How Fast Is The Speed Of Light? Can It Be Broken?

how fast is the speed of light

The speed of light was broken by two physicists, Gunter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen, in Germany from the University of Koblenz. This seriously questions Einstein’s theory that no object or information can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. An example of what could happen with this is time travel, but not like you imagine: If you went for a car trip faster than the speed of light, you’d arrive at your destination before you’d even leave, theoretically, of course. As Dr Guenter Nimtz said: “The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.”

Einstein’s theory is generally thought to be a theoretical limit, not to be exceeded by anything with mass.

299 792 458 m / s

Wikipedia states the following:  The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second.  

An experiment in Princeton, NJ suggests that it may be possible to go faster than the speed of light.  Physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor, and the physicists claim the light left the chamber before it even entered it.  So, did it move faster than the speed of light?

speed of light in mph

how fast is the speed of light

 

Quotes:  https://www.interestingfacts.org/category/quotes

Definitions: https://www.interestingfacts.org/category/definition

110 Comments on “How Fast Is The Speed Of Light? Can It Be Broken?”

  1. This can’t be true, although i don’t see why breaking the speed of light cannot be achieved. It may well be possible but the speed of light is not intantaneous therefore moving faster than the speed of light wouldn’t necessarily mean arriving somewhere before you left. All it would mean is you arrive there before light would, for example light takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth. Theoretically if you did it in 7 minutes would you be travelling back in time?

  2. To answer the question above. No, you wouldn’t be traveling back in time. Its like leaving the starting line in a drag race after your opponent, but finishing ahead of him. Just because you finish before him, doesn’t mean that you traveled through time any differently.

  3. Actually they did not break the speed of light as it is impossible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, becuase this would take an infinite ammount of energy. To explain this is very difficult without more time, but in effect Einstein said that you cannot go faster than light IN SPACE. But if you move the space aswell, the total speed of light, or other moving matter, relative to another reference might exceed the apparent limit.

  4. m(relative)= m/(root(1-(v^2/c^2)))
    therefore is something were to travel at the speed of light m would equal m over root zero, which gives an infinite result. If anything were to travel faster then the speed of light it would result in the root of a negative number which is impossible.

  5. I agree with chris that if you move the space as well as the object you could accelerate an object to the speed of light relative to the observer watching the two objects. its as if you are in a moving car a 60 mph. the car and you are going 60 but to the car (if it had feelings) you wouldn’t be moving at all. therefore you could accelerate yourself to sixty mph. then you would be going at 120 mph. right? but the car is still going 60 mph.

  6. m(relative)= m/(root(1-(v^2/c^2))) the root of a negative just give u a real number and a imaganry number. or a number that is there but cant be calcualted or shown with ower number system.

  7. I believe it was Yahoo Serious that put it best, (this is a loose quote) If you are riding on a train in the rear car, that is traveling at the speed of light & you walk from the rear car to the front car, then in relation to space/time, you have just traveled faster than the speed of light due to the fact that the front car will reach the destination sooner than the rear car.. I dont know how many trains out there are currently traveling at this speed, but the theory sounds pretty good to me.

  8. I think the explanation is similar to explaining the effect of the sound barrier. No matter how much noise and object emits while breaking the speed of sound, it is only heard when the sound arrives. i.e when such an object arrives at a point no sound is heard (the object is deemed silent) until the sound arrives. Similarly when an object arrives at a point faster than the speed of light it can be deemed invisible until the light which would reflect and show it up arrives. Since time is measured by light and the object is not seen (but is there) until light arrives, it may have an effect like time travel.

  9. Surely what you have wrote points toward the fact that it is impossible to determine whether something can travel faster than the speed of light because we are not able to see it?

  10. The thing about walking forward in a train going almost the speed of light (lets say the speed of light minus 1 mph) needs more explaining to see why it wont work. One word. Time dilation… Wait, that’s two words. Okay, two words. Anyway, what this means is this: what Einstein said was that to the observer, nothing travels faster than light. To the observer in the train, he would be at rest and then walking at lets say 1 mph, so he wouldn’t be going faster than light, he would think he was going 1 mph. For him, nothing would seem, weird. And to someone stationary on the outside looking in the window of the train, you have to account for time dilation. What would happen is this… Since the train is traveling at nearly the speed of light, time for the person in the train would slow to almost 0, and it would take almost an eternity to walk from one end of the train to the other. In fact, time would slow down just enough so that he wouldn’t actually be going quite the speed of light. The observer would see him trying to walk faster than light, but failing because time for him was slowed down. But what if he were to run, you ask? Well, since he would be even closer to the speed of light, time would slow down even more (its an exponential scale) so he still couldn’t reach it. But what if he were to somehow reach the speed of light with his fast running? Time for him would stop completely, and an eternity would not be long enough to take that next step to push him faster.

  11. I’m fascinated with this discussion and I love it. I would like to know if someone can direct me to a site that “really” explains this topic of time travel in easy to understand language. I read a lot about it but I still don’t fully grasp it.I look at it like Mark’s comment above. What does it mean “Time dilation” or “But what if he were to somehow reach the speed of light with his fast running? Time for him would stop completely,”. How do you explain time/space? What is “space” anyway? Why do we measure time by light? Excuse my ignorance but a if you’re shy to ask you never learn.
    It’s hard for me to visualize this issue

  12. We are all traveling at a certain speed through space-time. Einstein said that this was a single entity, not separate. As you travel faster in space, you travel slower through time. This is not just a mathematical curiosity or theory, we deal with this fact every day with GPS satellites. They orbit the earth at a fast enough speed that their atomic clocks are slowed down by a certain amount with the atomic clocks here on earth. They get out of sync. Not by much, but it is a measurable amount. In fact, the way GPS works is seeing how long it takes to send a signal from the GPS satellite to the receiver here on Earth. If the slowing of time of the satellites were not taken into account and corrected with our clocks, then GPS satellites would be wrong. Some people say, but a second is a second, anywhere in the universe, time is time. Time is constant. General relativity was all about saying, “No, that’s not true. The speed of light is constant. Time is relative.”

  13. Thanks for the info. My question is as follows, let’s say that here on earth you we measure a second as the time it takes for a person to say the word “no”. Would it take more or less time to say “no” anywhere else in the universe? if the answer is no, then what’s the difference?

