Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

The Speed of light might not be the speed limit...

Xavier_Jr said:
How's it going?
Click to expand...

Great!

Xavier_Jr said:
Star Trek was right?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Deep Space Nine was alright, and Next Gen and Voyager had their good days. The original series was plain wrong though ;)

Xavier_Jr said:
Warp speed is possible?
Click to expand...

In the manner of Star Trek, unlikely, even if theoretically possible the energy requirements would be ridiculous. Any intergalactic exploration we do is going to be very slow I expect. Maybe first we figure out consciousness, then how to upload ourselves onto computer, then how to download ourselves back into a cloned body. Then we can send out loads of robot spaceships that explore the stars and find somewhere habitable, and then grow our clones and download our selves on to them.

Xavier_Jr said:
It can bend space to reach speeds greater than that of light?
Click to expand...

My general relativity isn't too great, but I think the theory, if correct, implies you can't go faster than the speed of light locally, but gravity impacts what you measure the speed of light elsewhere to be. So you can do some clever stuff bending space with gravity. But my head starts to hurt; read this.

Xavier_Jr said:
The man can know the universe in a single existence?
Click to expand...

Yes, but at the instance he reaches that state his head will explode.

Xavier_Jr said:
Or we're just fooling around?
Click to expand...

Well, who wants their heads to explode?
 
Jimmy B said:
Great!



Hmmm. Deep Space Nine was alright, and Next Gen and Voyager had their good days. The original series was plain wrong though ;)



In the manner of Star Trek, unlikely, even if theoretically possible the energy requirements would be ridiculous. Any intergalactic exploration we do is going to be very slow I expect. Maybe first we figure out consciousness, then how to upload ourselves onto computer, then how to download ourselves back into a cloned body. Then we can send out loads of robot spaceships that explore the stars and find somewhere habitable, and then grow our clones and download our selves on to them.



My general relativity isn't too great, but I think the theory, if correct, implies you can't go faster than the speed of light locally, but gravity impacts what you measure the speed of light elsewhere to be. So you can do some clever stuff bending space with gravity. But my head starts to hurt; read this.



Yes, but at the instance he reaches that state his head will explode.



Well, who wants their heads to explode?
Click to expand...


Thank you for your answers...

I loved when Picard says: "Lieutenant Data, velocity 9.5 Warp, let us out of here very soon..."

And please do not let your head explode, we need your comments on the forum. ;)
 
Xavier_Jr said:
Thank you for your answers...

I loved when Picard says: "Lieutenant Data, velocity 9.5 Warp, let us out of here very soon..."

And please do not let your head explode, we need your comments on the forum. ;)
Click to expand...

I do believe, in terms of star trek, that if you travel at warp 10, that the speed will be infinite, which would be cool. It would essentially mean that you'd be everywhere at once :D


In other news bending space do not (as far as we know) alter the speed of light, it can however alter the passage of time relative to other places in the universe and if you bend space enough you may also be able to take a short cut.

Disclaimer:
I don't actually know anything about this stuff, I'm just a big fan of sci fi who listens to some science podcast once in a while.
 
Zacariaz said:
I do believe, in terms of star trek, that if you travel at warp 10, that the speed will be infinite, which would be cool. It would essentially mean that you'd be everywhere at once :D
Click to expand...

Apparently the last episode of TNG had warp speeds of 13 in it... but yup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive_(Star_Trek) said:
Star Trek: Voyager episode "Threshold" concurred with this: the characters ruled that reaching the speed of warp 10 was impossible. In spite of this, they went on to achieve the speed, experiencing a peculiar side effect: they underwent a [reversible] process of hyper-evolution culminating in their transformation into anthropomorphic newts. In this episode, Tom Paris explains that, while traveling at warp 10, he was simultaneously present in every part of the universe.
Click to expand...

Rubbish episode btw. Tom Paris's head should have exploded...
 
So we still believe that the speed of light is the highest in universe... Interesting.
 
If we could travel at the speed of light, this is what it would look like:
 
Ooops

Jimmy B said:
So, looks like it may have all been down to calculational blunder, pretty basic one too:

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php
Click to expand...


Quoted from url above -

- "And they're totally, 100% correct, because the distance that the neutrinos had to travel in their reference frame is longer than the distance that the neutrinos had to travel in our reference frame, because in our reference frame, the detector was moving towards the source. In other words, the GPS clock is bang on the nose, but since the clock is in a different reference frame, you have to compensate for relativity if you're going to use it to make highly accurate measurements." -

Not a calculation error, erroneous reference frame due to originality of experiment....it's not 'pretty basic' - that's just your understanding.
 
You miss the point.

That sentence refers to the previous paragraph where a hypothetical person said "There's no way that a neutrino could have covered the distance we're measuring down here in the time you measured up there without going faster than light!". The hypothetical person was "totally correct" because in the reference frame "up there" the neutrino didn't travel the distance they were measuring "down here". It travelled less distance.

I'd say to measure one thing in one reference frame and compare it to something measured in another is a calculation error, and seems like pretty a basic error for a team of professional scientists to make tbh. I think if this turns out to be correct, they'll say as much themselves.
 
