Physicists extend special relativity beyond the speed of light

Oct 08, 2012 by Lisa Zyga report
This 3D graph shows the relationship between three different velocities: v, u and U, where v is the velocity of a second observer measured by a first observer, u is the velocity of a moving particle measured by the second observer, and U is the relative velocity of the particle to the first observer. Image credit: Hill and Cox. ©2012 The Royal Society

(Phys.org)—Possibly the most well-known consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, c. According to the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, an object traveling at c would have infinite mass and would require an infinite amount of energy to reach c. Over the past 100 years, numerous experimental tests of special relativity have confirmed its validity.

Now two – James Hill and Barry Cox from the University of Adelaide in Australia – have shown that 's can be logically extended to allow for faster-than-light motion. They're quick to point out that their finding in no way contradicts the original theory, but simply provides a new aspect of it.

"As far as I'm aware, this is the first natural, logical extension of Einstein's own theories," Hill said. "We certainly haven't superseded Einstein. The two theories are entirely consistent."

There have been other suggestions of objects exceeding c – tachyons, for example – but these superluminal motions require complicated mathematics such as imaginary masses and complicated physics to ensure real, meaningful outcomes. In contrast, Hill and Cox's proposal arises from the same as Einstein's theory.

As the physicists explain in their paper, the Lorentz transformation is traditionally used in special relativity to reconcile different observations made by different observers in different inertial reference frames, and it applies to relative velocities less than the of light. Here the scientists have proposed two new transformations that complement the Lorentz transformation to explain different observations, and both new transformations apply to relative velocities greater than the speed of light. The physicists aren't sure which of the two new transformations is the correct one, and they don't ignore the possibility that both transformations may be equally plausible if for some reason Einstein's theory bifurcates at c into two variations.

The two new transformations apply for relative velocities between c and infinity (not including either). Like Einstein's with the Lorentz transformation, the proposed extensions break down at exactly c, resulting in a singularity. Passing through the speed of light is not defined.

As a result, the singularity forms a kind of boundary so that all inertial reference frames fall into one of two sets relative to some rest frame: those with a relative velocity less than c, and those with a relative velocity greater than c. The physicists explain that there is no objective way to identify whether a particular reference frame is in the subluminal or in the superluminal set of frames other than by reference to some arbitrary rest frame.

Although the theories cannot answer what happens at c, the scientists suspect that an object crossing the "light barrier" may have some very interesting consequences. They compare our current understanding of this boundary to that of an object crossing the sound barrier for the first time, an event that was highly disputed before it was achieved in 1947.

"People wondered what would happen," Hill said. "Were we all going to disintegrate? Would the plane fall apart? It turns out passing through the speed of sound led to a big bang. I suspect going through the speed of light will be more interesting. I have a feeling the world will change in some dramatic way as we move through the speed of . All sorts of things could happen. Time and space could interchange."

He thinks that an experimental test of such a feat is not out of reach.

"I think it's only a matter of time," he said. "Human ingenuity being what it is, it's going to happen, but maybe it will involve a transportation mechanism entirely different from anything presently envisaged."

Explore further: Neutrino trident production may offer powerful probe of new physics

More information: James M. Hill and Barry J. Cox. "Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light." Proc. R. Soc. A. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2012.0340

Abstract
We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less than the speed of light. The new transformations arise from the same mathematical framework as the Lorentz transformation, displaying singular behaviour when the relative velocity approaches the speed of light and generating the same addition law for velocities, but, most importantly, do not involve the need to introduce imaginary masses or complicated physics to provide well-defined expressions. Making use of the dependence on relative velocity of the Lorentz transformation, the paper provides an elementary derivation of the new transformations between inertial frames for relative velocities v in excess of the speed of light c, and further we suggest two possible criteria from which one might infer one set of transformations as physically more likely than the other. If the energy–momentum equations are to be invariant under the new transformations, then the mass and energy are given, respectively, by the formulae m=(pinf/c)[(v/c)2 - 1]-1/2 and e=mc2 where pinf denotes the limiting momentum for infinite relative velocity. If, however, the requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and energy equations, and an example having finite non-zero mass in the limit of infinite relative velocity is given. In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion.

University of Adelaide press release

Related Stories

Special relativity from first principles

Dec 19, 2011

Einstein’s explanation of special relativity, delivered in his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies focuses on demolishing the idea of ‘absolute rest’, exemplified by the theoreti ...

Doubly special relativity

Mar 21, 2011

General relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, gives us a useful basis for mathematically modeling the large scale universe – while quantum theory gives us a useful basis for modeling sub-atomic ...

3 Questions: Faster than light?

Sep 26, 2011

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from th ...

Recommended for you

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

9 minutes ago

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron ...

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

High Flux Isotope Reactor named Nuclear Historic Landmark

Sep 12, 2014

The High Flux Isotope Reactor, or HFIR, now in its 48th year of providing neutrons for research and isotope production at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has been designated a Nuclear ...

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hemitite
4.6 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2012
There was a young lady named Bright,
Who could travel quite faster than light.
She went off one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.

-Traditional
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2012
There was a young lady named Bright,
Who could travel quite faster than light.
She went off one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.

-Traditional


One of my favorites. Thanks for the memory.
LariAnn
3.6 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2012
Well,there it is. All technology starts with mathematics - the atomic bomb got it's start from the mathematics in Einstein's theory. So FTL drives are a light at the end of the tunnel at this point. We will get there if we don't destroy ourselves first.
Levi the Oracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2012
This may sound crazy, but if you can extrapolate a relative point of view moving faster than the speed of light, then you can also extrapolate anti mass. It would probably be a lot like mass, except exactly the opposite. Instead of gravity, anti mass would have anti-gravity. That's not to say that anti mass would float, but it would repel other anti mass. I would be willing to bet that the expansion of the universe is caused by that theoretical dark matter stuff, which I postulate is anti mass. If you want to go faster than the speed of light, then you would need to build a ship out of dark matter anti mass. Star Trek may have had it right all along...
El_Nose
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
@levi

negative mass has been proposed for years as a way to accelerate an object to FTL speeds... a very old idea. unfortunately creation of such exotic matter is currently beyond the ability of man.
Levi the Oracle
1 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2012
I wonder if dark matter is travelling faster than the speed of light. It might give off an increasing amount of energy as its speed is reduced to approach the speed of light. You could probably build a ship of matter, and an engine of anti matter where you could slow the anti matter and use the energy to accelerate matter.
waffel
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2012
@Levi Does mass repel other mass? Antimatter is just a type of matter with the opposite charge of normal matter eg. positive electrons and negative protons, the neutrons stay the same, and it still has weight as does normal matter. Therefore antimatter has a normal gravitational pull (gravity doesn't care about positive or negative charge only mass).

Antimatter can't coexist with normal matter at the same space so when normal matter and antimatter collide the collision produces photons (electromagnetic radiation) and heat. The thing to note here is that the energy conversion from matter to energy is 100% and that is what makes antimatter veeery interesting.

Theoretically with a modern designed antimatter engine, you would be able to go see mars and return again in about a week or so.

Ps. The engine is "quite easy" (compared to a warp drive) to make, it just takes an antimatter particle gauss-canon and a plate of normal matter.
El_Nose
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2012
@waffel

'negative mass' is what levi is referring to... imaginary mass is also a form of potential exotic matter.

anti matter is known and though not completely understood you have summed up the general knowledge on the subject.

And an I believe NASA has stated that an anti matter engine would get you to Mars in 45 days. We currently need 180 days to get to Mars.

