300 Times Faster than the speed of Light!!

[NeilTrain]

Yes, recently scientists have created waves of energy that can travel up to 300 times the speed of light.

Using a modified laser, they had light particles move so fast that they were coming out of the other end of the measurement chamber theoretically before they even entered.

How? Imagine a slow moving boat, the waves that move out in front of it, they are created from the movement of the boat, but are actually moving faster than the boat itself, weird, but now imagine doing this with the energy waves from light. now thats crazy.

Now apply this to computers, fiber optics use light, so this is probably the first thing to benefit, but in time, even CPU's will be spitting out messages at this rate, who knows how fast the chips will be going 10 years from now.

Sorry i dont have a link to this articel, i read it in a local newspaper last week, but im sure it wont be hard to find it if you do a few searches.
- Neil

[Szech]

That would be pretty trippy, to have light come out of that thing a second before you turn it on. Could you imagine that? You get up to turn on the lights, and they turn on before you reach the light switch!

[hd581]

Could you imagine that? You get up to turn on the lights, and they turn on before you reach the light switch!
Except that it can't be ordinary bulbs, they have to be special lasers. So you get up to turn on the lights, and you get vaporized before you get there. Wow, that sucks.

[wtp]

my god... this could mean the beginning of time traveling, all you need is something that is faster than the speed of light. once u exceed that, u go back in time..... if we can make a vehicle, then well, the future can change..... but the question is, if you go back before you were born, would u exist? and if u killed hitler or whatever, would the future be different? my god.. scary, i say time travelling has it's pros, but many cons.. nothing we know until we do it.

wtp

[brandon184]

Time Travelling.. Scary. You distrupt a rock, and the next thing you know Bill Gates owns every every human being in the world. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by brandon184 (edited 06-04-2000).]

[hd581]

On this note, go see the movie Frequency. I thought it was pretty good.

[Meat Puppet]

Thats why you "unfortunately in some cases" wouldnt change anything.

But as for the cpu what would the htz be on that thing?? Instantaneus streaming audio no more world wide wait thats for sure http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif.

[blind to truth]

well,it could be THz (terahertz) THz=about,i think,1,000GHz.Besides,no one will let time travel exsist.Think of it,no one would trust some one else fiddleing with the present.But it could be for the best,Like when marty's dad punched Biff in 1955,the in 1985 he had a decent life.

[Inferior]

Can't they make microwaves go faster than the speed of light too?

[NeilTrain]

I dont know about the microwaves, but as for time travel, that will never happen, sorry. Even if you can go a million times faster than light, all you can do is SEE the past, not interact with it. That would help solve murders of course, you could just go back to the scene of the crime and video tape it, then show up in court with a VHS, including close-ups, the killer will be shocked, he didnt see any cameras, especially that close, thats nuts, youll never have to witness something ever again, even if you miss it, you can just go back and record it.

But people have been doing that for years, using the Hubble telescope you can look so deep into space you can practically see the big bang, but wait that was a jilion years ago, how can you see it? well the light has travelled so far its taken a really long, long time, kinda like an echo, except with light.
But if you were to integrate some sort of light wave sensor into an object, say, a robot for example, the robot could have Jedi-like reflexes, that is, it will see things before they happen, things really close would be harder to react to, but further away, the greater the time you have before the actual light reaches it. It could dodge bullets it would be so fast.

[FrozenLiquidity]

Although I don't believe what you said NeilTrain, is true. If I could get a copy of this article and take a look at it I might think otherwise. But as it stands now, I do not believe anything can go faster than light.
Even if the light were emitted from a source that is moving at the speed of light, from a stationary viewpoint the light being emitted is going at the speed of light, which is about 630 million miles per hour or something.
Also, the fourth dimension, the dimension of time, is in a constant forward motion, and could not be reversed. Just as we see light from distant stars that have taken hundreds of years to reach us, If we were at that star looking back at Earth, we would see things on Earth that took place hunrededs of years ago. But time only moves one way, so while we can see things happening in the past, we cannot actually revisit the past. Plus, that would create a temporal paradox and the universe would blow up or sumthin' http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
As objects near the speed of light, time for them changes. When you are moving, your time is different than from someone who is just standing around. Although not noticeable at the speeds that we travel at and consider "fast" (70 to 120 MPH http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif )The effects of become readily apparent when one nears the speed of light. If you had a twin brother and he staied on earth while you took a spaceship to go to someplace and you started to travel at nearly the speed of light, time would slow down enough for the people inside the vessel that when they returned, the effects of this would be noticable when their twin is 80 years old and you are only and 35, yet you were both the same age when you left. People in motion age slower than people that are motionless.
One last point, if you were moving near the speed of light away from earth, you would look back at earth and see things in sllooowww mooottiioonn. If you attained the speed of light and looked back, the earth would be a still photo. If you somehow managed to go faster than light, than you would see things on earth happening in reverse, or you would see nothing. When I see nothing, I do not mean complete blackness, I mean a void. You wouldn't see anything.

Anyone found this article? scan it in or type it up and send it to me.

FrozenLiquidity

Edit->Hey Inferior, thats a cute way to boost your post count real fast. But it didn't contribute an ounce to this discussion.

[This message has been edited by FrozenLiquidity (edited 06-05-2000).]

[akaBruno]

Let me know when it comes out in a time released capsule form. I could use a prescription.

Bruno

[Szech]

My head hurts.

[NeilTrain]

First of all, ill apologize for not posting a link to this article when i opened this thread. Like i said i first read it in a local newspaper and later heard it on the national news, Tom Brokaw himself explained most of it, or was it Dan Rather? i get those guys mixed up a lot.

Anyways, as soon as i get home from work today i will dig up the article, and either type it up or look for a link in it.

Also, FrozenLiquidity, you didnt read my last post very well, I never said you could travel back in time, i only said you could SEE the past, and even if you are right about it looking like it was in reverse, who cares, when you are done recording, just play it backwards, its not that hard, either way, it is possible to see the past, as a matter of fact when you look at the sun you are looking at the past, it is 8 minutes old. and no when you travel away from the earth at the speed of light and return you will not be younger than your twin brother, maybe when you are 40 light years away you will, but in the time it takes you to get back, even if going the same speed, you will arrive at the same age.

