Faster than a speeding bullet!

[K-Mac]

I think my brain just exploded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...scispeed116.xml

Good grief! If this is really possible, what next?

[dan_edge]

That's very interesting, but I'd like to see it corroborated by a lot of other scientific evidence.

--Dan Edge

[K-Mac]

Well, Dan...I have direct evidence that I have recently violated special relativity, because of just how fast my heart beats ink for someone...

Awww, very sweet post about the "speed of light" vs the speed of your heart. :-)

[John McVey]

It's only an undermining of an Einsteinian understanding of the universe. IMSM, a competing alternative is Lorentzian relativity, which (I think) is perfectly happy to accept particles traveling faster than the speed of light. I am no expert so I could easily be wrong there.

From what I do understand, Einstein seems to have lifted out bits and pieces from LR and put it into his own theories as it suited him.

JJM

[y_feldblum]

What do you mean by Lorentzian Relativity?

Lorentz observed that Maxwell's equations seemed odd: they were inconsistent with the transformation law of Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Galilean relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and Maxwellian electromagnetism were all correct and provably so, and yet they seemed to contradict one another. (Maxwell's equations are the equations governing all electromagnetic phenomena.) Lorentz figured out the transformation law with which Maxwell's equations are consistent. Einstein, observing this, applied the Lorentz transformation law to Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics, arriving at his Special Relativity.

A transformation law is a set of equations describing how a phenomenon will be observed at one particular place and time and at one particular velocity and acceleration, once it has already been observed at another particular place and time and at another particular velocity and acceleration. In particular, it describes which of a certain set of observed and deduced geometrical properties of an object are properties inherent in that object, and which are a combination of the properties inherent in that object and the particular means by which we observe them. A transformation law is inherently geometry applied to physical phenomena.

An example of a transformation law is the law transforming "3 miles due north by 4 miles due west" into "as the bird flies, 5 miles 53 degrees west of north" into "6 miles on the Interstate, getting off in 2 exits."

[K-Mac]

Well I'm just glad that Christopher Lloyed has already invented the Flux Capacitor...at least that tricky little part of time travel is already out of the way.

[BrassDragon]

Pretty incredible. I'd love to hear about any updates on this topic, if anyone hears anything else.

[John McVey]

I am no expert so I could easily be wrong there.

What do you mean by Lorentzian Relativity?

TADA!

It was from ye olde ancient stuff I was told by my (scruffy) physics lecturer aeons ago. I just remember that Lorentz purportedly had an alternative to Einstein's theories and which had no weirdness problems associated with mass-having particles traveling at or over the speed of light.

JJM

[Carrier of the Zero]

You would think a story like this would be the number one news story on all the networks and cable channels.. instead of, you know.. whichever talentless celebrity is going into rehab this week.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I think my brain just exploded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...scispeed116.xml

Good grief! If this is really possible, what next?

Relativity does not forbid Faster Than Light transit. What it does predict is that mass will increase infinitely as a massive particle is accelerated, so a massive particle or body cannot be brought from rest (relative to some reference frame) to the speed of light (in that reference frame) because there is not an infinite energy source to propel it.

The Nimz result has to do with a side effect of Quantum Tunneling.

Also not that the phase velocity of a wave can exceed the speed of light, but this carries no information.

Bob Kolker

[Papes]

Relativity does not forbid Faster Than Light transit. What it does predict is that mass will increase infinitely as a massive particle is accelerated, so a massive particle or body cannot be brought from rest (relative to some reference frame) to the speed of light (in that reference frame) because there is not an infinite energy source to propel it.

...

Bob Kolker

But, if Kinetic energy = 1/2mass times velocity squared, and humans can pick up and object and throw it, there is an infinite amount of energy, whether potential or kinetic. This is, of course, assuming humans decide to procreate for eternity, eg. infinity.

[BrassDragon]

But, if Kinetic energy = 1/2mass times velocity squared, and humans can pick up and object and throw it, there is an infinite amount of energy, whether potential or kinetic. This is, of course, assuming humans decide to procreate for eternity, eg. infinity.

Wrong. Every time you throw something, you convert chemical energy in your body into kinetic energy and friction. Energy is conserved.

[prosperity]

Well I'm just glad that Christopher Lloyed has already invented the Flux Capacitor...at least that tricky little part of time travel is already out of the way.

But, and I'm trying not to stray too far from the topic, we might still be sucked into a black hole:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/lh...tanist_lawsuit/

Are there any physicists here that can explain this (not why Cern is being sued, but whether there are indeed real dangers to a super collider)?

[Qwertz]

There's already a thread on the LHC, which includes some remarks about the lawsuit and its merits.

~Q

[ruveyn ben yosef]

It's only an undermining of an Einsteinian understanding of the universe. IMSM, a competing alternative is Lorentzian relativity, which (I think) is perfectly happy to accept particles traveling faster than the speed of light. I am no expert so I could easily be wrong there.

From what I do understand, Einstein seems to have lifted out bits and pieces from LR and put it into his own theories as it suited him.

JJM

I think you might have arrived at this judgement in haste. Why not have a look at:

http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Rel...xperiments.html

One does not get a theory as solidly tested as Einstein's theories (special and general) of relativity by just lfifting bits and pieces.

Check it out.

ruveyn

[mweiss]

I think my brain just exploded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...scispeed116.xml

Good grief! If this is really possible, what next?

The following quote from the article:

For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.

is a contradiction in terms. This is either a gross misinterpretation by a naive journalist, or, if it is a correct interpretation of what these two scientists stated, it raises serious questions about the veracity of the rest of their theory. The article was too superficial to draw any conclusion from.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I think my brain just exploded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...scispeed116.xml

Good grief! If this is really possible, what next?

Nimtz may have interpreted tunneling incorrectly. None of what he did violates causality (i.e. causes in the past cause effects in the future).

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_N...ntum_tunnelling

for a clarification of Nimtz result.

Bob Kolker