Faster than speed of light

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date


I was reading an article about a team of US physicists from Princeton in new jersy.

Apparently they have broken the speed of light by sending a laser pulse through a vaccum faster than the speed of light-aorund 300,000 km/p/s

Mind you this laser carryed no information or mass and seemed to EXIT an entity BEFORE it had finished entering...

Logic suggests that the particles in the front of the beam slowed down and the rear particles sped up to overtake , thus causing time travel BACKWARDS..

Think of it as a race from smallest to largest coming up to an obstacle

the smaller people cannot get over the obstacle but the larger ones can...thus causing the end of the line to become the FRONT and the front to the back

Yes we have had several discussions pertaining to this (Read the Archives)
Ill make it easier for you, and pull it out & place it on top. Perhaps we can continue within the same post, and delete this on latter?

Questions?, Comments, Concerns?
I think it all means that theories on light are not complete and science still has much to learn about the nature of light, among other things.
I agree notime,
when you go from dimension to dimension it is almost always introduced with a wave of light.
there is alot we dont know about light. just as there is a lot we dont know about gravity.
Particles in the form of light waves perhaps do travel faster in the sense that the original form of light particles are altered when they change their mass & density once being manipulated by a wave of energy as it moves or something like that anyway.

Question is...what forms of "Waves" exist within the cosmos? what creates them, and what do they consist of?

Particle Acceleraters have the ability to generate waves & move particles at an incredible rate, thus since all forms of particles at the center of their nucleus "Vibrate" or "Pulse" what really happens when we start to manipulate the rate of exchange between the pulsating variences of certain particles compared to others pulsating at their normal levels? and what happens when selected particles that are manipulated, and those that are not, are allowed to interact with one another, or "Forced" to merge by smashing them together?

I know this is a lot to think about, but there are endless possibilities to consider, as pysicists are progressing to answer many of these questions.

Comments, Questions, Concerns?

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 14 September 2000).>
Lazer Light is actually faster than actual light because it is compresed into a beam.
What i was refering to in my post is that light speed is fastest within a vacuum ie space.
The beam shot thru the vacuum was actually 310 times faster then normal light which again would suggest compressed light is perhaps the fastest speed that we have to work with in this generation.

Perhaps time travel and light speed travel is not for our generation to unravel..

While im in this state of mind...
i i do not know because of one thing
But then again....
if there is an absolute zero...would there be a maximum highest temperature?

A laser is not compressed light. Laser light has 2 characteristics that make it special.
1. It is monochromatic. This means it consists only 1 frequency of light.
2. All the light has the same polarization.

I guess you could call that compressed, but don’t confuse its properties with that of compressed gas.

A laser is created by pumping energy/charge into the atoms of a gas (argon, neon, etc). The type of gas or gasses used determines the frequency of light produced. When the atoms change from higher quantum states to a lower quantum states photons are released. This happens in a normal florescent light as well, but in a laser there are two curved mirrors on each end. The light reflects back and forth between these two mirrors. One of the mirrors has a transmissive part in the center allowing light to escape.

There are also laser diodes, which are used in CD players and light pens. They operate slightly different, but similar.

The term “speed of light” (c=299792458 m/s) is really the speed of light in a vacuum. Light does travel at different speeds in different objects. There is a constant ratio that the speed of light is multiplied by to determine the speed in that substance. This number is always less than 1. This is why objects look different in water as opposed to air. The light is traveling slower in the water then it is in air. However, the light in air is still slower than light in a vacuum.

Light also travel in a straight line unless affected by gravity. And then General Relativity says that the light is traveling straight, but though curved space.
Light does spread out like a wave but it spreads out in straight lines in all directions. That is why things make shadows.

Ultraviolet light and X-rays are just different frequencies of light. Visible light is just a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (approx 400 to 700 nm wavelengths). EM waves are measured in either frequency or wavelength since they are inversely proportional.

Freq = c / wavelength

Higher frequency light does have more energy however as shown in the equation

Energy = hf
h= Planck’s constant = 6.260755x10-34 Js
f = freq in hertz.

Here is a link with more info:
Dr Light, lemme explain absolute zero by translating physics into math. That's usually how I make sense of things.

Okay, imagine the set of real numbers.
Q: What is the smallest nonnegative real number?
A:0, of course.
Q: What's the largest nonnegative real number?
A: There is no largest. if you propose the number x, simply disprove it by adding one. since x+1 ] x , x is not the largest.

Temperature works the same way. Kinetic molecular theory says that temperature is just molecular vibration. So, there's a smallest value, 0K (ie no motion), but there's no largest value, as there's no maximum limit on vibration.

Hope that helps.

PS I don't see what connection this has to cold fusion.
So what your saying is that there could not possibly be a cold fusion system.... but then again there could not be a maximum highest temperature so "hot" fusion could be possibly be made to opperate more efficiently?
What do you mean? The cold in cold fusion doesn't mean absolute zero. It's just relative cold, as compared to the temperature inside the sun, for example. The early claims of cold fusion (I remember it was something to do with forcing H into platinum lattices) claimed ignition at somewhere around room temperature. That's nowhere near absolute 0.
Dr. Light

I think you are confusing terms and combining things that don't go together. Cold is a relative term. Cold fusion could still be warm to the touch, as long as it is relatively cooler than the sun. Fusion is the opposite of fission. In fission neutrons are shot at large molecules (plutonium et. al.) to split them apart which releases neutrons that split other atoms. If this isn't controlled ...boom! Boom! BOOM!!! Mushroom cloud.

Fusion on the other hand, is the combining of two hydrogen atoms (1 proton & 1 electron) in the helium (2 protons & 2 electons).

Both of these processes release energy and produce heat. Fusion release more energy and produces a byproduct that only makes you talk funny. Well fission's byproduct would make you talk funny too, but it would be more like gurggle gurggle arrhhh....

Absolute zero is just the point at which molecular vibration stops and was determined by ploting points on a graph of molecular vibration vs temperature. Since that is a linear graph. it is easy to extrapolate at what temperature there would be no vibration. It happens to be at -237.15 deg C.

<This message has been edited by kentheee (edited 18 September 2000).>

<This message has been edited by kentheee (edited 18 September 2000).>
If movement stops at absolute zero and time is movement, then maybe time stops at absolute zero.
Does time go faster if you're really hot? I don't think relativity ever said time was connected to heat. I could be wrong, though.
No, time is not molecules but is the duration of movement of molecules, atoms, planets, etc. (a nanosecond, a day, a year....). If time is, in fact, movement, then the absent of movement might equate to the absense of time.