Is FTL an allowed speed?

[humanbydefault]

NOBB! It is not!Nothing [not even energy] could move faster than light. This was said by Einstein a hundred years ago. His EPR experiment was redesigned and revised by Bell and his team and as a result it was concluded [officially at least for some] that there is in fact a "signal" that could and must travel faster than light from two opposite moving photons... Those are the facts!
Einstein used to call that "force" a "sppoky one" since he never actually believed it existed in the first place.
I wrote an analogy in my book trying to explain how an "alien" from another world could account for those puzzling observations made recently by a french team. This is the short version of the story:
Assume that the universe is a great lake. There is a rule written by the lake itself that prohibits the existence of any size of air bubbles BUT the ones he has already determined. Let's assume that one day an air bubble decided to split in two and continue its momentum but in two opposite directions. The smart bubble wanted to cheat the lake and it succeded in doing so since as long as those two tiny bubbles were actually present no rule had been violated. One day far appart one another a little fish ate one of the two bubble, and the lake was really furious when it realized that its rule had been overlooked. What was the lake's response to such event? It forced the second air bubble to either reduce or increase its [not allowed] size to a corresponding one previously determined by its authority. The matter then was entirely resolved. But what were the consequences of the shape mutation of the tiny buble left on existence?
Well, its momentum had to change direction! Its destination suffered an unexpected turn when its "body" changed density.
This is the story. Now I wonder: What the h... a tiny bubble erased from existence had to do with the final results? It was the trigger of the subsequent events that took place! No force or signal travel FTL toward the second bubble! It was the LAKE [the medium, vacuum or ether] that has the power to RULE and to ACT over any thing against its rules!
We all know that the lake was full with little bubbles of air besides those two. So, any amount of air floating in the waters of the lake [one not yet consider a bubble yet] could rush to the bubble in troubles and change its structure before an observable violation could have taken place.

A nice child story isn't it?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[WithoutMe]

What Einstein actually proved in his Spl Theory of Relativity is that no object can "accelerate" to a speed equal to or greater than the speed of light. The Spl Theory of Relativity never does prove that if an obejct is "already" moving faster than light, then there will be a problem! The precise point is that, if the object is not moving equal to or greater than the speed, it can never reach that speed, however, it can go close (limit tends to zero), but NEVER touch it.

All things said, IF ANYTHING IS ALREADY PAST THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IT CAN VERY WELL BE, that is, an object has to BE in that state, it cannot BECOME it, it has to be it!

Hope this clears out a lot of mis-conception abt the Spl Theory of Relativity.

Regards,
wM.

PS. Such objects which are already moving in greater than the speed of light are called Tachyons. However, such objects, even if exists, can never be detected, coz we humans cannot are simply not in that legion of "already in that state" & as the fact is, we can never become it!

[dleviwing]

It may help if you understand that it is the "MEASUREMENT" of the speed of light that renders the same value. This does not by any means state that the speed of light is constant. The defined method of measuring "c" will provide the same number and thus is used as a reference to correct the mathematical modeling process of any reference frame of motion. Unfortunately most who state that the speed of light is constant, fail to include the word "MEASUREMENT in a vacuum".

[Planet_Bob]

fail to include the word "MEASUREMENT in a vacuum".

The measurement must also be carried out locally. If the measurement is made at a distance, then differences in the density of space come into play.

This would imply that light interacts with space, hence the differences.

So, rather than the speed of light, would it not be better to call it the rate of interaction of light.

[dleviwing]

Quite correct Planet_Bob; however you are viewing the measurement as a one way event. The defined measurement of the speed of light is a two way event. (there and back).

The best way to view EM radiation is to say that:
EM waves will propagate through equal quantities of ethereal matter (space or vacuum) for any given absolute time increment.
Thus the speed is dependent on the spatial density; The number is dependent on the method of measurement.

[Planet_Bob]

The best way to view EM radiation is to say that:
EM waves will propagate through equal quantities of ethereal matter (space or vacuum) for any given absolute time increment.
Thus the speed is dependent on the spatial density; The number is dependent on the method of measurement.

If the EM wave was to propagate through a region devoid of any ethereal matter, then the spatial density is reduced to zero and the corresponding velocity would be infinite.

If ethereal matter is composed of individual entities, then the EM wave would travel between these entities at infinite velocity, but then slowing when encountering the ethereal matter. This would imply that the speed of light is in fact infinite, yet the velocity that we record is the rate at which it interacts with the ether.

This may sound a bit out there, but it provides one of the most fundemental aspects for a theory of everything. The point being that the speed of light is not constant, but is regulated by ethereal matter. A TOE would have no need to rely on constants.

Suppose for a moment that ethereal matter comprised EM waves, what you have is a dynamic, self regulating medium. The more EM waves you pump into it, the higher the density and the longer each wave takes to traverse the region.
Permittivity and Permeability: how to calculate the speed of light according to Maxwell.

[dleviwing]

If the EM wave was to propagate through a region devoid of any ethereal matter, then the spatial density is reduced to zero and the corresponding velocity would be infinite.

This would be like playing your stereo in a vacuum. NO MEDIUM, NO WAVES. A pure void may not exist within the universe's boundaries. If we learn enough about the fundamental nature of the fundamental substance of the universe, we may eventually create a pure void in a lab environment.

