Another experiment of "faster than light" light.



 Science > Physics > Another experiment of "faster than light" light.

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Robert Clark"
Date: 22 Jan 2008 01:53:41 PM
Object: Another experiment of "faster than light" light.
LANL Scientist makes radio waves travel faster than light.
Published on January 19th, 2008
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15666
As described by the researchers it is more akin to a search light
sweeping out a beam at arbitrarily large speeds on the moon:
Is Faster Than Light Travel or Communication Possible?
3. Shadows and Light Spots.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#3
This link describes the ideas behind the research in a little more
detail:
April 2001
From New Scientist
Warp speed.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113673.html
Bob Clark
.

User: "dlzc"

Title: Gamma ray burst was: (Another experiment of "faster than light"light.) 22 Jan 2008 02:34:57 PM
On Jan 22, 12:53=A0pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

LANL Scientist makes radio waves travel faster than light.
Published on January 19th, 2008http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=3D15666

=A0As described by the researchers it is more akin to a search light
sweeping out a beam at arbitrarily large speeds on the moon:

It was the ability to "simulate" a gamma ray burst that attracted my
attention.
http://laastro.lanl.gov/organization/laastrosched.html
=2E.. December 12.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Randy Poe"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 22 Jan 2008 02:13:33 PM
On Jan 22, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

LANL Scientist makes radio waves travel faster than light.
Published on January 19th, 2008http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15666

As described by the researchers it is more akin to a search light
sweeping out a beam at arbitrarily large speeds on the moon:

Is Faster Than Light Travel or Communication Possible?
3. Shadows and Light Spots.http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#3

This link describes the ideas behind the research in a little more
detail:

April 2001
From New Scientist
Warp speed.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113673.html

Bob Clark

OK, the last link finally gave enough information to get a
glimpse what they're talking about.
No information is being sent faster than light. No surprise
there.
The surprise is that these researchers calculate that you can
get "Cerenkov radiation" in vacuum, from things which
in effect *simulate* FTL motion. As an analogy (not from
the article), think of the kind of sign which animates text
by turning pixels on and off at the right moments. In
principle, there's no reason why you couldn't arrange
the timing of such a pattern "motion" to be FTL. If pixel
1 is 3 cm from pixel 2, 100 light-psec, and I send signals
to turn pixel 2 on 50 psec after pixel 1 and do the same
with their turn-off times, then the pattern will appear to
travel at 2c.
If these pixels were EM emitters, then for the usual reasons
that sonic booms appear, the wave crests would add
constructively and you'd get a shock wave, i.e. vacuum
Cerenkov radiation.
- Randy
.
User: "Morpheal"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 22 Jan 2008 09:12:34 PM
On Jan 22, 3:13 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jan 22, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No information is being sent faster than light. No surprise
there.

