The special theory of relativity has once again received experimental confirmation: it is not possible to exceed the speed of light
Physicists from Hong Kong led by Prof. Shengwang Du Shengwang Du From the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong, China, published research that the single photon cannot exceed the speed of light. This means that the photon moves at speed c, but cannot move faster than that. The study was published as a short article in the journal Physical Review Letters.
The results have significance regarding the maximum speed at which information can be transmitted (ie, implications for the field of communication and computing) and also theoretical implications in that for years it was not clear whether the single photon obeys causality and whether the mysterious tachyons exist. Now in an optical experiment from Hong Kong it became clear that the single photon completely obeys the laws of causality, and so does the pressure of time. means that the cause cannot appear before the effect.
It turns out that Benford, Bock and Newcomb's 1973 tectonic anti-telephone cannot materialize. According to this phone there are two people Moshe and Chaim and each of them has a transmitter of tachyons that sends information an hour behind in time. In other words, this is the speed of the signal sent backwards in time. Suppose Moshe and Haim reach the following agreement: Moshe will send a message at three o'clock if and only if he does not receive one at one o'clock. Chaim will send a message that will reach Moshe at one o'clock immediately when he receives one from Moshe at two o'clock. And so Moshe and Chaim can never talk in the tachyon anti-telephone that transmits to the past, or the exchange of messages between Moshe and Chaim will take place if and only if it does not occur.
And so if you use a telephone device that sends signals at a speed faster than that of light, you reach a paradox. Now let's say the anti-tachyon phone has an anti-tachyon fax machine. William Shakespeare and Francis Bacon agree that Shakespeare will fax Hamlet to Bacon. Shakespeare passes Hamlet on the tachyon facsimile and Bacon receives the facsimile at an earlier time. Can it be argued that Bacon wrote Hamlet? No, for no argument can make Bacon the author of Hamlet. It is Shakespeare and not Bacon who has control over the content of the fax being sent. The signature on Hamlet is size invariant.
Now it seems that these problems have been solved by the experiment of the researchers from Hong Kong. In terms of the special theory of relativity, which Einstein published in 1905, he talked about two things:
1) Signal transmission faster than the speed of light is impossible.
2) A material body cannot gain a speed that will reach the speed of light.
The researchers proved that the single photon that makes up the signal does move at the speed of light. And they proved in an experiment that a signal transmission faster than the speed of light is impossible.
Previous studies have tried to demonstrate how fast light can travel. Since the first two articles in 1914 by Arnold Sommerfeld and Leon Brillouin, who studied the propagation of light in a diffractive medium, i.e. a diffuser, researchers have been interested in the phenomenon of the propagation of light pulses (which consist of many photons) within the diffractive medium. They discovered that the pulse's bunch speed may be higher than the speed of light in a vacuum. Studies have even reported demonstrations of a speed slower than light and a bunch speed so slow, to the point of almost stopping the pulse. Demonstration of the speed of a bunch on Orit was demonstrated in several experiments with solid materials and the phenomenon is related to the great dispersion of the material. It is the degree of dispersion that will lead to a slowing down of the group speed on the one hand or to a group speed on Orit on the other hand.
Although these previous studies found that the speed of the group of light could be faster than the speed of light, the researchers believed that the speed of the signal - that is, the speed at which the information travels - could not exceed the speed of light. And so, Einstein's theory of relativity seems to have been saved. However, in light of the latest finding by the researchers from Hong Kong, they wondered whether individual photons travel at the speed of the group or at the speed of the signal?
When talking about an optical signal propagating in a diffractive medium, researchers believed that the speed of the signal is always equal to the speed of light regardless of the properties of the diffractive medium. They therefore believed that there is a transient wave called an optical precursor, which is a momentary behavior of the field of the propagating wave. The transient wave travels at the speed of light in a vacuum. The problem is that experiments were required to demonstrate that the optical preamble is the fastest part of the propagation of the optical pulse.
