German scientists "We have broken speed of light"

[Predicto]

Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!

Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!

(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse

Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)

Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented

By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.

What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,

No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.

Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles

Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.

If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance

Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!

No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge

Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."

Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck

The comforting linkage of cause and effect.

E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried

To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.

Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,

And inside a tube we have put that cat at--

Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,

A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes

(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,

One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom

Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,

A trigger device blasts the vial into bits

Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime

Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.

The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is

Our ***** still purring--or pushing up daisies?

Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't

But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.

Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),

Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.

To some this may seem a ridiculous split,

But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!

We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':

There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.

Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.

The act of observing disturbs the observed--

Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing

To see if a particle's moving or resting

Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!

We know probability--certainty, never.'

The effect of this notion? I very much fear

'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.

Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,

"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'

So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.

God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.

I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--

In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.

Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,

Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.

Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:

Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

[Corcaigh]

I don't know about all that, but when the Heisenberg Compensator breaks down on the transporter it's a pain in the butt!

Wiki Link

I'm sure you don't want to take my word for it, regarding Bell's theorem and instantaneous communication, and would like to review the equations yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

[Corcaigh]

Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!

In my opinion, that Schroedinger dude was just as bad as Michael Vick; locking up cats in boxes with vials of poison, purely for the purpose of thought experiments?

PETA should be picketing Quantum Physics 101 lectures.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

"For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving."

So this means that time travel is possible?

[Cdowwe]

"For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving."

So this means that time travel is possible?

I guess so. I got first dibs

[PeterMP]

"For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving."

So this means that time travel is possible?

"Time travel" already happens. Things that move faster travel through time slower. We see this w/ radioactive particles as they fall to the Earth. They last longer then they should simply based on their decay times. This is also an issue w/ some satelites, and their clocks have to be regularly up-dated. Does this mean you could go back to the "past" or "future" as in sci-fi is less clear, to me at least.

[Weganator]

If i could go back in time i would go terminator on a young vinny cerrato...

[Corcaigh]

"Time travel" already happens. Things that move faster travel through time slower. We see this w/ radioactive particles as they fall to the Earth. They last longer then they should simply based on their decay times. This is also an issue w/ some satelites, and their clocks have to be regularly up-dated. Does this mean you could go back to the "past" or "future" as in sci-fi is less clear, to me at least.

Time travels slower for objects with mass moving at high speed, and does so in accordance with the predictions of General Relativity. If you could travel almost at light speed time essentially stops for you. For others (outside your intertial reference frame), time passes as normal. Note also that the test was done on massless objects.

The astronaut quote in the brief article is a real leap. Our understanding of time and what happens at very high speeds is shaped by General Relativity. If faster than light speed travel for massive objects is possible and GR is wrong, it might just mean that you get somewhere faster than we thought possible. If GR does need correction, I don't see what justifies the leap that travelling backwards in time is possible.

[HOF44]

Our best chance at a time machine???

Link

[Skins24]

"For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving."

So this means that time travel is possible?

I seriously doubt a human body would be able to withstand it. Or any known materials on earth for that matter....

[Corcaigh]

I seriously doubt a human body would be able to withstand it. Or any known materials on earth for that matter....

Originally there were concerns that humans couldn't withstand travelling on a steam train at 30 mph.

[chomerics]

Eh. . .this isn't new, there has been evidence of this phenomena before

[Spaceman Spiff]

Don't piss in the wind.

[McMetal]

Schrodinger's cat, indeed.

You just have to understand the functional interrelationships between mass, gravity, and the fourth dimension.

The Philadelphia Experiment wasn't just a movie...

[Metalhead]

Well the theory of relativity is, after all, a theory. And a theory that which was developed only for human beings' relative understanding to Earth.

The universe is far to vast to put such a damper on thinking and knowledge. I say break through the boundaries of conventional thought.

This is great news though. Hopefully this area's work progresses exponentially.

[GibbsFactor]

How is "instantaneous" measured?

[AsburySkinsFan]

How is "instantaneous" measured?

No delay, which by my understanding would indicate faster than light speed because at light speed would result in at least some measurable delay from start to finish. They may have done what they say, but my guess is that they aren't measuring the time frame correctly or sumthin'.

I'm still trying to figure out my earlier question; if they sped up the proton enough would it eventually reach its destination before it left? And if so, then if they sped it up enough could someone change their mind about turning it on after the proton appeared at the destination thereby creating a paradox?

[GibbsFactor]

No delay, which by my understanding would indicate faster than light speed because at light speed would result in at least some measurable delay from start to finish. They may have done what they say, but my guess is that they aren't measuring the time frame correctly or sumthin'.

I'm still trying to figure out my earlier question; if they sped up the proton enough would it eventually reach its destination before it left? And if so, then if they sped it up enough could someone change their mind about turning it on after the proton appeared at the destination thereby creating a paradox?

What are they using to measure the delay?

I'd imagine that you'd see two protons at once if it were truly faster then the speed of light. My understanding is that if the proton moved at the speed of light, it would be in both places (perhaps even linked), faster should make the link undetectable since you wouldn't be able to see it as no light would reflect.

[edgun88]

Use quantum tunneling in a sentence:

I quantum tunneled your mom last night.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What are they using to measure the delay?

No clue.

I'd imagine that you'd see two protons at once if it were truly faster then the speed of light.

That's how I read the article, but quickly have to declare my ignorance in these matters once it starts getting to the details, I just don't have the knowledge base.

My understanding is that if the proton moved at the speed of light, it would be in both places (perhaps even linked), faster should make the link undetectable since you wouldn't be able to see it as no light would reflect.

If something is moving at the speed of light than it wouldn't be in both places because the speed of light is not instantaneous, if something is moving faster than the speed of light then depending on the distance traveled it could be in both places at once, thus the instantaneous appearance (zero delay). But, then take all of this with a grain of salt because I'm a religious studies major, not a physicist.

[Jumbo]

"Ve haff vays uff makink you fast"