There is no problem as to information being conveyed when something
travels faster than light.
Information is conveyed by that event happening. It is information.
The more difficult concept is that exceeding the speed of light is not
the key to time travel. The information
that accelerates past the speed of light, from a sublight speed, does
not travel to "yesterday". It does outrun our ability to see it. It
outruns the visible "ghost" of the universe. You have to understand
that in terms of all visible, light transmitted, information being
only the "ghost" image of what has already happened in the past. The
stars, millions of light years away, are the more extreme example of
that common fact. We see the "ghost" of those stars. We do not seem
them as they are now. Everyone knows this and yet we continue to make
basic mistakes based on our thinking being centered on our own
reliance on our own faculty of vision, and therefore on light that
makes it possible. In fact the temporal axis of space-time is not
divided between t and negative t at the point where the speed of
light, therefore the limits of our faculty of vision, is exceeded. To
divide it there is as foolishly anthropocentric as was placing
ourselves at the center of the universe on a flat Earth, because that
is how we preceived the ancient world.
So, to outrun the image, the "ghost" of the universe that we see, does
not mean travel back to the reality that is the origin of that
"ghost". When the light arrives, you see the past. Even if it is only
a fraction of a moment ago, it is the past. That is the nature of
vision, and the nature of light.
The fundamental error occurs when we think of something outrunning
that visible "ghost" of information about the past that light is
conveying. It then goes faster than the image of the universe. That
does not imply that it can necessarily arrive at the actual universe
that produced that image in the past and projected it to the future.
Light and what we preceive as being sublight speed events, the visible
universe, when accelerated at speeds faster than light's normal speed
C, cannot travel, on their own, to their own past. It is impossible.
For time travel to occur you need something else. You need a fifth
dimensional field in a 5D space-time matrix.
Yes, those do exist, but it is not simply a matter of accelerating
faster than the normal speed of light. That won't get you there. You
now need a new standard of relativity, other than light. The fact that
you cannot see that new standard of relativity presents you with the
ancient problem. Simply because you cannot see it, using light, does
not mean that it does not exist. There is the invisible world, and the
future basis for a hyperspace engine using a fifth dimensional field
that truly involves negative t. Then, something sublight, some
information, enveloped in that field, could potentially be transmitted
unimaginably vast distances, and also actually backwards in time. That
is not based on light and certainly not based on a relativity that
involves the material universe and its "ghost" image of light
travelling through 4D space-time.
The saddest thing is that if you were simply to accelerate faster than
light, and if you could never in that way actually arrive at the thing
itself that originated that "ghost" of itself. You need a fifth
dimensional field. Not simply faster than light travel. So you have
two types of FTL. One type of FTL simply exceeds the speed of light.
The other type of FTL moves along negative t, in a 5D space-time
matrix.

The surprise is that these researchers calculate that you can
get "Cerenkov radiation" in vacuum, from things which
in effect *simulate* FTL motion.

No, nothing new in that.
However, distinguish two types of FTL motion. As I have mentionned.
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 22 Jan 2008 09:47:06 PM
Morpheal wrote:


There is no problem as to information being conveyed when something
travels faster than light.

"something" doesn't move faster than light!
.
User: "bernardZ"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 23 Jan 2008 02:18:39 AM
In article <_Mylj.47786$Ux2.15592@attbi_s22>,

says...

Morpheal wrote:


There is no problem as to information being conveyed when something
travels faster than light.


"something" doesn't move faster than light!

Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.
Einstein stated
"I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
the character of our sense organs."
In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
causality.
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 23 Jan 2008 01:06:39 PM
bernardZ wrote:

In article <_Mylj.47786$Ux2.15592@attbi_s22>,


says...

Morpheal wrote:

There is no problem as to information being conveyed when something
travels faster than light.

"something" doesn't move faster than light!



Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.

Einstein stated


"I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
the character of our sense organs."


In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
causality.

No mass is ever observed to have velocity at or exceeding the
speed of light.
.
User: "hanson"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 25 Jan 2008 10:26:57 AM
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3fMlj.313164$Fc.156008@attbi_s21...


Morpheal wrote:
There is no problem as to information being conveyed when
something travels faster than light.


swormley1@mchsi.com says...
"something" doesn't move faster than light!


bernardZ wrote:
Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.
Einstein stated
"I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
the character of our sense organs."
-- In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
-- causality.


"Sam Wormley" wrote
No mass is ever observed to have velocity at or exceeding the
speed of light.