A 'warp engine' or 'Poincare drive warp' would require a source of negative mass to warp space -- or create a stable wormhole one needs a source of imaginary mass
winthrom
3.2 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2012
The article says the equations show: "Like Einstein's special relativity with the Lorentz transformation, the proposed extensions break down at exactly c, resulting in a singularity." thus we have a discontinuity to surmount. The immense gravity of a black hole's mass causes time to slow towards zero and ends in a singularity. Einstein said that a mass approaching light speed also increases towards infinite mass. These similarities need to be looked at.
Noumenal
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 08, 2012
"one needs a source of imaginary mass" I just imagined some, I'll imagine some for you if you'd like!
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2012
if the requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and energy equations
Niice, ... but is it the special relativity after then? Every theory is defined with its postulate set and the special relativity is just based on light speed invariance postulate. Of course, if we remove such an requirement, then we can combine the speeds additively and get whatever speed we want.
hemitite
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2012
"I have a feeling the world will change in some dramatic way as we move through the speed of light. All sorts of things could happen. Time and space could interchange."

So if time became space-like, and space became time-like, then you could move around in time, but would be stuck going some unalterable direction and speed through space. Temporal momentum?
hudres
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
Miguel Alcubierre, currently Director of the Nuclear Sciences Institute at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), postulated superluminal flight over 15 years ago. His theory is consistent with both Einstein and Maxwell. The advent of negative index of refraction materials opens the door to Alcubierre's concept. While the new work is interesting, it is not the first potentially viable approach to this problem.
Tachyon8491
2.6 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2012
"There was a young man named Fisk / Whose fencing was exceedingly brisk / So swift was his action / that the Firtzgerald Contraction / Reduced his rapier to a disk." — James Coleman
Silverhill
4.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2012
There was a young lady named Bright...
Another one I saw somewhere, on the relativistic theme:

There once was a fencer named Fisk
Whose stroke was incredibly brisk.
So fast was his action,
The Lorentz contraction
Reduced his rapier to a disk.
docbillnet
4.1 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2012
I hate abstracts like this. Every physicists and his brother knows Special Relativity does not prohibit faster than light. It only prohibits mass moving slower than the speed of light to being accelerated linearly faster than the speed of light. I'm sure the article itself has some very interesting, unique material, but this description of the article has glossed over it entirely, and instead was written to address grade school children.
docbillnet
1.2 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2012
One of the more interesting thing to note, light can travel at the speed of light only because m=0. Upon observing this, one might conclude that light can never move slower. But as anyone who has observed light passing through glass or water and tried to explain the bending knows, light is slowed by an index of refraction. It would seem if nature is symetrical and allows particles that move faster than the speed of light to exist, it would also allow indexes of refractions that would allow light to travel faster than it can in a vacuum.
vega12
4.2 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2012
One of the more interesting thing to note, light can travel at the speed of light only because m=0. Upon observing this, one might conclude that light can never move slower. But as anyone who has observed light passing through glass or water and tried to explain the bending knows, light is slowed by an index of refraction. It would seem if nature is symetrical and allows particles that move faster than the speed of light to exist, it would also allow indexes of refractions that would allow light to travel faster than it can in a vacuum.

Light moves slower, but photons don't move slower in a medium. The slowing effect is caused by repeated absorption and emission of photons as they travel through the material.
Urgelt
4.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2012
El Nose wrote, "...NASA has stated that an anti matter engine would get you to Mars in 45 days."

I don't recall seeing that statement from NASA, but the source isn't important.

What's important is to understand that the accuracy of a 45-day one-way transit estimate is dependent on making design assumptions about how much antimatter you have, how efficiently it can be used to propel a spacecraft, the mass of the spacecraft versus thrust generated, etc.

An anti-matter engine could get us to Mars in 10 days. Or 100 days. Or never. It depends on how much antimatter we have and how we use it in spacecraft design. There is no single obvious or provable answer in transit days to wave around like a flag of correctness.

Which isn't important, either, since we're a long, long way from being able to produce and store even a thimble-full of the stuff.
typicalguy
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2012
These types of theories are a lot of fun to think about but they are by no means new. What's new here is the extension of the Lorenz transformations rather than simple thought experiments with some bar napkin math.

The fact is, many ideas like this seem crazy but later turn out to be true. What I mean by "this" isn't the creation of a new theory that incorporates older ones (like string theory). What I mean is that historically when we know something is true and have a theory that describes it perfectly but that theory (without adding in new stuff as TOE's do) also describes other unknown phenomenon that unknown bit is often true. Antimatter and neutrinos jump to mind immediately. Einstein's theories have held up perfectly and since nothing prevents an object from going faster than light, objects must go faster than light (just not at light speed). The big bang probably created a zoo of unknown particles zipping around that we can't yet see or interact with.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2012
So if time became space-like, and space became time-like, then you could move around in time, but would be stuck going some unalterable direction and speed through space. Temporal momentum?
Time is a mental construct which is practically implemented by kinematics to span our 3space given that our mental processes are one and two dimensional. Likewise at lightspeed you span all space simultaneously. In other words you become a free floating object in the the higher 4space, much like a flatlander flying off his balloon after reaching escape velocity.
nebulousness
1.6 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2012
"maybe it will involve a transportation mechanism entirely different from anything presently envisaged"
Mass Transference Device!
JIMBO
1.2 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2012
I smell the smell of BS ! Neither authors have any paper on the arxiv remotely related to this provocative title. It standard procedure to post a paper on the arxiv Prior to submitting it to a refereed journal. The only exceptions are Nature & Science. In the aftermath of the OPERA results this is more important than ever. So I highly suspect cow patties are present.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (35) Oct 08, 2012
Well,there it is. All technology starts with mathematics
Ah no it doesn't. Bow and arrow for instance. The light bulb comes to mind. Most all tech up until the present has come from trial and error. Including cold fusion if Rossi is not just scamming everybody.
James_Mooney
1.3 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2012
"Light moves slower, but photons don't move slower in a medium. The slowing effect is caused by repeated absorption and emission of photons as they travel through the material."

Then all we need are photons that are emitted slightly before they are absorbed - a quantum effect. A temporal hole similar to electron holes in solid state physics.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2012
In science-fiction, How many times have we heard phrases like, "Jump to lightspeed." or, "Make the transition to lightspeed."

It seems innately intuitive there is a chasm to cross between subluminal and superluminal speeds.

BrianFraser
1.2 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2012
Einstein's Special Relativity only applies to speeds in space. The speed is computed from spatial location displacement per unit time displacement. If there is some other form of location, as the EPR experiments imply, this is simply not within the scope of SR.

Kron
1.9 / 5 (21) Oct 09, 2012
I think more importantly, the conscious mind needs to be evaluated as it pertains to reality. How does a particle of matter transform into a wave to create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment? And then, how does the act of observation collapse the wave function to produce a pattern expected of particles?

How does quanta know it is being observed? Without an observer, quanta becomes an immaterial wave of potential. With an observer it reverts to a particular state.

Consciousness controls the physical world. Without consciousness there is potential, with it potential is fulfilled.

I think it's silly to move forward looking at breaking physical barriers (like surpassing c for example), when consciousness rules over the physical. Does light even have a speed without us? Light speed may be potential, not related to any particular reference frame, it may be us, the observers, collapsing that potential into a particular state.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (20) Oct 09, 2012
Well,there it is. All technology starts with mathematics
Ah no it doesn't. Bow and arrow for instance. The light bulb comes to mind. Most all tech up until the present has come from trial and error. Including cold fusion if Rossi is not just scamming everybody.
--OttoBlotto

Ah yes it does. Bow and arrow for instance. Definitely mathematically inclined. http://www.archer...tion.pdf

Pekalski (1990) proposed new methods and research techniques in archery. He discussed the following topics:

A mathematical model of an arrow's movement during its interaction with a bow. The governing equation is a linear fourth-order parabolic partial differential equation with boundary and initial conditions.
etc. etc. etc.

Tsk tsk, Blotto - were you just too lazy to look it up on Google?
Oh, and yes, it takes math equations to figure out how to create a light bulb, plus cost of materials and manufacture
Kron
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2012
Either the riddle of the particle wave duality as it pertains to the observer is solved, or no further progress is worth the effort. Who cares what new particle is discovered in a smasher, if the very nature of reality remains a mystery.

