×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Mathematicians Extend Einstein's Special Relativity Beyond Speed of Light

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the carry-the-universal-constant dept.

Math 381

Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that despite an apparent prohibition on faster-than-light travel by Einstein's theory of special relativity, applied mathematician James Hill and his colleague Barry Cox say the theory actually lends itself easily to a description of velocities that exceed the speed of light. 'The actual business of going through the speed of light is not defined,' says Hill whose research has been published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 'The theory we've come up with is simply for velocities greater than the speed of light.' In effect, the singularity at the speed of light divides the universe into two: a world where everything moves slower than the speed of light, and a world where everything moves faster. The laws of physics in these two realms could turn out to be quite different. In some ways, the hidden world beyond the speed of light looks to be a strange one. Hill and Cox's equations suggest, for example, that as a spaceship traveling at super-light speeds accelerated faster and faster, it would lose more and more mass, until at infinite velocity, its mass became zero. 'We are mathematicians, not physicists, so we've approached this problem from a theoretical mathematical perspective,' says Dr Cox. 'Should it, however, be proven that motion faster than light is possible, then that would be game changing. Our paper doesn't try and explain how this could be achieved, just how equations of motion might operate in such regimes.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614405)

Post first!

Re:First post! (5, Funny)

able1234au (995975) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614415)

> until at infinite velocity, its mass became zero.

finally a diet that works!

Re:First post! (5, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614785)

Every couch potato has already verified that at zero velocity, mass becomes infinite.

The challenge of getting past c (4, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614407)

As I understand it from reading a few other articles, there still exists the challenge of getting past the barrier of infinite energy required to even match the speed of light. Perhaps there will be found a way to tunnel past it, but I expect that while all the math may work neatly, actually breaking through is going to be nearly impossible. Then there's the problem of slowing down which means tunneling back through the other way.

Much as I've been warned off by the articles that claim the paper to be fairly impenetrable to non-mathematicians, I'm tempted to pay the $30 to get the article anyway.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614445)

In the alternate universe, they would pay you.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614903)

In that Universe I would still spend it on hookers and blow... but a lot faster.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614987)

It's backwards? So in the alternate universe's Soviet Russia...

Re:The challenge of getting past c (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614505)

But the mathematics do not work out neatly. They just skipped a whole bunch of math where E = infinity and broke their equations and went strait to "Now we're losing mas as we accelerate! Neat! Forget that whole "We just consumed all the energy in the universe and collapsed into a blackhole business back there!"

Re:The challenge of getting past c (3, Interesting)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614639)

so the speed of light barrier is where the universe throws a divide by zero error, and things like tachyons are where the universe says fuck it lets do it anyway. maybe this math is for explaining how tachyons can get a way with saying fuck you to the math.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614735)

Tachyons probably don't exist. No one even has a way to find them yet if they do. People seem to hear about them and assume they do exist, but they are just a prediction dependent upon string theory being correct. It isn't even testable in theory (yet) . Since it isn't provable yet, it isn't really science, just a neat thought experiment.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (2, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614925)

At one time Einsteins theories weren't testable either and were just neat thought experiments.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614761)

Well, tachyons aside, basically yeah.

I have not read the piece, but I am confused how this is 'new'. The behavior of the equations for values larger then C were things we went over in undergrad physics. You can not go the speed of light, but higher or lower works.

There is only one speed: c (2, Interesting)

qbitslayer (2567421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614871)

'The theory we've come up with is simply for velocities greater than the speed of light.' In effect, the singularity at the speed of light divides the universe into two: a world where everything moves slower than the speed of light, and a world where everything moves faster.

Actually, the exact opposite is the truth: nothing can move faster or slower than c. It is an illusion that objects move slower than c. Motion is discrete and consists of discrete jumps at c interspersed with huge numbers of discrete wait periods. This is true regardless of how smooth you think motion is. Why is c the only possible speed? For two reasons:

Firstly, a time dimension is illogical. Why? Because a time dimension makes motion impossible? Why? Because it is self-referential. This is the reason that Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides and called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens. Surprise! So in order for an object to move at different speeds, nature would have to calculate temporal intervals, which is impossible.