  14. Yes, depending on your speed, as you approach the speed of light, time will slow down. Let’s say you got on a ship and I was still on Earth, watching you. As you approach the speed of light, it will take you longer and longer to say the word no. To me, listening to a transmission of you saying no over and over again as you accelerated, it would start to sound like a tape player with a low battery, all processes in the ship would start to slow down. Of course, inside the ship, you wouldn’t notice a difference yourself, you would think you were saying no at a normal rate. When you got back, I might say that you have been gone for 1 million seconds, therefore you should have said no 1 million times, but you say that you only said no 100 thousand times because you were only gone 100 thousand seconds. There is a discrepancy, someone has to be wrong… right? But no, we are both right. Time slowed down for you. It didn’t for me.

  15. but what if you are actualy all wrong?
    what if numbers don’t exist? seriously. what if you’re all just coming up for answers for your questions? why is the number 4, 4? of course you can travel faster than the speed of light, we just don’t know how. they use to think mice came because of the cheese, what if we are just as ignorant?

  16. i like the last comment and he does actually have a point, im sure science in 300 years can explain it to us all better but lets not forget we will be dead by then hehe

  17. The earth has a tangential speed of a little over 1000 miles per hour at the equator, so any given point on the globe is going to be slower than that. But to keep it simple lets imagine being at the equator. And forget walking imagine driving your car at 100 mph. If you were to drive west at 100mph the earth would still be carrying you 900 miles east every hour. so for the 2400 miles you would drive in a day the earth still carries you 22,600 miles east, (earth circumfrence – miles traveled in 24 hours.

  18. The earth has a tangential speed of a little over 1000 miles per hour at the equator, so any given point on the globe is going to be slower than that. But to keep it simple lets imagine being at the equator. And forget walking imagine driving your car at 100 mph. If you were to drive west at 100mph the earth would still be carrying you 900 miles east every hour. so for the 2400 miles you would drive in a day the earth still carries you 22,600 miles east, (earth circumfrence – miles traveled in 24 hours.

  19. yeah but check this moven at the speed of light is how it seems u are moving and the speed of light witch means if u go into space and reach the speed of light somehow u can only see into the past not be in it now if im wrong explain to me plz

  20. speed in itself is relative if im not mistaken, if time is relative then by simple calculation it can be proved that speed has to be right?hence the question arises why do we take light to be a measure of time and how do we take time to be a measure of the past or future becuz simply put the truth of the matter is that the universe has all its entities relative to each other with no constants so in this case no vector quantity can be measured ……for that matter what as time is also relative it cannot be measured and hence time travel is impossible because in laymen terms lets say a house was to fall,50km from the house it takes light lets say 0.1s to reach us, if we are able to travel in the opposite direction by moving faster than the speed of light we will simplybe reaching the house before light reaches the point where we were observing it from so in reality we havent traveled back in time and reached the house before it colapses we have just reached it befor light.but during this process light will also relatively pick up speed as we travel opposite to it,theory of relitivity hence even that would be impossible

  21. so lets say that we reached the speed of -1mph to the speed of light but we were headed east with earth traveling though space at 1000 mph would we have not broke the spead of light by 999mph already?

  22. Supposedly, it is impossible to break the speed of light. But if this is a true fact and not just somthing some dork stuck here to laugh about, it would prove Einstein WRONG. No one wants to admit it, but Einstein could be wrong. No one is brave enough to reasearch into the idea, but if they were, things far more amazing than this could be uncovered. Look. Supposedly, the speed of ligh is roughly 186,000 mps. But some evidence has suggested that the speed of light is variable. For instance, it might flucuate only 1/100,000 of a millisecond every century, but if it did, that would uproot all of modern physics. Think about it, people. Don’t be afraid to speak up.

  23. Einstein said that u cant break the speed of light in a vacuum btw. alo i like to think of breaking the speed of light like breaking the sound barrier, you see before you hear, where as with speed of light you would feel before you see, yet again proving that there is a heiracy of how important you’re sense are.

  24. Going from 0 mph to 60 mph in a few seconds creates a good amount of inertia, so wouldn’t you die simply from inertia if you ever got near the speed of light?

  25. black holes suck objects faster than the speed of light , right? i mean , thats why they are pitch black.light is not fast enough to escape them.

  26. if any thing travels faster than light, then it will be in dark since there is no light, then how can you see it !!!! ?

  27. It’s called quantum tunneling.
    This is unverified data.
    There is no proof that suggests
    that this is nothing more than
    variation of measurement caused
    by varied media.

  28. if you travel faster than light, only two possible outcomes:

    1) you dont see the object untill the light reflected from it reaches you.

    2) you see an object as it was before you left it (seeing back in time)

    for exampls. you stand at the sun at 14.00

    you then arrive to earth breaking the speed of light in 5 minutes at 14.05. that means beeing on earth, you would see how the sun looked at 13.57. you look back in time 🙂
    its like in some book i read. you could travel back in time, to witness supernova blow up countless times 🙂

  29. RE: interesting, no, it would be the light omitted from the sun at 13:57 shining on what is happening on earth at 14:05, so your not traveling back in time at all

  30. It seems pretty impossible. As you travel closer to the speed of light it takes even more energy. Just like a car, as you get closer to say 300kmph your rpms will increase slower and slower.

    The object will also get infinitely heavy.
    Therefore it would take so much energy to reach a high speed to move an object that gets continuously heavier.

  31. It is totally wrong. Time will not slow/stop. If you are travelling at a speed of light, and like the previous example, you cant even hear the person saying no to you at the rate of 1 no/s. It will take very long for the no to reach your mate or it may never will. Hope my explanation is right

  32. Moving the surroundings doesnt matter evrything is always moving it just matters what your point of realativity is like right now to my background my computer is not moving but compared to outerspace it is cause the earth is moving taking the computer with it.

  33. in one of Einstein theory’s it that light can be afected by gravitational force, such as a black hole. If this is true would’nt the gravitational force excelerate the light that was effected, just like it would excelerate a planet cought in a stars gravitational field?

  34. If a star 10 light years from earth were to explode, we would not see the light from the explosion until 10 years after it had already happened. So in essence we would be looking at the past, seeing somthing that happend ten years ago.

  35. While I have enjoyed the discussion thus far, I must point out that a very important piece of Einstein’s puzzle has yet to surface. Special relativety is based on two postulates that were proven independantly from Einstein’s theory.

