There is a growing movement that concludes that faster than light travel IS possible.
I personally think that the theory Einstein proposed was based on flawed physics. Particle accellerators indeed can accellerate atoms faster than light, regardless of the medium, from the perspective of the viewer (outside the accellerator) the atom travels from A to B faster than light can travel, the same distance.
The grandfather paradox is bunk as is the time travelling aspect of FTL travel. I believe time is linear and unidirectional and as such you can only move forward.
In 100 or 1000 years, I believe my assertions will be proven truthful, as physics, in its entirety is based upon theoretical processes. Theories are modified and adjusted in time. One of the funniest things I can think of regarding physics is the assertion from a world renouned physicist that an automobile could never achieve fuen economy better than 34mpg .. and he proved it using mathematical formulae. The only thing I can suggest is that either the formula was incorrect or the assumptions of energy were incorrect. I suspect the latter. If a physicist cannot correctly determine that a car can’t get better that 34mpg because of energy constraints, then how on earth can I believe then when they state that an arbitrary formula dictates that one cannot travel faster than light?
Twitter
Facebook
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 (url)
K,
Yes, factors like air and glass will slow down light as air and glass are both light-transmitting substances, hence the refraction of light on a lens. Whereas, in a vacuum, we can get atoms and other particles to travel at the speed of light as there are no other factors to factor in.
While the whole frame of reference argument is very interesting, when being observed and measurements are made, we have to assume that we will not be observing anything moving that fast, only the results.
I am not so sure that this paradox is truly bunk, Einstein's theories continue to be proving correct and we have never traveled at the speed of light, therefore, we can not really assume that.
To really get into it, we have to also think about time.
What exactly is time? Time is merely a system of measurement, made up by humans, which is based around the the time that The Earth takes to revolve around The Sun.
What does this system of measurement (Earth time) mean, out there in outer space? It means absolutely nothing.
In Einstein's theory, we are dealing with time, space and motion. I have another theory as well, if I can deviate for a bit.
I have often thought of light as sort of a camera.
A majority of cameras have a lens positioned in front of the camera's opening to gather the incoming light and focus all or part of the image on the recording surface.
I often have wondered if all events that are taking place on The Earth, are being captured in the light that is emitted by The Sun. Interesting thought, huh?
And if so, these images are likely severely fragmented, throughout space
So, imagine if we could contain these images and de-fragment them? What then? Could we possibly re-construct events from the past? At least visually?
Also, I agree with you that a lot of science is based of speculation; in particular, Quantum Physics.
A lot of Einstein's Theories started out as thought experiments but were then backed up via math and experimentation.
Of course traversing time can not be proving either way, because it is still not possible to travel at those speeds, currently.
Mark
Sunday, November 2nd, 2008 (url)
OK, I read into The Grandfather Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox and I do not believe that to be possible either; if anything there may be a time to where we can view the past, but not affect it.
I do not find it hard to imagine that with the proper technology, that one could leave Earth, on a space journey; upon returning back to Earth, they could find that their infant child could in fact be older then they are.
This is not necessarily time travel, but rather a differential between Earth and Space time, coupled with the ability to travel at light speed.
Mark
Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 (url)
While scientific Theories are superceded or (esp.) modified over time, they are rarely overturned (not one so far has been). For instance, Newtonian Physics is still the pen-ultimate description of 'mundane' forces used by every mechanical engineer to this day.
I'm sorry. Can you provide peer-reviewed instances of particles travelling superluminally?
There is a difference between spontaneous Quantum emission/creation of particles (which involves particles coming into existence during the energetic collision of other particles in particle accelerators) and the speed at which they travel afterwards.
I've been reading up on Physics for 30 years (!) and have never once heard about a particle 'moving' superluminally (from my rememberance)! There is, of course, the Bell Interconnectness Theorem in Quantum Physics which states that two particles which have interacted previously remain entangled whereby they can exhibit instantaneous transmission of information of state changes between. While this proposes a possible superluminal means of communication (Nick Herbert "Faster Than Light: Superluminal Loopholes in Physics"), the drawback is that the information is still passed between 'communicators' at light speed (despite the instantaneous interaction between the connected particles).
To be a bit of a bummer here, there has never been an instance when Einstein's General/Special Theories of Relativity have been found to be lacking – and instead have always proven correct in every way:
* Time dilation in gravitational fields has been repeatedly verified by atomic clocks on Earth and in orbit.
* Gravitational lensing – which completely supports the idea of light being deflected by space warpage in gravitational fields. Not including Eddington's verification back in the day.
* Red/Blue shift in the spectra of distant stars (Hubble) which confirms that as objects move close to the speed of light with respect to each other, this phenomenon does indeed occur. (tired-light is a tired hypothesis which has no real evidence or support.)
Now, reconciliation between Relativity and Quantum Physics is still underway – and there are areas where they don't agree. But my mantra is: Quantum Physics exists only at Quantum levels (i.e.: at the sub-atomic particle level of observation). Applying this to any macroscopic Physics is a breach of the rigid scope.
A Physicist once said that bumblebees could not fly according to Physics – it was just a lack of understanding aerofoil properties (which led to airplanes).
Wednesday, November 12th, 2008 (url)
Robert, I am by no means a learned physicist, however, I have been privy to many technical papers and have read extensively on the subject. You make several claims, and I am not interested in trying and unravel them, as some are indeed correct, at least in our current understanding of physics. I will however, make a few points that I am sure you will counter with some data unknown to me.
You start by saying that scientific theories are never overturned. This may be true, however, it was believed by the scientists of the time, that you could not go faster than sound. We now know that theory to be absolutely incorrect.
Having read extensively on the Bell Interconnectness Theorem, I am intrigued, mainly because I don't understand the mechanism by which this information transfer effect is manifested, and since it isn't yet understood by the finest scientific minds, I won't try to even guess at what is happenning.
I notice you bring up time dilation. I have several problems with this, and while I don't doubt the veracity of the results, I do doubt the integrity of any experiments. Science doesn't yet understand gravity, they only know it works, and to that end, how can we be sure the effects of gravity, or lack thereof does not affect the accuracy of the atomic clocks in question. Understanding that even in orbit, an atomic clock would be beholden to the gravity well of the earth. The question then, is how certain can we be that the accuracy of the atomic clock is not compromised by the 3g+ forces necessary to achieve orbit.
I have also read much about the red shift and how we can use it to determine distance and speed, much like the pitch of a sound wave, they stretch and compress. However, this doesn't negate the ability to exceed a specified speed, it merely confirms some of what we suspect.
In all seriousness though, when Einstein postulated his theorum, we had yet to accurately measure the speed of light. Even recently, the speed of light has beed debated. Without knowing the speed of light accurately, the mathematical proofs cannot be held as accurate. In fact, if the speed of light varies, depending upon the medium in which it is travelling (as has been debated much), would you not conclude that there is perhaps a medium in which faster than light travel is possible?
I imagine the postulate would have been, since we can't observe anything travelling faster than light, it must not be possible. I submit that "c" is an arbitrary number, and one that does not hold up to the rigors of scientific testing.
Finally, you hit the nail on the head, since according to physics, at some point anyway, a bumblebee could not possibly fly, is it not possible that there is a lack of understanding of a that allows FTL?
Wednesday, November 12th, 2008 (url)
K,
What sources are you referencing that shows a deviation from Einstein's measurement of light speed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement
Mark