If ethereal matter is composed of individual entities, then the EM wave would travel between these entities at infinite velocity, but then slowing when encountering the ethereal matter. This would imply that the speed of light is in fact infinite, yet the velocity that we record is the rate at which it interacts with the ether.

The medium for sound, is air. A speaker will compress the molecules to a high density and then a low density at the surface of the speaker. The molecules that are compressed at the speaker are not the same molecules that vibrate the eardrum. The same is true with EM radiation. The spatial substance (ether) does not travel from place to place, its travel is limited to the wavelength imposed by the propagating source; the change in an electrons energy state etc.

This may sound a bit out there, but it provides one of the most fundamental aspects for a theory of everything. The point being that the speed of light is not constant, but is regulated by ethereal matter. A TOE would have no need to rely on constants.

Agreed, but this is only a solution to the GUT (the physics portion of the TOE) and not a complete TOE that requires the explanation of life and consciousness also.

Suppose for a moment that ethereal matter comprised EM waves, what you have is a dynamic, self regulating medium. The more EM waves you pump into it, the higher the density and the longer each wave takes to traverse the region.
Permittivity and Permeability: how to calculate the speed of light according to Maxwell.

To understand the medium of the waves, one must understand the nature of the fundamental substance of the universe. If you have read through some of my threads, you will see that my view is that this substance has a bonding property that is variant to the type of motion and its orientation of motion. The total quantity of motion of any system (universe, particle, or atom) is fixed and cannot be altered by any interaction; this is Absolute Motion. This motion is comprised of uniform motion and wave function motion. It is the interference of the wave function motions of the universe from all directions that produce the illusion of a particulate ethereal medium. This also produces the illusion of virtual particles. Now uniform motion is the key to understanding spatial density and mass. Uniform motion (linear or angular) allows the natural bonding property of fundamental matter to become effective, thus particles have high uniform motion. The greater the uniform motion, the greater the inertia and thus the greater the mass.

BTW: If you pump EM waves, it does not mean you are adding substance to the universe, only to the localized volume and removing it from other locations.

The ultimate velocity is more likely to be that of the value given by QM for the expansion of the universe. 2x10^11 c. This may also be the value of "Absolute Motion".

[Planet_Bob]

This would be like playing your stereo in a vacuum. NO MEDIUM, NO WAVES.

That's one of the nicer aspects of wavicles. One moment they're a wave and the next they're a particle.

A pure void may not exist within the universe's boundaries. If we learn enough about the fundamental nature of the fundamental substance of the universe, we may eventually create a pure void in a lab environment.

If a pure void cannot exist, then there is no way we could create one. I think it's more likely to be a case of true and false, the universe being a mixture of the two.

BTW: If you pump EM waves, it does not mean you are adding substance to the universe, only to the localized volume and removing it from other locations.

There's no question of adding anything to the Universe, merely concentrating some of what already exists in one place.

The ultimate velocity is more likely to be that of the value given by QM for the expansion of the universe. 2x10^11 c. This may also be the value of "Absolute Motion".

For any velocity other than infinite, there has to be some restricting mechanism, or that the method of emission is uniform throughout the Universe resulting in exactly the same velocity.
Occam's Razor : there is no restricting mechanism or uniform emission. The maximum velocity is infinite.

[dleviwing]

Wavicles are a charming concept with no supporting evidence of such an object. It fall just below the probability of string theory.

For any velocity other than infinite, there has to be some restricting mechanism, or that the method of emission is uniform throughout the Universe resulting in exactly the same velocity.

You are quite misguided in this belief. Scientific fact does not support this view either.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with science. If one needs to resort to quoting this lame quote, then it is quite likely one DOES NOT KNOW and should state that fact.

Sorry Steven; your interpretations indicates a rather poor science discipline.
Be a skeptic of all theories; even if they are your own.

[Planet_Bob]

Wavicles are a charming concept with no supporting evidence of such an object.

Louis DeBroglie was one of the first people to suggest that light, previously thought of as a wave, could also demonstrate particle properties. The primary example being the photoelectric effect.
So, as you see, there is supporting evidence.

EM waves will propagate through equal quantities of ethereal matter (space or vacuum) for any given absolute time increment.
Thus the speed is dependent on the spatial density;

As you have said, velocity has a dependancy on the the spatial density.

You are quite misguided in this belief. Scientific fact does not support this view either.

Science fact is stuck in the realms of light having a constant velocity, so does not support a view that would imply its whole basis is incorrect.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with science. If one needs to resort to quoting this lame quote, then it is quite likely one DOES NOT KNOW and should state that fact.

It does not mean that at all. It merely implies that there are a number of possibilities, none of which can be proven or disproven, and more often than not the simplest solution is the correct one.

Sorry Steven; your interpretations indicates a rather poor science discipline.

You seem very quick to judge.
Look back over your posting concerning an object having properties of both wave and particle and then tell me who has the poor scientific discipline. You list optics in your biography.

Nothing I have posted contradicts scientific fact.
Infinite velocity of light does not contradict that the "MEASUREMENT" of the speed of light renders the same value.
Like everything else here, it's a theory.

You mentioned ethereal matter. Up until a few years ago, you would have been laughed at for mentioning aether, but then how times change, because it is now more acceptable.
I for one am not laughing.