    1.) The speed of light is the same regardless of the frame of reference.

    2.) The laws of physics apply in any inertial frame.

    Number 1 tells us that light is a very peculiar phenomena. The idea is that if you shine a flashlight from the end of a rocket traveling at half the speed of light, the light emitted will still be traveling at the speed of light relative to an observer from any vantage point. Unlike a baseball thrown from a moving vehicle with respect to a stationary observer.

    Also, one of the previous entries stated that velocity was subject to relatavistic effects, however, the theory is that distance, not velocity, is affected by relativity. So the faster you go, the slower time is as compared to a stationary observer, AND the shorter the distance. For example, a meter stick would be shorter than 1 meter if it flew by you at 80 % of the speed of light.

    As for the claim that some scientists have broken the speed of light, I would need some pretty convincing evidence to sway me in that direction. Certain sub atomic particles are known to exist faster than the speed of light (tachyons) and it may be possible to disassemble bosons or fermions into these faster than light particles. However, I leave that work to the theoretical physicists 🙂

  36. Ideas of time travel have existed for centuries, but when Albert Einstein released his theory of special relativity, he laid the foundation for the theoretical possibility of time travel. As we all know, no one has successfully demonstrated time travel, but no one has been able to rule it out either.

    Time is defined as being the fourth dimension of our universe. The other three dimensions are of space, including up-down, left-right and backward-forward. Time cannot exist without space, and likewise, space cannot exist without time. This interconnected relationship of time and space is called the spacetime continuum, which means that any event that occurs in the universe has to involve both space and time.

    According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, time slows as an object approaches the speed of light. This leads many scientists to believe that traveling faster than the speed of light could open up the possibility of time travel to the past as well as to the future. The problem is that the speed of light is believed to be the highest speed at which something can travel, so it is unlikely that we will be able to travel into the past. As an object nears the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases until, at the speed of light, it becomes infinite. Accelerating an infinite mass any faster than that is impossible, or at least it seems to be right now.

    The theory of relativity states that as the velocity of an object nears the speed of light, time slows down. Scientists have discovered that even at the speeds of the space shuttle, astronauts can travel a few nanoseconds into the future. To understand this, picture two people, person A and person B. Person A stays on Earth, while person B takes off in a spacecraft. At takeoff, their watches are in perfect sync. The closer person B’s spacecraft travels to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for person B (relative to person A). If person B travels for just a few hours at 50 percent the speed of light and returns to Earth, it will be obvious to both people that person A has aged much faster than person B. This difference in aging is because time passed much faster for person A than person B, who was traveling closer to the speed of light. Many years might have passed for person A, while person B experienced a time lapse of just a few hours.

    Problems with Time Travel
    If we are ever able to develop a workable theory for time travel, we would open up the ability to create very complicated problems called paradoxes. A paradox is defined as something that contradicts itself. Here are two common examples:
    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you could travel back to a time before you were born. The mere fact that you could exist in a time before you were born creates a paradox. If you were born in 1960, how could you exist in 1955?

    Possibly the most famous paradox is the grandfather paradox. What would happen if a time traveler went back and killed one of his or her ancestors before the traveler was born? If the person killed his or her grandfather, then how could that person be alive to go back and kill his or her grandfather? If we could change the past, it would create an infinite number of paradoxes.
    Another theory regarding time travel brings up the idea of parallel universes, or alternative histories. Let’s say that you do travel back to meet your grandfather when he was a boy. In the theory of parallel universes, you may have traveled to another universe, one that is similar to ours, but has a different succession of events. For instance, if you were to travel back in time and kill one of your ancestors, you’ve only killed that person in one universe, which is no longer the universe that you exist in. And if you then try to travel back to your own time, you may end up in another parallel universe and never be able to get back to the universe you started in.
    The idea here is that every action causes the creation of a new universe, and that there are an infinite number of universes that exist. When you killed your ancestor, you created a new universe, a universe that was identical to your own up until the time you changed the original succession of events.

  37. Well i can understand the theory of time slowing down as you approach the speed of light, but with the traveling from the sun to earth and seeing light from a couple of minutes before (given that you travelled faster than the speed of light), the fact remains that the light you are seeing was already in motion before you left. Or the theory that you can see a supernova happen, the fact still remains that it only happens once, and any light you see is the same light from the initial source.

  38. Tell me why this would’nt work.

    You have a very long peice of thread, lets say… 10 light years long. You also have a pully. Lets say you strung that peice of thread through the pully and somehow got the pully 5 light years away from you. You now have both the end of the thread in each hand and strung though the pully that is 5 light years away from you. You pull one end of the thread back and in effect it pulls the other end forward.

    Image =
    http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/BakenBowl/SOLTHEROY.jpg

    (Please excuse artistic skills)

    Would’nt the thread move faster than the speed of light when you pull it?

  39. People! Quit complaining that this defies Einstein’s theory! They weren’t in a vaccum, they were on Earth!

  40. yes this is true but you can go back in timeand forward in time and i know how e-mail me if you like go to my web and theres a form just fill it out and check the website out a little oh and the peredox thing is bull crap but it is true that you can altor reality a bit but the universe will fix itself with a gadget i like to call it the doomed meter

  41. yes this is true but you can go back in timeand forward in time and i know how e-mail me if you like go to my web and theres a form just fill it out and check the website out a little

  42. Jason, sorry i just read your comment.
    Think about it.
    The fact that your string is 10 light years long doesnt make diddly squat of a difference.
    If you had a string 50 centimetres long and a pully 25cm away from you with one end in both hand and you pulled one end, would it be travelling at greater than the speed of light?
    No, it wouldnt.

  43. Ok, firstly I dont know how many people here know what they are talking about, its my first time on this website but I can say for certain that there is an awful lot of dodgy physics being bandied about…
    Yes, to anyone interested, there is a particle called a tachion which travels at speeds greater than the speed of light. No, it does not defy einsteins theory in the slightest.
    As for time travel, it is theoretically possible, but the only real possible appication of it would be to shorten the time it takes us to travel distances on a cosmic scale. I dont want to get too technical, but the idea with time travel is not moving faster than light, it is simply taking a short cut created by bending the fabric of spacetime (think of the universe like a flat plain of land, because this is like what the time dimension is. Light normally goes straight across. You stick a mountain in the centre of the plain that you can travel straight through, but light now has to travel over. But the light reaches its destination just as fast, so in effect by taking this shortcut through the tunnel you have travelled faster than light, even though you have not actually reached its speed.)