I think im getting ahead of myself, let me find the article before i go on any further, ive been looking for it on MSNBC but you know these things take forever to get new stuff on them.

[Meat Puppet]

Im not sure if this is the article you read but its the same principle. http://www.compu-web.com/ftl.htm

[This message has been edited by Meat Puppet (edited 06-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Meat Puppet (edited 06-05-2000).]

[NeilTrain]

that seems to be along the same line of research, but a bit older, the one im speaking of is within the last week or so, heres another one,
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/space/20000531/sc/scientists_try_to_prove_a_higher_speed_of_light_1. html

but still a bit off from the one im looking for, but im still searching, ill post it as soon as i can find it,
- Neil

[Meat Puppet]

Heres a new 1 how about being able to walk faster than the speed of light. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/news/trends/t990226a.html

[This message has been edited by Meat Puppet (edited 06-05-2000).]

[FrozenLiquidity]

Hey Neil, I was in the middle of typing my post when you posted that, I did not see that until after I had made my post.

No no, light has nothing to do with how fast you age. Speed does. Fro Example: A person in a race car moving at 120 MPH around a track is timed from two sources. One inside the car, and one from the start and finish point. When the circut is complete and the timings are made (both start and stop at exactly the same time) then the timing from the outside (stationary) source will be 12.0 seconds, however, the timing from the car will read 11.9999999999999999999999999999 on and on and on... Although the discreptiancy is virtually invisible, as the speed increase to 95% or 97% the speed of light, there is a much much larger discreptiancy.

On your way home from work I suggest you stop by a book store and pick up a copy of "the elegant universe" by Brian Greene. It has many well exlained points in it that you should be aware of.

FrozenLiquidity

[NeilTrain]

I'm not claiming to be stinkin rocket scientist or anything, I program computers, all i said was at the opening of this thread was that I read an article, which was pulled from a respected scientific journal, which stated that researchers had indeed made waves of energy (not matter, to which you keep reffering to) exceed the speed of light, now if i recall my physics class correctly, energy does not at all obey the same laws as physical matter.

Ive got enough bloody books, i dont need another waste of trees.

- Neil

[Warthog]

Ok. I hate it when someone makes the thread really wide.

Warthog

[yaroa]

This seem to be an interesting thread, but no way I'm going to scroll back and forward. Oh well, my loss http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[FrozenLiquidity]

Hey Meat Puppet what's up with the profanity?
And enough of the "stinkin" adjectives.

And Neil, nowadays we use this thing called "recycling" ree-cy-cul-ling so we don't waste as many "trees". http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

An there is no need to get upset over little things, everyone makes mistakes.

Ok so I was wrong, probably jumping to conclusions before thoroughly looking at the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, you should be thanking me for my input for this topic, as I am actually contributing to the discussion and not posting little one sentence posts, like many other people here seem to be doing. But if a tiny post includes a link that can contribute, it's all good. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Lets just forgive and continue this discussion in an orderly manner. Ok? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

FrozenLiquidity

[wtp]

i'm sorry neil train, but yes... scientist has proven that if you go faster than the speed of light, time slows down, and you go back in time. i'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's just like that energy wave, it didn't go forward did it? It went BACK. This applies for only the object being sent at that speed, unfortunelty, we don't know if matter can be sent at those speeds. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

wtp

[NeilTrain]

I never meant for anybody to take offense to anything, and i never meant claim i knew everything on this subject either.

It is an interesting subject area, and everyone here is entitled to thier point of view. But no one should say someone is wrong, unless of course they are outright wrong, i have been guilty of this too, and if i were to put a value on all the reply's to this thread, Frozen, yours would be the highest, as they offered the most to the conversation. Those one liners are used way too often and are especially annoying when you get an email everytime someone posts a reply.

Today i learned I shouldnt post a reply unless i have all the ammunition needed to defend my statements up front. I had previously read another thread that made me think of the subject and i thought i would post it, i wont make that mistake again.

[Wiz]

Einstein proved that once the speed o light is reached, length shrinks to nothing and mass increases to infinity.

l=l'((1-(V^2/C^2))^(1/2))

where l is the normal length and l' is the length after the speed.

V is the speed which you are moving at, and C is the speed of light.

so if you move the speed of light, you have a o in the denominator, and therefore, a null number for the l'. Einstein proved this in 1905, i want to say. Somewhere in that time period.

And that folks, is special relativity.

[Meat Puppet]

Umm?? Frozen It was never anything that needed to be dropped.Sorry you took it the wrong way the "smart a.." was meant for myself not you. I was only ribbing you hence forth the http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif. Any how I agree with you case dismissed http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif "

[NeilTrain]

Wiz,
Thanks for the science lesson, but we were talking about energy, not any objects, energy has no mass to begin with, so like i said earlier, different rules apply.

[Wiz]

those particles have mass there neil.

[FrozenLiquidity]

OIC; NeilTrain & Meat Puppet http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif Hehe http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Now that we are all on equal terms with eachother, lets continue to discuss.

As we all should know by now, if this technology that Neil has alerted us to is in fact usable, it cannot(in my mind) be applied to space craft as they are composed of matter as Neil so obviously pointed out( http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif ). This technology could be applied to processors, however it would be ages before they could shrink the "laser-thingy" to be of use to the current and future die-sizes. Futhermore, over such short distances, any visible increase in speed would be very slight, as today's processors are already very fast, and electrons move through he circuts of a CPU at an extremely fast rate over short distances, if there were an increase in speed as Neil suggested, I doubt that much performace difference would be noticed.

However Neil skipped over a very important point. Although this "faster than light" has no practical use in processors, it could be used to greatly improve the quality of internet connections that use fiber-optics. Think of it, a guy 80 miles away from is CO (Central Office, where ISP and Gateway is located) could be able to get pings of 1ms or less! (Depends on quality of cable and other such factors...) But this would definetly bring a reveloution to global communications, as applied uses of technology such as this would greatly decrease access time from online resources on the other side of the planet when used correctly.

I sure wouldn't mind having a net' connection like that! Hell I wouldn't mind having a high speed connection now. All I got is a 56k that connects at 26.4k

Wiz, thanks for the info about the mass and volume of matter that is acellerated to near-light speeds. I was going to include a snippet in my post about it but didn't have any solid info on it. Glad to know that someone is on top of things where I am slippin' and trippin' http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Now that we have fired up and stoked this discussion, I think it is time for some hot debates! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

FrozenLiquidity

Edit-> On second thought Neil, you did mention Fiber optics in your topic-starting post http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif so you get credit for that. And since fiber optics directly relates with internet connections you did mention it in a way. I guess I am expanding...

