US gov boffins achieve speeds Faster Than Light

"'Loophole' found in Special Theory of Relativity"

"Scientists working in a US government laboratory say they have
managed
to transmit a signal from point to point faster than the speed of
light in a
vacuum - in a development apparently violating the laws of physics."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:18:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
"'Loophole' found in Special Theory of Relativity"

"Scientists working in a US government laboratory say they have
managed
to transmit a signal from point to point faster than the speed of
light in a
vacuum - in a development apparently violating the laws of physics."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

So I send a signal to Pluto, is this signal with sender and
reciever worth it? Can I signal the nearest next star system
in real time? In a year?

On 17/05/2012 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:18:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
"'Loophole' found in Special Theory of Relativity"

"Scientists working in a US government laboratory say they have
managed
to transmit a signal from point to point faster than the speed of
light in a
vacuum - in a development apparently violating the laws of physics."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

So I send a signal to Pluto, is this signal with sender and
reciever worth it? Can I signal the nearest next star system
in real time? In a year?

Well, if they're right, you'd receive the reply before you send the
original message! ;-)

On 17/05/2012 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:18:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
"'Loophole' found in Special Theory of Relativity"

"Scientists working in a US government laboratory say they have
managed
to transmit a signal from point to point faster than the speed of
light in a
vacuum - in a development apparently violating the laws of physics."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

So I send a signal to Pluto, is this signal with sender and
reciever worth it? Can I signal the nearest next star system
in real time? In a year?

It's far from clear that any information is being transmitted. In any
case, the peak of a pulse cannot arrive before the beginning of the
pulse does, so the recipient of your FTL transmission will need to use
specialised equipment even to notice the difference.

Sylvia.

On May 17, 3:22*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/05/2012 10:42 AM, wrote:





On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:18:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
"'Loophole' found in Special Theory of Relativity"

"Scientists working in a US government laboratory say they have
managed
to transmit a signal from point to point faster than the speed of
light in a
vacuum - in a development apparently violating the laws of physics."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

So I send a signal to Pluto, is this signal with sender and
reciever worth it? Can I signal the nearest next star system
in real time? In a year?

It's far from clear that any information is being transmitted. In any
case, the peak of a pulse cannot arrive before the beginning of the
pulse does, so the recipient of your FTL transmission will need to use
specialised equipment even to notice the difference.

Sylvia.

aliens may well have a system today and we havent stumbled on to it yet

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

aliens may well have a system today and we havent stumbled on to it yet

don't we need to learn their languages first

http://play.google.com/books/reader?...=en&pg=GBS.PP1

A "New York Times" Notable Book for 2011 One of "The Economist"'s 2011 Books
of the Year
People speak different languages, and always have. The Ancient Greeks took
no notice of anything unless it was said in Greek; the Romans made everyone
speak Latin; and in India, people learned their neighbors' languages--as did
many ordinary Europeans in times past (Christopher Columbus knew Italian,
Portuguese, and Castilian Spanish as well as the classical languages). But
today, we all use translation to cope with the diversity of languages.
Without translation there would be no world news, not much of a reading list
in any subject at college, no repair manuals for cars or planes; we wouldn't
even be able to put together flat-pack furniture.
"Is That a Fish in Your Ear?" ranges across the whole of human experience,
from foreign films to philosophy, to show why translation is at the heart of
what we do and who we are. Among many other things, David Bellos asks:
What's the difference between translating unprepared natural speech and
translating "Madame Bovary"? How do you translate a joke? What's the
difference between a native tongue and a learned one? Can you translate
between any pair of languages, or only between some? What really goes on
when world leaders speak at the UN? Can machines ever replace human
translators, and if not, why?
But the biggest question Bellos asks is this: How do we ever really know
that we've understood what anybody else says--in our own language or in
another? Surprising, witty, and written with great joie de vivre, this book
is all about how we comprehend other people and shows us how, ultimately,
translation is another name for the human condition.

On 5/7/2012 1:18 PM, wrote:
See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

Sigh. Like the typical Register article, this one raises more questions than it answers.

Superluminal is a bit of a loaded term. Superluminal relative to what? Notice we are talking about pulses propogating NOT in a
vacuum but in a vapor of atomic rubidium. It is well known that even particles in motion can be subluminal in one medium but when
they traverse into a different medium, if they were to do so at their former speed all of a sudden they would appear to be
superluminal within that medium. They of course cannot travel faster that light within their new medium and hence slow to the proper
speed and emit off the extra energy as bremsstrahlung.

Then the article takes a hard left turn:
/quote
Actually using this method to transmit normal humdrum information faster than light would
still violate the laws of physics. However it seems that it might be possible to use four-wave
superluminal signals to transmit quantum information, made up of qubits whose value is not
simply 0 or 1 but potentially any value from 0 to 1.
/end-quote

Eh? Quantum superposition has always held out the possibility of what appears to be superluminal informational transfer. Note the
EPR Paradox, aka Einstein's "Spooky Action At A Distance". The trick has always been (and remains) holding both end points in
quantum coherence. I fail to see what "four-wave" signals bring to the table. This article certainly doesn't make it clear at all.
Ultimately I have to say to this article, bah humbug....

If I have the time and the $25, maybe I'll peruse the source article in Physical Review Letters....

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i17/e173902

Dave

On May 17, 9:24*pm, David Spain wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:18 PM, wrote:

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

Sigh. Like the typical Register article, this one raises more questions than it answers.

Superluminal is a bit of a loaded term. Superluminal relative to what? Notice we are talking about pulses propogating NOT in a
vacuum but in a vapor of atomic rubidium. It is well known that even particles in motion can be subluminal in one medium but when
they traverse into a different medium, if they were to do so at their former speed all of a sudden they would appear to be
superluminal within that medium. They of course cannot travel faster that light within their new medium and hence slow to the proper
speed and emit off the extra energy as bremsstrahlung.

Then the article takes a hard left turn:
/quote
Actually using this method to transmit normal humdrum information faster than light would
still violate the laws of physics. However it seems that it might be possible to use four-wave
superluminal signals to transmit quantum information, made up of qubits whose value is not
simply 0 or 1 but potentially any value from 0 to 1.
/end-quote

Eh? Quantum superposition has always held out the possibility of what appears to be superluminal informational transfer. Note the
EPR Paradox, aka Einstein's "Spooky Action At A Distance". The trick has always been (and remains) holding both end points in
quantum coherence. I fail to see what "four-wave" signals bring to the table. This article certainly doesn't make it clear at all.
Ultimately I have to say to this article, bah humbug....

If I have the time and the $25, maybe I'll peruse the source article in Physical Review Letters....

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i17/e173902

Dave

I was speculating as to quantum modulating of photons many years ago,
and as per usual you and others of your kind nailed that topic with
all the naysay you could muster. Obviously your FUD-master job is
important enough that anything goes as long as not another soul
outside of Einstein gets any credit, and that's all very Semitic of
yourself.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On May 7, 10:18*am, wrote:
"'Loophole' found in Special Theory of Relativity"

"Scientists working in a US government laboratory say they have
managed
to transmit a signal from point to point faster than the speed of
light in a
vacuum - in a development apparently violating the laws of physics."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...light_quantum/

Yes indeed, quantum modulation or FM photons should allow for
unlimited data rate transfers (aka FTL) once the beam or conduit is
established (such as between planets or solar systems).

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”