Superluminal Light Propagation, Higgs, Graviton Rings, etc.
19 Oct 2006 16:54:46 UTC
Topic 191958
(moderation:
Anyone who would like to comment on these sites would be appreciated, I am not a physicist, I have a VERY OLD [1980] BS Natural Science and I never had any math skills really :)
Some of my theory of irrelativity:
Has any of this stuff been useful in Einstein@...
What do the Higgs boson mass dimensions mean?
I thought Higgs was going to be the CAUSE of mass...
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/1901.html
NEC Success in Superluminal Light Propagation Proves
Light Can Travel Faster than its Speed in Vacuum
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/images/1901.pdf
Detailed statement on faster-than-c light pulse propagation
http://phys.columbia.edu/~kabat/why_strings/why_strings.html
Quote:
According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the gravitational force is mediated by a particle with zero mass and spin 2. So string theory is, among many other things, a theory of gravity!
http://universe-review.ca/R15-16-manyfoldu.htm
Gravity in Extra-dimensions, Manyfold and Pre-Bang Universes
For some reason, I am obsessed with Graviton Rings :)
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/dbranes.htm
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
Superluminal Light Propagation, Higgs, Graviton Rings, etc.
)
Well, since I have been studying a similar area for a while, I might be able to shed a little light [pun intended] on the superluminal question. I haven't thoroughly read the links you point out, but the basic question was addressed at least in the early 1990's. There was an article about it in "Scientific Amrerican" in August 1993. The group that wrote the article also did a lot of theoretical and experimental studies on the subject.
Actually, the idea that nothing can travel faster than light is innaccurate. A better statement (but much more difficult to remember) would be that no information can be transmitted between two points faster than light can propagate between those two points. The real limitation set by special relativity is on how fast information can be transmitted between points, and there is no limitation for objects as long as the objects do not convey any information. It is actually very easy to make something move faster than the speed of light!
To make this last claim more intuitive, go outside on a clear, moonlit night with a flashlight in hand. Point the flashlight at the moon, and (ignoring the beam expansion) consider that the flashlight beam illuminates a small spot on the surface on the moon. Now flick your wrist to the side, and that spot of light will rapidly move across the moon's surface. Move your hand fast enough, and the spot will have crossed the moon in less time than light could travel the same distance. In other words, the spot will move superluminally across the surface of the moon. If you find you can't move your arm fast enough given the limited Earth-Moon distance, just substite Jupiter, Pluto, or perhaps even a star in another galaxy. The further the object is, the faster the spot will move across the surface of the object.
A key point of the argument above is that no information can be transmitted between two points on the moon by using that flashlight beam. If people on opposite sides of the moon want to communicate some information, they will have to wait for a duration that is at least as long as the time it takes light to travel (in vacuum) between those points.
There have been some interesting, and even somewhat counter-intuitive, experiments that appear to show superluminal velocities, but in the end, they can all be understood within the context of special relativity. As a result, none of them can be used to convey information between two points faster than light could propagate (in vacuum) between those two points. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever violated special relativity. One of the NEC links you give also state explicitely that their results do not violate special relativity. Without having read the article in great detail, I would surmise that the work is another fascinating example of how the speed of light limitation only applies to information transfer.
smith
RE: RE: Anyone who would
)
The purpose of those researches ( like at NEC ) is to find a way for information to travel at speed as close as possible to the theoretical maximum velocity allowed by the medium which is far from velocity in empty space.
For example, in fiber optic, light travels at velocity near 200,000 Km/sec. Thats 2/3 of c ( roughly 300,000 Km/s ) So it is reasonable to try to find a way to increase that velocity. There is a margin of 50% to gain, without any violation of physic in today's state of knowledges.
"Entia non sunt multiplicandam praeter necessitatem"
(OKHAM)
RE: Well, since I have been
)
Beautifully put! :-)
I remember ( several decades ago ..... ) when tachyons were the flavour of the month. These hypothetical particles travel faster than light and this implies that they have an imaginary mass ( in the sense of square root of minus one, complex numbers etc ). Only one catch though ...... you can't detect them! :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
WOW G.S. and R.K., thanks for
)
WOW G.S. and R.K., thanks for your messages...
yes the NEC people offered the possibility of gaining on the 50 percent gap...
actually i thought we were much slower than two thirds, so that is very cool :)
still, nothing can beat my thoughts ;-}} i have already been everywhere...
i took a spiritual trip with Johnny Cash after he died as a human :))))))
i think, therefore i am infinitely fast...and i have no mass in my thoughts...