Actually, wat Wiz says is true, light particles do have mass, however little they may have.

[This message has been edited by FrozenLiquidity (edited 06-05-2000).]

[hhh8785]

We will never be able to go the speed of light. According to Al Einstein's special theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same. What does that mean to us? You shine a light into space and it goes at 186,000 miles/second. If you jump into a spaceship and chase that light beam at 185,000 miles/second, that light beam isn't just going 1000 miles/ second faster than you, it is going 186,000 miles/second faster than you. Another thing is that as an objects speed increases, it's mass increases. The faster you go, that harder it is to go faster. As you head nearer to the speed of light, you mass goes closer and closer to infinity. So we might go 99.999999999999% the speed of light, but we could never go 100%, because nothing could create enough energy to move something that weighs infinity pounds.
As for time travel, the laws of physics actually permit time travel in the sub-atomic world. A Positron, the antiparticle associated with the electron, can be thought of as an electron going back through time. trying to apply this to something bigger than an electron would be a waste. But thanks once again to Al Einstein, we know that a type of Time Travel does exist. His theories showed that as you come closer to the speed of light, time goes slower to a stationary observer. Jump into a spaceship, go to a star 500 light years away going 99.995% the speed of light both their and back, and the earth will be 1000 years older, and you would be 10 years older. An Astronaut staying in space for about 2 monthes who comes back to earth would be about a millasecond younger than if he spent those two monthes on earth. While theoretically, there are ways to move a large object back in time, it will probably never happen. Some ideas would require something constructed in space that took 1/2 of all matter in the galaxy, some require a giant ring built of more stuff than the sun has. But Stephen Hawking theorized through quantum mechanics that physics would always find a way to prevent backward time travel. I am sure he has his reasons which are too complicated for me to understand, so I will not argue that point.

I got most of this info from a Time Magazine which had most of this stuff in it, I did not just make it up, or go look it up at some unreliable website.

[brandon184]

I find some of this quite funny.

First of all, I HIGHLY doubt that they achieved ANYTHING faster than the speed of light. If I see an article from a reliable source, I will consider believing it.

The fastest travel speed is the speed of light. Humans would be LUCKY to meet that speed, and it wouldn't be any time soon. Just think about it. Its pretty darn fast.

I don't really see how this whole topic wandered off into some type of "argument" regarding the way you age?!

NeilTrain : *Hopefully* you are not one of these post-happy people who post unneeded messages on this board. And if you are, which I am trusting you are not, please don't be!

Thats my .02 --

- brandon

P.S. > FrozenLiquidity : I don't see where Meat Puppet posted any profanity in his messages. If you are referring to the word @ss, then you really need to loosen up.

[NeilTrain]

I found the Article!

It was originaly posted in the new york times, so this will settle the entire argument, and all the misunderstandings.

I cant link directly to it, but if you go to http://www.nytimes.com/

Then click archives from the left hand menu (about halfway down) then do a search for (in quotes) "speed of light" the first article turned up in the search is the one im talking about.

lol, theres only one problem, the New York Times charges $2.50 to view an article from the archives, they only show you the first few sentences for free, and the article is about half of a newspaper page, maybe tomarow i will scan the **** thing if people keep disagreeing with me, or ill just buy it, but its late and i dont feel like entering all my cc info and all that.

[FrozenLiquidity]

brandon184, if there is anyone here that needs to loosen up it is you.

If you don't have something nice to post, than don't post anything at all! I am very sensitive to profanity and I hope that you don't use words like that when you talk to your mama.

I suggest that you visit this post and take their suggestions if you consider this post to be "pointless". http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/006773.html

FrozenLiquidity

[brandon184]

FrozenLiquidity : If you are sensitive to that word, than maybe you should not be here. This is a board for mature people who can handle the odd "offensive" word here and there.

I've been here for over a year now, and don't need someone (with an attitude, I may add) come here and start giving me (or any other of the respectable members of this board) any trouble.



[This message has been edited by brandon184 (edited 06-05-2000).]

[NeilTrain]

Hold on Brandon,

Me and Frozen may have done a lot of arguing, but He and I, along with some of the other contributors to this thread, have respected eachothers boundries, and since i am the originator of this thread, i dont feel out of place telling you that if you dont have something worthwhile to add to this conversation, it is you who should leave.

[brandon184]

NeilTrain : As I can see you are kind of new here, let me explain something to you. You may be the origniator of any sort of thread. That does not give you any extra, special privledges, you are not in charge, etc, etc.

I'm not talking about FrozenLiquidity just in *this* thread alone, I'm talking about the whole course of time he has been here.

Don't take me offensively, I'm just settling something.

And FrozenLiquidity, if you want to discuss this issue further, feel free to email me at : tooke1@sk.sympatico.ca

P.S. >> You are out of place telling me to leave. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Just letting you know.

[This message has been edited by brandon184 (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Glynn R Harris]

Note:
This post is NOT, I repeat, NOT,
the work of a physicist (armchair or
otherwise.)
-- Um, guys? If the speed of light IS a
constant, as assumed by Einstein and others,
and it has just been exceeded by light,
notwithstanding that it Should be Arrested
and Brought Up on Charges, I am thinking
that perhaps E=MC^2 and all that goes with
it will need some slight reformulation. So
maybe time travel (or temporal voyeurism)
won't be easy simply because those theories
which so far have suggested TT as a
possibility, are, um, not quite right? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
And, while we're at it, are we really so
sure of the size of the universe anymore?
Since its measured by the shift of spectrum
what about a visic boom? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif
And yes, I hopefully have succeeded in
formatting this myself. What dang setting
causes the message to go off my screen?? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[wtp]

well, einstein was also the one that wanted to time travel. as you go toward the speed of light, time slows down. it's possible, but with energy. matter has been tried, but only been shot to be near the speed of light, but not past it. ENERGY on the other hand is the only thing that we can send, because it won't burn up. Matter burns up at those speeds, and turns to energy. and if everyone took their science class, energy never dies. the only way we can time travel is if we can turn to energy and back to matter, or have some sort of forcefield protecting us from turning to energy.