To solve the mystery: is the speed of the single photon the speed of the bunch or the speed of the signal, the experiment of the group led by Prof. Shengwang not only produced single photons, but also proceeded to separate the optical precursor from the rest of the pulse, or the photon. The researchers led by Prof. Shengwang emphasized that previous experiments that were based on the propagation of macroscopic electromagnetic waves - and these were also involved in many photons - showed that the optical precursor is the fastest part of the propagation of the optical pulse. However, the study by the researchers from Hong Kong is the first experimental test that shows that the optical precursors exist at the level of the single photon, and are the fastest part of the wave packet of the single photon.
It means that a photon has a signal speed which is the speed of light and this speed cannot be exceeded! Einstein's special theory of relativity has again received experimental confirmation more than a century after it was proposed.
For information on the subject on the physics website
Marty McFly's time travel is impossible
Time travel movies of all time:
Travel back in time with Google Earth:
62 תגובות
In the days when time travel was possible, I personally had a hard time accepting it. I asked myself simple questions such as: Suppose we move Migdal Azrieli 10 minutes back in time (to Pardes Hana). It came out that at the time mentioned our universe (in the past) would contain itself + the Azrieli tower and in the present we will be with the given material minus the tower. This seems implausible and insoluble to me. In any case, 10 minutes is not a long time and they pass like 10 minutes and the question arises - what happens in the tenth minute (when we arrive in time to the point where we moved the tower).
When I forced myself to accept time travel, it would seem like a one-way thing (to the past). So what I would do would be to do time travel and try to create a conversation with Yahoirin (a slave who lived here 2300 years ago). While we were talking it was clear to me that the future I came from exists and that the journey home is actually a time journey in the opposite direction - meaning to the future. And if I can jump to Hoyrin and come back, then I can do the same but in the opposite direction (jump to a conversation with Ki who lived in 4123). This gave rise to a rather simple question for me: if I can talk to Yahoirin and Ki - then what we have right now is a future written in advance. Or in other words the future like the past is like a movie. We just need to get to the right frame to know what happened there. (It goes without saying that I don't like this insight either).
But then we enter the story of the unknown variable known as dark matter/energy that we don't know too much about this matter (except for the fact that they are the majority here and not us) but we can assume that most of the commonality is the difference (between the matter that exists here and the matter that exists there) and maybe in the day when we will be Put our hand on this matter/energy our reality, will look different. In any case, since we are the exceptions (less than a percent in relation to all existing material) this in itself leaves a lot of room for research, maybe even for God...
To Yossi Cohen:
As you wrote, time travel in the sense that is in the imagination of many is an internal contradiction.
In my opinion, the real question is; Is it possible to "get out of the box" of time, and look at everything from an external perspective, from above, without being able to influence the reality given the limitations of time.
How does all this fit with the accepted assumption that after the big bang, matter and energy spread out at a speed greater than the speed of light?
If it were possible, people from the future would have to walk among us.. From childhood I felt that it was not possible
Einstein calculated... thought... and found that... No. it's not the same.
He went, got a Nobel Prize and changed the world.
Found a force faster than the speed of light, so maybe now a way will be found to go back in time
Theoretically, if you pass the speed of light, then actually the process that happens is going back in time. Since the researchers proved that it is not possible to exceed the speed of light - then the logical conclusion that follows from this is that it is also impossible to go back in time.
Maybe just see the past…
You can't go back and change because then you don't have to go back and change and then the change didn't happen. As for the future, it is constantly changing
Time travel is impossible for one reason:
Because of the situation where things cause other things to happen even if someone were to go back in time and do what he wanted he wouldn't actually do it because the reason for the journey is gone
Let's say someone goes back in time to save someone from some kind of danger, he came back in time and saved him from the danger, hence he didn't have to save him because in the given situation he is unharmed and he doesn't need saving (the danger didn't occur, so the reason for the journey is canceled) and then actually he doesn't travel in time to save him Which cancels the person's salvation and the situation does not change
(Also our perception of time is changes in matter and in order to go back in time and be aware of this you have to return all the matter back in all the infinite processes of the universe or only in the universe not including the matter that makes up your consciousness and returning matter from its various processes is not always possible or requires an amount unlimited energy which we don't have)
Israel:
You misunderstand.