  44. so im just a little old fireman sitting here reading this site. I stumbled across it while trying to find some interesting facts to write on post it notes and leave all over my captains office kinda like a prank. Then some how i just got my mind blown away by all this stuff and now i would like to go on record as saying i am the fastest man on earth. Since we are all here on earth and all traveling at the speed in which the earth is revolving or rotating then we essentially are all going that speed. So i just want to go on record here on interesting facts that i am the fastest man on earth. I call dibbs or shotgun or what ever. I also just wanted to add some humor to it. Later

  45. what i was trying to say is you could transmit information with the peice of thread faster than light can transmit information. ex. you could pull on either end of the thread to transmit morse code to someone 10 light years faster than you could with light. when you pull on the thread the other end moves instantly. In essence the information can move faster than the speed of light.

  46. Hey, are you all stupid or sumfing????… to exceed the speed of light, is merely impossible… Only God can do dat… and only he can travel through time.. and if doze guyz could travel at the speed of light… then it wont take dem long to find out hu i am.. da guy huz posting diz comment.. dahahahaha… find me in Samoa bitch… dahahahaha… u guyz fink u guys are smart aye??… if u fink u so smart den tell me diz… if a person was to have da same charge as lightning, would he/she obtain the ability to walk through walls???… nd dnt try to make ub bull crap.. i go to school too… Peace Out

  47. Ahh but are you all taking into account the amount of time your brain takes to process the information into what we perceive to be reality. By an inconceivable amount of time arent we all effectivley perceiving reality after it has already occured? I know its overly pedantic and sort of irrelevant seen as theres probably no way of measuring that amount of time. But nevertheless i thought id just put it out there so someone who knows more about physics than me can share their knowledge with this bored 15 year old. If anyone else has pondered this one please share.

  48. I believe the light was broken, due to the fact it was wave light. Not photon light. Photon has mass which can only go to the speed of light (for now) but wave has no mass. Therefore the speeds are endless

  49. I agree with Timmy, most of you guys know seem to know squat about Relativity. Everything is relative, tachyons and time-travel are theoretical possible.

    What you all seem to be missing is the quantum mechanics side of this.

    Quantum tunnelling is a known effect – I believe even a digital watch uses the phenomenon. Read up on the teleportation effects too. Its called non-locality, and Einstein struggled with the concept despite the proof. You see, relavity and QM don’t fully mesh yet. Tunnelling is one of the sticking points.

    This experiment is not ground breaking science. It simply sensationalises something we already know.

  50. actually, the article has a flaw..

    say, in a straight path, and you are in a car that is faster than the speed of light in the starting line..
    if you travel from the starting line to the finish line, you will arrive there faster than light, i.e., you will see instead a glimpse or a vision of yourself/the car somewhere between the starting line and the the finish line.. but the statement in the above article will be considered wrong:

    you’d arrive at your destination before you’d even leave, theoretically, of course

    because, what you saw was a vision or image, not the real you.. the light that was reflected from the the car in the starting point is still travelling, whilst the real car had already reached the finish line.. making you see or glimpse the past..

  51. well all have to is think about the g force that the human body can take and think about what the g force at the speed of light would be there no way that a human could ever go that fast we just die very fast because is nothing that we know of that could break this g force at all I mean look at fighter jets ok they documents states that most jet can go fast then what the hum an bobdy itself can take but with human pilots it can not go that fast so maybe in the future yes break it but Idout humans can go that fast

  52. now, this may be off topic but with how many topics that ahve been mentioned here, what is off topic? Anyways, say you are in a space shuttle traveling to a planet 1 light year away? You complete the journey by noon (leaving at midnight) and arrive back at Earth at midnight. You have only aged a single day but everybody else has aged 2 years and a day, because (assuming Einstein was correct) no one can pass the speed of light in any frame of reference. Yet, the journey was only a single day for you, and assuming you have an infinite amount of energy. Why? Is it because the energy not used for the acceleration to the SoL contributed to slowing down your frame of time? If that is so, why does the energy lead to a slower perception of time rather than an increase in mass as you approach the SoL, due to the fact E=MC^2, which related energy with mass and if C is the constant, than as E increases M must as well…

  53. karl rane wrote: #
    actually, the article has a flaw..

    say, in a straight path, and you are in a car that is faster than the speed of light in the starting line..
    if you travel from the starting line to the finish line, you will arrive there faster than light, i.e., you will see instead a glimpse or a vision of yourself/the car somewhere between the starting line and the the finish line.. but the statement in the above article will be considered wrong:

    you’d arrive at your destination before you’d even leave, theoretically, of course

    because, what you saw was a vision or image, not the real you.. the light that was reflected from the the car in the starting point is still travelling, whilst the real car had already reached the finish line.. making you see or glimpse the past..

    i agree….
    for example, if you run faster than light from point A (assuming the human body can bear that), then imagine yourself running away from the light from point A that’s following you in the same direction. when you would stop and look towards Point A, the light that was carrying the information that you were leaving point A would get to you, and you would see a sort of image of yourself running towards you. You wouldn’t travel back in time, you would just get to point B before light could tell point B that you were leaving point A.
    is this correct, maybe? I don’t know much about quatum theories and relativity, i’m only 15 and making use of all i have read about this so far. however, the E=mc^2 bit, if its true, i don’t understand where OUR speed factors into this energy relationship. all that matters in E=mc^2 is the speed of light and your mass. does mass increase with speed, thus increasing your total energy. if it does, still, what relation does it hav with time.
    please explain and tell me if my example was atleast partially logical. thanks.
    By the way, this is interesting!!

  54. Okay, there is a basic error in reference to all statements regarding traveling back in time. Einstein did not say that you would travel back in time, he said you would accelerate into time. Very VERY different. If the sunlight takes 8 minutes to reach earth, and you did it in 7, you may also have aged 9 minutes in the process. The faster you move, the slower the world around you moves- its all based on the observer, which is why its called ‘relativity’.
    It is, then, possible to travel faster then the speed of light from the perspective of the outside observer. By compressing space in front of a vessel and expanding it behind a vessel, you create a fairly static pocket of space where you exist. From your perspective, you may be traveling at nominal speeds or not at all (the environment outside your vessel would actually be moving, not you), while from the outside perspective, you indeed travel faster then the speed of light. This has an added advantage of survivability, since Mach 10 is pretty much as fast as you can go before dying otherwise, and ‘warp speed’ has none of the normal effects of acceleration. If you are thinking this is out of some space sci-fi movie, it is a concept being tested next year at the LHC.

