We're stuck with the present indefinately
July 25, 2011 10:00 AM Subscribe
Unfortunately (or fortunately) scientists prove photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light, which means time travel is practically impossible.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Thin pop-science blurbs from e.g. Daily Mail are kind of poor post material. -- cortex
One second, let me mail you the study from 2049 that contradicts this.
posted by The Whelk at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
That means there will always be lag in online multiplayer games. :(
posted by zzazazz at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by zzazazz at 10:02 AM on July 25, 2011
A single-link science post whose link is the Mail?
P.S. FTL travel is time-travel.
posted by fartron at 10:05 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
P.S. FTL travel is time-travel.
posted by fartron at 10:05 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm no physicist, but I thought "light can't travel faster than the speed of light" was already settled. It's whether there's anything that isn't a photon that can do it that was the problem.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2011
This quality science source also informs me that "Smurfette Katy Perry ensures we know who the star is at The Smurfs premiere."
posted by Wolfdog at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Wolfdog at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
The scientists noted, 'Please excuse the crudity of this model. I haven't had time to build it to scale or to paint it.'
posted by shakespeherian at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]
There's a man in a fez who would argue that.
posted by Kitteh at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
Well no shit. FTL, time travel, asterial projection, etc, was possible, nature would have had creatures adapted to use them by now. Hell, plants perform quantum mechanics to use the sun's energy, so if the other stuff was possible...
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:07 AM on July 25, 2011
This quality science source also informs me that "Smurfette Katy Perry ensures we know who the star is at The Smurfs premiere."
Okay, so we can't time travel but at least we can open portal to the depths of hell. That's something, right?
posted by griphus at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
Okay, so we can't time travel but at least we can open portal to the depths of hell. That's something, right?
posted by griphus at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
Duh, a photon is light. Really bad description, Professor Du. But hey, this is the day of the soundbite, and I guess you couldn't do better. Explaining the superluminal component of a photon, which many physicists saw as a potential information conduit, can't be done w/ 140 chars.
posted by Ardiril at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by Ardiril at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2011
I cannot believe you almost made me click a link to the execrable Mail. HDU SIR/MADAM.
posted by elizardbits at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by elizardbits at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
For the record, this does NOT prove that nothing cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
It only demonstrates that the best known "trick" of making a pulse pulse of light appear to exceed c doesn't actually involve any particular photon moving faster than the speed of light.
Though that makes me perversely wonder, if a photon did exceed c, wouldn't that just increase c?
posted by pla at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
It only demonstrates that the best known "trick" of making a pulse pulse of light appear to exceed c doesn't actually involve any particular photon moving faster than the speed of light.
Though that makes me perversely wonder, if a photon did exceed c, wouldn't that just increase c?
posted by pla at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oh nice, audio commercials.
posted by uraniumwilly at 10:11 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by uraniumwilly at 10:11 AM on July 25, 2011
John Titor disagrees.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:14 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 10:14 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sorry for the non-sciencey Mail link. I'm no amateur scientist so its basically at my reading level anyway... just saw it and thought the MeFis might have some cool things to add that I never considered :) My history-loving heart would love to travel backwards... at least in theory.
posted by halseyaa at 10:15 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by halseyaa at 10:15 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
I believe quantum entanglement suggests that 'information' can potentially go faster than the speed of light, once we work out what exactly 'information' means in the quantum world. But IANAQS
posted by memebake at 10:15 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by memebake at 10:15 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Time travel was already "practically" impossible. The interesting question is whether it is theoretically impossible.
posted by DU at 10:16 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by DU at 10:16 AM on July 25, 2011
nature would have had creatures adapted to use them by now.
Thus finally putting a nail in this "nuclear fusion" nonsense I've been heard about.
posted by DU at 10:17 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
Thus finally putting a nail in this "nuclear fusion" nonsense I've been heard about.
posted by DU at 10:17 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
Whew! We lucky that it's not possible folks, cause I hear time travel causes cancer.
posted by Jehan at 10:17 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by Jehan at 10:17 AM on July 25, 2011
Wait! This, just in, time travel cures cancer but the evil European Union have regulated universal constants to prevent British people from getting time travel on the NHS.
posted by Jehan at 10:18 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by Jehan at 10:18 AM on July 25, 2011
Well no shit. FTL, time travel, asterial projection, etc, was possible, nature would have had creatures adapted to use them by now.
Why? Has nature produced any creature capable of traveling to the moon and back except for humans? Something may be possible without being an advantageous or an efficient use of resources.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Why? Has nature produced any creature capable of traveling to the moon and back except for humans? Something may be possible without being an advantageous or an efficient use of resources.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Thus finally putting a nail in this "nuclear fusion" nonsense I've been heard about.
What do you think the cockroaches have been working on all night?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2011
What do you think the cockroaches have been working on all night?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2011
Your underwear can kill you, say top scientists.
If anyone gets this reference I will do a little jig
posted by killdevil at 10:20 AM on July 25, 2011
If anyone gets this reference I will do a little jig
posted by killdevil at 10:20 AM on July 25, 2011
griphus: " Okay, so we can't time travel but at least we can open portal to the depths of hell. That's something, right?"
