Curent research in superluminar field question.

[raghara2]

I was somewhat curious about state of current FTL research. Do they still have fixee idea of approximate Lee of everything revolve around earth, or did they acknowledged a concept of the absolute simultaneity?<br /><br />What are latest works in this field? <br /><br />

 

[docm]

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html <br /><br />http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[raghara2]

These don't look as unbiased. Articles that are saying something like this: "And some ill informed... say the earth isn't center of solar system."<br />

 

[docm]

If you think physics is without cat-fights among its practitioners I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn.... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[raghara2]

If I could call this a fight it might be nice. You could learn something from arguments used in fight, even if both sides are using completely absurd arguments.<br />If you read van Flanders vs Kopeikin, you'd learn a lot about theory, and about Kopeikin problems with using correct words to explain himself clearly.<br /><br />What is seen in many of articles I looked at is downright ignorance. (type I learned something on school and I must defend it doesn't matter what.)<br />

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />What is seen in many of articles I looked at is downright ignorance. (type I learned something on school and I must defend it doesn't matter what.) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />but the oppposite 'I learned something in school and I will rebel no matter what' is just as bad, you see rebels like that on this forum who seem to be anti-establishment on principle<br /><br />I like to read all sort of stuff because it stimulates your thinking in possible new directions <br />like when you see people trashing in insoluble dilemmas and running into dead ends, it might give you idea how to solve the problem or abandon it as a hopeless fairytale<br /><br />I don't personally believe in tachyons' existence but FTL subject makes one think of photons and speed of light c, what makes it top speed, how to make sense of photons not having rest mass, how and why do photons pick up their speed in the first place and why just this speed LOL<br />maybe after I figure out an answer to at least some of these questions, I might turn to investigation of FTL phenomena<br /><br />makes one wonder why people are so curious about what's beyond frontiers of physics (other universes, FTL etc) when there is so much unsolved and unanswered in the physics currently in progress<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[raghara2]

FTL doesn't always mean tachyons. In fact tachyons were used as hypothetical particles, they took validity of the Lorentz transformation add absurdum, and imagined something FTL however with some ugly properties. The problem was Lorentz himself said about his transformation it's just approximation, so... Of course there is no problem with class of particles that are not electromagnetic waves, and doesn't interact with electromagnetic waves. (Thus speed of light is unimportant for them, and Lorentz transformation doesn't apply to them either.)<br />Of course attempts to discover such particles would be particularly messy. Crossection of interaction approx similar to neutrinos. Imagine situation when someone discover he has one more particle in experiment. Would be experimenter happy, if amount of particles would increase from 4E30 +4 to 4E30 +5? <br />I was currious if there was any theoretical research about that particles, or if scientists were too much scared about causual FTL so they avoided it.<br /><br />??? People that are against establishment are ones that has greater possibility to create new things.