E=mc2 has been proven incorrect

[Fsudryden]

I am what you would call a closet astrophysicist who actually understands most of what Carter says. I was extremely excited when I saw an article on a group of scientist who have proven the light barrier can be broken.

These scientist have been able to speed light up faster, slow down the light beam, they even stopped that ligh beam dead in its tracks and it turned into a pool of light. This means the light barrier can be broken and many future FTL theories may be brought about because of this research. Unfortunatley the article I read was either on CNN.com (Space and science section of course) or Space.com but I cant seem to find it again.

Just thought I would throuw this out there incase anyone was interested.

[Ascended Times.2]

Excellent. That means that FLT is now a good possibility to us (given enough time...)
Also, another important fact that I can't seem to find again I heard a year ago, they have created the transporter, Think Star Trek. Unfortunately though, they can only beam light around from point A to point B but still, TRANSPORTERS!

It's only a matter of time.

[Lord §okar]

I am what you would call a closet astrophysicist who actually understands most of what Carter says.
That's unsettling.

These scientist have been able to speed light up faster, slow down the light beam, they even stopped that ligh beam dead in its tracks and it turned into a pool of light
How does that imply that an object with mass can evade the very real and proven effects of relativistic mass dilation?

[Qtyled]

I was sure that they already knew how to slow down light :s Light travels at diferent speeds in a vacume to, say, the Earth's atmosphere... right?

[charger]

Hay can you look for a link or something to prove that they did this?

Becuase I googled it but did not find anything worth looking at...

[vonbismarck]

This might be what he is talking about: http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._c_000719.html

If you read the whole article you will see that some people think there are problems with how the expermient was done and recorded.

[Odin's eyes]

Heard about that. Also read a different article somewhere... can't remember where (My memory is bad in that regard) that they've also proven that the speed of light has not been constant throughout history.
When this universe was born light was very much faster then it is today. The picture that illustrated how the speed of light had changed over time looked like the first half of a bell-curve, only upside-down. What's interesting to note is that light has begun to speed back up.
So in a million years you could travel at what we would now call the speed of light without breaking the light barrier.

So everything you heard about nothing can move faster then light is false. Light is faster then... light.
Just find a time machine and go back a billion years and prove it. Shouldn't be that hard find one of those around here somewhere...
Just a random thought.

[Beelze]

Hey new to the forums

I dont think IMO its possible to go faster than light because of the E=MC2 formula, dont you think such a huge scientific revelation would be all over the news, you know, headline stuff if its been proven?

Regarding light being faster than light is now, yes this is true (found out by looking at nebulae or something) but the speed of light is relative to the viewer so something that was going the speed of light 1bil years ago will look exactly the same as if it were going the speed of light now, so would it be infact going faster? i dunno

Well thats my contribution, laterz!

[lethalfang]

I am what you would call a closet astrophysicist who actually understands most of what Carter says. I was extremely excited when I saw an article on a group of scientist who have proven the light barrier can be broken.

These scientist have been able to speed light up faster, slow down the light beam, they even stopped that ligh beam dead in its tracks and it turned into a pool of light. This means the light barrier can be broken and many future FTL theories may be brought about because of this research. Unfortunatley the article I read was either on CNN.com (Space and science section of course) or Space.com but I cant seem to find it again.

Just thought I would throuw this out there incase anyone was interested.

Light is a constant in vacuum. Light travels slower than "c" in any media other than vacuum. These has been known facts for hundreds of years.
The speed of light slows down only to a few meters per second in a Bose condensate. This has been known for about ten years.

When you spoke of which travels faster than the speed of light, is not light itself, but phase velocity being faster than the speed of light. Phase velocity contains no information and thus it does not violate the relativity/causality.

[lethalfang]

Excellent. That means that FLT is now a good possibility to us (given enough time...)
Also, another important fact that I can't seem to find again I heard a year ago, they have created the transporter, Think Star Trek. Unfortunately though, they can only beam light around from point A to point B but still, TRANSPORTERS!

It's only a matter of time.