Second, the universe is necessarily discrete. Why? Because a continuous universe would lead to an infinite regress.

Read Physics: The Problem with Motion [blogspot.com] for more if you're interested. Believe me, you don't understand motion especially if you think you do. The truth is weirder than fiction.

Re:There is only one speed: c (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614929)

Relativity does not state that something cannot move faster than c says you cannot accelerate to c.

And I cannot sort out why anyone interested in SR, GR, QM or physics in general would read Popper.

Re:There is only one speed: c (1, Funny)

qbitslayer (2567421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614965)

Popper understood relativity better than Einstein. He understood why nothing could move in spacetime. Einstein apparently never realized this. Or if he did, he kept quiet about it. Otherwise, most people would have figured out that there is no such thing as bodies moving along their geodesics in spacetime. Just saying. Take it or leave it.

Re:There is only one speed: c (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614933)

You retard.

Re:There is only one speed: c (1)

qbitslayer (2567421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614991)

You retard.

LOL. That's funny and I need the humor. Thank you.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614519)

Don't waste your money. It employes nothing harder than algebra and simply restates what physicist's have said about tachyons for years. Can't see how they slipped it passed the reviewers.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (2)

Baron Eekman (713784) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614663)

Indeed. The fact that they didn't put it on arXiv is another indication it's probably not much more than hype.

Now that I think of it, how awesome is this? Being published in a journal but not on arXiv is more suspicious than the other way around.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614857)

I seriously thought this was commonly understood among Physics majors who occasionally smoked pot. At least that's who I learned it from about 20 years ago. Seemed pretty obvious-once-you-think-about-it to me (and that's coming from a guy who flunked Infinite Series the first time he took it).

Re:The challenge of getting past c (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614553)

The problem is seeing past c

Our senses and tools are very limited and primitive. Perception is everything. It is very difficult to work with something that exists outside of 'sensor range'. So we assume much when we create our theories of how things are.

"If you really don't believe that faster-than-light is possible, then humans will be limited forever," [theregister.co.uk]

Re:The challenge of getting past c (0)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614703)

Someday, some race from some star system will look back at the silly "unbreakable" light speed barrier the way we look back at the "unbreakable" sound barrier today. Hopefully it will be the human race that does this first - it would be.... unfortunate to meet up with an expansionist species (like the Europeans on North America, or Australia, or Hawaii) after they have conquered interstellar travel and colonization.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614771)

Well, not quite the same... the sound barrier was an engineering problem.. plenty of math saying people could break it but building a plane that didn't shake itself to pieces was non-trivial.... in this case the math doesn't work out and we don't have any known paths for getting past this.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614733)

I suspect it will be (if it ever will be, that is) something along the lines of twisting space-time in such a way that will allow you to move the universe around you (as opposed to you moving through space-time).

Re:The challenge of getting past c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614815)

Nearly impossible, you're such the optimist.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (0)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614821)

This is sort of like the idea that there are temperatures less than absolute zero. These would be negative kelvin temperatures.

The idea being that 0k means 0 energy, you would then have anti-energy, possibly anti-matter, and anti-physics.

Of course it's all just hokum, but hey, it's fun to theorize.

Re:The challenge of getting past c (1)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614865)

It sounds like they have mathematically described Tachyon space.Can a Hyperdrive or Warp drive be far behind.Where is Zefrim Cochrine when ou need him?

In the unhidden world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614411)

This is the first post in the unhidden world!

What about the speed of information? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614441)

No one yet answered this question, what is the speed of information? What is the speed of the universal laws? What is the speed of the gravitational force??????

Re:What about the speed of information? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614507)

Speed of information = speed of light (this is well known).
Speed of gravitation = speed of light (this is also well known).
"Speed of universal laws" is not a question that makes sense. "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Pauli (And the quote is well known).

Re:What about the speed of information? (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614659)

if speed of gravitation is equal to c then why can it pull in light and bend time? it would seem to me to be faster then c to bend time. please explain?