[NeilTrain]

Brandon,

you obviously didnt take the time to read the 30 or so posts in front of you in this thread, you are a lazy, stupid, @$$ (sorry Frozen, i had to http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif ) What you said could have possibly made all the people who read it dumber, and you are awarded no points for your contribution, lol

I dont care if youve been on this forum since it was first started, it gives you know right to say anything to anyobody, even if they just joined a few minutes ago, I really wish you wouldnt have entered this conversation. I feel sorry for all the other threads you probably tarnished with your negative attitude over the past year that these forums have been "blessed" with your presence.

Go back to preschool and leaqrn how to be good boy.

[brandon184]

And you are?

Look, I don't need to take any of this ****! I have the right to participate and voice my opinions in any topic I wish. Whether it is towards the topic itself or towards another user. You, being a new user, obviously have no knowledge of any customs, or rules the regulars of this board know, and are used to!

I come here looking for help, and helping people who need it.

I don't need you rank-happy people screwing up my day!

If you think you will come here one day, and the next day you will be king kong, you are sadly mistaken bud, because it won't happen!

I'm guessing by that last post you are, what, 9?

And - the 30 posts in front of this one were basically your crybaby posts about no one believing you.

So save me the sob story and pay some respect, to both the people who actually post normal, believeable, and HELPFUL posts on this forum.

If you want to pretend your some big guy around here, thats fine with me - but trust me, your the only one believing it.

So get in your mobile home, move over one lot and proceed with your day.

This is the LAST of my postings on this sorry-*** topic.



[This message has been edited by brandon184 (edited 06-05-2000).]

[mattheadfat]

this tread reminds me of my idea of straping a piece of penut buttered toast to the back of a cat, then droping the cat and watching it spin (cause cat's always land on their feet, and buttered toast always lands butter side down)

[SysOpt]

For the sake of ending this argument, here is the article. If the NY times asks us to remove it, I will do so. And folks: be nice to each other please - respectful and professional attitudes are appreciated here.

Faster Than Light, Maybe, But Not Back to the Future

By JAMES GLANZ
The speed at which light travels through a vacuum, about 186,000 miles per second, is enshrined in physics lore as a universal speed limit. Nothing can travel faster than that speed, according to freshman textbooks and conversation at sophisticated wine bars; if anything could, Einstein's theory of relativity would crumble, and theoretical physics would fall into disarray.

Two new experiments have demonstrated how flexible or misleading that comfortable wisdom can be in the right circumstances. Using a combination of atomic and electromagnetic effects, researchers have produced light beams in the laboratory that appear to travel much faster than the normal speed of light. Einstein's theory survives, physicists say, but the results of the experiments, they agree, are mind-bending.


In the most striking of the new experiments a pulse of light that passes through a transparent chamber filled with specially prepared cesium gas appears to be pushed to speeds of 300 times the normal speed of light. That is so fast that, under these peculiar circumstances, the main part of the pulse exits the chamber even before it enters.

It is as if someone looking through a window at home were to see a man slip and fall on a patch of ice while crossing the street well before witnesses on the sidewalk saw the mishap occur -- a preview of the future. But Einstein's theory, and at least a shred of common sense, seem to survive, the physicists explain, because the effect could never be used to signal back in time to change the past and, in the example, avert the accident.

A paper on the experiment, by Dr. Lijun Wang of the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, N.J., has been submitted to Nature and is undergoing peer review. It is only the most spectacular example of work by a wide range of researchers who have recently produced superluminal speeds of propagation in various materials, in hopes of finding a chink in Einstein's armor and of using the effect in practical applications like speeding up electrical circuits.

''It looks like a beautiful experiment,'' said Dr. Raymond Chiao, a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley, who, like a number of physicists in the close-knit community of optics research, is knowledgeable about Dr. Wang's work.


Dr. Chiao, whose own research laid some of the groundwork for the experiment, added that ''there's been a lot of controversy'' over whether the finding means that actual information -- like the news of an impending accident -- could be sent faster than c, the velocity of light. But he said that he and most other physicists agreed that it could not.

Though declining to provide details of his paper because it is under review, Dr. Wang said: ''Our light pulses can indeed be made to travel faster than c. This is a special property of light itself, which is different from a familiar object like a brick,'' since light is a wave with no mass. A brick could not travel so fast without creating truly big problems for physics, not to mention humanity as a whole.

A paper on the second new experiment, by Dr. Daniela Mugnai, Dr. Anedio Ranfagni and Dr. Rocco Ruggeri of the Italian National Research Council, described what appeared to be slightly faster-than-c propagation of microwaves through ordinary air, and was published in the May 22 issue of Physical Review Letters.

The kind of chamber in Dr. Wang's experiment is normally used to amplify waves of laser light, not speed them up, said Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg, a physicist at the University of Toronto. In the usual arrangement, one beam of light is shone on the chamber, exciting the cesium atoms, and then a second beam passing through the chamber soaks up some of that energy and gets amplified when it passes through the atoms.

But the amplification occurs only if the second beam is tuned to a certain precise wavelength, Dr. Steinberg said. By cleverly choosing a slightly different wavelength, Dr. Wang induced the cesium to speed up a light pulse without distorting it in any way. ''If you look at the total pulse that comes out, it doesn't actually get amplified,'' Dr. Steinberg said.

Dr. Wang's experiment uses another property of light signals. Light signals, consisting of packets of waves, actually have two important speeds: the speed of the individual peaks and troughs of the light waves themselves, and the speed of the pulse or packet into which they are bunched.

A pulse may contain billions or trillions of tiny peaks and troughs. In air the two speeds are the same, but in the excited cesium they are not only different, but the pulses and the waves of which they are composed can travel in opposite directions, like a pocket of congestion on a highway, which can propagate back from a toll booth as rush hour begins, even as all the cars are still moving forward.

These so-called backward modes are not new in themselves, having been routinely measured in other media like plasmas, or ionized gases.

But in the cesium experiment, the outcome is particularly strange because the backward light waves can, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, in effect, borrow energy from the excited cesium atoms before giving it back a short time later. The overall result is an outgoing wave exactly the same in shape and intensity as the incoming wave; the outgoing wave just leaves early, before the peak of the incoming wave even arrives.

