There were two professors on Radio 5 Live earlier, refuting the statement that nothing can travel faster than light. They talked of 'quantum tumbling' (I think that's what it was), where two particles have infinite velocity and are faster than speed of light, i.e. absolutely instant, in other words in two places at the same time, but they are the same particle.
Can someone explain this further - is it true, what use could this be etc. Thanks
2007-08-16
08:18:48
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Physics
Ah yes...I misheard the radio, it was 'tunnelling'. The professor also said that this phenomenon was proven and observable.
2007-08-16
10:40:54 ·
update #1
The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second (1,079,252,848.8 km/h), so if some thing was to travel a short distance at that speed, they would vanish from one position and reappear at the finishing position.
If however, the starting point and finish point were over a great distance, then the object would vanish and then reappear some time later at the finishing point.
They would never occupy two places at the same time, nor could it arrive in the final position, before leaving the start point!
2007-08-16 08:33:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Actually quantum tunnelling takes time, the electron doesn't just pop up on the other side of the barrier, or it may do. You see there is no way of actually knowing, "uncertainty principle" (questioner can look that up-wiki) means we never knew exactly where the electron was when we began our experiment and can therefor not measure the time taken to tunnel the barrier. I'd say that information can be passed across the universe faster than light (Schrodingers kittens) but the jury's out on the mechanism of this transfer as far as I'm concerned - it may be faster than light, it may be the pilot wave or even tachions engaging in a handshake in the past.
2007-08-16 10:25:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by zebbedee 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The warp drive works by the fact that even though matter or anything with mass cannot travel faster than light, space itself can. Meaning it's not the ship that moves, it's space that moves by the Enterprise collapsing the space in front of the ship and expanding the space behind it. Basically it shortens the distance from light years to a few hundred million kilometres. As to the G forces, there are no G-forces to to worry about. The warp drive is not a super powerful antimatter rocket, but an engine that moves space. And since it's space that moves and not the ship, then there are no G-forces because the ship doesn't accelerate.
2016-05-20 15:51:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Quantum Tunneling.
The current theory of choice when talking about FTL travel is quantum tunnelling. To pass from one energy state to another an electron must climb over an energy barrier. According to wave theory there is already a probability of finding the electron on the other side of the energy barrier. If this is the case then the electron has travelled instantaneously from one position to the other.
2007-08-16 09:16:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Two scientist in Germany carried an experiment where two beams of intense light were beam through prisms and were timed how long one took to pass between the two prisms.
The two prisms were then moved further apart and the beams of light shone through again apparently they covered a greater distance in the same time as before.
Question either they have discovered travel that is faster then the recognised speed of light 186,000 miles per second or their timing is inaccurate, is this was true it may be possible to go back in time, I yet remain to be convinced
2007-08-16 11:34:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by john h 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The question is: what exactly travelled faster than light? The particles? Or information?
I've heard a few years ago of "twin" particles that imitated each other's state instantaneously, not matter the distance, but I've never heard of stuff we're made of travelling faster than light.
And until the Germans' experiment can be replicated by independent researchers, I'll remain skeptical.
2007-08-16 08:31:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The physics trilogy speaks of what the origin of this. E = mc2, m = E/c2, and c2 = E/m is the trilogy. The last of the three is that of a field of physical time, or that of a field of gravity. The first two equations have as their basis that of physical time, it being the "c^2" factor. Notice in the first equation that it is the multiplier and then in the second the divider. This factor is the basis of each of these equations. It is important to our universe that this value remains constant, for it is the basis of all creation. Everything in our universe is composed of this value; there is nothing in our universe which is not totally composed of the "c2" concept. Any particle or form of energy that has a greater or lesser value that that of "c" can no longer exist in our universe, for it is no longer subject to "time" - the passage of events from the present to becoming that of the past. There is no known manner by which another form of mass or energy could change from that of the "c" value of another universe and become part of ours either.
When a mass accelerates to the speed of light, the mass converts back into the radiation (electromagnetic energy) that it was formed of, and this transformation is considered to be that of the fourth dimension. In reality we are composed of this value alone. This is evidenced in that the present time moves into becoming that of the past at this speed - never faster, never slower, never anywhere in our universe.
2007-08-16 08:48:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by d_of_haven 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not that clever mate, Just wondered about your name, Knew a Gouch back in the 70's from Kilsyth Scotland.
2007-08-16 08:34:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by john m 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing is faster than speed of light
2007-08-16 10:26:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Juan D 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
See the link below. Also there is such a thing as quantum tunneling.
2007-08-16 08:27:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