Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Superluminal light?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...own-speed-limit

Would I be right in thinking that this could not be used to send information faster than light because it is not the whole wave that appears to travel faster than light?

Ok, I think I kind of get the idea. Basically what they seem to be doing is causing the pulse of light at the output of the device to be narrower than when it entered. That means that the peak of the pulse is closer to the start of the pulse at the output. So that the peak arrives earlier than it would have if it hadn't been compressed. That makes the pulse exit the device in less than the time required for it to transit the device.

Of course it never actually travels faster than light, or at least the information that comes with it doesn't. I don't think you could transmit information faster than light this way.

Bill Gill

from what I understand about science books and mainstream science , science says "nothing can travel faster that light"

Light can travel slower or faster IN A MEDIUM you are thinking of in a vaccuum.

Positive gain media make light go faster, negative gain media make it go slower for example light in diamond is only 0.42 the speed of light in a vaccuum.

The absolute speed limit of light only applies to a vaccuum.

Charged particles can also travel faster than light in a medium and it is called Cherenkov radiation

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

Bill.S data has been attempted to be encoded into cherenkov radiation as far back as 1988 the interesting thing is the data can only reach the speed of light however even though the physical electrons are moving faster.

In 2007 when attempting FTL communication a weird effect was noted that you get dead-times in the transmission.

This was conclusively proven last year

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/quantum-information-speed/

Any attempt to encode data faster than the speed of light creates forbidden zone intervals.

This will also be tested this year with quantum teleportation which is expected to show the same result which would imply the speed limit of exchange of any quantum information in any medium is limited to the speed of light even though the actual speed of teleportation exchange in entangled particles has been clocked at over 10 000 times the speed of light.

For you Bill.S this go back to the original discussion about the Quantum exchange between two charged particles and it supports the conclusion the transfer is not in the medium but outside the medium hence you can't speed it up.

first off , I said nothing can travel faster THAN light.

I did not say that LIGHT can not travel faster.

science books and mainstream science says what I said.



in paul physics ( like QM but better ) I made up a formula
that allows anything to travel at any speed.

S1+S2=S3

10,000 x c is slow!

the formula can be summarized as below

Dc = Dc

where Dc = the Desired Speed above c or D x c

in paul physics there are no speed limits as paul physics
recognizes no boundaries or limits.

science books and mainstream science does not recognize paul
physics.

in paul physics a thrown flashlight will emit faster than
c light.

in paul physics you can shine a laser on the top of the moon
and move the laser light to the bottom of the moon in .000000001 seconds.

the laser light traveling along the surface of the moon has traveled
the entire distance from the top of the moon
to the bottom of the moon in .000000001 seconds.

because paul physics says that light traveling on the surface
of an object is still traveling.

the cirfumference of the moon is 6784 miles
so 1/2 this circumference is the distance that the laser
light travels in .000000001 seconds.

c is 186,000 miles per second

in .000000001 seconds light ( science bound ) travels 0.000186 miles.

6784 miles / 2 = 3392 miles

3392 miles / 0.000186 miles = 18,236,559.13 c

here paul physics clearly demonstrates that light can travel
at over 18,000,000. ( 18 million ) times the speed of light.

but light can travel much faster.

after all what is considered light?



actually , what I just explained could send information at
over 18 million times the speed of light.

This highlights a problem I have with the way C is defined. Einstein first stated as a natural law that the speed of light, for which he used the letter C, is the maximum speed at which anything can travel. Ever since C has been defined as "the speed of light in a vacuum". I think this causes a lot of confusion when we start talking about the speed of light in a medium being lower. I think a lot of people get very confused by the way this is defined.

I think that C should be defined as "the maximum speed at which anything can travel". Then some examples of things that can actually travel at C, such as light and gluons, could be given.

I realize that I am shouting into a barrel, trying to change the definition at this late date is way too late.


Actually Cherenkov radiation is the result of particles traveling faster than light in a medium. The particles themselves are not Cherenkov radiation.

Bill Gill

Then you are clearly wrong because electrons, nuetrons, protons and other charged particles are clearly NOT LIGHT so you are blatantly wrong.

As per the Quantum teleportation issue the 160km transports by the two groups ar at the moment are 10 000 times faster than the speed of light as you extend out the distance the effective speed will get faster and faster.

I doubt there is an upper speed limit because there is no maximum distance as the universe is effectively infinite in distance as it continues to expand.

but orac, this is what I wrote.



are you suggesting that science books and mainstream science is wrong?

for clarity you are saying that science books and mainstream science is blatantly wrong.

clearly I am not even slightly wrong as I don't adhere to what science books or mainstream science says about the speed limits
that science imposes.

did I detect a bit of jealousy because paul physics
has outdone QM?

18,000,000 to 10,000

Science is not a popularity contest and I shall just ignore your stupidity like Bill is ... bye bye.

to you I may seem stupid , but to me you seem stupid.

you can choose to ignore people , that is your prerogative.

I could care less , you can't even comprehend what people
write anyway , so if you ignore my post then that only means
that I don't have to continue to clarify to you what the
meanings of my post were.

what you do write really doesn't make any sense anyway.

Orac, I wasn't saying anything about that. I was talking about the fact that defining C as the speed of light in a vacuum is confusing for some people. You apparently misunderstood what I was talking about. I was just venting on the fact I think that defining C in that way has caused a whole lot of confusion among people who don't quite understand SR.

Bill Gill

Orac

see what I mean , your not getting the correct meanings
of what people write.

even Bill has troubles with your comprehension.

just try to comprehend things that are being said and then
comment on those things.

I understand that english is still a bit tricky for you
because its not your primary language , but I have noticed
that there's been a big improvement , now just focus on comprehension and you'll have it whipped.