Last edited:
Interesting but like someone responded in the link you provided, Jimmy, this explanation claiming relativity has been forgotten in the reference frame is totally wrong, nothing implying relativity here.

copy/paste of a comment:

Second, not just that but that explanation has nothing to do with relativity. In any race you have to take into account the finish line moving towards the racer (if that were actually the case). That has nothing to do with relativity. The principle of relativity invoked in the paper is that of space contraction (based on special relativity and various geometric approximations to get a quick first order result). Related to it is that the clock on the satellite would appear to move fast relative to the clock on Earth.
 
Oleg said:
I half-watched an interesting programme about this tonight - aimed more at those of us who don't what the hell all you people who know physics are on about :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016bys2/Faster_Than_the_Speed_of_Light/ for those who are allowed to watch BBC iPlayer.
Click to expand...
99% of physicists don't even comprehend (or refuse to acknowledge) the implications of relativity, so don't feel so bad.

But everyone likes their GPS measurements to be accurate.

This blunder is pretty embarassing, lol
 
Immortal said:
99% of physicists don't even comprehend (or refuse to acknowledge) the implications of relativity, so don't feel so bad.
Click to expand...

i thought that its the implications of quantum theory that are not really fully understood/accepted. "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." John Wheeler.
 
aridash said:
i thought that its the implications of quantum theory that are not really fully understood/accepted. "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." John Wheeler.
Click to expand...

Relativity too. It's one of those things where people accept the basic math versions, then forget that it's physics and not math.

Until Quantum physics and relativity are reconciled, neither can be claimed to be understood - this is not helped by these subjects being severely dumbed down to the point of bowdlerization. Our human nature is to always assume a static constant (ideal case) which can be ultimately futile when trying to comprehend a system that is never static
 
Umm, im sorry, has noone bothered to read my link on the last page? A newer article about it...


Looking at the comments it looks like noone has.
 
I've read it Stave, I don't know what to say...

After reading first publicaton from your link, seems neutrinos should have had less eV in Italy, but 'if blablabla faster etc' which was thought impossible, what other thing will be found to explain the speed? At that point anything considered today as impossible, may be the real explanation.

On one side I'd like to know like many what's the trick, but one the other side, this situation, for now, let imagination and science fiction florishing... Lots of great science fiction were born in never heard theories/experiments in progress that few people were aware of at the time science fiction has been released. (book, movie, paintings, etc)

I'm as much interested in the final scientific position, as by the science fiction that could emerge from it.
 
Ed Ward said:
Second, not just that but that explanation has nothing to do with relativity. In any race you have to take into account the finish line moving towards the racer (if that were actually the case). That has nothing to do with relativity.
Click to expand...

It may the explanation in the article I linked to that is wrong, or my understanding of it, but my reading of it led me to think that they were essentially saying the time taken was measured in the frame of reference of one of the GPS satellites, but the distance travelled was measured in the frame of reference of someone at the source in Switzerland. In the latter case, the destination in Italy is not in any way moving towards the source in Switzerland - the Earth's rotation does not make Italy move relative to Switzerland from the point of view of someone in Switzerland. But in the reference frame of a GPS satellite, the Earth's rotation may be moving the detector towards the source and so it's inappropriate to use the time measured by an observer in that reference frame and the distance travelled as measured by an observer on the Earth.

I may well be misunderstanding it though, or the explanation given in that article may not be a perfect interpretation of the research they're reporting, but the poster you quote seems pretty unclear on the matter too (as he attests to in his subsequent post).

Stave said:
Umm, im sorry, has noone bothered to read my link on the last page? A newer article about it...

Looking at the comments it looks like noone has.
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry, missed it on the page turn! Thanks Stave, interesting.
 
Jimmy B said:
It may the explanation in the article I linked to that is wrong, or my understanding of it, but my reading of it led me to think that they were essentially saying the time taken was measured in the frame of reference of one of the GPS satellites, but the distance travelled was measured in the frame of reference of someone at the source in Switzerland. In the latter case, the destination in Italy is not in any way moving towards the source in Switzerland - the Earth's rotation does not make Italy move relative to Switzerland from the point of view of someone in Switzerland. But in the reference frame of a GPS satellite, the Earth's rotation may be moving the detector towards the source and so it's inappropriate to use the time measured by an observer in that reference frame and the distance travelled as measured by an observer on the Earth.

.
Click to expand...

It's not the earth's rotatation ,it's the orbit of the satellite doing the measuring that caused the miscalculation. You understand coordinate transfer, so you should be able to grasp relativity
 
Immortal said:
It's not the earth's rotatation ,it's the orbit of the satellite doing the measuring that caused the miscalculation. You understand coordinate transfer, so you should be able to grasp relativity
Click to expand...

Surely it doesnt matter which is moving, cause it is relative. For the satellites the earth is spinning. For the earth the satellites are moving.

But then again i probably have it wrong lol

Rgds

Ace
 
Ace Flyster said:
Surely it doesnt matter which is moving, cause it is relative. For the satellites the earth is spinning. For the earth the satellites are moving.