Reality is not the same without us, as it is with us. So, which is it, did the Universe create consciousness (such as ourselves), or is consciousness creating the Universe?

The answer may be neither. The Universe and consciousness may have emerged simultaneously feeding and changing one another. The electron on some level must be conscious of the fact that a conscious mind is looking at its path through space for it to conform to the expectations of the conscious observer.

The Universe is conscious.
daywalk3r
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2012
Treating "c" as a REAL boundary condition is probably one of the worst ways how to interpret it. Period.

Shows just how little clue there still is (after over 100 years) regarding "c", and what it really represents.. :-(

Next please..

So, which is it, did the Universe create consciousness (such as ourselves), or is consciousness creating the Universe?

Consciousness is part of the Universe as much as the Universe is part of consciousness.
daywalk3r
2.4 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2012
It seems innately intuitive there is a chasm to cross between subluminal and superluminal speeds.

There is no "chasm" to cross. The more energy you put into "movement", the faster you move - from the perspective of your own (moving) reference frame.

However, increasing your kinetic energy level (eg. "putting more energy into movement") will become the real limiting factor at a certain point, as it is directly dependant on the environment/space you are flying through - specifficaly its relative curvature and gradient(s).
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2012
Ah Ms Liza Zyga, once again you have singularly transformed this morning into a magical and ethereal, yet somehow nonsensical delight! Bravo!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
All sorts of things could happen. Time and space could interchange." He thinks that an experimental test of such a feat is not out of reach. "I think it's only a matter of time,"

In that case only a matter of space (couldn't resist).

Miguel Alcubierre, currently Director of the Nuclear Sciences Institute at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), postulated superluminal flight over 15 years ago.

The Alcubierre drive does not postulate superluminal motion (of particles). The craft itself actually stays perfectly still within its local frame of reference. The idea behind it is that you contract the fronts and expand the back of a spatial region around the ship so that the (flat) region the ship sits in changes location. Space itself isn't a particle, so it isn't bound by a maximum speed of c.
Much like -due to expansion- regions of space can move away from each other at greater than c (cf. the Big Rip).

Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2012
But as anyone who has observed light passing through glass or water and tried to explain the bending knows, light is slowed by an index of refraction.


The wavefront is slowed... the photons still move at C in any medium.

The wavefront of the light is what you see, but it is composed of trillions upon trillions of photons. In a high IOR material the photons are constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms in the material, this causes them to take a non-linear path. So while the photons are all moving at C, they must take a longer path through the material, so the wavefront, defined by the leading edge photons, appears to slow when in reality it is only because the path the photons are taking is longer.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2012
There is no "chasm" to cross. The more energy you put into "movement", the faster you move - from the perspective of your own (moving) reference frame.


E=mc^2
m=E/c^2

As you add energy to increase velocity you also increase mass, which increases the amount of energy you need to achieve another equivalent increase in velocity... the energy needed to accelerate a mass to c approaches infinity... so yes, there is a "chasm" to cross.

Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2012
The electron on some level must be conscious of the fact that a conscious mind is looking at its path through space for it to conform to the expectations of the conscious observer.


This is nonsense. The observer effect does not require the observed object to be "aware" of anything. The only way humans can observe anything is by bouncing energy off of it and allowing the reflected energy to stimulate our senses. The very act of bouncing energy off of something changes it, that is the observer effect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (32) Oct 09, 2012
Tsk tsk, Blotto - were you just too lazy to look it up on Google?
Oh, and yes, it takes math equations to figure out how to create a light bulb, plus cost of materials and manufacture
As we know Edison tried many materials for his filament. This is called trial and error. It is somewhat like how you keep switching suckpuppets to try to lose your embarrassing legacy of extreme ignorance and laziness and inconsideration.

This process worked for Edison but you are still obviously who you are. Why is that? Maybe you are a very dim bulb indeed.

Maybe buzzle has the answer. Why don't you look it up and copy/paste for us? You don't have to understand it but as usual you can still pretend-
Kron
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2012
A single electron passes through both slits interfering with itself when not observed.

When both slits are being observed to see which path the electron takes the electron passes through only one of the two slits.

Measurement, or observation, is causing the electron wave to collapse into a particular state. Instead of an interference pattern produced by a wave, the screen replicates the slits showing 2 distinct electron groupings like those produced by particles.

Your attempt to rationalize this has failed Deathclock.

In fact you're even wrong on the act of observation. What you have defined is a radar. Radiating energy from a source interacting with an object by reflecting off of it and returning back to the source. We can also observe objects directly by allowing their radiation to come to us, without us being the source of the radiation.

The only way humans can observe anything
daywalk3r
2 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2012
E=mc^2
m=E/c^2

As you add energy to increase velocity you also increase mass, which increases the amount of energy you need to achieve another equivalent increase in velocity... the energy needed to accelerate a mass to c approaches infinity... so yes, there is a "chasm" to cross.

If only everything was so plain and simple (and linear) as in your imaginary world..

Writing down equations is one thing,
correctly understanding them (and their components) another.

Can't really blame you though, as the authors jumped down a similar sinkhole.. I blame education :-)

Try to analyze the last part of what you quoted:
from the perspective of your own (moving) reference frame.
as it might provide a chance to stumble upon a clue :-P
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2012
How does a particle of matter transform into a wave to create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment?


Because there is no such thing as a particle of matter... everything is energy, matter is simply a dense region of energy that exhibits certain properties. Instead of thinking of a "particle" as a solid thing like a billiard ball think of it instead as a sphere of water. Not only can it be deformed, it can spread apart in a non-discreet/continuous manner. Now, when you do break a particle apart it's entirely possible that the energy it's composed of will group together into smaller "particles" from the energy ejected, and this is likely what we see in high energy collisions.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2012
A single electron passes through both slits interfering with itself when not observed.

When both slits are being observed to see which path the electron takes the electron passes through only one of the two slits.


No... try reading this:
http://en.wikiped...periment
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2012
particularly the following:

" an experiment performed in 1987[23] produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken, without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent. And in 2012, researchers finally succeeded in correctly identifying the path each particle had taken without any adverse effects at all on the interference pattern generated by the particles"
Pressure2
1.8 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2012
The reason nothing can go faster than the speed of light is because nothing in nature changes or moves faster than the speed of light. You cannot use something that operates at the speed of light to accelerate something else to operate or travel at a faster speed, period.
smd
3.8 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2012
How does a particle of matter transform into a wave to create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment?


Because there is no such thing as a particle of matter... everything is energy, matter is simply a dense region of energy that exhibits certain properties....


Thank you. Finally, a comment from someone who understands that, as Amanda Gefter (New Scientist) recently wrote on Edge, "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

Put another way, at the quantum scale neither particles nor waves exist. These are macroscopic visual metaphors that have come about based largely on the confluence of there factors: (1) our evolving in a macroscopic context, with language being neurologically rooted in sensory perception; (2) the persistence of the planetary model; and (3) the challenge of communicating quantum reality in a non-mathematical language.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2012
Well,there it is. All technology starts with mathematics
Ah no it doesn't. Bow and arrow for instance.
Ah yes it does. Bow and arrow for instance. Definitely mathematically inclined.
The point was, it seems to me, that humans had not needed to develop the mathematics first, many thousands of years ago, in order to stumble across the principle of the bow and arrow. It likely developed from someone setting a snare, and a stick got flung away when the spring was released. Some prehistoric genius saw this and said (in essence), "Wow--that was cool! Let's play with that some more!"
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
Well,there it is. All technology starts with mathematics
Ah no it doesn't. Bow and arrow for instance. The light bulb comes to mind. Most all tech up until the present has come from trial and error. Including cold fusion if Rossi is not just scamming everybody.

