This may be old news, but...

[broberfett]

Physicist claims they have broken the speed of light barrier.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml

 

[Lindley]

I don't think this is too unexpected. Haven't we known for some time that Quantum Mechanics doesn't quite line up with Relativity?

 

[broberfett]

Yes, but I've seen so many science types act like this is the one definite truth of existence and aliens could never get here and we are stuck near Earth forever. They are always quite arrogant about it. Now if the story proves true they will say,"I knew it all along." Pricks

 

[Earl]

If read about that...

I think the "Light Barrier" is just like the "Sound Barrier" it's only a matter of time before is broken by a person in a machine.

I remember as a kid the discussions about how man and machine would be destroyed if they went faster the sound.

I expect my Great Grand Children will be hearing that about the "Light Barrier"

 

[Neopeius]

broberfett said:
Yes, but I've seen so many science types act like this is the one definite truth of existence and aliens could never get here and we are stuck near Earth forever. They are always quite arrogant about it. Now if the story proves true they will say,"I knew it all along." Pricks

Wow. Axe to grind much?

I'm not surprised that they've gotten photons to do something like that. Back in the early 90s, I was reading articles in Sci Am about twin particles which seemed to communicate instantaneously across great distances.

I'm not sure how it translates into people moving faster than light.

 

[TheSeeker]

Well I don't know much about physics or quantum mechanics but I've always found it strange that we take Einstein's Theory of Relativity as the last word on the subject of moving faster than the speed of light. I agree that it's pretty arrogant to think we've got it all worked out and believe that one day we will find a way around the speed of light.

 

[Neopeius]

TheSeeker said:
Well I don't know much about physics or quantum mechanics but I've always found it strange that we take Einstein's Theory of Relativity as the last word on the subject of moving faster than the speed of light. I agree that it's pretty arrogant to think we've got it all worked out and believe that one day we will find a way around the speed of light.

Any reason "theory" is in italics?

 

[MikeGainer]

I thought it the theory goes, "Nothing can travel faster or at the speed of light that is bigger than an atom". Sub-atomic particles shouldn't have a problem breaking the speed barrier.

So why are people say that Einstein's theory has been proven wrong?

 

[Ariadne]

^^ Where are you getting the 'bigger then an atom' stipulation from?

There's no official cut-off at which quantum mechanics stops applying, but since it's based on probability, and probabilities tend to average out once you get large numbers of things, macroscopic objects tend to act according to the "usual" laws of physics.

 

[Arrqh]

Here's what Ars says on the subject.

In short, nothing about this experiment violated relativity as we know it... and neither did it expose any new results that hadn't been observed before.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

A part of the article says that travelling faster than the speed of light would mean you arrived somewhere before you even left which is wrong isnt it? I thought you would just apear to arrive somewhere before you set off because to an observer the light wouldnt have reached there eye fast enough.

 

[Sigma7]

Actually, nothing that has mass can travel faster than light. Sub-atomic particles have mass, thus they are also subject to relativity. It was a problem faced by the early particle accelerators. As energies go beyond 10 MeV, the mass of the particles begins to noticeably increase, and eventually they slow down and fall out of synchonization with the alternation of polarity. It becomes necessary to produce the particles in bursts rather than a steady stream so that the alternation can be adjusted downward to maintain pace with the increasingly massive particles.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sigma7 said:
Actually, nothing that has mass can travel faster than light.

Except for tachyons, which *must* travel FTL.

 

[Arrqh]

Babaganoosh said:

Sigma7 said:
Actually, nothing that has mass can travel faster than light.

Except for tachyons, which *must* travel FTL.

If they exist

 

[MikeGainer]

Toresica said:
^^ Where are you getting the 'bigger then an atom' stipulation from?

From a science book with A LOT of spelling errors.

 

[Geoff]

Arrghman said:

Babaganoosh said:

Sigma7 said:
Actually, nothing that has mass can travel faster than light.

Except for tachyons, which *must* travel FTL.

If they exist

Well, since a tachyon's mass squared is a negative number, its actual mass must be an imaginary number.

Therefore, perhaps one should say nothing with real mass can travel faster than light.