They did it with a single photon. Since then groups have succeeded in "transporting" a single argon atom. It's not actually the same atom or the same photon that travelled from point A to B, so to speak.
It has something to do with entanglement. For instance, you know there are two boxes, and you know there is one particle in one of the box, but you don't know which box it is in. Therefore, the moment you open up one box, you know the state of this box, and you know instantly the state of the other box.
Now this is not my area of expertise so I'll stop right here by running my mouth too much.

[iLemon]

Hey new to the forums

I dont think IMO its possible to go faster than light because of the E=MC2 formula, dont you think such a huge scientific revelation would be all over the news, you know, headline stuff if its been proven?

Regarding light being faster than light is now, yes this is true (found out by looking at nebulae or something) but the speed of light is relative to the viewer so something that was going the speed of light 1bil years ago will look exactly the same as if it were going the speed of light now, so would it be infact going faster? i dunno

Well thats my contribution, laterz!

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere sometime ago that Einstein theorized that if anything ever did break the speed of light barrier, than it would go back in time.

[iLemon]

I am what you would call a closet astrophysicist who actually understands most of what Carter says.

Big deal, I'm only 17 and I understand every word of what she says

[Phadreus]

For years I thought that I was the only one who really liked Stargate and I finally found this Bboard. Thank god. Finally I found a fan sight with intellect. (Ive seen way too many "Daniels the cutest, no Jack is..."). I make my friends watch (they think its stupid and what little do they know). One of the things about the show that I like so much is the creative ways the writers have blended excitingly obscure scientific theories with entertaining dialogue. I have always believed that any thing that we think of is possible, no matter how impossible it seems. Im no astrophysicist but I am very interseted in the subject. Anyway...Im just curious about something. Electrons move so fast that our eyes(whatever scientists use to study electrons) are not capable of following their movement, thus effectively causing them to disappear and reappear seemingly in random different places. Scientists used probability to come up with orbits but realized later the true nature of electrons. It would make sense that light, which is required for us to see anything(and principly made up of electrons I think), would have some bearing on our inability to see electrons. If electrons were faster than light we wouldnt be able to see them except for snapshots at a specific point in time. If thats the case, on the particular level, wouldnt electrons be going faster than the speed of light? Or is the speed of light based on electron speed? Dont all electrons have the same mass? Anyway...Its late and Im rambling. Im really happy to see intellegent discussion on a SG related website.

PS: Thors ships computer could make anything that Thor could think of. Thats genius. With locator-less beaming technology, this would be easy. U could just beam the parts into whatever shape, form, or fashion and then beam screws into the holes to hold it together. The ossibilities would be endless. Thats great. Anyway...Thanks for listening. Im out. JJ

[Three PhDs]

I have always believed that any thing that we think of is possible, no matter how impossible it seems.

Admirable, but unrealistic.

Im no astrophysicist but I am very interseted in the subject. Anyway...Im just curious about something. Electrons move so fast that our eyes(whatever scientists use to study electrons) are not capable of following their movement, thus effectively causing them to disappear and reappear seemingly in random different places.

No, not really. The reason we can't see them is that our visual acuity is not sufficient. Furthermore their motion or apparent motion is not caused by lackings in our equipement.

Scientists used probability to come up with orbits but realized later the true nature of electrons.

Which is?

It would make sense that light, which is required for us to see anything(and principly made up of electrons I think),

Nope, photons.

would have some bearing on our inability to see electrons.

Yes, the wavelength of light is not sufficiently small for electrons to be resolved. What "bearing" were you thinking of?

If electrons were faster than light we wouldnt be able to see them except for snapshots at a specific point in time.

They're not, and your second statement is false. Going by Feynman diagrams, if electrons were travelling at speeds faster than light they'd be positrons. An electron moving backward in time is indistinguishable from a positron moving forward in time.

If thats the case, on the particular level, wouldnt electrons be going faster than the speed of light?

If what's the case? If my understanding is correct, you've just said "If electrons go faster than light, wouldn't they go faster than light?"

Or is the speed of light based on electron speed?

Electron speed?

Dont all electrons have the same mass?

The mass of the electron is a known figure, yes.

Anyway...Its late and Im rambling.

Indeed.

[walterIsTheMan]

its an interesting experiment that they did, and even if it is correct, that doesnt mean E=mc2 is wrong. that is for objects with mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. the light that was supposedly accelerated was not done so in a vacuum, and light has no mass