While I would like it to be otherwise, Rossi is just scamming everybody. There was supposed to be a demonstration in September that was a failure (showing more input than output). It is a nice thought but still perpetual motion. :-) Invest in entropy instead.

http://en.wikiped...atalyzer

zaxxon451
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2012
Continue the quote: "In order to do this, they used a setup such that particles coming to the screen were not from a point-like source, but from a source with two intensity maximas. It is debated whether this affects the validity of the experiment."

particularly the following:

" an experiment performed in 1987[23] produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken, without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent. And in 2012, researchers finally succeeded in correctly identifying the path each particle had taken without any adverse effects at all on the interference pattern generated by the particles"

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2012
Rossi is just scamming everybody
Rossi just demonstrates COP ~ 6, whereas Piantelli demonstrated COP = 3 for last twenty years and he was ignored in the same way.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2012
There is no "chasm" to cross. The more energy you put into "movement", the faster you move - from the perspective of your own (moving) reference frame.
What didn't you get about the bifurcation of the relative velocities in regards to an arbitrary rest frame?

From the article:

"...the proposed extensions break down at exactly c, resulting in a singularity. Passing through the speed of light is not defined.

As a result, the singularity forms a kind of boundary so that all inertial reference frames fall into one of two sets relative to some rest frame: those with a relative velocity less than c, and those with a relative velocity greater than c."

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 09, 2012
Rossi is just scamming everybody
Rossi just demonstrates COP ~ 6, whereas Piantelli demonstrated COP = 3 for last twenty years and he was ignored in the same way.
Yeah I think we might be pleasantly surprised-
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2012
Rossi is just scamming everybody
Rossi just demonstrates COP ~ 6, whereas Piantelli demonstrated COP = 3 for last twenty years and he was ignored in the same way.
Yeah I think we might be pleasantly surprised-


Otto: How long do you propose we wait before deciding that Rossi might be pulling a Bernie Madoff?
zbarlici
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2012
docbillnet;
One of the more interesting thing to note, light can travel at the speed of light only because m=0. Upon observing this, one might conclude that light can never move slower. But as anyone who has observed light passing through glass or water and tried to explain the bending knows, light is slowed by an index of refraction. It would seem if nature is symetrical and allows particles that move faster than the speed of light to exist, it would also allow indexes of refractions that would allow light to travel faster than it can in a vacuum.


one could say that if glass/water causes positive light refraction, slowing it down, then by the same token there`s gotta be somethings in nature to cause negative light refraction to speed light up eg., light getting sucked into a black hole?
zbarlici
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2012
But as anyone who has observed light passing through glass or water and tried to explain the bending knows, light is slowed by an index of refraction.


The wavefront is slowed... the photons still move at C in any medium.

The wavefront of the light is what you see, but it is composed of trillions upon trillions of photons. In a high IOR material the photons are constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms in the material, this causes them to take a non-linear path. So while the photons are all moving at C, they must take a longer path through the material, so the wavefront, defined by the leading edge photons, appears to slow when in reality it is only because the path the photons are taking is longer.


how are we supposed to buy that? at bottom of the sea it`s pitch dark. The medium seems to act like a filter of varying degrees.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2012
How long do you propose we wait before deciding that Rossi might be pulling a Bernie Madoff?
I don't understand your obsession with Rossi. Andrea Rossi didn't publish a single article about cold fusion during his whole life - whereas Piantelli did write http://newenergyt...rs.shtml in official journals of Italian Academy of Sciences. Such approach just illustrates, which respect the laymans like you have to scientific research.

Natello: I have no obsession with Rossi. His name was brought up and my response was to point out that he is a charlatan that people like you seem to believe. He makes claims, keeps his invention under wraps when it is running, he takes money from people, promising to deliver devices he has not built...

Why would I not consider this to be a good example of people who don't understand physics getting taken by a fast talker. Why are you so obsessed with defending a charlatan?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2012
You can come up with any number of these transformations, but there is no physical motivation. (As tachyons has.)

The authors explicitly don't go there according to the article, and they don't care or dare to put up an arxiv version.
jsdarkdestruction
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2012
How long do you propose we wait before deciding that Rossi might be pulling a Bernie Madoff?
I don't understand your obsession with Rossi. Andrea Rossi didn't publish a single article about cold fusion during his whole life - whereas Piantelli did write http://newenergyt...rs.shtml in official journals of Italian Academy of Sciences. Such approach just illustrates, which respect the laymans like you have to scientific research.

he is the one out there making all the crazy claims of having working cold fusion energy devices....duh
gonegahgah
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2012
One of the more interesting thing to note, light can travel at the speed of light only because m=0. Upon observing this, one might conclude that light can never move slower. But as anyone who has observed light passing through glass or water and tried to explain the bending knows, light is slowed by an index of refraction. It would seem if nature is symetrical and allows particles that move faster than the speed of light to exist, it would also allow indexes of refractions that would allow light to travel faster than it can in a vacuum.
@docbillnet: Negative refraction exists.

Light moves slower, but photons don't move slower in a medium. The slowing effect is caused by repeated absorption and emission of photons as they travel through the material.
@vega12: Please do not go around touting this as it is wrong. Science does not believe the principle you have stated.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2012
Light moves slower, but photons don't move slower in a medium. The slowing effect is caused by repeated absorption and emission of photons as they travel through the material.
@vega12: Please do not go around touting this as it is wrong. Science does not believe the principle you have stated.


wow... No, he's right, you're wrong. Photons always move at c, but the propagation of the wavefront is slowed in denser material due to repeated absorption and re-emission of the energy that they are composed of. Photons are just energy (as is everything, by the way).

http://www.physic...t=316692

For the record, I work in optics/photonics and this is what I have been taught and what I have found to be the common scientific understanding through research.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2012
Rossi is just scamming everybody
Rossi just demonstrates COP ~ 6, whereas Piantelli demonstrated COP = 3 for last twenty years and he was ignored in the same way.
Yeah I think we might be pleasantly surprised-


Otto: How long do you propose we wait before deciding that Rossi might be pulling a Bernie Madoff?

Look, I don't know if there is anything to cold fusion or not. But why can't we give it the same amount of time and a small fraction of the money we have given to controlled "hot" fusion?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2012
Look, I don't know if there is anything to cold fusion or not. But why can't we give it the same amount of time and a small fraction of the money we have given to controlled "hot" fusion?

Example:
I have here this totally cool invention that powers a house via brainwaves.

No, I'm not going to show how it works (or even give you anything to test. but if you give me a couple of (non-refundable) million Euros I'd be happy to have you look at a prototype)

Would you advocate that my generator be funded with "a small fraction of the money we give to controlled hot fusion"?
And if not - why not?
And if not - why would you give any to Rossi? What exactly makes his work funding-worthy and mine not so much in your eyes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 10, 2012
Otto: How long do you propose we wait before deciding that Rossi might be pulling a Bernie Madoff?
NASA has patented a process involving widom-larson surface plasmon polaritons, and SAYS it could very well lead to real and revolutionary applications, which leads me to believe that at least one of the many enterprises working on it, including Rossi, have stumbled on a real way of applying LENR.

If you were in rossis shoes and had an easy-to-copy and hard-to-patent tech worth a few $billion you would be doing exactly what he is doing.

I remain optimistic. Read with an open mind.
http://www.e-catworld.com/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 10, 2012
I have here this totally cool invention that powers a house via brainwaves.
Neither NASA nor the office of naval research nor DARPA nor any other agency that I am aware of is researching this, nor has any scientist that i am aware of like widom or larsen devised a theory for it, nor is anyone that I am aware of pouring $millions into developing commercial applications for it, and so I would be less inclined to be optimistic about it.

See the difference?