Re:What about the speed of information? (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614869)

Because you made up a problem where there's none, that's why. Speed of gravitation is simply how fast change propagates. You wiggle something here, it makes wiggles on something somewhere else, but later. This doesn't preclude steady state. A gravitational potential well doesn't need a round trip to begin to affect something. If an object comes into being in a potential well, it is immediately under the action of gravitation of the central mass in said potential well. It will, alas, take light time for the effect of the object's being to affect the central mass, and whatever effects that had to propagate back. Same goes for a potential well in electric field, etc. Yes, there will be photons or gravitons that carry out the interaction, but if my outsider understanding is any good here, don't forget that those carriers are created on a whim, and their creation or destruction is all that you need for an interaction to occur.

Re:What about the speed of information? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614699)

Not everything known travels at the speed of light...
Information travels at the speed of the transport mechanism it's traveling on. If it's sound, it travels at the speed of sound. If it's internet, it's at the speed of electricity... and the routers.

Re:What about the speed of information? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614571)

No one yet answered this question, what is the speed of information? What is the speed of the universal laws? What is the speed of the gravitational force??????

It works in reverse. All information is known at all points in space but as you go faster, you start to forget things.

Re:What about the speed of information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614685)

You mean like braking, signaling, and following distance?

Re:What about the speed of information? (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614589)

Yes they have. It's the speed of light.
The speed of information and the speed of gravitational force were both predicted by Einstein.
The speed of information was proven rather quickly there-after in experiment. You'll have to wikipedia it for details because they escape me.
The speed of gravitational force was proven recently. Maybe in the 90s? I believe by measuring some gravitational lensing effect the sun had on stars just past its horizon or some-such. I don't remember the specifics. But if the sun vanished right now, it would take 8 minutes for the earth to stop orbiting and shoot off into space.

The speed of universal laws? I'd think that would fall under information... irrelevant however, as everything obeys the speed of light.

Re:What about the speed of information? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614705)

Nope, it is not the same, and no one yet proved it. And the Einstein theory does not say anything about it. In fact, all the laws that we have, are making the presumption that the speed of the information is infinite. Period. But is it really so?

Re:What about the speed of information? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614913)

Ah, I see. You're one of those TimeCube guys. Listen, if you believe in magic over science, I can't help you. Relativity is, at this point, fact. It is probably the most researched, proven, time tested theories in modern science. We are more sure of relativity than we are of Newtons laws. If you were to ask a physicist what were more likely to happen tomorrow, The sun to explode? or Relativity to be found incorrect... they'd choose the sun. If you google it, there are experiments you can do in your living room with pen lasers, flashlights and lenses that'll prove the theory for you. Unless of course, you believe in magic. If magic is real, well shit... you can prove much of anything can you?

Re:What about the speed of information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614927)

No they don't.

Re:What about the speed of information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614985)

Nope, it is not the same, and no one yet proved it. And the Einstein theory does not say anything about it.

Wrong on so many levels.

Re:What about the speed of information? (4, Interesting)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614955)

> Yes they have. It's the speed of light.

> But if the sun vanished right now, it would take 8 minutes for the earth to stop orbiting and shoot off into space.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_radiation.html [ucr.edu]

There's a number of competing models which fit existing data.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/25/what-is-the-speed-of-gravity/ [scienceblogs.com]

See the closing paragraph referencing LISA ~ 2030 A.D.

The real way to measure the speed of gravity is to detect and study gravitational waves. By comparing the arrival of a gravitational-wave signal with that of an electromagnetic signal from an astrophysical source, one could compare the speed of gravity to that of light to parts in 10^(17).

As I understand it, we're still waiting to find out if gravitational waves/radiation propagates at the speed of light.

Causality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614449)

This is not new. Tachyons have been discussed for decades. The problem with going through the light barrier is that effect can precede cause. This sounds like mathematicians playing with equations and ignoring physics.

Did you take any science courses at all? (5, Informative)

EvolutionInAction (2623513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614451)

What. The. Hell. This is not profound. This is trivial.
Anybody that took any science classes knows that the equations work fine as long as v != c. Just like I can get negative frequencies out of a fourier transform. The math works, but that doesn't mean I have actual, physical negative frequencies.

