Can anything travel faster than The Speed of Light?

>>9154627
thing inside of black holes go faster than light

Takyon!

File: IMG_0195.jpg (177KB, 774x1032px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 774x1032px

>>9154627
Shadows

Gravitons

It is possible for spin zero particles to travel faster than thespeed of lightwhen tunnelling. This apparently violates the principle ofcausality, since there will be a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left. However, careful analysis of the transmission of the wave packet shows that there is actually no violation of relativity theory. In 1998,Francis E. Lowreviewed briefly the phenomenon of zero time tunnelling. More recently experimental tunnelling time data ofphonons,photons, and electronshave been published byGünter Nimtz.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

>>9154687
Gotta love quantum physics

>>9154627
Why not?
And what light are you referring to?

>>9154627
https://youtu.be/QANvc2e7_Nc?t=1m5s

There are quantum mechanics experiments that account for non-locality. In particular, information propagates faster than speed of light

>>9154627
Yes, when 2 photons moving at the speed of light from opposite directions cancel each other out. The moment they collide, both origins 'know' there was 'contact'.

>>9156085
Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Anything that happens to go faster than light does not carry information with it.

Sort of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsEDigUHsOQ

>>9154627
stuff at the edge of the observable universe is receding at 3c from us

>>9154687
Wouldn't quantum tunneling destroy the universe?

>>9154627
yes unless it has mass

Nothing can accelerate past the speed of light, but theoretically things can travel faster than the speed of light.

>>9156127
wrong
read the thread before posting

>>9156118
it already happened and the universe still exist so no.

>>9156114
interesting. never thought about that.

>>9156096
depends on what you understand as information i guess. the "thing" that travels faster then light itself don't carry information but you could use it as a morse code for example, to send information faster then c. it all depends on how you look at it.

>>9154630
Tachyons aren't real silly.

>>9156183
he said "takyons" not "tachyons", it's a total different thing!

We all are, relatively.

>>9154627
Darkness

Gravity already travels faster than light.

>>9156299
actually no, gravity travels at c, the speed of interaction, at which light may travel since it has no mass

love

>>9154630
OH SHIT I'M FEELING IT

File: Porsche2-e1504644030474.jpg (216KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1920x1080px

>>9154628
No. Spacetime is curved such that the gravitational acceleration is c at the event horizon.

>>9154630
No compelling evidence of tachyons has been found.

>>9154645
No. Shadows are the obstruction of light.

>>9154649
Gravitons should be a mass 0 spin 2 particle, and would travel at c. Changes in gravity happen at c.

>>9154687
In the spin zero particles' reference frame, all the spin 1/2 and up particles have a net negative group velocity greater than the speed of the spin zero particle minus the speed of light.

>>9156085
Just call it entanglement.

>>9156090
All photons travel at c. They "cancel each other out" when they destructively interfere.

>>9156114
Space is expanding faster than c, relative to our reference frame, yes.

>>9156118
No. Tunneling is a result of probabilities. And, stellar fusion wouldn't occur without it. So, the Universe as we know it would NOT exist without quantum tunneling.

>>9156126
Nothing travels faster than c. Photons and theoretical gravitons are mass zero and are limited to c.

>>9154627
Bad news.

how do people measure particles?

like do they see them with a super advanced microscope or something? how are they detected and manipulated?

>>9156182
I've read the thread. Nothing concrete disproves my statement. Tachyons that "have just been traveling faster than the speed of light since forever" still exist in theory.

And nothing except for absurd abstract concepts mentioned in the thread have been explained to be less than lightspeed at one point in time and more at another.

>>9157205
>In the spin zero particles' reference frame, all the spin 1/2 and up particles have a net negative group velocity greater than the speed of the spin zero particle minus the speed of light.
could you break it down for me without too much jargon please?

>Space is expanding faster than c, relative to our reference frame, yes.
Is our reference frame non-inertial? If not, what allows for this?