I do not see why mr natello/jigga/Terriva/alizee is not emphasizing NASA and widom-Larsen as these are the most convincing evidence that something here is real.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2012
I do not see why mr natello/jigga/Terriva/alizee is not emphasizing NASA and widom-Larsen as these are the most convincing evidence that something here is real
I don't think - in the same way, like other commenters - that NASA is taking the cold fusion research seriously. Actually NASA has many reasons to fake it in similar way, like any other governmental agencies. At any case, I still didn't see any peer-reviewed attempt for replication of Piantelli's experiments from NASA, which is - quite frankly - the very first step, which every serious researcher of cold fusion should do. Currently only Francesco Cellani attempted to for it with positive results (COP > 2). But it's still just a public demonstration - not peer-reviewed serious publication.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2012
I've absolutely no problem, if someone from mainstream physicists will present negative results of Piantelli's fusion of hydrogen at nickel wire - but he should do it in responsible way: in mainstream impacted peer-reviewed journal. Even negative results are the results. Until such study is not given, then it's just evident, that the mainstream physics actually avoids the cold fusion experiments at any price. It's political thing - they're refusing to look at it in similar way, like the Galileo opponents refused to look through his telescope. Because IMO all physicists already feel, that this effect is real (we have plenty of less-or more qualitative studies about it) and they fear to open the Pandora box for all other physicists, who are already engaged in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage (from hot fusion to research of solar cells and batteries)...
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2012
Cold Fusion is just like religion, if you can't provide compelling evidence of your claims then I have no reason to consider them.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2012
Cold Fusion is just like religion, if you can't provide compelling evidence of your claims then I have no reason to consider them.
It depends on what you call "compelling". For me "compelling" means "published in peer-reviewed high impact journal". My stance is completely symmetric. So until you publish the experimental refusal of cold fusion, I've no reason not to believe in the opposite. We have plenty of cold fusion theories (here you can find a list of sixty of them), so we can assume it as real, as the Higgs boson, for example. My stance regarding the theoretical possibility of cold fusion is presented for example here.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2012
See the difference?

Sorta. Since all the people you mentioned did research on cold fusion and found it not to work my barinwave generator is by all standards more fund worthy right now than cold fusion.

Funding something that might work (even if the probability is awesomely small) is a better than funding something that has beeen tried very hard and doesn't work - or would you disagree?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (30) Oct 10, 2012
I don't think - in the same way, like other commenters - that NASA is taking the cold fusion research seriously. Actually NASA has many reasons to fake it in similar way, like any other governmental agencies.
They SAY they have a patent. Whether they follow up on it or not, it stil lends credibility to the startups who are.
Since all the people you mentioned did research on cold fusion and found it not to work my barinwave generator is by all standards more fund worthy right now than cold fusion.
Who's that? Some definitely DID.
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (30) Oct 10, 2012
Congratulations Otto, you have voted yourself a tenth point higher rating. Not many will upvote themselves in such a flagrant manner. Are you proud of your new "status"? We were wondering where you were for almost a whole day. It seems you were votejacking yourself off.

Keep up the good work.

Cold Fusion = Faith based science. Your new religion Otto?
Nikstlitselpmur
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2012
According to the theory of general relativity the hottest temperature at which mass can exist is Plank Temperature, theorized to have been reached 10^-43 of a second after the Big Bang, above that temperature, mass becomes pure energy. During the rapid expansion period of the Big Bang, prior to Plank temperature the universe is theorized to have expanded faster than the speed of light. By lowering the temperature of the spacecraft to the temperature of a black hole, estimated to be a few billionths of a degree above absolute 0 or 0 kelvin, it should be possible in theory to trick general relativity and exceed the speed of light, by keeping the temperature of the ever accelerating space craft below Plank Temperature, using artificial cooling. You would theoretically be piloting an artificial small black hole(Temperature wise) at above light speed.
Nikstlitselpmur
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2012
At 10^10K electrons approach the speed of light, but they also become more massive, so their temperature can continue to rise. At 10^32K(Plank temp), that great density and temperature would cause each particle of matter to become its own black hole, and the usual understanding of space and time would collapse, however because we are artificially lowering the temperature of the spacecraft we would not gain mass nor become a black-hole but would be travelling FTL speed, without violating general relativity.

Silverhill
3 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2012
By lowering the temperature of the spacecraft to the temperature of a black hole, estimated to be a few billionths of a degree above absolute 0 or 0 kelvin, it should be possible in theory to trick general relativity and exceed the speed of light, by keeping the temperature of the ever accelerating space craft below Plank Temperature, using artificial cooling.
You seem to be equating the Planck temperature (1.4E32 K) with nanokelvin temperatures. It is very easy to maintain a temperature below the Planck temperature, but very difficult to achieve nanokelvin temperatures, especially in a large mass such as a spacecraft. When the entire universe is warmer than you, it is difficult to expel your excess heat into it.
Also, if the whole spacecraft is at such a low temperature, how do the occupants survive?
Nikstlitselpmur
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2012
You seem to be equating the Planck temperature (1.4E32 K) with nanokelvin temperatures. how do the occupants survive?

Conventional physics, General Relativity, above plank is essentially the same as nanokelvin temperatures. A particle that exceeds planck temperature will collapse under it's own density into a black hole, which has nanokelvin temperatures. I'm thinking a double hulled craft with Bose Einstein condensate between the two walls, insulated using induction heating for the payload.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (31) Oct 11, 2012
Are you proud of your new "status"? We were wondering where you were for almost a whole day. It seems you were votejacking yourself off.
I guess your little niece couldn't keep up. What happened, you run out of quarters? This guy ladies and gentlemen PAYS a little girl to gangrate others for him. And if she reads your scummy posts and my profile page she knows full well the kind of person her uncle is.

THATS something to be proud of.
Justin_999
not rated yet Oct 11, 2012
Should a traveller moving at light speed witness the lorenz contraction of the entire universe? If you were to move any faster then you might "invert" the universe.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (29) Oct 11, 2012
Ha Ha Ha. Do you believe everything I tell you?

You still voted yourself a higher rating. You are such an incredible lowlife. Do you care so much about your rating on a comments section of a website? Get a job LITE.

You must have voted hundreds of times to move your pitiful self up on the self-worth-ometer.

Now you feel free to have your own sockpuppet lite give yourself a few 1s.

Don't let people know that lite is you, though most should suspect that every time you argue or diseagree with them they get the lite treatment.

Not everyone but there is a definite pattern for
Shelgeyer, Deathclock, Noumenon, me, PussyCateyes, Ryggesogn2, Xbw, Gdm, PinkElephant, COCO, hb_, 210, dogbert, Natello, Thrasymachus, PfennigFuscher, Verkle, Noumenon, and more.

Your friend Pirouette even got a 1 for a comment on Dec. 27, 2011!

Otto, Otto, Otto. You are the most pitiful, sad, downtrodden, son of a dead smoking whore I have ever had the displeasure to experience.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2012
The math of qm renders it quite logical but intuitively the measurement problem still lingers. Reality rests in a probabilistic state only materializing when observed. The material world only exists for the conscious observer, this deduces to one and only one answer: the observer is not real.

We see the world as material because we think of ourselves as material beings, but we aren't. It is our interpretation of the world around us we see, not the world as it is. We don't view the world directly, it is our minds that convert the information we receive into these images of reality.

So that is the disconnect. The quantum world seems unreal from our "classical/macro" perspective, but it is just the opposite, it is the classical world that is unreal, it is a construct of the mind, and it is the quantum world that is the ultimate reality.

Once the mind wraps around this fact, the question of reality becomes clear. The world we live in is a construct of the mind.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2012
Reality is like a quantum computer made of quantum bits. The human mind works classically, like a classical computer, but this classical computer is built up from quantum bits too.

Here lies the problem, everything is made up of quantum bits but we are operating classically, so we see everything in classical terms. When we start observing quantum processes they seem incompatible with our classical world, but they don't have to be. There is no classical world, the classical world is built up from the quantum world. The classical world is not reality but a construct of reality which is quantum.
Kron
1.5 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2012
The classical world is a matter of perception, what information our conscious mind interprets from the world. The classical world is therefore not real, it is subjective.

