Is Speed of light really the fastest?

[Saiph]

actually, quantum mechanics usually hits a wall, that can only be overcome if some phenomena or particle exists with specific properties. They then give (or extrapolate) the conditions under which it will manifest itself, and go looking.<br /><br />Usually, the particle is there.<br /><br /><br />Anyway, he's refering to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Basically it allows you to get away with anything...so long as you do it so fast nobody will catch you. So particles can, on the quantum level, exceed C for exceedingly short periods of time. It's one interpretation of hawking radiation actually. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[roy10]

Correct. But is the perceived space time continuum the only way that nature may exist?<br />Or are there other continua (or realities) or short cuts that get around the Einstein theoretical result?<br />And do we have any means to detect them?

 

[termite]

I have to say that quantum mechanics makes my head hurt. There always seems to me, a complete laymen, that it contains a lot of things that contradict each other.<br />And from some of the theories i've heard i cant help feeling that one day we'll wake up not knowing if quantum mechanics is leading us or we're leading quantum mechanics.

 

[Saiph]

I can't think of anything in quantum mechanics that contradicts itself (there may be leading edge science that does, but it always tends too...).<br /><br />What do you think is a contradiction? Perhaps I can shed some light on it for you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mikewerk]

Hi all!<br /><br />Well, to me c is not one perfect measurement of light it's just the best measurement we have right now. <br /><br />It's similar to a scale that measures up to 300lbs. If you put something that is over 300lbs the scale will measure it at 300. Not because it really is 300lbs but because that's only as far as the scale can measure. You can tell a lot from that measurement though. You know that object isn't under 300lbs, you can make c=300 and measure things against that, etc. Mostly, you know you need a better scale, and that is pretty much where we are at today. We know we need a scale that can measure precisely the speed of light not the maximum capacity of our measurements and theories. <br /><br />Up until recently using c as a constant was practical for most aspects of physics. So far most of what we've been measuring hasn't been faster than the speed of light so it hasn't been vitally important to determine the exact speed of it. <br /><br />So far all we really know is that... light is fast.<br /><br />Michael

 

[vogon13]

In another thread I posted some musings on an instantaneous drive.<br /><br />Hypothetically, speed isn't really involved. The device simply redifines you as being elsewhere in 1 Planck interval. You do not travese the intervening points between start and destination, so speed isn't applicable and I am starting to think that perhaps such a gadget is not forbidden by relativity.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

such a drive would need hundereds upon thousands the amount of energy/fuel to reach/displace an object from point A to point B, than it would simply to just travel the distance between.<br /><br /> Since time is the relavent factor being overcome, this type of drive is akin to inventing a "time" machine.<br /><br /> To be truly instantaneous, you would effectively have one object in two places at the same time. Possible? <br /><br /> The fastest thing in the universe is time itself. Nothing happens without it.<br /><br />Enigma10 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[vogon13]

I made no representations as to the power needed to do this.<br /><br />Upon reflection though, would power, at least large amounts, be involved? The instantaneous drive simply redefines where you are. It is essentially erasing an entry in God's ledger (if you will) and scribling in some new values.<br /><br />What's so special about where you are? Everything has to be somewhere. What's the big deal about altering your coordinates?<br /><br />I am trying to figure why such a gadget would be forbidden.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

The answer to your question is NO. Two ENTANGLED (right or left spinning) photons are the fastest. They're instantaneous. More precisely, it's the instantaneous change in probability waves that is responsible for the faster than light influence (p.119 in the chapter Entangling Space, from the book, The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene). Einstein called this action "spooky". This doesn't violate Relativity, because there isn't an exchange of force particles, between the photons. It's a property of space itself. Also, we can't utiltize this property of space, because we can't transmit any information. It's random, yet coordinated. I've read some reports (on the internet and magazines) that some physicits calculated the speed at 10 million x the speed of light. The book says it's instantaneous. Entanglement means that, what happens to one photons spin, happens to the other, no matter HOW FAR AWAY THE 2ND PHOTON IS! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />no, how a woman can change her moods is faster. </i><br /><br />LOL! A womans mood might even change faster than 2 entangled photons ( trying hard to stay on the subject). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>