Speed of Light Barrier broken

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I saw on the Discovery Channel that a scientist was able to accelerate photon particles to 5 times the speed of light. Now the theory of relativity says that any particle going faster than the speed of light moves backward in time. Has anyone heard of this???
 
Hi, Howjr and welcome to the board. I watched a Nova special recommended by our moderator Dymenzionz. I saw something interesting about a German scientist claiming to have sent photon particles faster than the speed of light with at least some success. I understand that there is still some controversy surrounding whether or not this is an illusion or if in fact that the light barrier is indeed being broken. Although I completely agree that the Theory of Relativity explicitly says that backwards time travel will occur when traveling faster than light; it is an interesting and logical conclusion that it might. I posted an article in response to the Nova production entitled “Nova and the Light Barrier that proposes time travel through a computer modem and a Mind Scan, which was introduced to me in the book The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil. You might find it interesting to explore some of his ideas on technology in the future as well as the Nova Time Travel documentary released some months ago.

<This message has been edited by Keith-Richard Burton (edited 20 February 2000).>
 
What happens when subatomic particles are compressed by acceleration faster than their present speed around the speed of light? It is the balarena effect. When a vortex of energy (a particles make-up) is compressed to the center of its rotation, the speed of the energy increases, thus changing its dimensional state and size to the next micro level. Decompression results by deceleration of particles to the next level in dimension on the mega level. A shift to another dimensioal plane has thus resulted hence E=MC^2. Where the next plane of reality is forward or backward or even relative to this reality is not necessarily the case. True time-travel has no basis, only the possible illusion thereof presented in another reality's dimemsional plane.

------------------

...The Doctor...
<A HREF="http://server3.ezboard.com/bmagisystems" TARGET=_blank>
...Magi Systems@ Ezboard.com...</A>
Atom.gif

M.A.G.I.

<embed src="ftp://nitro9.earth.uni.edu/pub/doctor/sounds/wav/2&2tgthr.wav">






<This message has been edited by The Doctor (edited 20 February 2000).>
 
Er, ah, Doctor,....

Speed of energy?

Size and state to the er, ah, "next micro" level?

Deceleration of particles to the "next dimensional level on the "mega level"?

Next er, ah, "plane of reality"?

Says who?

What school of physics is any of this coming from? Taught by whom? Where?

Quotes and sources Please!

Thank you.
 
Hello Lee! Is this Lee from the old web format? If the link to the old site is still available I would encourage everyone on this new site to take a journey in time to some of the topics discussed over the last couple of years by Lee and Nolo. Both covered different perspectives of various topics with some incredible ideas.
 
Guilty as charged Keith-Richard Burton.
Hi.

Just trying to qualify what the good "doctor" is on about here. Highly speculative, of course. Trying to see where he is coming from at this point.

You know me, I'm a staunch realist, (read sceptic) but open to all ideas. If someone has something of substance, I wan't to see it
and Tevatron experiments don't yet CONFIRM any of this. They merely create new questions that cause new speculative answers, that again, pose more questions.

It still seems to me tho, that we must not give up trying to unify gravity into the "grand unification" theory. I would hate to see us abandon this effort for speculation on how it is effected by as yet hypothetical "dimensions" that would allow us to cop out on the explanation entirely. String theory has plenty of room for further exploration into this possibility.

Given the state of quantum theory these days, I'm inclined to favor a manner in which it can at least be explained "why" it does not reconcile with Relativity, rather than ignore this simple fact in favor of dismissing Relativity altogether. We still have older questions than this that are unanswered yet.

Let's see the Tevatron solve the EPR Paradox, for instance. It's ability to record scatterings should be able to address this issue nicely. Lets not forget that solving this problem COULD prove that there are NO other "dimensions", parallel universes, etc. Or at least none implied by the paradox itself. This is just as valid a speculation as that there are.

It seems QM is putting the cart before the horse here. I do NOT want to see any science ASSUME something is true first, then insist on proving it, dismissing any evidence to the contrary. This would be bad science.

Peace.
 
P.S.
Sorry about the double post here but I wanted to ask the "doctor" a couple of questions AFTER having been to his site and the ones he recommended. So...

Tell me "doctor", I still have the same questions as to your terminology as in my first post. Are these terms of yours? I was actually hoping YOU would answer the original questions as opposed to sending me elsewhere for them.

Secondly, you state: " Decompression results by deceleration of particles to the next level in dimension on the mega level. A shift to another dimensioal plane has thus resulted hence E=MC^2."

You'll have to clarify this since E=MC^2 really has nothing to do with so called "dimensional levels". This simple equation merely describes how to calculate the energy contained in mass.

You'll have to forgive me because I mean no insult here, but to an old brain like mine, you're rambling here. This "decompression" of accelleration to the so called "next level in dimension on the mega level" is just really so much mumbo-jumbo to an old goat like me. You'll have to explain just HOW that means E=MC^2 as opposed to the traditional meaning of the term.

Please give me YOUR answer, in YOUR words, not what you think someone elses' answer is, if you would. Especially since the sites you sent me to don't speak about this specific correlation you have put forth here in any way.

Thanx in advance,

Lee
 
Top