The quantum world is real, it is what is present without interpretation. The quantum world is therefore objective.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2012
And the measurement problem, when measuring quanta (the objective reality), we are subjecting it to subjective interpretation. We therefore destroy the real state of the quanta. When our classical brains (unreal) evaluate the quantum world (real) the real state is destroyed.
Svetlana
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2012
Not informative article.

There is no information about what exactly has been done to expand the previous relativity theory.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2012
Not informative article.

There is no information about what exactly has been done to expand the previous relativity theory.

And lifting your finger and clicking on the given link was too much to ask because...?
gonegahgah
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2012
wow... No, he's right, you're wrong. Photons always move at c, but the propagation of the wavefront is slowed in denser material due to repeated absorption and re-emission of the energy that they are composed of. Photons are just energy (as is everything, by the way).

What total nonsense. I thought this had finally been put to bed and it saddens me to see its ugly head rearing itself. It is not the explanation I have ever received. It is nonsense to think that anything absorbed and re-emitted will statistically end up going the same way. Take colour as a clear example of this. The explanation that I have always received at the physic site is that the interaction with the fields causes the slowing down. Not some temporary absorption/re-emmission process. Such an involved process of interaction would not just change the directions substantially but also create a much greater delay in the speed of light and not just the small amounts seen.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2012
It is nonsense to think that anything absorbed and re-emitted will statistically end up going the same way.

Conservation of momentum. It doesn't have much choice (other than by receiving some momentum from phonons already present in the material or giving off some momentum as a phonon into the material during the absorption - as heat transfer).

In the case of scattering you do actually get a net momentum transfer on the material from a directed light source. But a stationary material will need to emit photons of the same, cumulative momentum that it received.

Absorption/reemission is the process that slows light down, but it is not due due to the individual atoms but the whole ensemble. Individual atoms can only absorb and emit specific wavelengths (not an entire range). But atoms in a material (e.g. a crystal or an amorphous material like glass) can absorb and reemit accross a broad spectrum because you also have the phonon (vibrational) modes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (31) Oct 11, 2012
Ha Ha Ha. Do you believe everything I tell you?
You saying you're a liar? But we already knew that. Esai the lying... stalking...
You are such an incredible lowlife.
...corrupter of young relatives.
You must have voted hundreds of times to move your pitiful self up on the self-worth-ometer.
I hear there are very economical ways of doing this.
Your friend Pirouette even got a 1 for a comment on Dec. 27, 2011!
You mean your g/f, your wife, yourself? Which? She continues to drop patties and she/he/you will continue to be criticized which is only natural. Too bad you all don't like it.
Shelgeyer, Deathclock, Noumenon, me, PussyCateyes, Ryggesogn2, Xbw, Gdm... Noumenon
Jesus you are obsessed. I am not lite. I don't lie. You are a lying stalker who pays kids to do the things you accuse me of. By your own admission.
son of a dead smoking whore
-This is like when you posted gay porn links. Very bad form. You demonstrate that you and your gang really dont belong.
ECOnservative
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2012
Jimbo, It's published behind a paywall:
http://rspa.royal...340.full
gonegahgah
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2012
Conservation of momentum. It doesn't have much choice (other than by receiving some momentum from phonons already present in the material or giving off some momentum as a phonon into the material during the absorption - as heat transfer)...
[sorry had to cut it short].
This is certainly a more complete explanation but colour produces photons of the same momentum but in an opposite direction. So I'm not sure where the net result lies. Normal transfer of momentum results in slowing of the projectile. Anyhow, absorption/re-emission - as I understand it - is the disappearance of the photon and the creation of a new photon. The total system (as you describe it) will determine where the new photon appears and with what direction and frequency. The material itself has a higher inertia so the barest - even unnoticed - transfer of momentum would kill the creation of a replacement photon. An overall excess in the system results in radiated heat (when it can escape from the system)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2012
Anyhow, absorption/re-emission - as I understand it - is the disappearance of the photon and the creation of a new photon.

Which is basically what happens. Photons get absorbed and in their place you wither have an excited electron (one in a higher orbital) or you get a phonon, or both (because you always have to conserve momentum and energy).

The material itself has a higher inertia so the barest - even unnoticed - transfer of momentum would kill the creation of a replacement photon.

Phonons come in many more modes than the few absorption/emission lines of photons. If you can 'kill' the phonon by inducing a 180degree phase shifted phonon into the material then no photon will be reemitted from the niduced ponon (that would be cooling the material so no infrared is emitted).
But 'generally putting some momentum in the material' will just add more phonons. Phonons can be in superposition (like photons)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (31) Oct 11, 2012
From your link:

"Josephson directed the Mind–Matter Unification Project, which he describes as: "a project concerned primarily with the attempt to understand, from the viewpoint of the theoretical physicist, what may loosely be characterised as intelligent processes in nature, associated with brain function or with some other natural process".... It is based on the belief that quantum mechanics is not the ultimate theory of nature."

"[Josephson] came under criticism from several fellow physicists including David Deutsch, a quantum physicist at Oxford University who stated: "It is utter rubbish. Telepathy simply does not exist. The Royal Mail has let itself be hoodwinked into supporting ideas that are complete nonsense"."

-In addition to LENR, josepheon apparently also believes in some sort of intelligent design as well as telepathy. Perhaps you might want to seek out a somewhat more grounded supporter?
gonegahgah
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2012
But 'generally putting some momentum in the material' will just add more phonons. Phonons can be in superposition (like photons)

It's also true that photons don't just 'slow' down in crystalline structures; they slow down in any medium including air, the sun's chromosphere, you name it. It even has to be said that there are always other stuff around light; even in space. So light must continually be popping in and out of existence as it converts between being a photon and a phonon of the medium that is slowing its passage - even one as sparse as space and even if its distance of interaction is far away? The universe is not void so it always presents itself as a medium to light. Heck light even interacts with others of itself.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2012
-In addition to LENR, josepheon apparently also believes in some sort of intelligent design as well as telepathy

The belief in intelligent design is surprisingly widespread even between mainstream physicists, some of them even got the money for its research from tax payers...
Kron
1.4 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2012
Intelligent design is always a probability. There is currently no clear cut evidence for it, and by the very definition there can never be proof against it. Therefore it is just a matter of belief up until it is proven true. Intelligent design can never be falsified, only confirmed.

So it is really a matter of personal choice. You can choose to believe in intelligent design, or you can choose not to believe in it. There is no current evidence supporting intelligent design, and since intelligent design cannot be falsified, the only worthwhile scientific research regarding it, is one focusing on proving it as true.

The only way the question can be settled is with a positive finding. Finding no evidence for intelligent design does nothing to disprove it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (30) Oct 12, 2012
Intelligent design is always a probability. There is currently no clear cut evidence for it, and by the very definition there can never be proof against it. Therefore it is just a matter of belief up until it is proven true.
The gods, goddesses, and godmen of all the current religions, as described in all their books, have been thoroughly and convincingly disproved.

Belief in something without evidence, or despite evidence, is called faith. This is unscientific.

This is a science website. Discussions about faith only serve to expose how unscientific it is. So thanks for the opportunity to do this. We also learned that at least one ID faither and big deal nobel prize winner holds telepathy in equal esteem. Go figure.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2012
The Gods...have been...disproved

This is false. You can choose not to believe in Gods (or certain religions), but no such thing has been, or is able to be, accomplished.

Axioms are at the root of all science. They are facets of reality which are assumed as true. So the starting point of science is also belief.

I don't know what your personal belief is on the matter, but not believing in God without evidence is also unscientific.

Religious texts being in contradiction with the physical world might seem as evidence against them but that is assuming that they are false and that the physical reality is true. It could also be the other way around, the religious texts may serve as evidence that reality isn't what it appears to be. So it comes down to belief once again.