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614493)

What? You've never felt a negative vibe before?

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614537)

Depends... What's your definition of a negative frequency? A frequency out of phase with a positive one might qualify. I'm pretty sure you can make one of those... and Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] had an article on negative frequency photons a while back too.

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (4, Insightful)

EvolutionInAction (2623513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614611)

When you use a fourier transform to put a signal into frequency domain you end up with positive/negative components. If you then bandshift, the negative component becomes positive and will actually exist when broadcast. But only the positive part is actually a physical thing. It's... weird.
But you know what I mean. All the equations of motion work if we negative mass, but that alone isn't any reason to think that negative mass exists. Was that a better example?

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (4, Insightful)

Longjmp (632577) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614645)

The math works, but that doesn't mean I have actual, physical negative frequencies.

Exactly. Two more simple examples:
1st: Pythagoras
a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Let a = 3 and b = 4.
Which leads to c^2 = 25, result is +5... Not quite: (and congrats to those who could follow without a calculator ;-)
There are two results, +5 and -5 mathematically, however, only one, +5, makes sense in a physical world, since there is no negative length.

2nd: Give me a few (hundred?) years and I'll come up with a mathematical model where the sun, planets and the rest of the universe is circling around the earth.
It wouldn't make sense whatsoever, but mathematically it still would be true.

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614717)

Exactly, having a model proves nothing. And who says that the current model is actually the true one???

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614743)

Can there be a consistent 'mirror existence' where all such examples do have applicable meaning?

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614757)

The whole concept of negative numbers is simply a human mathematical construct. Negative temperatures are only negative because of an arbitrary choice of where to place the 0 point. In your example, the -5 simply represents the side of a triangle measured in the opposite direction. There's no such thing as negative weight or pressure, and negative speed is simply telling you that you measured the wrong direction.

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

Longjmp (632577) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614805)

You are confusing units (and vectors) with math and distances

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

Jamu (852752) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614667)

Exactly what I thought, along with why the f' is this news? It's been known about since the publication of Special Relativity over 100 years ago, and certainly before we started calling them tachyons, around 50 years ago.

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614671)

Isn't a negative frequency just the wave flipped about an axis (or perhaps unchanged)?

cos (-w t) = cos (w t)
sin (-w t) = -sin(w t)

Did you maybe mean imaginary frequencies?

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614809)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xSrbCDC2bP8/T-iuQrQdPsI/AAAAAAAAEao/z4Bxcu0dHXw/s1600/a_winner_is_you_1024.jpg

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614813)

he math works, but that doesn't mean I have actual, physical negative frequencies.

Well, these are mathematicians. Enough said. ;)

And yes, in science department there are always jokes about mathematicians vs rest. Math is not really a part of science. Math is a (very important) tool used by science. There are no math theories - there are theorems. There are no doubt in math circles, everything is proven to be true. There is nothing proven in science, it is only observed. etc. etc.

Mathematicians may find some interesting things while investigating math used in physical sciences. But almost all of it just remains interesting, in the math sense.

Re:Did you take any science courses at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614855)

Which is why you use a Laplace transform.

Infinite velocity (4, Funny)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614457)

Some parts make sense: At infinite velocity, a particle would necessarily pass through every point in the universe. The particle must have zero mass otherwise the entire universe would collapse into a singularity exceedingly quickly as the mass of the universe becomes effectively infinite.

Just a random thought.

Re:Infinite velocity (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614669)

...the whole universe could be just 1 particle moving at infinite velocity, and the visible universe (e.g. us), is just that single infinite velocity particle interfering with itself :-/

Re:Infinite velocity (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614683)

I really don't know the math but two probably dumb questions.. 1: Would the relative velocity between an object going slower than c and an object going faster than c be restricted by c somehow? 2: Given the suggestion that objects lose mass the faster they go on the other side of c, is it possible for two objects to have identical mass, but be going wildly different speeds? ..one going faster than c, and the other slower than c?

Re:Infinite velocity (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614723)

When you explain what MASS is, then you will have your answer. Good luck.

