double-slit experiment, done at such low illumination and long exposure times that only a single photon is present at any time, which shows the dual wave-particle nature of light, so much so that I didn’t really believe it until I’d done the experiment myself, years later.

 

Although I’ve learned enough practical technique that I’ve been able to build and use interferometers for such things as aligning long-base optical arrays, the MM experiment is unfortunately beyond my ability to duplicate, forcing me to accept the data of professionals like M & M. Science is wonderful when you can do it yourself, but floating massive optics benches on pools of mercury and similar techniques is more than a hobbyist like I can manage.

In his book, The Final Theory, McCutcheon proposes that advanced civilizations would not communicate with radio waves, rather they would communicate with light using the contiguous property mentioned in the quote - effectively having faster than light communications.

Visible light and radio are both due to photons of various frequencies. Our civilization use light of many frequencies for various purpose, so I imagine advanced civilizations would, also. I’m unaware of any claim for a qualitative difference in behavior of photons of different frequency of the kind described here.

Incidentally, he doesn't think there is a speed of light limitation on movement either.

I’ve read only the free chapter of McCutcheon’s “The Final Theory”. I had serious disagreement with both his proposals, and his claims for the need of a rejection of classical and modern Physics. I believe he is arguing from the position that, because conventional Physics is mathematically difficult to learn, it must be wrong, an argument I don’t support. These disagreements are minor, however, compared to my frustration at his failure to propose experiments that support or contradict his claims compared to those of conventional theory.

 

I proposed an experiment to confirm or contradict one of McCutcheon in 6/23/05 post #102 in 797. I’d be more receptive to McCutheon’s body of work if it proposed this or similar experiments, and even more receptive if such experiments were actually conducted. Until then, I can’t take much of what he or his supporters “think”, no matter how convincingly they argue. Science that can’t be tested isn’t Science.

[CraigD]

how fast does electrons move?

Electrons move at 99.9999992% of the speed of light according to this page:

 

http://education.jlab.org/qa/electron_01.html

That’s a fast moving electron!

 

Electrons can – and usually do - move considerably slower than this. In an unexcited hydrogen atom, the single electron is moving at about 1% the speed of light. A simple explanation is hard to provide, but here’s some math, and here’s a result without the supporting math (search for the word “Bohr” in either to reach the pertinent section).

 

Getting a free electron to move very slow is as hard or harder than getting it to move very fast, but, in principle, using such gadgets as laser and “evaporative” refrigerators, one can slow them to practically a standstill. (These techniques prove very useful when you’re trying to slow positrons - electrons of antimatter – enough to combine them with anti-protons to make atoms of antimatter)

 

So, an electron, like any other particle with mass, can move at any speed from 0 to slightly less than the speed of light.

 

It’s important not to confuse the speed that electrons travel with the speed that a signal involving them – such as a data signal in a copper wire – can travel (which is usually around 50% the speed of light, give or take 20%). IMHO, this little page does a nice job of explaining the difference, though it implies that a signal in a wire travels at exactly the speed of light, which is demonstrably false, so beware.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tormod:

How does this work over, say, long distances? If for a second we assume that it is correct, how would such a signal cope with being blocked by, for example, a planet? If I were on the "wrong" side of Mars, could I still communicate with someone on Earth?

Well, assuming we could actually make it work, we could put a satelite in orbit which would have continuous line-of-sight with the earth (assuming we needed line-of-sight). Send a signal to the satelite and tell it to send the message to a satelite in orbit around earth. Then forward it down to the planet.

CraigD:

I believe he is arguing from the position that, because conventional Physics is mathematically difficult to learn, it must be wrong, an argument I don’t support.

I don't agree with this. I think his point is that if the mathematics is based upon false premises, then it would follow that it is not correct.

 

I totally agree with you about the experimentation.

 

But, even experiments which show that something is amiss have a strong history of being ignored, especially if they tend to show that our assumptions are incorrect (re: experiments have been painstakingly carried out that appear to show that the speed of light is slowing down. These have been ignored and apparently suppressed.)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD, when I say use light, I mean the property of light you mentioned yourself a few posts ago when you talked about its 'envelope'. We need to use that effect to get faster than light communications. I'd think that if we can cause it to happen, then we can find a way to use it.

[Enescu]

In theory it is posible.

Ther is a atom that travels faster then c in theory in practice they havent found it ( il come back with a name )

[CraigD]

CraigD, when I say use light, I mean the property of light you mentioned yourself a few posts ago when you talked about its 'envelope'. We need to use that effect to get faster than light communications. I'd think that if we can cause it to happen, then we can find a way to use it.

Every I have read from researchers into the “envelope manipulation” we’re discussing seems to take pains to explain how such manipulation can’t be used for FTL communication.

 

A common analogy given to explain this limitation is: imagine that we create an array of bright lights connecting 2 town. Each light has a precise timer, synchronized with all of the other lights’. The timers can be programmed to light each light in turn so that, when observed from high above, the array appears to be sending a signal from one town to the other faster than the speed of light. This is, however, an illusion – the phenomenon is due to the programming of the timers, which was done long beforehand, and put into place using much slower than the speed of light means (eg: trucks used to deploy the lights and timers). This scheme can never be used to transmit a useful FTL signal (eg: an single pulse alarm, a Morse code message)

 

Similarly, wave envelope manipulations can’t send signals faster than the speed of light.