But then again i probably have it wrong lol
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Just look at the pictures, ignore numbers. Nothing is spinning and nothing are moving.
 
dr3w said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Just look at the pictures, ignore numbers. Nothing is spinning and nothing are moving.
Click to expand...


I didnt think GPS satellites were geostationary! A quick google search says most are not, apart from a couple of special ones. I have no idea which they used for the experiment

Rgds

Ace
 
Immortal said:
It's not the earth's rotation, it's the orbit of the satellite doing the measuring that caused the miscalculation.
Click to expand...

Ah, my error, thanks.

Ace Flyster said:
Surely it doesnt matter which is moving, cause it is relative.
Click to expand...

The Earth's rotation was the wrong thing to say though. Could well be these are geostationary satellites anyway, in which case my explanation doesn't really work. What's relevant is that due to the different velocities, the frame of reference of the satellite is not the same as the frame of reference of the source (if you imagine a rotating tire, instantaneously the point at the top is moving horizontally faster than a point half-way up).
 
Ace Flyster said:
I didnt think GPS satellites were geostationary! A quick google search says most are not, apart from a couple of special ones. I have no idea which they used for the experiment

Rgds

Ace
Click to expand...

I can be wrong. IMHO, geostationary ones is military or scientific (well, they are both, for sure). So they was used. Others is like for "public" use.

Well, there is enough people who knows it better, correct me.
 
dr3w said:
I can be wrong. IMHO, geostationary ones is military or scientific (well, they are both, for sure). So they was used. Others is like for "public" use.

Well, there is enough people who knows it better, correct me.
Click to expand...


You were correct it seems, i checked and they did use geosynchronous orbits

Rgds

Ace
 
As far as I can see, the general status of it, is that noone has any final explanation for the findings. Could still be due to a mistake, could be sonething new, noone really knows, but surly, the longer no errors are found, the less likely it is an error right?

I guess the thing to do, is to see if it can be repeated...
 
Argh! Can't you people go study this for four years lol.

Ace Flyster said:
Surely it doesnt matter which is moving, cause it is relative. For the satellites the earth is spinning. For the earth the satellites are moving.

But then again i probably have it wrong lol

Rgds

Ace
Click to expand...

A satellite in orbit travels faster than the surface rotates. I really don't feel like doing the math for the limit of r<X for this statement to be true

dr3w said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Just look at the pictures, ignore numbers. Nothing is spinning and nothing are moving.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the sun.

Ace Flyster said:
I didnt think GPS satellites were geostationary! A quick google search says most are not, apart from a couple of special ones. I have no idea which they used for the experiment

Rgds

Ace
Click to expand...

It does not matter if the satellites doing the measurements are geosynchronous or not, it only matters if they are travelling at a different speed than the earht (where the expereiment was taking place, but not being observed)

Jimmy B said:
The Earth's rotation was the wrong thing to say though. Could well be these are geostationary satellites anyway, in which case my explanation doesn't really work. What's relevant is that due to the different velocities, the frame of reference of the satellite is not the same as the frame of reference of the source (if you imagine a rotating tire, instantaneously the point at the top is moving horizontally faster than a point half-way up).
Click to expand...
A geosynchronous satellite travels faster (relative to the centre of the Earth) than the spot it is designed to be geosynched with.
Quick fact:
Geosynch satellite orbits at 680km above earth (i think, can't be bothered googling)
R earth=~6380k
r_earth+sat_orbit=6960km

dr3w said:
I can be wrong. IMHO, geostationary ones is military or scientific (well, they are both, for sure). So they was used. Others is like for "public" use.

Well, there is enough people who knows it better, correct me.
Click to expand...

As above, it doesn't matter if they are geosynched or not, relativity will affect it. If they had not been geosynched the error may not have occurred (or been identified).

Stave said:
As far as I can see, the general status of it, is that noone has any final explanation for the findings. Could still be due to a mistake, could be sonething new, noone really knows, but surly, the longer no errors are found, the less likely it is an error right?

I guess the thing to do, is to see if it can be repeated...
Click to expand...

There was a very clear paragraph of exactly why the error occured. There is absolutely no room for speculation, or the need for the repetition of 15000 experiments. The scienticians are probably pretty embarrassed about the whole ordeal.
 
Immortal said:
A geosynchronous satellite travels faster (relative to the centre of the Earth) than the spot it is designed to be geosynched with.
Quick fact:
Geosynch satellite orbits at 680km above earth (i think, can't be bothered googling)
R earth=~6380k
r_earth+sat_orbit=6960km



There was a very clear paragraph of exactly why the error occured. There is absolutely no room for speculation, or the need for the repetition of 15000 experiments. The scienticians are probably pretty embarrassed about the whole ordeal.
Click to expand...



It sure wasn't one of their best days.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit

All Earth geosynchronous orbits have a semi-major axis of 42,164 km (26,199 mi).[3] In fact, orbits with the same period share the same semi-major axis

A circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator has a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) from the center of the Earth. A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top