Re:Infinite velocity (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614707)

At infinite velocity, a particle would necessarily pass through every point in the universe.

Nah, you're thinking of the Infinite Improbability Drive. It beats all that tedious mucking about with faster-than-light equations.

Re:Infinite velocity (4, Informative)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614745)

Some parts make sense: At infinite velocity, a particle would necessarily pass through every point in the universe.

Actually that happens at the speed of light: to a photon moving at the speed of light, time has stopped completely and the universe is forsehortened from a 3D volume to a 2D plane - so effectively the photon is at every point along it's path "at once", at least from it's point of view.

Re:Infinite velocity (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614883)

Ta-da :)

Christian Science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614459)

LOL!

Re:Christian Science (0, Troll)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614711)

No, it's the Christian Science Monitor. How are Christians supposed to know what to get upset about next if science isn't being monitored?

imaginary mass (2)

cathector (972646) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614461)

have not RTFA,
but if you just let the mass become imaginary, the relativistic velocity equations work just fine.
the only singularity comes in when you're going at c.

Re:imaginary mass (5, Informative)

cb123 (1530513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614503)

If you just read the abstract to TFA you can see that the claim here is less novelty than the press release makes it sound like (the press overplays things - SHOCKER! ;-). They are really only presenting an alternate derivation without using mass of long-known results related to tachyonic physics and virtual particles and so forth.

Now, I am personally a bit dubious this is the first time the alternate derivation has been done, but I havne't read their particular approach. One would hope any reviewers assigned to the paper would have done reasonable due diligence/homework about the particulars (though sometimes that hope is in vain).

Re:imaginary mass (3, Informative)

cb123 (1530513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614515)

Whoops - that should have been "without using *imaginary* mass".

Time (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614491)

My question is what happens with time in an FTL regime? Speeds up? Slows down? Goes backwards?

Re:Time (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614767)

...also, is time chunky? does it interfere with itself kinda like light? Does space interfere with itself? How would such things manifest themselves in our observable universe?

Re:Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614783)

No, that's what would happen to time in a Romney regime, depending on the crowd he's speaking to.

Tachyons (4, Informative)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614525)

I don't think there is much new here, several tachyon papers have trodden down this road before (e.g., http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4187v2.pdf [arxiv.org] ).
If they somehow have figure out how to extend the lorentz transform for v > c in 4 dimensional space (vs 6 dimensional space as asserted in the above reference paper to void imaginary distances), that would be something.

Unfortunatly, I haven't found a way around their paywall (yet) to see what they are up to...

Re:Tachyons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614599)

Fuck you. That "paywall" helps to pay for research. Do you fucks ever stop for even a second and think what you're stealing when you pull shit like this? Is there nothing you're willing to pay for? Go jam it up your bitch ass.

Re:Tachyons (5, Informative)

buswolley (591500) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614631)

How do journal fees support my research? While there is some cost to publishing, most of the labor is unpaid for by the publisher (reviewers and researchers). It would be better to publish online without a for profit company, and make it open access. Mild submission fees could be used to cover operating costs related to hosting.

Re:Tachyons (4, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614649)

Says anonymous coward on a free website that posts links to other authors' content with summaries that are either 100% inaccurate or simply copy/pasted from the article's first paragraph...

Re:Tachyons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614661)

Give it away. Ask for donations. If your work is worthy, you'll get paid.

The entire internet should be modeled this way. Fuck YOU if you don't like it.

Re:Tachyons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614695)

Someone missed their medication this morning...

Re:Tachyons (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614851)

In most cases, taxes paid for more of that research than the paywall did/would. I've already paid for the research once, why should I pay again?

you just were hacked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614893)

and im reading your article , so fuck you.....
have a nice day....and your full a shit with that math btw..

Re:Tachyons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614977)

lol kill yourself

Re:Tachyons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614777)

As far as I can tell there really isn't anything particularly novel about all this. Their equations introduce sinh/cosh/tanh into the solutions so it seems like they just rewired things under the hood such that 1=i and recreated the same thing as the well known imaginary mass tachyon work previously known.