unlike my body which is full of Higgs bosons weighing me down and sending my body to http://www.plastination.com or to medical school as a whole cadaver, or as a billion pieces in test tubes...
yes i actually have signed agreements to do all those, and also i am an organ donor but i doubt if my organs will work in someone elses' body by the time my body dies :)))))))
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
ha ha ha G. Smith, 5 or 6
)
ha ha ha G. Smith, 5 or 6 days of macaroni and cheese!
http://www.gravitysmith.com has all the adventure that i would have hoped to do :)))
actually i flew to Phoenix AZ in Feb 2006 to see my cousin, it was the hottest non summer day in history, and NO ONE had a hat nor sunglasses except me :))
but i did a Lakota rain dance and the clouds came out the next day and actually threatened to rain, but i had to fly back to Pittsburgh PA so i missed the dew;
in Oct 2005 i flew from da burgh to Seattle WA and drove back, a BIG MUSTAKE since it had rained in Montana for about ten straight days, driving all the whitetail deer out of the underbrush and turning them into red paint at 75 miles per hour, the hemoglobin was the only thing left...
i also love the cold, but keep the heat running now that i am old :)) when i was a teenager i spent 6 months at twenty below zero Fahrenheit about 125 miles north of Toronto ON, it never got any warmer 'inside' our farmhouse which had huge holes in the walls :)) like the song says 'JUST BREATHE' and Mother Nature will provide the heat...
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
RE: Only one catch though
)
but Mike, we are going to detect them in my new scifi flick, Gravity Kills, aka The Graviton Ring and the Structure of Everything :)))
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
faster than light
)
faster than light experiment:
put some lamps in the line and premake them to light up one after another in sequence in such a way that the lighting up propogate faster than light.
You can make the propogation instantinious (infinite speed) if you light them up all togehter at the same moment :)
The key point in this experiment is that you had to premake the line of lamps to behave in certain way. In other words information on when to light up was available at every given point in advance.
I have a very sceptical view on teleportation experiments - do they claim to teleport instantiniously or at speed of light ? Does entangelment collapse instantiniously or at speed of light ? Looks like the entangelment is actually some sort of premaking space-time to behave in certain way and it is not capable of transmitting information (here i mean any arbitrary chosen signals) faster than light
Here by transmitting information i mean - sending arbitrary signal between two arbitrary points that are not connected or agreed to behave in any premade way.
hi debugas, this is a
)
hi debugas,
this is a great quote! it describes my entire existence :))
i poorly understand everything, i am also poorly understood!
so i am sure this article at CNN is poorly understood too :)
but it does claim to have some very new cryptic ways to send...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/10/04/teleportation.reut/index.html
Scientists teleport two different objects, POSTED: 7:13 a.m. EDT, October 5, 2006
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
RE: faster than light
)
I like it! It's another great example. About the only limitation on ways to defeat the speed of light is one's imagination.
I took a better look at the NEC paper, and it's a particularly cute example of superluminal travel because at first glance it appears they made a light pulse go faster than light can go! To make an analogy to their result, imagine zooming down the highway at 186mph (300kph for those outside the US). You would be like the light pulse in the experiment. What the scientists did was equivalent to crushing the car so that the back bumper gets pushed into the driver seat while the front bumper keeps on going the same speed. The result is that the center of the car (light pulse) appears to travel faster than light. The front of the light pulse, however, continued at the normal speed of light in vacuum, and so it does not violate special relativity or causality.
Just to be extra clever, the researchers used a light pulse that is difficult to define the front. Although the car analogy starts to breaks down (not too surprising since the bumper is in the driver seat), it would be like a vehicle whose front end gradually melts into the pavement. Without an abrupt transition to define the edge of the car, there is no immediately obvious point that marks the front.
Overall the experiment raises some interesting philosophical questions about what defines a light pulse, and what it means to actually transmit information. Taking the conventional telecommunication definition (when the pulse first reaches half its peak power), then this pulse would indeed have travelled faster than the speed of light in vacuum. Defining the pulse by its front "edge" however, then it would only have travelled at the speed of light in vacuum.
smith
[edit]For those interested in more of the technical details of they accomplished this, the summary in "Nature" magazine is about as non-technical as scientists get in this field.[/edit]
RE: I have a very sceptical
)
For the short answers to your questions: 1)Yes. 2)It actually could be any speed. 3)You are are correct.
[oops....double post...I'll finish this one in a few minutes]