There is a difference between the speed of light and other speeds and what unites them all is the relative speed calculation formula of the theory of relativity.
If until now I thought that you just don't understand the theory of relativity, then your last answer implies that you don't even know about its existence.
In addition to this, the way you ended your comment indicates that you are not only ignorant but also insolent.
I would suggest you to improve but you are already Shapira and have probably reached your personal maximum.
I understood you, Michael, so I assume from your words that the same principle applies to a rifle ball or a wave in water. If a rifle shoots a bullet at a speed of 1000 m/s, then every observer will measure the same speed of 1000 m/s relative to him and it does not matter what the speed of the observer is? And what if the observer flies by himself at a speed of 1000 m/s in the same direction? Isn't its speed zero relative to the ball?
And regarding a wave in water: if its speed is say 10 m/s, relative to the water, isn't its speed zero relative to the surfer riding it and watching it? And 50 m/s relative to the boat traveling at a speed of 40 m/s in the opposite direction?
Now compare it to light, and find the difference.
Please improve.
Israel Shapira:
By whom was this possibility not taken into account?
on your hand?
Anyone who measures the speed of light is …. Watchman.
After all, it is impossible to measure speed without observing it.
Therefore - yes - all viewers get the same result.
Everything is true and beautiful and nice, but I have a question: the speed of light is relative to what?
to the light source?
Maybe mediate?
Because there is another possibility, which I don't know if it was taken into account (and I would be happy if someone could enlighten me). that the speed of light is generally relative to the viewer.
Which can explain a lot. Including Mickelson and Morley, the paradoxes of the times for their generations, and all.
...in the English article you quoted - there is no reminder or title indicating the context of the discovery
For time travel - or the end of time travel...
Adding such a title on your part - is populist - and understandable.
You have exaggerated them
Just a question, but if you send a beam of light towards a black hole or any other body with a high mass, a gravitational force is exerted on the photons, hence, according to Newton's first law, a force is exerted on the photons, hence they must accelerate!!!!!
And the initial speed was the speed of light, hence the particle exceeded the speed of light?
Tal.
It may be that in a hundred years they will discover that special and general relativity are borderline cases of a more general theory. Today they are working on quantum gravity. Science is constantly evolving.
We discovered that Newtonian mechanics is only valid in the limit where the speeds are low, for example. At the beginning of the 19th century, for example, they did not imagine that this was possible at all.
You never know what will happen in the future. Today, many experiments support the theory of special and general relativity. And that's right now.
But what is clear is that the universe seems to operate according to the laws of science. That is, he does not follow the laws of astrology, for example. The laws of science change and scientific theories expand and generalize or even change. But the scientific framework remains. Now within this principle there is causality. The principle of determinism. This principle has several implications. On the one hand, quantum theory poses a serious challenge to him with quantum entanglement. APR experiment. On the other hand time-like loops. These are two aspects of the principle of causality. The turns can change. The question is what about the principle of causality. It's like asking what about the principle of conservation of energy. Let's say that a physical order will change. Will we agree that the principle of conservation of energy will be violated? Einstein did not agree to this. And many like him will not agree to it either. And he also did not agree that the principle of causality would be violated. And he said that God does not play dice. That is, he had other clear principles that guided him. And he did not agree that they would be violated...
Really out of place, a scientific site that says "finally" that cannot be divided in time.
We are so primitive, only in the last century did modern development begin to flourish, how can we know what the discoveries will be in 100 years from now? Let's not talk about a million years or even more.
Only in recent years have we discovered information about quantum mechanics, dark matter, and many other discoveries that no one had a clue would exist.
If a person was asked 3,000 years ago if he thought that one day there would be a spaceship that would reach the moon, he would have answered yes? I think really but really not, he would laugh if they explained to him about a phone much more if we now say that a time machine is a possibility.