Summary repeats common misconception (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614551)

The Christian Science Monitor reports that despite an apparent prohibition on faster-than-light travel by Einstein's theory of special relativity,

There was never any such prohibition or restriction. The prohibition is on as-fast-as-light-in-a-vacuum travel.

Re:Summary repeats common misconception (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614981)

Actually there is. Sublight particles can't accelerate to the speed of light and you can't go faster than the speed of light. So says the Special Theory of Relativity. Of course it's wrong, but that's according to the current flawed understanding of particle physics.

so basically (1)

z3alot (1999894) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614577)

he postulated tachyons and their properties again?

Now take it a step further (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614609)

Hill and Cox's equations suggest, for example, that as a spaceship traveling at super-light speeds accelerated faster and faster, it would lose more and more mass, until at infinite velocity, its mass became zero.

What happens above infinite velocity?

Re:Now take it a step further (1)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614755)

As Buzz Lightyear - he's been beyond infinity!

Re:Now take it a step further (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614759)

dont ya love that?
even the term 'infinite' being used as a measurement is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as multiple universes, or infinite space. all three are a divide by zero, in my book.

Re:Now take it a step further (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614881)

or alternatively what happens at zero (relative) velocity? Making a wild no-stakes speculation, the ultimate truth will turn out to be that every than c particle with identical difference of velocity from c. Speeding one particle up, slows the other particle to conserve energy. lol orrrrrr ha ha ha maybe the other particle always has identical mass...and velocities change to conserve energy really...the problem with me reading this stuff is I get to have fun pondering, but I will never get a chance to really know what I am talking about, given career demands..

Re:Now take it a step further (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614889)

crap sorry about the bold

The beauty of settled science (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614627)

I, for one, am sick of science "breakthrough" reporting like this. Oooh, we understand physics past the speed of light now!

Stop for a second. Do you even understand the current state of settled science on General Relativity? Do you appreciate the problems that existed in pre-GR, and how Einstein's equations were such a beautiful, innovative solution to them? Have you connected it to your general understanding of science and astronomical observation? How much would you have needed to be told to connect the rest of the dots yourself?

And yet people are so excited about the mere possibility of passing the next hurdle.

Well, dispense with chasing these bleeding edge results that you barely understand the pre-requisites for. Grab a good textbook, and just see if you can understand and appreciate the physics that physicists don't argue about anymore. You'll actually learn something.

(Too lazy to credit the article that gave me this insight.. Just google the subject.)

Tesla (1)

theedgeofoblivious (2474916) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614713)

Didn't Tesla believe that as something moved faster it would lose mass and that things could move faster than the speed of light?

If this story turned out to be true, that would be a huge victory for Tesla.

Fuck a hoMo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614727)

the double slit experiment (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614737)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

information traveling faster than the speed of light.

Re:the double slit experiment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614891)

Nope. Information hasn't traveled faster than light.

Re:the double slit experiment (1)

Longjmp (632577) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614937)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Personally, I'd prefer the double slut experiment.

Tag: speedoflight (4, Funny)

arielCo (995647) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614835)

So that's his secret! Not our yellow sun, not the cape ... it's SPEEDO FLIGHT !!

There is only one speed in the universe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41614861)

From what I've read, there is only one speed in the universe, which is the speed of light. Velocity can be thought of as a fourth dimensional vector, including the three dimensions of space and the dimension of time. Speed is the length of the vector, which is constant. When one goes faster in space, one moves slower in time, but the length of the vector remains the same.

Dear Hugh Pickens, (3, Insightful)

heptapod (243146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614867)

One link is necessary for Slashdot. Slashdot isn't Wikipedia.

After reading the first sentences of your submissions and seeing five different links, I give up and go to reddit for the actual story. You're doing Slashdot a disservice.

Go create your own blog with a feed.

Thank you.

Another article, wonder if they might be related? (1)

Bomarc (306716) | more than 2 years ago | (#41614979)

There is another article ... Time-twisting test stuck in limbo [nbcnews.com] that I read about, and I was wondering if the articles might be related - or the experiment might be related to this article and they didn't know about the relationship?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?