[hanson]
..... ahahaha... How can it, Sam?... Your Einstein equation says
m_v = m_0 /sqrt(1 - v²/c²) which means that any rest mass >0
when "v" is reaching "c" will be larger then the entire universe's.
How could you observe something like that in first place?
This shows that either your statement is hollow or that Einstein is
full of *****... But you are not alone in/with these gross phantasms
and fantasy tales which are heralded as sound physics....ahaha...
Alan Goth came along & trumpeted that right (some 10^(-43) sec
... ahahaha... ) after the Big Bang the entire universe expanded
with superluminal speeds many time over... and from there even
more grotesque scenarios emerged & "predicted" the advent
and end of the universe in the Big RIP, where the feeble ~40
magnitudes weaker gravitation rips apart atoms and even its
nuclei which are held together by EM and the strong force....
Doesn't it look to you more likely that the brains of these fine
physicists got ripped appart somewhere?... But look as long
as they clearly state that these are just conjectures from fancy
mental masturbations I have no objections... But for crying out
loud don't scare the youngsters with that ***** by telling them that
it is reality because kike Einstein said so.... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
.
User: "Androcles"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 25 Jan 2008 11:10:06 AM
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:l5omj.9$O9.7@trnddc01...
| "Sam Wormley" <
> wrote in message
| news:3fMlj.313164$Fc.156008@attbi_s21...
| >
| Morpheal wrote:
| There is no problem as to information being conveyed when
| something travels faster than light.
| >>
|
says...
| "something" doesn't move faster than light!
| >>
| bernardZ wrote:
| Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.
| Einstein stated
| "I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
| impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
| there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
| of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
| construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
| consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
| volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
| until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
| our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
| the character of our sense organs."
| -- In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
| -- causality.
| >>
| "Sam Wormley" wrote
| No mass is ever observed to have velocity at or exceeding the
| speed of light.
| >
| [hanson]
| .... ahahaha... How can it, Sam?...
Mighty Muon, 33-1 outsider, trained by Mother Nature and ridden
by Morpheal, leaves leaves the starting gate in the upper atmosphere,
travels 100 km to the winning post at sea level and drops dead from
exhaustion in 2.2 microseconds.
Phantastic Photon, odds-on favourite, trained by Albert Einstein
and ridden by Wanker Wormsy, takes 333 microseconds to cover
the same distance as measured by the same clock and survives only
to collide with the photographic plate. That's what a photo finish is.
Pouting Wanker Wormsy cannot accept he's been thrashed and
asks for a stewards enquiry. Mighty Muon is placed on the
weighing scales and it is found he was carrying TOO MUCH weight.
Phantastic Photon is disqualified for carrying no weight at all,
just like Wanker Wormsy's assertion.
Your Einstein equation says
| m_v = m_0 /sqrt(1 - v²/c²) which means that any rest mass >0
| when "v" is reaching "c" will be larger then the entire universe's.
| How could you observe something like that in first place?
|
| This shows that either your statement is hollow or that Einstein is
| full of *****... But you are not alone in/with these gross phantasms
| and fantasy tales which are heralded as sound physics....ahaha...
|
| Alan Goth came along & trumpeted that right (some 10^(-43) sec
| ... ahahaha... ) after the Big Bang the entire universe expanded
| with superluminal speeds many time over... and from there even
| more grotesque scenarios emerged & "predicted" the advent
| and end of the universe in the Big RIP, where the feeble ~40
| magnitudes weaker gravitation rips apart atoms and even its
| nuclei which are held together by EM and the strong force....
|
| Doesn't it look to you more likely that the brains of these fine
| physicists got ripped appart somewhere?... But look as long
| as they clearly state that these are just conjectures from fancy
| mental masturbations I have no objections... But for crying out
| loud don't scare the youngsters with that ***** by telling them that
| it is reality because kike Einstein said so.... ahahahaha...
|
| Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
|
|
|
|
|
.

User: "Robert Morpheal, Robert Ezergailis, Morphealism"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 26 Jan 2008 02:32:03 PM
On Jan 25, 11:26 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message

news:3fMlj.313164$Fc.156008@attbi_s21...

Morphealwrote:

There is no problem as to information being conveyed when
something travels faster than light.

sworml...@mchsi.com says...
"something" doesn't move faster than light!