  55. okay, then i suppose this could be like the speedbreaker feature in nedd for speed most wanted. everyone’s going at the same speed, its just that your reaction time has increased so that everything else seems slow…is this a good example? if not, can anyone explain why time dilation occurs. there’s nothing about time in e=mc^2, so where did time slowing down while going almost as fast as light come in to this from? please do tell me…thanks. this is very interesting even if i don’t know much physics…

  56. i doesnt mean that you would arrive before you leave. It just means it would look like youre in two places at once when, in fact you have just moved quicker than light. Same distance, same destination just quicker

  57. if you travelled at the speed of light minus 1 mph and then ran in that space ship you would turn into your granmothers wheelchair on holidy in magaluff….and thats a fact.

  58. kevin wrote: #
    if we hear a loud bang when we move faster than sound, what would happen if we were to move faster than light ??

    You don’t hear a loud bang, because you don’t hear anything at all.

    You are infact moving beyond the speed of sound.

  59. assume that you are wathing TV on earth, a person sitting 300,000 km away will watch the same frame after 1second. so if you can travel faster than light you can still go faster than the frame and again watch it. you can do it infinite times. so i think we cant travel in time but can watch the events occured long ago if we can travel faster than light. By the time the light coming from stars millions of light years away reach us they have died, we still se them. the light keeps coming for for millions of years.

  60. I’ve heard that scientists have slowed light down to basically a stop. One of them theorized that if you were to surround a guy with that slowed-down light and let him walk faster than it, he would travel back in time. I never heard anything else about it. For example I never heard “They tried this theory and it didn’t work.” So…maybe they tried it and it DID work, and that’s why we didn’t hear about it. They’re using it for military purposes or something…?

  61. It is impossible to accelerate matter to or beyond the speed of light. It is possible, however, for “objects” to move faster than the speed of light as long as they do not have any mass whatsoever, so this must be what the scientists have done. Any object with mass would become infinitely heavy as it approached the speed of light.

  62. Mitchell wrote: #
    m(relative)= m/(root(1-(v^2/c^2)))
    therefore is something were to travel at the speed of light m would equal m over root zero, which gives an infinite result. If anything were to travel faster then the speed of light it would result in the root of a negative number which is impossible.

    We don’t know that. We don’t know that a negative square route exists or even that it doesn’t exist. It’s kind of like considering acceleration in terms of units. Distance/(Time^2) : We know what Distance is, we even know what time “is”. What the heck is TIME^2? Logically it doesn’t mean anything to a person, but after we analyze the meaning behind acceleration we can determine was Time^2 is. I think once we know we are looking at the square route of a negative number in real life we can start to analyze what it actually is, but for now we just don’t know. So we can’t say it is impossible, we can only assume that something very odd would happen.

  63. Never say never guys! Just because we haven’t figured it out yet does not mean we never will. I am no scientist so I won’t pretend to know a whole lot about this specific subject, but think about it like this: for years, the most brilliant minds thought the world was flat and that the universe revolved around earth. Now, that seems pretty dumb eh? Well, in 1000 years, people will look back at all our “theories” and laugh. Technology and knowledge are both expanding so rapidly, what you consider scientific fact today could very well be contradicted tomorrow. Keep your minds open!

  64. If you are debating time travel, u are saying that the speed of light is what time is dependent on. I am not sure but dont think it is. It mainly depends on distance for the ‘arrive before you leave thing’ to apply. And plus if anything moving faster than the speed of light is just the concept of teleporting, until it is possible, than it will be considered just moving reeeaaaalllllllyyyyy really fast.

  65. Eric wrote: #
    If you are debating time travel, u are saying that the speed of light is what time is dependent on. I am not sure but dont think it is. It mainly depends on distance for the ‘arrive before you leave thing’ to apply. And plus if anything moving faster than the speed of light is just the concept of teleporting, until it is possible, than it will be considered just moving reeeaaaalllllllyyyyy really fast.

    Have you ever taken a Physics course? I kinda think that you haven’t. Go take one. =) It’ll change your world.

  66. Matt wrote: #
    To answer the question above. No, you wouldn’t be traveling back in time. Its like leaving the starting line in a drag race after your opponent, but finishing ahead of him. Just because you finish before him, doesn’t mean that you traveled through time any differently.

    your stuped u dont understand

  67. I am not sure i understand this right. What i get is that you are saying that if someone is able to move faster than the speed of light they would be able to time travel? Now it is known(fact) that time itself only travels forward and is somehow connected to speed of light so if you were able to move faster than speed of light that would only mean that u could go into the future but not the past. Is that right or am i missing something?

  68. I personally believe that travelling faster than the speed of light is not possibe because as we know the things we see are represented by the light refflected off objects, so assuming a car travells forward faster than the speed of light it would catch the light refflected from its earlier position and the light from its current position, so in a matter of just seconds it would be hit by so many photons(which compose light) that it would instantly melt. Am I right?

  69. Light has nothing to do with how fast you can travel.
    Think of it logically – In the absence of light, what is your speed limit – and take it from there.
    Light and time are not linked at all. It doesn’t matter how fast or how far you go – the clock still ticks.
    You cannot travel through time – because to travel forwards in time – the events you are moving forwards towards in the timeline must have already happened – so you would in fact be coming from the past.

  70. now i’m no physicist, and i’m not entirely sure i remember this exactly, however it was always my general understanding that anything that has a mass cannot exceed the speed of light.Not because light has anything to do with it though, its the velocity. when an object with mass reaches light speed it would require an infinite amount of force to accelerate it any further… now clearly if you punch in light speed and any mass, your calculator will tell you otherwise, but i’m reasonably sure, this is why objects can’t exceed light speed, theres more to it certainly, but thats all i can remember on the topic and my understanding of it.

