Einstein=failure

Klefmung · Post by **Klefmung** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:25 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1965

Kurt_ · Post by **Kurt_** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:00 am

Well of course Einstien was wrong. His theories are over 100 years old. Remember when everyone thought Newton was right? Science is always advancing, and to do so, you need to make predictions and have them proven wrong.

However, that is one experiment, breaking a rule that an entire section of physics is based on. Although travelling backward in time would be neat, I would need more than one internet article in which a guy talks about them breaking light speed but providing no proof or links to experiments.

HOWEVER, a quick google search reveals this for the scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz

And read this last part of it:

Aephraim M. Steinberg[1] of the University of Toronto has also stated that Nimtz has not demonstrated causality violation (which would be implied by transmitting information faster than light).[1]

Nimtz himself says:

The new experiment does not provide an answer to the fundamental question of whether faster-than-light transport of information is possible.[4]

Extreme_Jesus · Post by **Extreme_Jesus** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:51 am

Man that article comes from the Daily Mail, id take it with at least a pinch of salt

But if it is true it raises some interesting questions

timmeh87 · Post by **timmeh87** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:30 pm

read this one instead

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/17 ... s_ftl_not/

Reaperman@home · Post by **Reaperman@home** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:23 pm

the light faster than light stories have been popping up for over 10 years now. Every new one claims to be the first, so I guess all the stories of things like 'FTL lasers' were just a load of it.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:51 pm

Did einstine not mean that you cant acerlate past the speed of light.

Ben Cebhrem · Post by **Ben Cebhrem** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:07 pm

He stated that nothing could travel faster than light does in a pure vacuum. There are things that travel faster than light in other items, such as light in water (the light travels slower in water), so the reference is always needed as to what "light speed" you are referring to.

EDIT: Now that I read the article, it is really light on any details. However, presuming that testing was done in a vacuum (to prevent any stray material from interfering, I certainly would), then this demonstrates, if true, that the speed of light is only higher than what was previously thought; that may or may not then throw Einstein's theories into question, as only time can tell us the answer to that, but do note that the article only states that it was possible to exceed the conventional 'fast light' speed, and not fully determined that it had been exceeded.