As most physicists interpret the experiment, it is a low-intensity precursor (sometimes called a tail, even when it comes first) of the incoming wave that clues the cesium chamber to the imminent arrival of a pulse. In a process whose details are poorly understood, the cesium chamber reconstructs the entire pulse solely from information contained in the shape and size of the tail, and spits outs the pulse early.

If the side of the chamber facing the incoming wave is called the near side, and the other the far side, the sequence of events is something like the following. The incoming wave packet, its tail extending ahead of it, approaches the chamber. Before the incoming signal's peak gets to the near side of the chamber, a pulse is emitted from the far side, along with a backward-moving wave packet, which heads back for the near side.

The backward wave packet, moving slower than c by a factor of 300, arrives at the near side of the chamber much later, but just in time to meet the main part of the the incoming light pulse. The peaks of one wave packet overlap the troughs of the other, so they cancel each other out and nothing remains. What has really happened is that the incoming wave has ''paid back'' the cesium atoms that lent energy on the other side of the chamber.

Someone who looked only at the beginning and end of the experiment would see only a pulse of light that somehow jumped forward in time by moving faster than normal light speed.

''The effect is really quite dramatic,'' Dr. Steinberg said. ''For a first demonstration, I think this is beautiful.''

In Dr. Wang's experiment, the outgoing pulse had already traveled about 60 feet from the chamber before the main part of the incoming pulse had reached the chamber's near side. That distance corresponds to 60-billionths of a second of light travel time. But it really would not allow anyone to send information faster than c, said Dr. Peter W. Milonni, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

''The information is already there in the leading edge of the pulse,'' Dr. Milonni said. ''You can get the impression of sending information superluminally even though you're not sending information.''

So for most physicists, no fundamental principles have been smashed in the new work.

Not all physicists agree that the question has been settled, though. ''This problem is still open,'' said Dr. Ranfagni of the Italian group, which used an ingenious set of reflecting optics to create microwave pulses that seemed to travel as much as 25 percent faster than c over short distances.

At least one physicist, Dr. Guenter Nimtz of the University of Cologne, holds the opinion that a number of experiments, including those of the Italian group, have in fact sent information superluminally. But not even Dr. Nimtz believes that this trick will allow one to reach back in time. He says, in essence, that the time it takes to read any incoming information will fritter away any temporal advantage, making it impossible to signal back and change events in the past.

However those debates end, though, Dr. Steinberg said that techniques closely related to Dr. Wang's might someday be used to speed up signals that normally get slowed down by passing through all sorts of ordinary materials in circuits. A miniaturized version of Dr. Wang's setup ''is exactly the kind of system you'd want for that application,'' Dr. Steinberg said.

Sadly for those who would like to see a computer chip without a speed limit, the trick would help the signals travel closer to the speed of light, but not beyond it, he said.


[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 06-05-2000).]

[jad1097]

Thank you for the story.

[zskillz]

this is some seriously crazy sh*t here.... I'm dying to read that article, so please post a link as soon as you can NeilTrain.

btw-hh8785 was right about the special relativity stuff

also, wtp, i'm not so sure that light quanta actually do have a mass... u see, i don't think that they can even be described by anything within our vocabulary, the easiest way to think of a light quanta is by thinking of a "wave packet", this is pretty much as close as we (with any language) can get to describing this phenomena. on the other hand, as einstein proved energy and mass and light are all related, but we don't know if that formula breaks down when it is taken to a limit... einstein made a lot of mistakes with a lot of his theories (of course he's still a genious, but he's not infallible)

and i'm gonna go through and read all of the posts more closely again tomorrow when I get home from work to take another look at the scientific stuff, but I only have to look at them one time to say this...

frozenLiquidity... stop *****ing so much, u gotta chill man... so what if people want to increase their post count, what the hell difference does it make to you? if it means that much to you, that's really unfortunate.

-Z

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 06-06-2000).]

[Meat Puppet]

Frozen your wrong light can affect the way you age http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif.

Its called "uv radiation" and its the reason that people that work out doors in the light wrinkle faster than those that work indoors or use sunscreen

P.S. I know no one likes a wise @&&, just had to do it though couldnt resist http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Meat Puppet (edited 06-05-2000).]

[NeilTrain]

MeatPuppet,

Thanks for the input, but those last two links you posted are not working for me, can you check them?

- Neil

[Meat Puppet]

Yeah I had to edit the last one removed the url. Infospace has a weird setup. My apologies.

[Meat Puppet]

I have just spent the past few hours, squinting at everything . From Einstein special theory to the string theory in quantum mechanics.

I,ve read articles ranging from FTL transmission to slowing light down from 186,00 miles per second to 38 mph using filters chilled to near absolute zero.

Truth being truth though, Einstein theory is just that theory and will remain theory until irreversibly proven as fact. I cant understand why anyone would want to believe that thats the end all regarding physics.

He was a great man Einstein but remember he was limited to his theory by the technology of his time. Lack of instruments that did not involve vacuum tubes etc.. And all though most theory today is a direct descendant of Einstein.

To say that nothing could ever exceed light would be like saying that theres no life in the universe except us, or theres no god. It simply cannot be either proved or disproved with absolute certainty.

When what it all boils down to is we really wont know until we get there. We live in an exciting time, and technology is advancing exponentially I,m not Hawking, or Nimitz.

But I think its a good thing that there are people out there that are willing to challenge conventional theory. Imagine the world if Gallilieo had cratered to the conventional theory of his time, or if Babbage had never had the nerve to dream up the difference engine."all though it wasn't practical" http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif it worked and he built it even though he was criticized for doing so.

The point being just because Albert said so. Does,nt validate that the experiments never took place and that they may have worked. I posted two threads earlier concerning the extremes of current research regarding "c" feel free to look and tell me what you think.

C=38 mph now thats pretty impressive brainstorming, and also illustrates that the speed of light in certain situations is not necessarily in coordination with time.

P.S. SysOpt thank you for finding the article in question. Hope this sways the thread to a more civil debate http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif.

[This message has been edited by Meat Puppet (edited 06-06-2000).]

[CMonster]

This is just great.. I mean NOT! Pretty soon you termites on the "terra log" will discover how to bring your brand of canibolism to the other parts of the universe...


We have used a "faster-than-light" principle for many eons now...

