I recently read an article that stated the speed of light had been exceeded by transmitting data faster than the speed of light by a factor of 5x. I thought it would be really exciting news because of the laws of physics. It would mean the constant for time would be more of a variable than a fixed number.
2006-08-12 04:05:43 · 9 answers · asked by Robert D 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Since Posing the question I found this link, "claiming' this has been done!http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/265/
2006-08-12 10:08:24 · update #1
That kind of article you read is subversive and incorrect (or simply did not have the correct information).
Speed of light has never been exceeded.
However, some experiements have given strange results:
- While using quantum theory and uncertainty principle, since it was not possible to precisely locate a photon, scientists came to the conclusion that a photon "might" have travelled faster than the speed of light. Of course, it had not: it is our measurements that were "imprecise".
- Another experiment was done in high gravity fields where two photons "seemed" to have "communicated" with each other at an "instantaneous" speed, contradicting our acception the the effect always follows the cause. Read "Science et Vie", in french, a few months ago.
So, sorry, but the warp drive is not for tomorrow...
2006-08-12 04:12:41 · answer #1 · answered by just "JR" 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The article you read was probably about "wormholes". Those are shortcuts through curved space. Imagine you could squeeze a small part of the Earth so that a narrow hill emerged, and then you drill a tunnel through the hill. If you send a light beam through the tunnel it just travels with the speed of light, but according to the rest of us who haven't access to your tunnel it's much faster because the road between the two ends of the tunnel goes over the hill and is therefore longer.
It takes a strong gravitation wave to create a wormhole, and therefore costs a lot of energy. So it's not likely to be a practical technology anytime soon.
2006-08-12 11:17:16 · answer #2 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It'd be *real* nice if you could cite a reference to the article you read. I kinda suspect that you may have misread what it said.
Doug
Ronin
Yeah, tunnel diodes (Esaki diodes) do rely on the 'tunneling effect'. But they don't violate GR because GR doesn't prohibit simultaneity. If you drop 2 masses (in a vacuum) they land 'simultaneously' (to an outside observer) but the information that one of them has landed cannot be known by an observer at the 'other' landing sight (say d meters away) in less than d/c seconds.
What actually happens is that a thermally induced phonon decays into an electron and a hole due to the potential across the barrier lattice.
It's very much like Hawking radiation at the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole.
Doug
2006-08-12 11:15:53 · answer #3 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have seen an episode on Discovery that showed data being transfered at more speed than the speed of light. I didnt exactly understand how they did it, but they did it. Since I saw it on Discovery, there has got to be some gravity in the matter.
2006-08-12 13:33:46 · answer #4 · answered by techno_geek 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mad Magazine article? You are correct in assuming that it would be "really exciting news."
It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that when atomic particles are accellerated to near the speed of light, their mass increases in direct relation to Albert's theory - and Albert's theory predicts an infinate mass needing an infinate amount of energy for attaining a speed equal to that of light. That's it in a nutshell.
2006-08-12 11:20:04 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The universe is probably expanding at a rate billions of millions of times faster then the speed of light. What if this statement was true :)
2006-08-12 11:15:05 · answer #6 · answered by magpiesmn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read up on quantum tunneling, it is used on a daily basis and has particles "moving" faster than light.
2006-08-12 11:15:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Never heard about this - cite a reference for us? I can't comment on something I haven't seen.
2006-08-12 11:13:17 · answer #8 · answered by Skeff 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Albert said it can't be exceded.
Case Closed.
2006-08-12 14:44:34 · answer #9 · answered by Answers 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