  71. The speed of light has not been broken. Anon is right, if an object has any mass at all it is impossible to acquire enough energy/force to move it incrementally up to or past the speed of light, as every little bit closer you get to the speed of light you have to put exponentially more energy to achieve the same increase in speed you just accomplished.

    Now, for those who do not understand why accelerating would make you time travel, or more accurately, why accelerating would slow down time for you, the answer is in Einstein’s theory of relativity. E=mc^2. Aside from the mathematical component of this formula, there are theoretical assertions to be drawn. For this case, there is a finite amount of energy, and that energy is proportional to mass. There are four dimensions, three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. At any point in time you are expending energy to navigate these four dimensions, and most of the time the amount of energy you spend in the time dimension is relatively constant because of your nearly constant speed through space.

    Remember, we’re talking about speed as compared to the speed of light which is about 3×10^8 meters per second, so even if you go 200 mph in a race car you still do not approach a significant fraction of the speed of light, so no significant fraction of your energy is diverted to spatial travel at 200 mph. The more energy you expend in the spatial dimensions, the less you have to travel through the time dimension. So if you spend almost ALL of your energy traveling through space, you will have relatively little to travel through time with, and thus will go very slowly through time while everyone else who is traveling slower through space than you is traveling at what, relative to you, seems fast forwarded. So while you watch them age 10 years you may only age 1 (That’s not an actual calculation, but just serves to illustrate the point).

  72. i read this after my last post lol… but still all in all this is what it comes down to! however an interesting topic to read the many different opinions lol

    Truth wrote: #
    Light has nothing to do with how fast you can travel.
    Think of it logically – In the absence of light, what is your speed limit – and take it from there.
    Light and time are not linked at all. It doesn’t matter how fast or how far you go – the clock still ticks.
    You cannot travel through time – because to travel forwards in time – the events you are moving forwards towards in the timeline must have already happened – so you would in fact be coming from the past.

  73. wont ever be possible by this theory!! lol.. leave your house at 4:20 pm traveling 100 times faster then the speed of light in a straight line of travel around the globe and stop back at the house and check the time and date!!

  74. divineadvancedhumanbeings.com

    Light does not travel… Light is a chemical reaction process and a bi-product of Universal Respiration…

    Many of the problems associated with determining how the universe was created relates to the measurement of light, which is used to measure our distance from other star systems. Current theory regarding the motion of light, supports the speed of light at 186,000 mps. This is highly theoretical! I would like to propose to you that light doesnt move at all like contemporary science tells us. Light as opposed to particles (photons) moving through space, is a chain reaction associated with the motion of electrons and moves at the speed of frequency, which is almost instantaneous! Light is a chemical reaction which would occur at a slightly slower speed but nevertheless, almost instantaneous. In other words, the light which is used to measure whether a star is moving away from a center, is inaccurate as we are seeing this light in almost real time!

    To read article in its entirety, visit http://tinyurl.com/29uuqrp

  75. Divineadvancedhumanbeings… I have to say I really disagree with much of what you said.

    The speed of light is actually highly accurate. In fact, you can use a microwave and plate full of chocolate chips to determine the speed of light.

    Scientists do have much more specific and accurate methods obviously.

    You go on to say that “Light as opposed to particles” (implying light is a wave) but then you compare light to electrons (which are particles). Also I don’t know how to interpret what you mean by “moves at the speed of frequency, which is almost instantaneous!”

    Now what I do know is that visible light is an electromagnetic wave. An electromagnetic wave is a kinda transitional state between a magnetic field and electric current. Light has been proven to act like both a particle and a wave and is composed of photons, which yes, do act like electrons because of their similar sizes.

    And finally, when we look at a star moving from a very far distance in the galaxy it is not in real time. Light may be fast, but in the infinity huge scale of the universe that doesn’t mean much. Or in other words, the light that reaches us is showing us an event that would already have happened to that star, but we are only able to perceive the event now because the light is only now reaching us. Light is often the bi-product of chemical reactions light in itself is a form of energy and not a chemical reaction.

  76. It is my hope that these forums, at least propose new ideas and not rely on the theories and concepts (including the mathmatics) of days gone by. Society stands at the threshold of advanced technology and with this technology amazing new medical and communications problems (to name a few) will be solved.
    There is very little that modern technology understand. We can make fire (or a microwave oven) but we don’t really understand how it works. We can make light happen but we don’t really understand what is happening. Heat theory and light theory tell us something but all in all they are still theories which continue to demand explanation. Contemporary science knows that if it does “A” “B” happens! Other than that we don’t know much!
    It’s true that time slows as speed increases, at least on the mechanism we use to measure it. If you take two clocks and out one under more pressure, which one will run slower? Time is not flexable. We live on a planet which rotates and orbits within a universal mechanism and it is always on time. No matter how fast we go, the universal clock is always on time!
    With regard to light; What I said was that light is a chemical reaction. It is neither a wave nor a particle. Lets just say it is a piece of a particle with one density and exisitng within one pressure spectrum interacting with another within another piece interacting with another piece of a particle in another. Light is a multi dimensional reaction. (read: “The structure of space and Universal Respiration…by J. S. Thompson).
    Yes….when we take a particle out of space such as a microwave and we force it from its natural place in space, it travels at a speed equivelent to the force we put behind it and that can be very fast. These particles were traveling at relative (quantum space) speeds before we tampered with them and after they are cataputled through our mechanism (microwave oven), they are traveling at much faster speeds, now within atomic space. A small dust particle floating in space drifts along with the air current but when you take a leaf blower and attempt to clear the air, it excelerates to the level of the force we have generated (weight to thrust) This is what happens when you take a small particle that exists in atomic space and move it wioth power generated from atomic space. How much more can you excellerate a quantum particle in q space with a devise that exists in atomic space?
    Light reacts…it doesn’t travel anywhere. When science ponders the speed of a light of a distant star, the first thing he or she does is consider a theory known to us all….the “theory” of relativity. Mr Einstein was a genius and a great humanitarian but it is time that we consider new possibilities. The current methods used to measure light emanating from distant stars, red shift and the doppler effect are built around a theory that will always remain a theory. Relative motion is good, the speed of light will never work out….try as we may. It’s time to take a new approach.
    When I mention the speed of frequency, I’m not talking about a wave, I’m talking about a chain reaction of one particle to another. If one considers space a sea of particles, one linked to the other, we can begin to understand how a circuit works. Everything must complete a circuit in order to move…(circuitry and charge are also theoretical) Circuits are not linear but evolutionary. Because everything in space moves, when the siganl at the point of initiation returns the point of initiation has moved because all particles rotate and orbit…thus the “evolutionary circuit”! (read: “Why the Big Bang Never Happened and Why We Need to Know It”…by J. S. Thompson)

  77. Okay, I decided to read the article you refer to, But first I searched for J. S. Thompson. Before I read a legitimate scientifict article, I want to make sure it is written by someone that I can trust. However I could not, other than finding his “Ezine @rticles” or the site “Divine Advanced Human Beings” there is nothing anywhere to actually suggest that J. S. Thompson is anything more than an average Joe with an active imagination.