Somebody better wake the Slayer and break out Mr. Pointy.
posted by zarq at 10:20 AM on July 25, 2011
Somebody better wake the Slayer and break out Mr. Pointy.
posted by zarq at 10:20 AM on July 25, 2011
Science is always right until it's wrong. I'm fine with the current science saying "nope, sorry--no time travel," and I'll believe it, because that's what they've proven/are proving. But so many things that have been scientifically proven--that is, fit the rules of the universe as we understand them--are disproved years and years later. I'll just keep on hoping for science to be wrong on this one.
(Also, transporters. Bring 'em.)
posted by tzikeh at 10:21 AM on July 25, 2011
(Also, transporters. Bring 'em.)
posted by tzikeh at 10:21 AM on July 25, 2011
Wait. This was in dispute?
Not really, but there appeared to be a couple of cases where a short duration pulse of photons was observed to travel through a substance faster than the speed of light in that object. This experiment appears to have disproved that, and we're back to invariance. The 2nd postulate of Special Relativity was "the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and invariant to all observers"
At least, I think that's what they were up to. Obviously, the Daily Fail isn't my go-to source for Special/General Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics.
There are known things faster than c, but they cannot transmit matter, energy, or information*. The most common is phase velocity in glass for higher energy photons, but since this carries no information, Relativity still holds.
*Yes, I know -- the first two are the same thing and the third uses the first two, so it's arguably the same as well. This is a classical definition.
posted by eriko at 10:21 AM on July 25, 2011
Not really, but there appeared to be a couple of cases where a short duration pulse of photons was observed to travel through a substance faster than the speed of light in that object. This experiment appears to have disproved that, and we're back to invariance. The 2nd postulate of Special Relativity was "the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and invariant to all observers"
At least, I think that's what they were up to. Obviously, the Daily Fail isn't my go-to source for Special/General Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics.
There are known things faster than c, but they cannot transmit matter, energy, or information*. The most common is phase velocity in glass for higher energy photons, but since this carries no information, Relativity still holds.
*Yes, I know -- the first two are the same thing and the third uses the first two, so it's arguably the same as well. This is a classical definition.
posted by eriko at 10:21 AM on July 25, 2011
hmmm...I'd always heard that photons were somewhat probabilistic WRT their velocity, following a (very very very) narrow bell curve, where some (very very very small) percentage of photons travelled a tiny bit faster than c and some ((very very very small) percentage of photons travelled a tiny bit slower. wtf?
posted by sexyrobot at 10:22 AM on July 25, 2011
posted by sexyrobot at 10:22 AM on July 25, 2011
killdevil--isn't that SCTV?
Will you record yourself dancing a jig and put it up on youtube?
posted by tzikeh at 10:22 AM on July 25, 2011
Will you record yourself dancing a jig and put it up on youtube?
posted by tzikeh at 10:22 AM on July 25, 2011
(Also, transporters. Bring 'em.)
Not keen on a transport system based on constant murder.
posted by The Whelk at 10:23 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not keen on a transport system based on constant murder.
posted by The Whelk at 10:23 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
My history-loving heart would love to travel backwards.
Give the GOP another week.
posted by Muddler at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2011
Give the GOP another week.
posted by Muddler at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2011
Whelk - so maybe they'll invent transporters that work some other way!
SCIENCE!
posted by tzikeh at 10:25 AM on July 25, 2011
SCIENCE!
posted by tzikeh at 10:25 AM on July 25, 2011
Not keen on a transport system based on constant murder.
Dilithium -- it's made out of people!
posted by griphus at 10:26 AM on July 25, 2011
Dilithium -- it's made out of people!
posted by griphus at 10:26 AM on July 25, 2011
hmmm...I'd always heard that photons were somewhat probabilistic WRT their velocity, following a (very very very) narrow bell curve, where some (very very very small) percentage of photons travelled a tiny bit faster than c and some ((very very very small) percentage of photons travelled a tiny bit slower. wtf?
My understanding is that it's not a probability of velocity but of location, where it's useful to imagine the location of the photon as a bell curve of probabilistic location, i.e. until you measure it, the photon doesn't exist in any one spot, but it's most likely somewhere here in the middle of this place, and there's a thin chance it's at either end of this place. Once the photon hits a photon receptor, i.e. is measured, the waveform collapses and there's a thin chance that its location is at the front of the bell curve, so it arrives slightly ahead of where your exact c-velocity equation would predict, but that doesn't mean it had a faster-than-c velocity.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:28 AM on July 25, 2011
My understanding is that it's not a probability of velocity but of location, where it's useful to imagine the location of the photon as a bell curve of probabilistic location, i.e. until you measure it, the photon doesn't exist in any one spot, but it's most likely somewhere here in the middle of this place, and there's a thin chance it's at either end of this place. Once the photon hits a photon receptor, i.e. is measured, the waveform collapses and there's a thin chance that its location is at the front of the bell curve, so it arrives slightly ahead of where your exact c-velocity equation would predict, but that doesn't mean it had a faster-than-c velocity.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:28 AM on July 25, 2011
« Older Fingerprint scanner to spot the living dead | I'd Hit That Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MuffinMan at 10:01 AM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]