Time travel is possible, but we don't see people going back in time, that's because we haven't invented it yet.
The day the human consciousness will be connected, and our memories will be recorded on external media, and our consciousness will be virtual, any change in the future or in the past will make the change to each person, at the time he decides to choose.
I say we will invent another layer of consciousness:
A person who has a diary in which he records everything, and because of his short memory he goes back to the diary to see what he did in the past, suddenly it is written to him that a year ago he was in a different place, because of his short memory, when he checks he will find that he was in the other place... Now let's assume that the change we recorded in the diary, Changes the entire course of life and actions and reactions, so basically we changed the consciousness of the present he lives in, which can also be at any point in time.
Gali, on the one hand, one can assume that what they found is true, which is impossible.
But it is not possible that there is another Torah or in general laws of physics since no one has yet discovered a tooth that allows this?
A.N.:
No point getting into it.
It's not like in the movies because you can't go back and tell the company.
In the private relationship there will even be a "dispute" about the duration of life because when two systems are in relative motion, it will appear to the viewer of each of them that it is precisely the viewer of the second that has a longer life.
In accelerated systems the situation is already different because the observers can return to the same system and compare watches and depending on the accelerations in which they were data, it is likely that one of them will be younger than the other.
My response speed is slow 🙂
Relativity is not about the speed of thought. Although these are electrical signals. But the subject is really interesting and there are studies in f-MRI today.
Erid - I laughed so hard. The joke is really good.
Answers to questions asked me:
Danny: Talk about the signal speed of the single photon. According to general relativity, gravity bends light.
Spock: Regarding quantum entanglement: Einstein had a problem with quantum entanglement. He called it "the remote action of ghosts". And he had a problem with that because it seemed to him to violate special relativity. What does it mean that particle A immediately affects particle B at the other end of the universe? And he came up with the APR experiment. Here I wrote about it: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3724917,00.html
R.H. ghosts The optical front: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precursor_(physics)
And you should read: http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=27833
Regarding solitons, for example: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f811837606602633/
For the commenter whose name begins with A, the name will be preserved... due to the modest clothing required here on the site, I cannot write his name... 🙂 😉 So for the "intellectual": time travel on closed loops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
The exotic solutions to general relativity often require exotic matter, negative energy and are mathematically valid but illogical or physically impossible. Not every solution to Einstein's field equations, which is completely mathematically consistent, can be physically consistent. And this is precisely the problem with modern theories. But that's what science fiction is for. Because in the world of science fiction everything is possible and everything is consistent. The main thing is that the solution is mathematically possible. if it is mathematically possible. So it's fine. We will already arrange the laws of physics so that in the world of science fiction we will create time travel...which is exactly Steven Spielberg's "Back to the Future" or the Canadian "Blake Holsey High School" or "Leap to the Future" and all.
For the other commenters in the links I provided above you will find additional definitions and explanations for bunch speed and all.
But at high speed, you travel through time more than anyone else on Earth.
In other words, you can time travel like they mean in the movies.
a question:
Speed of thought is a metaphorical concept and not a physical concept.
Speed is defined as the ratio between the change of place and the change of time.
It has nothing to do with thought.
A.N.
Even without any need for the theory of relativity and without any motion - we are all always moving towards the future.
Of course, this is not what we mean when we talk about time travel
I'm only interested in the field, but from what I've read, Einstein himself said that time travel is possible in special relativity.
He talked about the phenomenon of time dilation which also requires speeds lower than the speed of light. While it's only time travel to the future, it's still time travel.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
a question,
Why do you think they didn't try to measure the speed of thought? The speed of the currents and the transfer of chemical signals in the brain can be measured. It is possible and measured the speed between stimulus and response, both a reflexive response and a conscious response as in experiments where you are shown an image on a screen and you have to press a button that refers to it, etc. You can measure how long it takes you to solve a problem.
The title of the article also sounds contrary to the scientific discourse to me. A style of arrogant decisiveness is more appropriate for theories that have been proven false over time.