Wrong.
The stuff that makes up the universe, as we see it, moving at
velocities up to C, can, in some instances, be accelerated faster than
C. Even photons can exceed the normative "constant" speed limit. There
is no absolute constant. Light can slow or speed up, at least a bit,
relative to the average "constant" utilized for calculations. Even if
light is remarkably consistent.
Something subluminal or luminal can exceed C.
That something is a conveyance of information.
When that something exceeds C is disappears from your view. You cannot
measure where it is.
That is because of your frame of reference as a subluminal observer.
So, we can say that something, exceeding C is at mathematical
infinity. It's not a real infinity.
But it isn't anywhere that we can define, as to coordinates, until it
slows down.
This is why laboratory FTL events are disappearance and reappearance,
as the something that is accelerated outruns the luminal ghost of the
universe that we measure, ie. "see" with our eyes and our subluminal
and lumional instruments. Zero time appears to have elapsed. That is
relative to the observer and the observer's means of measurement. An
illusion. Some have ascribed negative t to some of those events. I
think that is very disputable.
Negative t _only_ occurs in instances of what Sarfatti calls
"backreaction" and I would tend to term "hyperspace" (5D not 4D)
field.


bernardZ wrote:

Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.

Information _can_ be conveyed both by real FTL events. Real FTL is
where subluminals or luminals are accelerated to some velocity greater
than C. The information disappears when it is accelarated beyond C,
and the information reappears when it slows down. Simple to
comprehend.
From the viewpoint of the observer on the something that is
accelerated above velocity C, everything disappears. That observer
cannot observe, measure, the luminal and subluminal universe. He is
outside of it, because he has outrun the ghost. He cannot even view
the ghost of the past. He has outrun it. (I had to think about this a
bit. I wanted to say he can view it, because we all want to believe
that, from our learned bad habit of looking at it that way. Not so. He
cannot. The universe reappears when he slows down to C or below C.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with hyperspace travel. This is a
purely a thought experiment not useful in practice. As I will explain
later.

Einstein stated
"I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
the character of our sense organs."
-- In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
-- causality.

Yes, in 4D Einsteinian physics definitely ruled out and will never be
proven to be otherwise.
In 5D physics and with "backreaction" accomodated into our
cosmological viewpoint, it becomes possible to see the effect before
the cause.
That is apparent, not real, FTL. The "backreaction" in a 5D space-time
matrix, conveys information along the negative t axis, but that makes
it appear to be at infinity, infinite velocity and virtual coordinates
that cannot be defined, from the frame of reference of an observer who
is mired in 4D, positive t, space-time. That does not preclude the
observer receiving information by means of "backreaction" because the
observer _is_ located within a 5D space-time system. If that is
understood then the anomalous conveyance of information from an event
that has not been effected by volition, as of now, becomes
understandable and there is enough evidence that that does happen.
Now.... the hyperspace engine.
I will describe the basic engine in another message entitled "Basics
of a Hyperspace Engine".
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 26 Jan 2008 02:45:33 PM
Robert Morpheal, Robert Ezergailis, Morphealism wrote:

On Jan 25, 11:26 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message

news:3fMlj.313164$Fc.156008@attbi_s21...

Morphealwrote:

There is no problem as to information being conveyed when
something travels faster than light.

sworml...@mchsi.com says...
"something" doesn't move faster than light!



Wrong.

The stuff that makes up the universe, as we see it, moving at
velocities up to C, can, in some instances, be accelerated faster than
C. Even photons can exceed the normative "constant" speed limit. There
is no absolute constant. Light can slow or speed up, at least a bit,
relative to the average "constant" utilized for calculations. Even if
light is remarkably consistent.

Something subluminal or luminal can exceed C.
That something is a conveyance of information.
When that something exceeds C is disappears from your view. You cannot
measure where it is.
That is because of your frame of reference as a subluminal observer.

So, we can say that something, exceeding C is at mathematical
infinity. It's not a real infinity.
But it isn't anywhere that we can define, as to coordinates, until it
slows down.

This is why laboratory FTL events are disappearance and reappearance,
as the something that is accelerated outruns the luminal ghost of the
universe that we measure, ie. "see" with our eyes and our subluminal
and lumional instruments. Zero time appears to have elapsed. That is
relative to the observer and the observer's means of measurement. An
illusion. Some have ascribed negative t to some of those events. I
think that is very disputable.

