6 ms·
Radio Waves Now Can Travel Faster Than Light.
- stuff4ben 17y agoRegardless of what the domain name of the site is, this technology isn't all that "current". Apparently it's been out since 2004, http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/08/18.html http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/08/18.html
- bcl 17y agoSo they have had 5 years to perfect their technology. Are there any more recent reports on this, or did it go the way of Cold Fusion?
- asciilifeform 17y agoThis applet demonstrates why the technique cannot be used for FTL communication: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
- russell 17y agoEven the article says that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. (Quantum entanglement seems to transmit information instantaneously, but I make no claim to understand what is going on.)
- DenisM 17y agoThis is similar to placing a set of lenses in front of a laser beam and quickly changing the focus - the focal point can move towards you at arbirtrary speed yet you can't pass information because focal point is an imaginary object. Similarly, you can spin the laser in front of a wall and then the spot on the wall can move at arbitrary speed (provided the wall is far enough).
- teilo 17y agoWhat a crock. This paragraph says it all: "'If you take a laser and shine it on the moon and swing it rather gently, for example, the spot on the moon travels faster than the speed of light,' Singleton said. 'If an effect can do that, it makes you wonder if you can do things with light to get the equivalent of a sonic boom.'" Um, no it doesn't. The "spot" is not a thing that is traveling at all. In fact, the spot does not exist, because each of the photons from the laser, you know, those little tiny wave-particle thingys which actually DO exist, traveled at the speed of light to get to the moon. Other photons took a different angle to get to another part of the moon, also at the speed of light. So, just what, exactly went faster than the speed of light? Nothing. And we are supposed to take this guy seriously?
- orblivion 17y agoI opened this article with reluctance, because I must have seen 5 "breaking the light barrier" stories now, all of which are based on a fallacy.
- vinutheraj 17y agoSo, is it the scientist who is professing the fantasy or the reporter ?! I am just interested to know this that's all
- teilo 17y agoJohn Singleton seems to be respected in the field. Perhaps this is a case of a poor analogy on his part. Regardless, nothing here violates relativity. Perhaps the focus should be on the possibility that he has found a way to create a highly focused pulse that can propagate to far greater distances than normally are possible - albeit still under the speed of light.
- rjprins 17y agoBut radio waves are light.
- tocomment 17y agoI never understand why people say communicating faster than light violates causality. Can anyone give a simple example? If I were to communicate with someone 2 light years away at 2x light speed, they just get my message in one year instead of two. No one is sending information into the past. Any ideas?
- ns1 17y agocommunicating faster than light violates causality when we assume the speed of light is constant