And what about the speed of thought??? Has anyone ever measured her speed? Or even tried to measure it? If you can see a potential future and think about it, what does that say about the speed of thought?
or a black cap
Fan, no problem, in every article about wolves in the wild we will also include a paragraph describing the wolf from the story of Red Paw.
A fan, precisely because Hidan is a scientific site, he cannot afford to publish articles about intelligent design. Science deals with analysis and drawing conclusions, and not with baseless theories, such as intelligent design, which has never been proven to be true.
As soon as someone scientifically proves that intelligent design is the correct theory (which means that he will have to prove that all of our science today, including years of research and discoveries, is nonsense.. On this day I assume that the scientist will also be ready to refer to that intelligent design.
But we all know that this day will not come, and that science seems to be developing in the right directions, so even this response, which deals in a certain way with intelligent design, is a complete waste of time in my opinion.
As a general rule, I prefer not to comment, and not continue to be interested in issues on which I have already based an opinion that they are incorrect. It will always be a waste of time, except in the case that it is necessary to help someone else "see the light" (for example repeating a question), when then dealing with nonsense has some kind of result that is actually meaningful... After all, I have already read dozens of studies that support and give conclusive proofs A possible direction for the correctness of evolution, so why should I waste any more of my time on other theories, which I also know, and which do not have even one convincing proof, even though they existed thousands of years before evolution was thought of.
What is final is that nothing is final. The theories we have are very limited. One experiment cannot define what is possible and what is not.
My father, as a regular reader of the site I feel that when it comes to faith or intelligent planning, the site has a strong tendency against it, and even the articles are edited in a way that constantly clarifies this position and negates the other opinions which are also legitimate.
It's a shame, a scientific site needs to bring everything without leaning to any side!
In today's situation you are no different from the religious who only see one side..
what are you afraid of Bring it all!
Thanks.
Religious ideas are still ideas, and I will require a certain openness for them as well.
The reason they sometimes disguise themselves as neat science is because it is the order of fashion today.
There are also scientists who masquerade as prophets.
And the prophecy was given to fools...
Marginal ideas were and are the key to innovation and historic leaps.
The church at the time dismissed Copernicus, and in the same way great professors show fixation even today.
When each such expert is busy with his own doctrine, it is certainly not outrageous to include opposing possibilities as well,
And I ask you to be the one who is open to fringe ideas in science.
r
Conceptual openness is a good thing, but it should be done to a degree, as long as it does not require conceptual openness to religious ideas masquerading as scientific ideas (a.k.a. intelligent planning), so I should not be asked to be the one who is open to marginal ideas in science. There is Nature and Science for that, if they change their mind I will publish it too. And precisely this adds to the standard character of the site and does not detract from it.
By the way, in all English websites, equivalence is attributed to travel at faster than light speed and time travel. I didn't invent the wheel.
Abby, please correct the title. Really irrelevant, and detracts from the quality attributed to the site.
Maybe time travel isn't possible with the speed of light being achieved, but it makes a world of difference to the emphatic title you've given.
And on a personal note - in my opinion you have too strong a tendency to reject and cancel new (or old) ideas, rather than finding a place to acknowledge the possibility of their existence.
My definition of good science is conceptual openness. I don't know what your definition is.
First, there is no problem for a particle to exceed the speed of light. There is a known physical phenomenon
Named Cherenkov radiation in which a particle moves beyond the speed of light in matter and emits photons as a result.
This is the reason for the blue light emitted in light water cooled nuclear reactors.
The physical claim is that it is not possible to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum!
There are also caveats to this claim:
Following the quantum theory and the thought experiments of Einstein-Podlosky-Rosen and his testing in the experiments he performed
The French physicist Alain Aspect found out that there may be correlations in time space that are transmitted at a speed greater than the speed of light, therefore the physical claim is:
It is not possible to transmit a signal (information) faster than the speed of light!