Negative t _only_ occurs in instances of what Sarfatti calls
"backreaction" and I would tend to term "hyperspace" (5D not 4D)
field.

bernardZ wrote:

Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.


Information _can_ be conveyed both by real FTL events. Real FTL is
where subluminals or luminals are accelerated to some velocity greater
than C. The information disappears when it is accelarated beyond C,
and the information reappears when it slows down. Simple to
comprehend.

From the viewpoint of the observer on the something that is
accelerated above velocity C, everything disappears. That observer
cannot observe, measure, the luminal and subluminal universe. He is
outside of it, because he has outrun the ghost. He cannot even view
the ghost of the past. He has outrun it. (I had to think about this a
bit. I wanted to say he can view it, because we all want to believe
that, from our learned bad habit of looking at it that way. Not so. He
cannot. The universe reappears when he slows down to C or below C.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with hyperspace travel. This is a
purely a thought experiment not useful in practice. As I will explain
later.

Einstein stated
"I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
the character of our sense organs."
-- In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
-- causality.



Yes, in 4D Einsteinian physics definitely ruled out and will never be
proven to be otherwise.

In 5D physics and with "backreaction" accomodated into our
cosmological viewpoint, it becomes possible to see the effect before
the cause.

That is apparent, not real, FTL. The "backreaction" in a 5D space-time
matrix, conveys information along the negative t axis, but that makes
it appear to be at infinity, infinite velocity and virtual coordinates
that cannot be defined, from the frame of reference of an observer who
is mired in 4D, positive t, space-time. That does not preclude the
observer receiving information by means of "backreaction" because the
observer _is_ located within a 5D space-time system. If that is
understood then the anomalous conveyance of information from an event
that has not been effected by volition, as of now, becomes
understandable and there is enough evidence that that does happen.

Now.... the hyperspace engine.

I will describe the basic engine in another message entitled "Basics
of a Hyperspace Engine".

Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
January 26, 2008



Dang it... you broke my ***** meter!
No mass is ever observed to have velocity at or exceeding the
speed of light. No arbitrary infromation is propagated faster
than the speed of light.
There is no such thing as superluminal "signals".
Quantum entanglement cannot be used for *arbitrary communications*
over arbitrary distances which remains constrained by the speed
of light.
Neither phase velocity nor group velocity can be used for *arbitrary
communications* over arbitrary distances which remains constrained by
the speed of light.
A Mathematical Theory of Communication by Claude E. Shannon
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf
Claude E. Shannon
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Shannon.html
.



User: "bernardZ"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 28 Jan 2008 03:50:16 AM
In article <3fMlj.313164$Fc.156008@attbi_s21>,

says...

bernardZ wrote:

In article <_Mylj.47786$Ux2.15592@attbi_s22>,


says...

Morpheal wrote:

There is no problem as to information being conveyed when something
travels faster than light.

"something" doesn't move faster than light!



Under relativity it can as long as no information transfer takes place.

Einstein stated


"I did not say that a superluminal velocity is impossible; it is not
impossible from the logical point of view, rather one can only say: if
there existed a velocity that could really be conceived as the velocity
of propagation of a physical stimulus, then it would be possible to
construct an arrangement that would allow us to see at some place
consequences of actions before we had innervated the thing by acts of
volition. This seems to me to be something that has to be ruled out
until proven otherwise, because it does not seem to be in accord with
our experience. Physical propagation velocities have nothing to do with
the character of our sense organs."


In other words you can pick two of the three FTL, relativity or
causality.


No mass is ever observed to have velocity at or exceeding the
speed of light.

Under relativity tachyons are theoretically possible!
.
User: "Tom Roberts"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 28 Jan 2008 04:27:38 AM
bernardZ wrote:

Under relativity tachyons are theoretically possible!