...matter-to-energy/energy-to-matter we traverse generated "light-strings" like electron movement through a conductor - only to reappear at the other end of the conductor at nearly the same moment we entered the other... but I cannot expect you worms to understand... hashhaahh ..I shouldn't be telling you this..but you won't believe me anyway.. so why not??

~edit: just wait until you learn to move at the speed of thought ~edit

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 06-06-2000).]

[Inferior]

Frozen, I think I did help the disscusion....

Because if what I said is correct, than breaking the light speed barrier this time is all the less special.

So can someone tell if microwaves are able to go faster than light too?

[socalgal]

Please, Members:

Don't name call. Don't tell another member posing a valid question is an attempt to up his post count.

Post with civility towards one another in these forums.

Everyone here has the right to discuss, disagree, debate, state opinions, ask questions, or even post an amusing aside, on topic, without trepidation.

When this stuff starts, it adds nothing intelligent to the discussion and incites further degradation. It's below what we strive for here.

Respect one another in these forums. There's enough disrespect in the real world; we don't need it here.

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 06-06-2000).]

[deep_sky]

everyone here needs to take a refresher course in physics with an emphasis on special/general relativity and quantum mechanics....then we can argue about it intelligently and reasonably.

matter and energy are not separate entities within this universe. they are interchangeable. einstein proved that, for now, exceeding the speed of light makes mass infinite. now there are things that technically have no mass (such as any form of electomagnetic radiation), so one would think that they can exceed the speed of light because they dont have the impediment of mass. then why does the electromagnetic spectrum travel at a rate C which has never been observed to exceed a certain point?

perhaps in the future, einstein's theories will be proved incorrect. but for now they are what governs the universe of the small. i dont understand why you all have to bicker over something that really does not matter to our macroscopic world. it is interteresting to debate the point of whether or not the speed of light can be exceeded, but to degrade to name calling and insults over something that most of us will never really truly understand seems rather a waste of time.
get thee some education and then argue about it. arguing about something that you do not know about makes one look foolish

[brandon184]

FrozenLiquidity - I did not say anything disrespectful to you in the very first place, other than that you should expect a little bit of "profanity" from people here and there.

As I can see you still have not emailed me, yet are still disturbed over the whole thing, then do the mature thing, and don't fill up this forum with your complaints about me.

You decided to take this a little too literally, and seem to still be stuck on the subject that I am some sort of jerk.

If any of you find that me informing a single user of something is so offensive, and that I am automatically labelled whatever you want to call me, then that sort of hurts. After all the time I have been here, helping, etc, etc. I don't appreciate that. *AT ALL*

Would it be better if I just stopped coming here? Is my knowledge no longer wanted here?



[This message has been edited by brandon184 (edited 06-06-2000).]

[tonym]

Folks, chill out!

Whew, talk about angry bluehairs *****in' at a bingo party!

The topic was physics, originally. Not the "Argument Clinic". Keep the replies "ON TOPIC" an we'll all be better off.

And BTW, up until the early 20th century, we didn't have a clue that the speed of light, c, was constant. So what makes you think that here in the nacent part of the 21st century that we're able to put that observation into the "Immutable Fact" column!

Simply put, we know what we know, NOW. We can only imagine the results of the work of bright and diligent scientists now and in the future.

So, instead of *****-slapping each other like the trailer trash on the Springer show, PLEASE use constructive criticisms (the Marquis of Queensbury rules do apply!!) and we'll all be a lot happier.


Tony

[Wiz]

I have to agree with Socal, this is a discussion on physics and special relativity, not a name-calling fest. I'm suprised that people with such itelligence still name call

[brandon184]

Don't worry about it.. The problem seems to be solved.

[zskillz]

dang man, does anyone actually have the link to this article, i'm DYING to read it!!!!
-Z

[SysOpt]

zskillz: scroll up, I posted the whole article here.

[FrozenLiquidity]

Well, I've just about exauseted my contributions to this discussion. And I don't think arguing with that jerk(brandon184) is going to help anything. If he really has a problem with helpful and curteous users such as you and I, then he can take it to the Editor-n'-Chief(respectively SysOpt) and talk to him about it, as I don't think that we are doing anything wrong here, and if you think that we are, then take a hint, and just ignore us. And zskillz, there has been a large debate over the people who increse their post count by posting many tiny messages, I suggest you read it, and then "chill". Hopefully that will be the end of this controversey. (I can be a hypocrite sometimes)

As for the discussion, until Einsteins' current theory is proved fasle, I guess we'll just have to live in a sub light-speed world. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Hey, it's a good place!

FrozenLiquidity

[scotter]

well here it is in a nut shell
The only truth is that truth it's self is a lie ! There are no real limits to anything it's all just our perverted veiw of reality 99% of every thing we have be taught as true will be proven wrong at some point in the future http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
so in my book the speed of light will be broken and we will travel faster than 186,000 mile's/sec when ? who knows but I do know it will happen unless of course we kill our self's off first http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

great topic by the way I learned a lot lol http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[SysOpt]

I agree, scotter..

[Joel Kleppinger]

Actually, knowledge is merely our PERCEPTION of the truth. We do the best we can with what we have available, but because of our limitations (equipment, discernment, pre-understanding, etc.), we mess up a lot.
But that doesn't mean that we aren't still working to get closer to the truth. And truth isn't a lie... not even all knowledge is a lie. The problem is that we rarely ever know WHICH knowledge is truth. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Wiz]

Reality cannot even be defined, because it could be so abstract. How can we say that our views are reality, instead of the guy who walks down the street talking to himself? We do not know who he is talking to, or if it is real or not.

As for the light speed thing, i dont think it is possible, because when you hit the speed of light, time stops. This has been proven, because muons, which are very small particles can travel 26000 meters in 5 seconds, even though their half-life is less than .0000001 seconds. They go at 98% the speed of light and time slows down, because if they were still in the same time frame as us, they would travel only about 500 meters. Therefore, time must slow down to aco**** for this difference.

If you dont understand this, just let me know, i'll explain it better.

[scotter]

all it will take is one person who does not believe that it cant be done to figure out how to do it http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[chipbgt]

I bet someone is still waiting for the link..well guess what...im gonna go get it http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Heres your link.... http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html

now everyone stop being so silly.

[This message has been edited by chipbgt (edited 06-07-2000).]