Regarding the link to time travel, it's a bit forced in my opinion, but oh well. The reason the speed of light is linked to time travel is that the speed of light is used to define the physical cause and effect relationship between two physical events. Once a certain event occurred at a certain point and time and a second event occurred at a distance and in a time too short for a light signal to pass between them, the events cannot be causally linked, they are independent events. If they had succeeded in showing that it was possible to send a signal at a speed higher than the speed of light, the causal structure of time and space would have been broken, and therefore it would be possible to speak of time travel. In physical terms, this would make it possible to go outside the light cone of an event.
First, there is no problem for a particle to exceed the speed of light. There is a known physical phenomenon
Named Cherenkov radiation in which a particle moves beyond the speed of light in matter and emits photons as a result.
This is the reason for the blue light emitted in light water cooled nuclear reactors.
The physical claim is that it is not possible to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum!
There are also caveats to this claim:
Following the quantum theory and the thought experiments of Einstein-Podlosky-Rosen and his testing in the experiments he performed
The French physicist Alain Aspect found out that there may be correlations in time space that are transmitted at a speed greater than the speed of light, therefore the physical claim is:
It is not possible to transmit a signal (information) at a speed greater than the speed of light.
Regarding the link to time travel, it's a bit forced in my opinion, but oh well. The reason the speed of light is linked to time travel is that the speed of light is used to define the physical cause and effect relationship between two physical events. Once a certain event occurred at a certain point and time and a second event occurred at a distance and in a time too short for a light signal to pass between them, the events cannot be causally linked, they are independent events. If they had succeeded in showing that it was possible to send a signal at a speed higher than the speed of light, the causal structure of time and space would have been broken, and therefore it would be possible to speak of time travel. In physical terms, this would make it possible to go outside the light cone of an event.
Is anyone willing to explain to me why the existence of a particle moving at a speed greater than the speed of light necessarily entails the possibility of time travel? In my humble opinion, the existence of such a tachyon can only cause a certain correction in the theory of relativity and the expansion of its boundaries.
I do not believe in the possibility of the existence of movement in time, but I do not dismiss the existence of tachyon outright
Unless they prove me otherwise.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
withering:
I too thought like you when I read Spock's message (not that it really contributes to the matter even with the correct spelling).
In general, it doesn't seem to me that a serious discussion has developed here, so in an atmosphere of lack of seriousness I will add that I suggest to my father that he leave the title as it is until an old message in which he says the opposite.
My father - I came from the past - I lived 1823 years ago in Jerusalem until I found the time machine
In a cave in the Judean Mountains.
Back then it was easier to live - the prices of apartments made of mud bricks and felt were very cheap - you didn't have to take out a mortgage at all.
For 4 shekels of silver you would buy a house with 3 large rooms, a flat roof and a yard.
The cottage prices were more reasonable (you would just approach a goat or a cow in the yard) not to mention the doctors' strike
Then there were actually the priests or all kinds of spiritual and mystical types like some one named Jesus of Nazareth
(who was even a carpenter at the IKEA of that time).
Trust me, father - there is time travel
You all travel in time even if you stand still and try not to move.
All of you in the future and in the past.
What is time travel?
How is it possible to travel in time if the definition of the concept of travel and movement is inventions of a person in the three-dimensional space at different points in time.
Time travel would therefore have to be human inventions at different times at different points in time which is nonsense.
I will give an example. Is it possible to be at 3 in the afternoon in 2011 and at 3:10 ten minutes later in 2010??
People confuse the sense of the subjective present with the concept of time. If Einstein's twin paradox is true then why wouldn't it be possible to take it one step further to the end of the world and back?
I also agreed with the conclusions of this article when I read it.
Yesterday.
Nothing is final.
In order to prove time travel, you don't have to look too far, because, for example, every plane that takes off from Israel to Japan travels in time, and vice versa. And so the clock needs to be reset. The article talks about travel that is faster than the speed of light, and it has nothing to do with time travel.
Thoughts on - the illusion of determinism...