"Reality is but an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Kron
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
It is all so simple, nothing but a handful of differing components comprising the whole of the Universe, yet complex beyond comprehension...

Reality is an esoteric brainfuck!
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 12, 2012
Reality is an esoteric brainfuck!

Only for those that go at it with irrational preconceptions.

The Gods...have been...disproved
This is false. You can choose not to believe in Gods (or certain religions), but no such thing has been, or is able to be, accomplished.

It doesn't need to be accomplished unless and until someone comes along with a credible and verifiable indication that gods may exist. Until then disproving gods is as relevant (and as necessary) as disproving pink elephants on Mars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Oct 12, 2012
The classical world is a matter of perception...The classical world is therefore not real, it is subjective.
-Yeah perception which you cannot ignore. Subjective implies the option to disregard the REAL world, to jaywalk, jump off buildings, eat draino, and pray for your tumor to disappear. NONE of these things are healthy for you. Objectively they will kill you. You can pray for your enemies to die or your crops to grow but if you dont deal with these things yourself they will not get done.

By extension and extrapolation we know that miracles do not happen, the flood never happened, the exodus never happened, the joshuan rampage never happened, the great Solomon/David kingdoms were never there, nor was the god who did never created them. We are as sure of these things as you must be that if you jumped off a roof, it would hurt.

This is how science works. You hungry? Pretend you're not. Ask the quantum god to fill your belly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Oct 12, 2012
It doesn't need to be accomplished unless and until someone comes along with a credible and verifiable indication that gods may exist. Until then disproving gods is as relevant (and as necessary) as disproving pink elephants on Mars.
Wrong. The god psychosis is not a benign affliction. Read about the 14yo pakistani girl recently shot in the face by the Taliban, because her religion forbids her from going to school. From being absolutely anything else than a babymaker.

The sickness which is religion causes untold suffering and ruin. It is not some disneyworld fantasy, it convinces people that their favored status with some GOD gives them the right and the DUTY to overpopulate and to then take what they need from others who do not deserve to have it.

Religion is the reason for this. And as it is not REAL, and it can be proven that it is not REAL, then it must END.
Kron
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
The sickness which is religion causes untold suffering and ruin.

Science has created that gun. Technology has led to climate change. Science has produced nuclear weapons. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Science "causes untold suffering and ruin", too.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2012
disproving Gods is as relevant (and as necessary) as disproving pink elephants on Mars.

False. Allow me to fix that.

--Disproving Gods [in a familiar physical form on Mars] is...as disproving pink elephants on Mars.
Now it is true.
Kron
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2012
we know that miracles do not happen, the flood never happened,...the great Solomon/David kingdoms were never there

Based on the axioms you believe to be true.

In a video game, you cannot walk through walls, you fall off buildings and you lose health. The game is designed with underlying rules.

You hungry?...Ask the quantum god to fill your belly.

In this simulation, the rules are, you have to consume food for hunger to go away.

The simulation is not disproven by it perfectly following the rules.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
Religion...is not REAL,

Your belief.

and it can be proven that it is not REAL,

No. it cannot.

then it must END.

This is your opinion, many would say that it must continue. I could personally care less either way.
SteveL
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
I would argue that due to DE we are and, everything is, moving at superluminal speeds now. The Hubble Constant proves this point. We simply lack the point of reference.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
I would argue that due to DE we are and, everything is, moving at superluminal speeds now. The Hubble Constant proves this point. We simply lack the point of reference.


Doubtful, according to special relativity, in our universe mass travelling FTL speeds would collapse into a black hole. However the point of reference is valid, The milky way is part of the "Local Group", which is rushing towards the "Great Attractor"

The earth is moving with respect to the CBR (cosmic background radiation) at a speed of 390 kilometers per second.

However our galaxy and the local group may be falling into a black hole, where time and space are distorted,(distance) and it is us doing the receding, and not the universe.

Scientific American has an article that might answer your question
"How fast is the earth moving"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 12, 2012
In a video game, you cannot walk through walls, you fall off buildings and you lose health. The game is designed with underlying rules.
So you think you live in a video game? Live in your little video game house in wisconsin in january. Will you get astral pneumonia?

Stop eating. FEEL your health drop. Try to pay your taxes with Second Life money. Will you go to Second Life jail maybe?

There is no pain in video games. When you die out here you don't get to start over no matter what your god promises you.
No. it cannot.
Yes. It can. And it has been. I listed all the things that god described in his book. These things never happened. PROOF.

Do your pleasant philo gymnastics earn you real money? Or are they just another roundabout way of deluding yourself that some eternal Second Life really exists on some metaphysical plane? Of course they are.
This is your opinion, many would say that it must continue.
It must end or it WILL end us.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (25) Oct 13, 2012
By the way Nicks and Kron, Otto won't usually give you 1s, he will use lite to do that for him. Just FYI, if you argue a neutral or positive side of the religious question he will follow your posts and down-rate them with lite.
When I point this out to people he usually goes after me, which is very amusing. Have fun.

Otto, quit sending me links, I don't need or want your Viagra.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Oct 13, 2012
Otto, quit sending me links, I don't need or want your Viagra.
More lies esai? From the troll who likes to post gay porn links and disparage peoples mums when he gets angry?

And just look at lites picture. That does not look like me now does it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (27) Oct 13, 2012
No, Otto looks more like this:
http://www.fighte...hor6.JPG

-don't you think?
Estevan57
1.8 / 5 (25) Oct 13, 2012
Otto, you have enough lies for all off us. Gay porn links? Angry?

Yes, I do find it easy to believe you look like lites avatar.
Cosidering your vileness, it would suit you well.

If you mean like a cartoon, well then yes, you are cartoonish.
gonegahgah
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2012
It's also true that photons don't just 'slow' down in crystalline structures; they slow down in any medium including air, the sun's chromosphere, you name it. It even has to be said that there are always other stuff around light; even in space. So light must continually be popping in and out of existence as it converts between being a photon and a phonon of the medium that is slowing its passage - even one as sparse as space and even if its distance of interaction is far away? The universe is not void so it always presents itself as a medium to light. Heck light even interacts with others of itself.

My apologies if I didn't explain: the statement above was being framed as a question... I would be pleased for a response?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2012
False. Allow me to fix that. --Disproving Gods [in a familiar physical form on Mars] is...as disproving pink elephants on Mars. Now it is true.

Do you feel the need to disprove unicorns?
No?
Then you understand why your statement is hogwash.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 13, 2012
False. Allow me to fix that. --Disproving Gods [in a familiar physical form on Mars] is...as disproving pink elephants on Mars. Now it is true.

Do you feel the need to disprove unicorns?
No?
Then you understand why your statement is hogwash.
People who believe in unicorns generally do not believe that these unicorns want women to do nothing but make and raise babies. Unicorns don't write books which promise immortality or wish-granting or special dispensation or absolution of guilt.

Unicornians usually dont do things like this:
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1631233

Why do you not get how dangerous the god meme is?
alekseyt
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2012
A question from ignoramus. How can we observe and object moving faster than c? Or, put it another way ,how an FTL object would interact with the other side?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
In my theory the gravitational waves (scalar waves) are superluminal and they do manifest itself like the CMBR noise. When their intensity exceeds certain limit, they do form massive solitons which are known as a neutrinos. Such an object would undergo a quantum fluctuations in similar way like the photon and it would dissolve and condense from vacuum less or more periodically. You couldn't observe it along whole its path, it would appear rather like sequence of flashes emerging along line. The gravitational waves do emerge in the vacuum from all directions in the same moment and they dissapear as suddently, as they appear. It's similar to observation of underwater sound waves at the water surface with surface waves. The underwater sound waves are much faster than the surface waves, so they appear like indeterministic noise from the surface wave perspective. Their spreading cannot be seen, only their amplitude (known as a quantum probability) is observable directly.
AJ Newman
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2012
If an quantum entangled particle was sent into a super-massive black hole, and tore through space time at the point of singularity, could it 'report back' anything the entangled particle it left behind? Perhaps indicating a transformation of matter?