[U-96]

I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible. We (humans) have the habit of assuming proofs as accepted until someone with conviction, for whatever reason, works out something new.

Cross these off the list:
Sun revolves around the earth
Travelling above 30mph will suffocate you
Aircraft will disintegrate at Mach 1,2,3, etc
C=constant

In this case, I suppose most assumed that light could travel no faster than when in a vacuum. I know it's a different type of wave, but sound and electricity travels at different speeds in different media, so why not light? Lumo-conductivity. There, I made a new word. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


U-96

[This message has been edited by U-96 (edited 06-08-2000).]

[zskillz]

the speed of light is dependent on the medium that it is travelling through...
that is a proven fact, there is another topic in this forum, that discusses this briefly... don't know how to link to it, but it's an obvious post title
-Z

[NeilTrain]

the speed of light is dependent on the medium that it is travelling through...
that is a proven fact

If theres one thing you should have learned from reading this thread, it's that nothing is "Proven Fact"

A lot of people who posted here seemed upset and really did not like the Idea of challenging Einstiens theory. But after close review of the several articles linked to in this thread, i dont believe Einstiens work is in jeopardy. The percieved speed of light is what is at dispute here. Perhaps you cant really take anything, with or without matter, past the speed of light. Perhaps the speed of 300 times faster attained is the actual speed of light, and we had measured it wrong all these years. But then theres the article where the scientists actually slowed light down to 35 miles per hour? That really throws ya off, i think even more than the idea of the acceleration of light. I would have liked to see that, you can watch something move at 35 mph, watching light move into a dark room at that speed would probably look pretty cool.
Thanks zskills for pointing out that the medium light is traveling through affets it, that gave me another idea that adds to an earlier discussion; will this light speed altering technology ever enhance computers or their components? I think yes, but others say the equipment used to achieve these speeds would never fit into a microchip, but if you just made chips out of the treated cesium used in the expiriment, maybe we can make the current move 300 times faster, that would be cool, making my 500 Mhz chip go a nice 150 Ghz, wow that would be a jump, think what you could overclock that puppy to!
And dont forget CD's are read with light, think how fast your Cd-Roms and DVD's could go if using this high speed light. They probably would burn up from the high RPM's needed to keep up with the read speed. The new terrabyte hard drives due out in the next 2 years use light, but are stationary, maybe they could benifit from the faster light.
I would like to say thanks to everyone that contributed to this discussion, I had no idea when i posted it that it would get nearly 70 posts.

[krusty the klown]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the speed of light is dependent on the medium that it is travelling through...
that is a proven fact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If theres one thing you should have learned from reading this thread, it's that nothing is "Proven Fact"

Are we to totally disbelieve everything simply on the grounds that there's a possibility it may be disproven? The difference in the speed of light in a vacuum compared to the speed of light in water is measurable, real, well-documented and observable (place a pencil half in and half out of a cup of water - the effect you observe is due to the difference in the speed of light in water vs. air).

Some things we have to accept - like bears cr@p in the woods - there's no need to question that http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

(OK, so some smart @$$ is going to say 'what about Polar bears' LOL)

Very often, with modern-day physics, the theory comes before the proof (experiment) and until we can directly prove the theory, there will always be room for disproof.

BTW:

Energy has mass: E=MC^2 http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif
Light has mass, as it has energy. Its energy is proportional to its frequency (colour)....... unless someone disproves it, LOL.


EDIT: I bet when you posted this that you had no idea that it would nearly degenerate into the Jerry Springer Show Online, either http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by krusty the klown (edited 06-09-2000).]

[NeilTrain]

place a pencil half in and half out of a cup of water - the effect you observe is due to the difference in the speed of light in water vs. air

Very, Very Wrong, this is because the water acts as a lens, even if there is a speed of light difference here, the human eye can not pick up on this, especially in a volume of water as small as a single glass. Your glasses change the way your computer screen looks, this does not mean it changes the speed of the light from your monitor.

Some things we have to accept - like bears cr@p in the woods - there's no need to question that
in the 1300's people might have said this:
Some things we have to accept - like the earth is flat - there's no need to question that

I say question everything. Lets say Einsteins theory's someday are proved to be totally bogus. That doesn't mean he was an idiot, but he did make a huge contribution to science, and If i were the one to devise E=MC^2, i wouldn't feel offended when people questioned my work, in fact, i think Einstein encouraged people to question his work, this is how advances in science are made. I'm glad there are people who challenge fact, wether directly or indirectly, they are the ones that drive technology into new realms, and turn dreams into reality.

If this debate gets any hotter, I'm gonna email a Physics Prof at Harvard or something to come in here and give us his 2 cents.

[krusty the klown]

Sorry, the pencil thing: I am right and you are wrong. (Hehehehehehehehehehe) The trick also works if you were standing at the edge of a swimming poolholding a stick half i and half out of the water.

Do we have any fishermen here???? They will likely be aware that the same effect makes a fish appear to be in a different place than it actually. This is GCSE (13-15 y.o) physics. Do you have a physics degree? If so, you will know that I am right and you are wrong (this is fun, yes? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif )

If you looked through the sides of the glass with a pencil... yes, there would be a lensing effect. HOW DO LENSES WORK?????? What property of the lens allows it to bend light?? If the speed of light through glass was the same as that in air, a lens would have no effect on the path of light.

Rainbows and prisms work on EXACTLY the same principle - this is an observable effect, unless you are a blind mole http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif


Over 2 U http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

EDIT: You could attempt to prove that the world was flat. (go on, I'd like to see you try!). Of course, everybody knows that the earth is spherical, so why waste time trying to prove that the earth was flat?? That was my point about the bear in the woods.

Hehe praps I should post a thread about 'does mouse ***** roll downhill' That would probably get people sending death threats!

[This message has been edited by krusty the klown (edited 06-09-2000).]

[NeilTrain]

Gee thanks for making fun of me.

Anyways, instead of just telling me how wrong i am why dont you offer some reason? It has always been my understanding that lenses (water can act as a lens) do not affect the speed of light, they only bend it. heres my reasoning:
http://www-class.unl.edu/phys142/Labs/L71/L71_-_Making_Light_Bend_we.html
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/class/refrn/u14l5b.html

[NeilTrain]

OK, I just dug up my brothers old Physics book from a class he took at the University of Virginia about 3 years ago.

As it turns out, bending of light and the slowing down of light are pretty much the same thing. Light can not slow down without bending, and light can not bend without slowing down....

How does this relate to my first post anyways? I stated that scientists created waves of energy that travelled 300 times the speed of light, can anybody disprove that? No, we are just beating around the bush, and everyone is trying to act smarter than everyone, and we are almost constantly off subject.

[krusty the klown]

Hehe, no hard feelings! I reckon this 4rum's good fun http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Hey ho... signing off for now.... (stupid dial up connection's slow and costs money - cr@p UK service!)

[krusty the klown]

Chill Winston!

Sorry if I sounded like I was making fun of you.... it is harder to express the subtleties of the spoken word in the written word. I think this is where some of the 'bad threads' arise (where people threatedn to leave the 4rum and all that http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif )

I haven't a cloo how the 300X faster thing worx!

[NeilTrain]

sorry Krusty,

I wasn't THAT upset, but your right, the fact that this forum is all textual really leads to a lot of misunderstandings. Its hard to get the other important parts of communication, such as body language, tone of voice, etc when reading a post.

[zskillz]

u know, i was thinking some more, and perhaps these "energy waves" aren't really moving that fast, but instead they are reacting similar to how electrons move through a wire... a different electron comes out the then of the wire than the one that went in, the speed is a result of something called propagation velocity... I'm pretty sure that this means that the speed of each electron increases as the "wave" is propegated, thus it seems that the electrons are travelling really really fast when in fact, the "wave" of current is what is truly travelling fast
now this is total speculation, but it's an educated guess, so please give it a thought..
thanks
-Z

[Wiz]

IF this 300x faster thing is true, it would be ALOT more widely known! Think about it, that kind of sped is mindbending, and it was reported in Time, and not any scientific journal?

[NeilTrain]

Actually, the story was on the ABC, NBC, and CBS national news broadcasts, probably CNN too, but i didn't catch that one. I was about a week before it posted this thread.

[This message has been edited by NeilTrain (edited 06-11-2000).]

[L I G H T]

I am not smart http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif So I am not going to talk about light and time travle I am going to talk about nothing listen.......


Wow lots of reading eh and thats all I have to say about this topic http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

-----------------
Just Trying to lighten you all up Hehe http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[nilknarf]

The purpose of experimentation is to prove a theory right or wrong.

So, why don't we let the scientists working on this continue their experiments, as they are much more versed on this subject than any of us.


May I give you all a little advice?

You can say a lot with very few words. Doing so will make you sound much more intelligent.


Not to belittle the intelligence of anyone here, I just don't care much for long winded replies which should be much shorter.

Just my two cents.

Tim

[bdunn]

If somehing were going that fast would a doppler shift cause it to appear slower than it actually is?

[BBA]

Just a side note here:


Bending light waves and such is done with lenses and fields of energy. Slowing down too.

Everyday we propel particles to greater than the speed of light. Every nuclear reactor in operation is doing it right now.

If you ever look at a open water reactor, such as that found in some colleges, you will notice a 'blue glow' to the water when the reactor is at power. This is a light 'shockwave' as the particles in the water are exceeding the velocity of light in the same water. The intensity of the light is proportional to the phase angle of the shockwave, which is proportional to how much greater velocity the electron is travelling above the speed of light.

Kind of like a sonic boom of light instead of sound.

It is called Cerenkov Radiation (http://www.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/cerenkov.html)

[Gomer]

"Very, Very Wrong, this is because the water acts as a lens"


Neil buddy, lenses are able to focus light and bend it and all that other good stuff due to the fact that the speed of light is dependent on the medium that it is travelling through. If the speed of the light wasn't changed, lenses wouldn't do a thing.

[NeilTrain]

Hey gomer,

We settled that one a few posts up, dont worry about it, http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[Gomer]

Mea culpa, hehe. I read this post when it was young (less then a page and a half), and hadn't read it since. Anyway, I mistakenly thought that the end of page 2 was the end of page three and the thread. I thought I was at the end of page three when I wasn't (the light musta played a trick on me). I hadn't even read all the interesting information on the third page. DOH!!

[zskillz]

bdun....
I know what u are talking about bdun, but how does that apply do the discussion... not trying to be rude, but I'm not making the connection with that one

BBA, although i don't know if you did it on purpose or not, (and i know it's somewhat of a semantic issue) but when u say that we are accelerating particles faster than the speed of light, u must mention that it is not the 'ideal' speed of light, but instead the significantly slower speed of light in certain media
btw, the cernecov (oops, bad spelling) reaction information was really neat!

-z

[This message has been edited by zskillz (edited 06-13-2000).]

[NeilTrain]

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
--Albert Einstein

[BBA]

Well...we do actually accelerate anti-neutrino's faster than theoretical the speed of light in reactors. At least it's the only viable explanation for the lost energy in the nuclear fission.

Personally, I think Einstein's theory of relativity contradicts itslef on the light issue, but I've put it out of my mind for so long I can't even recall the details. ( heck, I even forgot how to explain vector algebra...)

Suffuce to say, that I do not believe in a maximum for anything. I believe design is the key to accomplishment...not limits.

It is possible to exceed the speed of light relatively to an object, but I don't want to argue the point.

Just my

http://www.jacksonville.net/~rcrozier/penny.gif http://www.jacksonville.net/~rcrozier/penny.gif

[zskillz]

i'm not looking for an argument, I just wanna know what ur talking about... I love this stuff, and you can never quit hearing new and interesting things, so please... do explain
-Z

[BBA]

Just think it's common sense overseeing the physics. If I was a beam of light, travelling toward another light source, then I would be passing the other source at twice my speed relative to my position.

I know that sounds rather simplistic, and unobservable...but it still can not be proven wrong...just as the nut's who think fusion will ever produce more energy than it requires to sustain a reaction...won't happen.

(The argument is that the sun appears to operate with fusion the only observable reaction...so it must work..., well thats BS also...designed to keep the GP funding someones little government laboratory )

[BBA]

Cool...it's open.

Maybe this is a topic for a off topic category?

[rtyp3]

All I can say is wow. Just reading through these posts has made my heart race. It's amazing how man has figured out and learned all of this. This makes me want to go out and learn more about it. Where did you guys learn all of this? Will I learn this when I take (high school) physics, or college, or have you guys read and taught yourselves?