    Besides the complete lack of anything other than the word of J.S. Thompson, I will read on into “Why The Big Bang Never Happened… and why we need to know it!”

    1/4 of the way through – J.S. Thompson doesn’t once mention how he came to any of these conclusions. He simply says, this is what happens. Not why, not how he figured out how the universe works. Because all of his works seem to show that this one man, with no legitimate background other than writing on the internet seems to have FIGURED OUT THE UNIVERSE. Something all of man kind, since we were evoloved enough to think, has failled to do. Reading on…

    -again speed of light highly exact, and in fact, in the metric system of measurement, one meter is exactly the length of 300 wavelengths of red orange light and that is how the exact size of a meter is saved as.

    1/2 ” I would like to propose to you… ” not a good sign. In a scientific article.

    3/4 An Electron can never be observed and we can therefore never know where one is, I find that if electrons in the universe did move through “electron conduits” we would have a much easier time finding them.

    4/4 Look. For your sake, and for whoever else believes what I have just read. In scienctific method, nothing exists, and nothing is true, until you have proof. Proof is what changes a theory to fact. Firstly, everything in this article is only a theory – if it could even be called that- there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF supporting this guys claims. The “highly theoretical!” ideas of modern science DO have proof. Scientists know and have tested to make sure they know, what light is. We know there was a big bang, not only from the totally uniform expansion of the universe (I have never in my life even once heard that it has expanded in some places and shrank in others ) we can see the spectrum of light that still lingers in space as a result. Scientists made two identical atomic clocks, they tell time accurate to something like 1:00.0000000000000000000000001 o’clock, they put one is space, one on earth, the one in space move much faster than the one on earth, the one in space came back to earth showing that the time was earlier than the one on earth, or in otherwords, relativity.

    Everything you have said, cited and everything J.S. Thompson has said (he doesn’t cite of course) is fiction. It is some idea that J.S.Thompson just had one day and decided he was enlightened or something. I have as much valaditiy as the scientific ramblings of J. S. Thompson, YOU are as qualified as he is. He just decides and states how the universe works. I can do that too, I could even write about it on the internet. Anyone could.

  78. Following the herd is really important to you. Put your insecurity behind you for just a minute if you can and attempt to be one of those guys you wish to immulate. Light is a theory, google it if you don’t know that. While your at it, look up circuit theory and charge theory…(probably written by those with credentials)If you insist on following the work of those who follow the work of other and so on and so forth at least use a little of your own God given logic which exists believe it or not within each and every one of us (you are not excluded from this theory).
    J.S. Thomson attemots to give us pause to think about advanced technology, which doesn’t exist yet and it doesn’t exist becuase no one has any theories about it and if they did, they would be considered fringe theories kind of like all of the theories which went beyond the boundaries of the status quo. You know that place where morons lay in wait for those creative enough to step outside of those boudaries. Those whose only talent is in agreeing with or critizing those they know the rest of the herd will critizize as well. It’s safe it’s secure if only for a while and if and when his theories do prove to be valid, your comments will be left to obscurity anyway, so it’s safe.
    Your atomic clock scenario is wrong. I don’t care what kind of a clock you have or how accurrate it is, it is still a mechanical devise and yes, I know this might sound difficult but space has weight maybe you have read somewhere about dark matter…it’s a theory also.
    Your right everyone can be a blogger maybe you should try it but then again you would just be saying the same tings that everybody else says…people like you truly do grow on trees!
    With all of this said….I would love to debate the issues with you or anyone but be specific, use your brain, attempt to be creative and maybe this world we live in would become a better place. Maybe this is hard for you to understand but with all of the genius that surrounds us, the world is still a primitive place…have you noticed? Maybe, just maybe it could use some new ideas….it’s just a thought!

  79. Very Well Anon, I do appreaciate the time. I don’t mean to pushy or beligerent but in all fairness what are the facts you presented me with? Maybe instead of having a battel of ego’s we might, time might be better served by exploring ideals and concepts seldom explored. I enjoy a good debate and an opportunity to present my work. My point is this, it’s easy to be critical but it is difficult to research and then debate. If one feels the need to spend time and energy tearing someone elses work down, then at least extend the curtesy to be well versed on the material in dispute. In other words, if it is important enough to comment on it at all it must be important enough to be well versed on.
    If your interested and with all due respect, take Thompsons, work point by point as I have and make a case which can be debated.
    All great work begins with those who are critical of it….Eintein is a good example. He had to reign in his best work for fear of rejection from the scientific status quo who thought he was a quack and one who was edging toward the mystical or spooky science.
    I wish for you also the very best…

  80. Look Scott, I give up. This is hardly the place to argue about our believes and it is clear that there is no changing your mind.

    I have presented you with facts, nothing more and you have denied them. For example, Its like saying the sky is blue, that is a widely accepted scientific fact, but you don’t believe that because J.S. Thompson says it is made out of tapioca.

    You call me a part of the “herd” well so be it, I do believe modern science as agreed upon by the world, but at least I choose what to believe. For example, I don’t believe in string theory because I like quantum mechanical models of reality better, you on the other hand, can go ask J.S.Thompson which you should believe in. Perhaps I am in stride with the norm, but I make my own choices and believes, I am not told them.

    This is the last time I will post on this,
    goodbye, and really I mean this, good luck Scott.

  81. I would appreciate if you would explain how they did it. Einstein’s theory would make it impossible because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a body to light speed and to go faster than the speed of light would take more than an infinite amount of energy, which is not possible because, obviously, you cannot surpass infinity.