AJ
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
The neutrinos are already used for observation of the interior of the Sun and they could probably enable to study even the interior of much denser objects, including those with event horizon. We should realize, even common massive body of common density exhibits the event horizon, which is just separated into myriads of tiny event horizons inside of each atom like every hyperdimensional object observed from lowdimensional perspective (massive bodies are hyperspheres extending the vaccum at the large distances). For visible light even the electron orbitals are event horizon, you're required to use neutrons, microwaves or gamma rays to see through it.

The quantum entanglement of heavier particle at distance is impossible due the decoherence. Their gravitational coupling would remain, because its superluminal and the mass of particle swallowed with black hole would increase its total mass.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2012
False. Allow me to fix that. --Disproving Gods [in a familiar physical form on Mars] is...as disproving pink elephants on Mars. Now it is true.

Do you feel the need to disprove unicorns?
No?

Who is asking you to disprove anything? Since it is impossible to disprove Gods existence it would be pointless to attempt anyways.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 14, 2012
A question from ignoramus. How can we observe and object moving faster than c?


Objects cannot be measured to move faster than c. The limitation is geometric so a crude analogy would be to release a helium ballon just in front of you on a still day. As the ballon rises, its angle of elevation increases but never exceeds 90 degrees. For fast particles, no matter how much kinetic energy you give them, the ratio of distance to time (i.e. speed) can never exceed 'c' which is the 4-dimensional equivalent of 45 degrees. The angle is 45 instead of 90 because spacetime obeys Riemann geometry rather than Euclidean.

http://en.wikiped...geometry

Or, put it another way ,how an FTL object would interact with the other side?


While faster than c is not possible, faster than light is. The result is Cherenkov Radiation:

http://en.wikiped...adiation
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
The quantum entanglement of heavier particle at distance is impossible ..


Rubbish, entanglement has been shown with massive particles several times.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2012
Objects cannot be measured to move faster than c. The limitation is geometric
This is just what the quantum fluctuations are for - let say, low energy neutrino moves with slightly superluminal speed, but you cannot see it during this, because it does jumps like famous ninja cat
entanglement has been shown with massive particles several times
Of course and we observed its decoherence as well. So far we observed entanglement of photons at 143 km distance, but the entanglement of massive object (a mechanical cantilever) only at the micrometer distance.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
Objects cannot be measured to move faster than c. The limitation is geometric
... low energy neutrino moves with slightly superluminal speed, ..


Nope, they are no different to any other particle, the limitation is in the geometry, not dependent on the object.

entanglement has been shown with massive particles several times
Of course and we observed its decoherence as well. So far we observed entanglement of photons at 143 km distance, but the entanglement of massive object (a mechanical cantilever) only at the micrometer distance.


"Massive particles" means particles with mass as opposed to photons, not mechanical devices. Here is an article describing an entanglement experiment using Beryllium ions:

http://www.nature...1a0.html

That is from 12 years ago, you can find more recent examples. However, entanglement doesn't relate to superluminal speeds of objects, there is no object moving faster than light involved.
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
I would argue that due to DE we are and, everything is, moving at superluminal speeds now. The Hubble Constant proves this point. We simply lack the point of reference.

Doubtful, according to special relativity, in our universe mass travelling FTL speeds would collapse into a black hole. However the point of reference is valid, The milky way is part of the "Local Group", which is rushing towards the "Great Attractor"

The earth is moving with respect to the CBR (cosmic background radiation) at a speed of 390 kilometers per second.
The reference for superluminal speed wasn't against the CBR, the reference, which we lack access to with present technology, is matter beyond the Hubble limit/volume. To clarify; In my earlier post I meant Hubble Limit, not Hubble Constant.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
I would argue that due to DE we are and, everything is, moving at superluminal speeds now. The Hubble Constant proves this point. We simply lack the point of reference.


The earth is moving with respect to the CBR (cosmic background radiation) at a speed of 390 kilometers per second.

The reference for superluminal speed wasn't against the CBR, the reference, which we lack access to with present technology, is matter beyond the Hubble limit/volume. To clarify; In my earlier post I meant Hubble Limit, not Hubble Constant.


The Hubble Limit is at a redshift of 1.64, we can see galaxies out to z>6. As viewed by a telescope in one of those galaxies, we meet your criterion, but relative to the average of local matter as judged by the CMBR dipole anisotropy, we are only moving at 552km/s. The fact that space between us and that distant galaxy is expanding by more than 1 light year per year is irrelevant, there is nothing special about that galaxy.
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
Since the 1970's I really haven't believed that luminal speeds are the limit for everything. I have long been convinced that there is far more we don't know or understand about our universe than we know. Presently we are limited by our senses, our technology and our cognitive understanding. Oh, we are doing quite well for an infant species that hasn't really even left the earth's cradle, but our path ahead of us is far longer than we have the ability to comprehend. For those of us that can; think back to the progress that has been made over the last 40 to 50 years and the changes in the technology available to us. What changes will the future hold?

One of my indicators for this is the rapid pace of progress as presented here on Physorg.com and elsewhere. When progress slows for a significant period of time and continues to slow further it may indicate that we may be reaching; not the limit of what is to be known, but our own unmodified genomic limit.
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
there is nothing special about that galaxy.
Nor is there anything special about ours. This is the point. From a reference beyond our grasp everything is superluminal.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2012
there is nothing special about that galaxy.
Nor is there anything special about ours. This is the point. From a reference beyond our grasp everything is superluminal.


.. and nothing is.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
I would argue that due to DE we are and, everything is, moving at superluminal speeds now. The Hubble Constant proves this point. We simply lack the point of reference.


When Einstein first proposed his theories of general and special relativity he thought the Universe was static,(not expanding) in order to facilitate this he created what he called "Lambda" or the Universal Constant. However when Hubble provided proof that the Universe was in fact expanding in the form of red shifting, Einstein was forced to reconsider, and called it (Lambda) the biggest blunder of his career.As time progressed, astronomers and physicists realized that not only is the Universe expanding, the speed of expansion is increasing, so they devised their own Lambda, in the form of a Univerisal Constant, the ever increasing expansion at ever increasing speeds factor.

The Universe would appear identically the same if the point of observation was within the gravitational well of a Reissner-Nordström BH
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
Light loses energy due to gravity at its origin,as it travels through space and away from its point of origin, this was predicted by general relativity, and proven by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute. The visible universe may in fact extend trillions of light years beyond the Hubbles field of view because the light from these distant objects loses most of its energy before it comes close enough to observe. CBR may in fact be the extent of the distance light can travel before it fades away, as objects beyond this limit would still emit radiation which travels farther than light due to the energy imparted at origin, Red shifting light has less energy than blue shifting light.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2012
Light loses energy due to gravity at its origin,as it travels through space and away from its point of origin, ... CBR may in fact be the extent of the distance light can travel before it fades away ..


The amount it loses depends on the mass of the source galaxy and how far into its gravity well the source lies. Once clear of the source, it loses no more so there should be no Hubble Law due to what you describe. It is just the Pound-Rebka observation on a larger scale.
smd
not rated yet Dec 08, 2012
Light loses energy due to gravity at its origin,as it travels through space and away from its point of origin, this was predicted by general relativity, and proven by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute. The visible universe may in fact extend trillions of light years beyond the Hubbles field of view because the light from these distant objects loses most of its energy before it comes close enough to observe. CBR may in fact be the extent of the distance light can travel before it fades away, as objects beyond this limit would still emit radiation which travels farther than light due to the energy imparted at origin, Red shifting light has less energy than blue shifting light.


Another factor to keep in mind: The "rate" at which the universe geometrically expands is not subject to relativistic constraints. Light - however energetic - from objects in a universe with such rapid expansion would never reach us.