>>9154627
>Can anything travel faster than The Speed of Light?
yes ur mum at the sight of COCK lol.

File: 1504831112533.png (238KB, 2136x790px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 2136x790px

>>9154645

No mass increases as you get accelerate . The mass increase makes it harder and harder to go faster. So you would need infinite energy to get to the speed of light
some people think this is the theory of relitivity.
Einstein actually ment booby size vs hight Eg a cup 4ft is the same as d cup 6ft

>>9154627
The love of Christ.

>>9154627
Yes, but not faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

>>9154627
Yes the universe.

anything travels faster because is not light

>>9154627
The information traveling between two entangled particles when one of them gets measured

>>9157261
a mixture of ways. Charged particles can be detected with stuff like capacitors when they hit them. Particles moving at high speeds can also cause some materials to fluoresce when they hit them. Some more elusive particles can cause other easier to detect particles to be emitted, and using these easier to detect byproducts the existence of the elusive particles can be inferred. To manipulate them, creating an electric/magnetic field can be used to accelerate them if they have a charge. That might not sound like much, but it's basically been the cornerstone of experiments and applications in particle physics for a century now

>>9157853
nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics

Space itself and anything else that doesn't convey information.

>>9157936
>Wikipedia

>>9158119
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#References

>>9154627
If we interpret that Bell Experiments nonlocally (as we should, given that the theorem was a nonlocality proof, and a rejection of counterfactual definiteness is necessary to reject locality), then there are causal influences that are superluminal.

File: hmm.gif (505KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1080x1080px

>>9157205
>Changes in gravity happen at c.
How do we know that light doesn't travel at the speed of gravitational changes?

really makes u think...

Yes. I am faster than light
*teleports behind you*

File: GOKU2.jpg (92KB, 439x450px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 439x450px

Goku

>>9154627
Love.

>>9159071
>as we should
wow good luck with never becoming anything in physics and having people at the office think you're the "smart physics geek" for the rest of your life. If you're under 16 then ignore this.

neutrinos?

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (76KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1440x1080px

>>9154627
Communication between entangled particles.

>>9159376
bazinga

>>9159376
They don't communicate, though

File: 0008318_graf-zeppelin-metal-earth-models.jpg (288KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1280x1280px

>>9154627
Feathers are light, right? Try an experiment. Grab a rock, and a feather, and drop them. See which one hits the ground first.

The rock will of course! Therefore rock is faster than light. Therefore lead zeppelins are the fastest thing in the universe.

>>9157205
Only person in the thread who knows what he's talking about.

>>9157269
>could you break it down for me without too much jargon please?
basically, in the reference frame of the tunneling particle (the spin 0 one) all of the other particles are seen to be travelling faster than the difference between the spin zero's speed and the speed of light

>Is our reference frame non-inertial?
yes, because the earth is rotating, but that doesn't matter. Apparent superliminal motion is not a problem, actual superliminal motion is. There are several problems where something appears to be going faster than c but isn't. in this case, the space expansion between us causes those objects to appear to move faster than c, because by the time light would travel the gap between us, extra space has been added that is greater than or equal to the original gap. Thus the light never reaches them nor their light to us. They are "causally disconnected" and nothing they can do can ever affect us so it doesn''t matter any way, since there's no way to have any information exchange because it can't go fast enough. for all intents and purposes they don't exist in our universe

File: Instant.jpg (301KB, 1471x1116px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1471x1116px

>>9159376

speed of light is not a barrier but simply the speed of light. it just so happens that nothing is capable of going as fast as light.

>>9159432

Except for all other massless particles, gravitational waves, ...

>>9159442
nah you are wrong mate

>>9154627
Alcubierre-White Warp Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlmdtf3UbmQ

>>9159445

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
>For example, these particles must always move at the speed of light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
>Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that propagate as waves at the speed of light

>>9159432
Speed of light seems pretty barrier-esque to me. Considering when you "launch" light from something already moving pretty fast you don't add the speeds together.

>>9159404
Finally, some real science.