 

Many science fiction writers have speculated that it might be possible to exploit properties such as quantum entanglement to create a device capable of communicating over any distance instantly. This is commonly called an “ansible”. Our current understanding of Physics leads us to believe this is not possible, but this Physics is sufficiently confusing and counterintuitive for such speculation to seem somewhat plausible.

 

Personally, I don’t think FTL communication is possible. I suspect that the fundamental, underlying nature of space-time imposes a maximum signal velocity, most likely the speed of light, and would be imperiled if such a limitation did not exist. This is just wild, if not completely uninformed, speculation on my part, and may prove completely wrong.

[Pyrotex]

Okay, this question pops up now and then so let's have a new poll. What do you think - can anything move faster than light?

 

I answered "I don't know", speaking from the viewpoint of my Physics background. I DO KNOW that we can never <<observe>> anything traveling faster than c, relative to our frame of reference.

 

So-called 'tachyons' can ONLY move faster than light, but they are, so far, only an exotic solution to relativistic equations, dependent on having an <imaginary> mass, that is, [Electron Volts times the square root of minus one]. This is probably a meaningless chimera.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD:

Personally, I don’t think FTL communication is possible. I suspect that the fundamental, underlying nature of space-time imposes a maximum signal velocity, most likely the speed of light, and would be imperiled if such a limitation did not exist.

I suppose that makes sense but one thing bothers me. Someone posted a link to a site that contained information about experiments that have been ongoing that show the speed of light is changing. If that can change, then I don't think we understand what's going on.

We don't know why light travels at the speed it does. It just does. If it's slowing down, why is it slowing down?

[Pyrotex]

I found the question ambiguous too.

First, I assumed it implied "... faster than light in a vacuum".

 

Aha! I just remembered Bremsstrahlung, (from the German bremsen to brake and Strahlung radiation); it is electromagnetic radiation produced by the acceleration of a charged particle. it is frequently used (even when not speaking German) in the more literal and narrow sense of radiation from electrons stopping in matter. (Wikipedia)

 

One interpretation of Bremsstrahlung is that it's a reaction caused by an electron traveling near the speed of light in a vacuum, entering a material where the refractive index is much higher than 1.0, and therefore the LOCAL speed of light is greater than the electron's velocity.

 

The net affect is that the electron slams on the subatomic brakes by expelling a burst of electromagnetic radiation, thereby getting itself under the local speed limit. One problem with this interp is that this process takes non-zero time; therefore for some finite teensy period, the electron is going FTL (locally).

[Gillieee]

I thought I had read several articles in various journals that indicated FTL communications would be possible and not in conflict with GR or SR. This was through the use of bound particles - entangled particles. That is to say that when an "entangled" subatomic particle was manipulated, it's entangled counterpart would be manipulated as well no matter how far apart the two particles were. Thus, in answer to your question - "Information" seemingly can travel faster then light. Here's one of the sights that discusses the issue. http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2003/07/06.html.

 

Now, whether we are able to actually do this yet or not is a whole new thread.

[Pyrotex]

I was also thinking about the question on my way home. Doesn't E=mc^2 imply that if something has energy is has mass? Well, light is energy, which implies that it has a mass even if it is a miniscule amount, right? My insight into the equation is very limited so if one could clear up this misconception, i would appreciate it. O and thanx tormod.

 

In a manner of speaking, it does imply that.

On the surface, E=mc^2 simply gives a conversion: it states that a particular mass is the equivalent of a certain amount of energy. That is why in particle physics, the "mass" of particles is measured in "electron volts" (EV) which is actually a measure of energy.

 

On the other hand. If you have a massless photon of a certain energy, then that energy can be considered to be equivalent to a certain mass. For a photon, which can never be at rest, this "mass" must be considered to be a little different than, say, an electron with the same "rest-mass".

[Carlos]

As have been proved in particle acceleratos, nothing can accelerate to C in Vaccuum.

[Drip Curl Magic]

I think it's definately possible... but I have no evidence or reasoning behind that. so, I voted "i don't know"

[Pyrotex]

I think it's definately possible... but I have no evidence or reasoning behind that. so, I voted "i don't know"

 

Being a reader of science fiction since I was twelve, and an unpublished writer of same for the last ten years, I have encountered and dreamed up many ways of accomplishing FTL. I believe it is the favorite hobby of SF fans, next to going to SF conventions.

 

My favorite way of going FTL is a trick of my devising. The power source for the ship is a meson fusor -- it fuses hydrogen into helium using Mesons as a catalyst. This much is scientifically plausible. In my version, the creation of so many mesons 'lifts' the ship 'above' the 3-D Einsteinian space-time. The ship rests on a 'cushion' of mesons. Situated thusly, the ship can truly be said to 'not exist' in ordinary space, and is therefore not subject to its laws. The ship, balanced on its Meson Skis can travel at unlimited velocity.

 

I have a patent pending on this idea, so nobody better steal it!! :cup:

[Queso]

Possibly not in this universe,

 

If light exists in other universes it's probably slower,

and faster in some.

 

Would be weird if there was a multiuniversal constant though...

 

Plus, since we're the observer

maybe we,

in another universe

would perceive it

AHHH F&*#$ IT