In SR, yes. There have been numerous searches for them, and none have
ever been reliably and reproducibly found.
In GR, the existence of tachyons is limited to objects which do not
interact in any way with normal matter (otherwise the theory itself
falls apart as one cannot prove the existence and uniqueness of the
differential equations). That takes them out of the realm of science.
Tom Roberts
.
User: "bernardZ"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 29 Jan 2008 07:19:28 AM
In article <u6inj.835$5K1.666@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, tjroberts137
@sbcglobal.net says...

In GR, the existence of tachyons is limited to objects which do not
interact in any way with normal matter (otherwise the theory itself
falls apart as one cannot prove the existence and uniqueness of the
differential equations). That takes them out of the realm of science.

Is that another way of saying that if they exist they break the law of
causality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
Tachyons are prevented from violating causality by the Feinberg
reinterpretation principle[3] which states that a negative-energy
tachyon sent back in time in an attempt to violate causality can always
be reinterpreted as a positive-energy tachyon travelling forward in
time.

.
User: "Tom Roberts"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 29 Jan 2008 11:26:51 AM
bernardZ wrote:

In article <u6inj.835$5K1.666@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, tjroberts137
@sbcglobal.net says...

In GR, the existence of tachyons is limited to objects which do not
interact in any way with normal matter (otherwise the theory itself
falls apart as one cannot prove the existence and uniqueness of the
differential equations). That takes them out of the realm of science.


Is that another way of saying that if they exist they break the law of
causality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
Tachyons are prevented from violating causality by the Feinberg
reinterpretation principle[3] which states that a negative-energy
tachyon sent back in time in an attempt to violate causality can always
be reinterpreted as a positive-energy tachyon travelling forward in
time.

No. That is an SR interpretation of tachyons.
In GR the situation is much worse, as I understand it, because the
presence of tachyons that interact with normal matter would violate the
conditions of the proofs that ensure that the differential equations of
the theory actually have self-consistent solutions (I am not an expert
on this). It's not clear that a mathematical theory like GR makes any
sense at all if its equations don't have solutions. Now, I'm not sure
one can prove that there are no solutions, just that one cannot prove
that there are solutions -- still, that would be a first among all
physical theories to date (well, except for string theory, I guess (:-)).
The lack of experimental observation of tachyons is at least reassuring....
Tom Roberts
.









User: "Jan Panteltje"

Title: Re: Another experiment of "faster than light" light. 22 Jan 2008 02:21:37 PM
On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:53:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Robert
Clark <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in
<4d2c2642-a3cb-47dc-955a-1cfb7b938282@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

LANL Scientist makes radio waves travel faster than light.
Published on January 19th, 2008
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15666

As described by the researchers it is more akin to a search light
sweeping out a beam at arbitrarily large speeds on the moon:

Is Faster Than Light Travel or Communication Possible?
3. Shadows and Light Spots.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#3

This link describes the ideas behind the research in a little more
detail:

April 2001
From New Scientist
Warp speed.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113673.html



Bob Clark

All those silly excuses to Einstone, yuk.
Thank you for posting this, to bad there are no technical details.
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
A single nuclear collision experiment has produced more than 1400nuclides
Re: Communication Faster Than Light
Europe is More Dangerous than the US!!!
A wire takes the shape of the semicircle x² + y² = 1, y = 0, and is thicker near its base than near the top. Find the center of mass of the write if the linear density at any point is proportional to its distance from the line y = 1.
Hot water freezing faster than cold. (The Mpemba Effect?)
All MIDI outputs other than me are earsores!
@ IRAQI OIL PRECIOUS THAN RUMSFELD - FRIEDMAN
Can kinetic friction be greater than static?
THE HAND IS QUICKER THAN THE EYE
Democrats lost FAR more than the election . . .
Stars may not be able to grow bigger than about 150 Solar masses
Waves Larger Than the Universe?
You've got more kooks than alt.conspiracy
I'm missing some folks way more knowledgeable than me.
Black Holes As Initial Rather than Terminal Objects
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER