Traveling faster then the speed of light?

[agnitrate]

I thought that Einstein stated that it is merely impossible to accelerate to the speed of light. What if you were able to be moving at or beyond the speed of light in less than a quanta of time in some way and thus you wouldn't have technically accelerated?

-silver

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Pohemi420

Originally posted by: f95toli
No, they did not teleport matter; they teleported the quantum STATE of the atom. not the atom itself.
And no, you can not use this to transfer information FTL.

As opposed to data, what they transfered was information about the quantum state of an ion. If you measure or analyze the quantum state of one atom and then replicate it in another atom, is that atom then an exact duplicate of the original? How the hell did they do it? :shocked:

Yes it is an exact duplicate. However, you can NOT measure the state and THEN transfer it; measuring it will cause the wavefunction to collapse (which is also the reason why you can not use this to transfer information FTL, sending information would involve at least one measurement and then the experiment would not work). The trick is to "copy" the state without actually having to measure it first.

I know this is confusing but mathematically it is acutally quite straightforward once you understand the basics of the formalism used in quantum mechanics.
That is, it is easy as long as you don't about what it too much

 

[Pohemi]

Is it possible to explain how they replicate the quantum state of the ion or atom without measuring or analyzing it first? Is this basically done "on-the-fly" or what? I know that they can only hold the quantum state in the current phase for however many nano or milliseconds, and then the atom reverts back to it's previous state, right? If they can't analyze the atom before replicating it, how do they know how close they came to exactly replicating it? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm trying to understand this a little better )

 

[BOLt]

I think that once string theory is proved or disproved (if it's at all possible to do so), it will disrupt many of the physics/mathematical models that we percieve to govern the universe. Personally, I think that the question is moot because whatever conclusion we come to here will invariably be incorrect by all means sometime in the future. We will all look like fools (which is also inevitable), in the long run. My theory on the speed of light is that yes, it can be achieved by elements of the universe other that light waves; no it cannot be sustained for any appreciable amount of time by anything other than light and infinitely small particles, though I won't be specific because it's all wrong anyway; no, this doesn't affect us by any means because the world will be devoid of human life by the time people have come even remotely close to understanding, let alone harnassing the said elements of the universe; no, I am not a pessimist, though I am somewhat of a realist, and most certainly not an optimist.

-Cheers

 

[rocketPack]

Originally posted by: Addis
Its impossible for an object to travel at the speed of light. Let alone faster. For when an object would hit c then it would (i think) turn into pure energy. If that were to happen then I would assume that your matter would be destroyed.

People make a lot of money off of statements like that

"Impossible", to the right person, means, "something that most people wont try so I have a better chance of being the first".

In my opinion, it is unwise to ever say "it is impossible", regardless. I'm not trying to be insulting, just stating my own humble opinion.

Anyway, current theories suggest that as you approach the speed of light your mass (not your weight or size, but your mass*) would become infinite.

According to Einsteins theory (the most generally accepted one), E=MC^2, where E is energy (the amount of energy in your mass), M is mass, and C is the speed of light (suggesting that all energy is a product of the speed of light, and thus dependent on it). If you were to approach the speed of light (and thus have your mass approach/meet infinity) your energy (or the amount of energy required) would also become infinite, because
E = M(infinity) * C^2
and infinity basically cancels out any product or some calculations, so E = infinity.

Thus, according to "generically accepted principles", it would require an infinite amount of energy to even match the speed of light, which most people would say is impossible (not arguing, I swear). Once you achieved an infinite amount of energy, I can't possibly imagine what would happen. However, I feel the effects of meeting or exceeding the speed of light would not be nearly as dire and horrible as many others do. If you've ever read up on "quirks" and sub-atomic particles and such, you'd see that many objects which are not pure energy go very close to the speed of light with no apparent apocalyptic side-effects.

Keep in mind I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, just a very curious person.

One thing I read about once that I thought was fascinating was something quite contradictory - scientists managed to nearly stop light, by trapping it inside of an incredibly cold cloud of sodium gas; I believe it was traveling less than 1/4 of a mile per hour. I think I read this in a Wired mag many months ago...


The "yet to occur" scientific achievement that I fear is to reach 0 kelvin.

I hope I havn't mixed up any of my facts, and that what I said makes sense. =)

notes: * please see the sixth definition for the correct context.

 

[Pohemi]

The Bose-Einstein Condensate that was touched on earlier in this thread was what they used to slow down that beam of light, and last I heard they were actually able to freeze a beam travelling through the BEC, though if that is the case it probably lasted 2 nanoseconds or some rediculously small period of time.

 

[RichPLS]

I read about that also. Pretty incredible!

 

[r00tcause]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: evilbix
The speed of light has been conquered. There is no concrete explanation as to why it does it, but when particles are propelled at a barrier they can approach speeds that are somewhere between 3C and 4C. Apparently Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle isn't so uncertain.

I forget who did it first, but it is a simple experiment. They did it with some kind of data containing music, and it travelled beyond the speed of light and the data came out in a slightly altered (similar to listening to an FM radio with some distortion) form.

Can this be done for larger objects? Probably not for a long long time, but hopefully it can be used for the transmission of information.

That's not quite right. You're referring to quantum tunneling where 2 photons can go down two separate paths of equal length and have one beat the other. What happens is this:

A photon is "fuzzy". It looks sorta like this: ..::||::..

If you set up a detector to detect this photon there's a small chance that you will get it with the leading . but the highest probability for detection occurs in the "fat" part of the photon ||. When you quantum mechanically tunnel a photon it gets shifted so that it looks more like this: ...:::||:.

So there is a higher probability that the photon will be detected earlier now just because its "fat" part got shifted ahead. It didn't actually move any faster though.

So what got the photon mad?

HAHAHA LOL!

 

[r00tcause]

Originally posted by: phr0m
Well i see i have gottne a lot of people to read this, which i am really glad some poeple have the same questions about this thing as i do, but here is something
what if you bent the light rays around something so it didnt reflect off of the object..... would that object be invisible?

Yes, its called a romulan cloaking device but it requires too much energy.

 

[r00tcause]

I think it was about 2 yrs ago now, a couple of European scientists actually accelerated a beam of light (carrying data none the less) past the known and accepted speed of light. The way I understood the explanation, the beam actually finished being received at point B before it had completely left the point of origin, or point A. I would imagine this might be conceived as teleportation.

They achieved this by projecting the beam through a special high density sodium gas of some type. They stated that while they don't forsee ever being able to do this with solid matter, it could revolutionize communications and even computer hardware. Interesting thoughts... :shocked:

I read this and the many replies to it with no Link and I just happen to remember the exact medium it was passed through (Cesium) because I seem to retain useles info like that for long periods of time:

A quick Search On Cesium FTL will locate the aforementioned articles.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/T.../20/speed.of.light.ap/

The above is one of the many articles.

 

[InseName]

i think they said that no matter can travel at the speed of light and still be matter, btw, if u were to travel at that speed u would be able to travel to anywhere in no time through no distance, it is not totally understood by man the properties of light, for example, our equations would be impossible to solve if we plug in the speed of light as it would produce something like 1 divided 0........ which is y in books, the highest speed they try to plug in is .9999999999999999999999999c which will still give u a huge differance, ( gamma value would be like 9 billion)

 

[r00tcause]

Originally posted by: InseName
i think they said that no matter can travel at the speed of light and still be matter, btw, if u were to travel at that speed u would be able to travel to anywhere in no time in no distance, it is not totally understood by man, the properties of light, for example, our equations would be impossible to solve if we plug in the speed of light as it would produce something like 1 divided 0........

Actually at the speed of light it would take you a very long time to reach large distances. To YOU everything would seem instant, but to outside observers, it would take ages.

 

[InseName]

what didi u think i meant?
and it would not seem instant, there would be no time at all

 

[r00tcause]

Originally posted by: InseName
what didi u think i meant?
and it would not seem instant, there would be no time at all

How is no time at all different from INSTANT!?

 

[Fallen Kell]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: AbsoluteParadigm
Not sure about matter, but quantum states have been transmitted faster than light. Actually it's "teleported", as in traveling distance in zero time. I would assume that's faster than the speed of light. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

you're referring to quantum entanglement. however, i don't think we can pass information this way.

I thought this was called spooky interaction. I.e. quantium particals are have a twin in the universe which is spinning in the exact opposite direction from its partner, but you do not know the direction of the spin and can not know the direction of the spin until it is measured. Einstein struggled with this one and never was able to figure it out because the spin is independent of the particle until it is measured and at that instant of measurment the spin on the other particle is the exact opposite of the observed spin, but not before the measurement takes place.

This is in part the basis of the "measuring the event changes the outcome", as measuring the spin changes the other particle the instant you measure.

 

[johninlongmont]

"If you were on a train that travelled the speed of light, the train would appear to have a length of 0 to a standing person. If you were on that 0 length train and you took a step forward (which looks like 0 distance), the standing person would still think you were all moving at the speed of light. "

ok, but what about you looking out the windows of train?...you are looking at stuff that is going by at FTL...or would you just explode as you started jogging???

;-)

 

[Harvey]

Of course, you can exceed the speed of light. I did it just tomorrow, but I won't be back until yesteday or the day before, whichever comes first.

 

[nemiAMD]

I find it interesting to note that?.

There are many places on Earth where particles are indeed traveling faster than the speed of light?

What people do not distinguish is that special relativity states nothing can travel faster than the speed of light IN A VACCUM.

So if you are in something nice and thick like water then light travels about 50% slower than in a vacuum. So a fast particle, like those emitted from nuclear fission reactions, may well be traveling faster than the speed of light. The cool bit is that as they pass through the cooling water around the nuclear fuel rods they cause a glow...

..because just like the sonic shock waves when something travels faster than the speed of sound these particles produce optical shock waves as they slow down in the water and give off the nice Blue / UV glow called cherenkov radiation.

Now as many people have correctly noted in this thread you need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even a sub-atomic particle to the speed of light, and because E=mc^2 that means that the particle can be thought of as having an infinite mass. And since F=ma you would need an infinite force to reach the speed of light.

The fun thing is IF a particle was traveling FASTER than the speed of light then it would also take an infinite amount of energy to slow it down to LESS THAN the speed of light. So you would have a source of infinite energy and also something that caused cherenkov radiation glow in a vacuum.

So if your even in the lab and see a glow from a vacuum you may be on to solving the worlds energy crisis ...

(BTW I have PhD in Physics)

 

[MetalStorm]

Originally posted by: nemiAMD
I find it interesting to note that?.

There are many places on Earth where particles are indeed traveling faster than the speed of light?

What people do not distinguish is that special relativity states nothing can travel faster than the speed of light IN A VACCUM.

So if you are in something nice and thick like water then light travels about 50% slower than in a vacuum. So a fast particle, like those emitted from nuclear fission reactions, may well be traveling faster than the speed of light. The cool bit is that as they pass through the cooling water around the nuclear fuel rods they cause a glow...

When people refer to the "fast" particles in nuclear fission, it's simply a relative term, it does not in ANY way imply they are going faster than the speed of light.

Also not to mention there only being a certain amount of energy available to the reaction products in a nuclear reaction, and some how I don't think it's infinite.

Where did you get your PhD from? Playschool??

 

[f95toli]

nemiAMD is refering to what is known as the Cherenkov effect. When a particle travels through a medium at a speed faster than the speed of light in that medium (which means that the speed is lower than c, hence you do not need an infintive amount of energy) it will radiate electromagnetic energy, some of this energy is in the visible spectrum.
Cherenkov radiation is often seen in ice (flashes of light ) and can acutally be used to study particles comming from space (there is an observatory in Antarctica where they have lots of detectors in the ice, as far as I remember it is used to study neutrinos among other things)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Is it mathematically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light? I'm not sure what proof Einstein formed to come to this conclusion. Or is it an assumption?

 

[nemiAMD]

Originally posted by: MetalStorm

Originally posted by: nemiAMD
So a fast particle, like those emitted from nuclear fission reactions, may well be traveling faster than the speed of light. The cool bit is that as they pass through the cooling water around the nuclear fuel rods they cause a glow...

When people refer to the "fast" particles in nuclear fission, it's simply a relative term, it does not in ANY way imply they are going faster than the speed of light.

As f95toli pointed out I should have specifically said the speed of light in the medium.

Where did you get your PhD from? Playschool??

LOL - obviously not.

 

[plastick]

This is the same thing that Albert Einstein pondered.

Now I don?t know much about his theory of relativity, or the more intricate properties of the universe for that matter...
But in my own time thinking about this stuff, I have developed the idea that since speed is relative. Fast is only fast compared to something slower... etc...

So, on one hand, I think that no matter how fast your going, you can always go faster. Your train analogy was good for that point. Mathematically: Infinity plus one is still infinity isn?t it? But then, on the other hand, no matter how slow you are going, can you go slower? Could there be an absolute point where you are not moving? Is there and absolute point where you can not go any faster? What would be the thing keeping you from moving faster then? Maybe the fabric of the universe can only "handle" so much.

Take into account that speed is not the only factor here. I say this because you are measuring an object's movement through space, and there is a time produced from that movement. However, your measurements are only relative to others, and not absolute, because if you try to imagine a fundamental unit of matter moving from one fundamental "point" to another in this grid/universe, you can not do it.

Take this for example: You can divide any number (xcept zero) in half for infinity and still never reach 0. So Its all relative since you can not divide down a piece of matter into an absolute portion, otherwise you would have nothing(no matter), because that nothing would be an absolute measurement; nothing. This is a relative universe, not an absolute one.

So lets see... Speed of light plus one is still a relative number, not an absolute one, therefore you are not going the absolute fastest as possible.

What does everyone else think?

 

[plastick]

I'll tell you what though... God went nuts when he created the universe... :Q

 

[plastick]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Is it mathematically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light? I'm not sure what proof Einstein formed to come to this conclusion. Or is it an assumption?

flawlssdistortn,
Its a THEORY, there for an educated assumption. There are no "proofs" ...as far as one can assume that is.