If all potentials exist and there is an infinity of parallel realities between which consciousness passes smoothly, determinism is an illusion and nothing more. What is not possible at a given moment in a certain reality is also possible in some parallel reality.
And since the arrow of time does not exist (entropy is statistical and that's all) except in human experience, it must be concluded that everything exists now, at this moment. If it is possible to move between parallel realities, why not forward and backward in "time"?
Regarding the question - who is navigating and how? A possible answer is consciousness in every choice that is made.
The paradoxes of "time travel" arise from the incorrect use of the concept of "causality". In a deterministic world, it cannot be said that Moshe and Chaim "agree" on anything. "Consent" is a concept with connotations of free choice, as if they could disagree. In a deterministic world what they did had to be done. If someone goes back in time it is because it is forced on him to go back in time and not because he decided to enter a time machine.
The real reason that the concept of going back in time has no meaning in a deterministic world is that we do not travel through time at all, not even into the future. In a deterministic world the entire universe exists from beginning to end. And the more correct perception is that awareness only moves forward over time. This can be likened to a motion picture, the film already exists, all that happens is that the film spins and that's how we see the changes.
waves of peace,
Could you clarify the terms "bunch of pulses" and "transient wave"? I find it very difficult to understand the conclusions of the experiment without understanding these concepts.
Thanks
Camila - I couldn't get to the bottom of your mind. I'm curious to know what the furniture thing is here. Sorry for my short-sightedness.
Of course, there is the claim that if time travel were possible, then there would be people walking around among us today and even throughout history traveling in time from our future. Since we have not encountered people who claim (and can prove) that they travel in time, it makes sense that time travel is not possible.
Avi,
You might consider changing the title to:
Finally - time travel at a speed higher than the speed of light is not possible
This describes the topic better.
The title is flawed, it cannot be verified as long as science has not yet conducted all possible experiments, it is evident that science, which is still in its infancy in this field, is not authorized to make such a firm assumption.
It is true that my age is young, but I still think that it is quite early from a scientific point of view to determine with certainty such a statement, I hope that science will catch you wrong and quickly so that I will get to see it with my own eyes....
Forgive me but I think the determination you made was made from unscientific motives...search inside yourself to find why you chose to be so decisive.
I am responsible for the title. If a time traveler comes and proves it, I will consider changing the title. 🙂
Any scientist who writes "finally" suffers from megalomania.
I'm not claiming that you can exceed the speed of light, but history is full of examples of scientists who were wrong or lacked knowledge.
It's very possible that in a few decades these scientists will look ridiculous and hopeless.
Confusing and clumsy writing style. I have some background in the subject of relativity, optics and quantum theory and still after reading the article I did not understand why this is not possible.
And what about time travel through closed loops, created by strong gravity (like near a black hole)?
Movement above the speed of light is not required here, and it is still possible to move to the future (and also to the past, as long as the black hole existed at the point in time to which you want to return).
jelly
Peace.
The optical coefficient that the article is about for some reason reminds me of the "soliton" from this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/physicists-predict-new-form-of-soliton-in-ultracold-gases-2912091/
It looks like the optical coefficient behaves like that soliton, on which the photon moves.
I would appreciate it if you could sort out where I went wrong, because I don't really understand it (what is an optical coefficient?)
A quick and alert entrepreneur will make a lot of easy money here in the field of furniture for the room... I would love to receive a percentage from those who will pick up the sofa, uh... the glove.
BS
look for quantum entanglement and realize you don't have to accelerate futons
They can just be duplicated across space
jelly
What about gravity there is no proof that the speed of propagation of the gravitational field is limited to the speed of light.
And what about dark matter and dark energy.
There is no obstacle to the existence of a type of particles that move at a higher speed than light.
Gali - it's great that you're back to writing. I read a very short publication about it today in English, from which it was impossible to understand anything. Good that you wrote and enlightened our eyes. and in another matter. As an expert on the philosophy of science and Einstein, please read the
https://www.hayadan.org.il/relative-theory-philosophical-implications-070103
And express your opinion in response to my comment there.