  82. In my opinion, they didn’t do it! They may seriously think they have done it. However, it is my contention that the theory of relativity, although brilliant for the time is wrong in many aspects, light being one of them. Don’t forget, we are still talking about a theory. Relativity is a theory; light theory still leaves many questions about what light is. Science knows a little about heat and pressure but they still can’t define these things. it’s all theory. Science knows that if they do “A”, “B” happens. Even measurement of any kind is incomplete, if you can’t indentify both the smallest and the largest particles that exist in natural space which science can’t do, then our contemporary science is primitive!

    With regard to the theory of relativity, Einstein was brilliant in his presumptions but his theory takes a wrong turn because he didn’t understand how “other dimensional particles” rotate through solar dimensional particles. Einstein theorized that the weight of space was constant and that it would put equal pressure on the object moving in space. In Einstein’s mind, light and space were constant; however, if light could be repelled by gravity(gravity is yet to be defined as well), then the pressure produced by flying at the speed of light would cause a body in space to disassemble into natural spaceor become part of the cosmosi.e., infinite energy. There is a lot of spooky science here.

    The theory of relativity needs to evolve because a body flying at the speed contemporary science refers to as the speed of light, would not become part of the cosmos because the pressure on the moving body is not a constant. So a craft could fly at this speed and even exceed it.

    Alien craft fly very fast because the shape of their craft allows them to fly within a part of space, like a ping pong ball in a pressurized tube. The greater the tolerance of the craft within this geometrical structure in space the faster they can fly.

  83. Hahaha.. Get a life people, its easier than it sounds, get laid every once in a while, might help. I mean why in the world are you so concerned about how the universe came into existance.Say by some devine mean you do come to kow about it, so.. then what, it wont make your sex life any better or increse your appetite. jus be practicle, think half of what you give for all this bull**** and you wil be going places.

  84. Pranav wrote:
    Hahaha.. Get a life people, its easier than it sounds, get laid every once in a while, might help. I mean why in the world are you so concerned about how the universe came into existance.Say by some devine mean you do come to kow about it, so.. then what, it wont make your sex life any better or increse your appetite. jus be practicle, think half of what you give for all this bull**** and you wil be going places.

    A couple things I would like to say;

    -If you don’t care about this, why are you even here?
    -Understanding how the universe works is probably the most important thing humanity could ever hope to do.
    -Wanting to learn and become intelligent is very important for everyone
    -While this isn’t practical knowledge (like spelling…)it doesn’t influence other aspects of life (unless it is your job)
    -you can’t judge a book by its cover, especially anonymous people, I can say for a fact I get more than you do. You’ll probably get mad, disagree, maybe even call me a liar, but you can’t prove me wrong.
    -It pays to be educated (literally)
    -Women like men that don’t sound like ignorant thugs.

  85. Who believes this? We expects the facts to be posted here and not hypothetical. If this would have been proved, the whole world physics will get changed and they would have been a Nobel winner! Just forget some posts like this…

  86. Anon. wrote:

    Pranav wrote:
    Hahaha.. Get a life people, its easier than it sounds, get laid every once in a while, might help. I mean why in the world are you so concerned about how the universe came into existance.Say by some devine mean you do come to kow about it, so.. then what, it wont make your sex life any better or increse your appetite. jus be practicle, think half of what you give for all this bull**** and you wil be going places.

    A couple things I would like to say;

    -If you don’t care about this, why are you even here?
    -Understanding how the universe works is probably the most important thing humanity could ever hope to do.
    -Wanting to learn and become intelligent is very important for everyone
    -While this isn’t practical knowledge (like spelling…)it doesn’t influence other aspects of life (unless it is your job)
    -you can’t judge a book by its cover, especially anonymous people, I can say for a fact I get more than you do. You’ll probably get mad, disagree, maybe even call me a liar, but you can’t prove me wrong.
    -It pays to be educated (literally)
    -Women like men that don’t sound like ignorant thugs.

    lmao, OWNED. You sir are my hero of the day ^^^

  87. Satish wrote:
    Who believes this? We expects the facts to be posted here and not hypothetical. If this would have been proved, the whole world physics will get changed and they would have been a Nobel winner! Just forget some posts like this…

    Actually this is true… It does not disprove Einstiens theory of relativity, though. In the theory of relativity, Eintstien put the speed of light as the fastest possibility. It has just recently been proven that a nutrino can move faster. The whole world of physics has been changed.

  88. The neutrino is not the first thing to go faster than the speed of light, light was. Light bends around objects caucusing it to go faster than the constant speed thought up by Einstein.

  89. Boy nerd! wrote:
    The neutrino is not the first thing to go faster than the speed of light, light was. Light bends around objects caucusing it to go faster than the constant speed thought up by Einstein.

    Actually when light bends around an object it slows down and stretches wavelength,and changes color.

    Astrophysicists call this concept “red shift”and use this to detect distant planets, black holes or even to try and find dark energy.

    While the physics of light still basically doesn’t really make much sense to us there is never a time when it accelerates.

  90. Pranav wrote:
    Hahaha.. Get a life people, its easier than it sounds, get laid every once in a while, might help. I mean why in the world are you so concerned about how the universe came into existance.Say by some devine mean you do come to kow about it, so.. then what, it wont make your sex life any better or increse your appetite. jus be practicle, think half of what you give for all this bull**** and you wil be going places.

    You just put a middle finger up to science, therefore making you an ignorant moron. If Marie Curie just “went out and got laid” thousands of cancer patients would have died. Let people who want to discuss things do it in peace,if you want to learn, then try not to be as ass.

  91. Pranav wrote:
    Hahaha.. Get a life people, its easier than it sounds, get laid every once in a while, might help. I mean why in the world are you so concerned about how the universe came into existance.Say by some devine mean you do come to kow about it, so.. then what, it wont make your sex life any better or increse your appetite. jus be practicle, think half of what you give for all this bull**** and you wil be going places.

    Do you practice being stupid or are you being serious? If your only concerns are getting ‘laid’, then I propose that you stay off this site. Try reading a book for once! You can read, right?

  92. Corey wrote:

    kevin wrote: #
    if we hear a loud bang when we move faster than sound, what would happen if we were to move faster than light ??

    You don’t hear a loud bang, because you don’t hear anything at all.

    You are infact moving beyond the speed of sound.

    you are truly stupid, you do hear a loud bang when you go faster than the speed of sound. Next time you say something make sure what your saying is a

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *