Speed of Light broken?

[davos]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-by-scientists.html

[Delhommey]

Huge.

[Bronn]

now, if we could only build a spacecraft that could go that fast, and figure out how to survive it with our bodies...

[Darth Biscuit]

Wow.

[charlotte49er]

Quarks are particles that can travel faster than the speed lof light.

A quark (/ˈkwɔrk/ or /ˈkwɑrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.[1] Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can only be found within hadrons.[2][3] For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves.

There are six types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top.[4] Up and down quarks have the lowest masses of all quarks. The heavier quarks rapidly change into up and down quarks through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Because of this, up and down quarks are generally stable and the most common in the universe, whereas strange, charm, top, and bottom quarks can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and in particle accelerators).

Quarks have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, color charge, spin, and mass. Quarks are the only elementary particles in the Standard Model of particle physics to experience all four fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravitation, strong interaction, and weak interaction), as well as the only known particles whose electric charges are not integer multiples of the elementary charge. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding type of antiparticle, known as antiquark, that differs from the quark only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign.

The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964.[5] Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1968.[6][7] All six flavors of quark have since been observed in accelerator experiments; the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered.[5]

[DC Amp]

Well if that is true then, they also recorded time traveling in the same experiment. ;)

But then again, that not really a big deal bc it's already been proven. (forward not back)

[Bronn]

Well if that is true then, they also recorded time traveling in the same experiment. ;)

But then again, that not really a big deal bc it's already been proven. (forward not back)

? not sure I totally follow...

I thought it was theoretically possible to go back, but not forward?

For one to accept forward time travel as possible, wouldn't that mean the future has already been determined? Or, would it be a theoretical future based on the course of events based on all variables in the universe from the point you left?

Sorry for the slight derail... There was a thread here about Time Travel once, but I can't search for it (surprise)...

[Darth Biscuit]

No, the nearer to light speed (or past it I assume) you get, the more you travel into the future... ie. time slows down for you the faster you travel relative to the rest of the universe. Backwards time travel is not possible with this method... you'd have to have a wormhole or something.

[The Saltman]

[Kevin Greene]

No, the nearer to light speed (or past it I assume) you get, the more you travel into the future... ie. time slows down for you the faster you travel relative to the rest of the universe. Backwards time travel is not possible with this method... you'd have to have a wormhole or something.

Aye

.

[Bronn]

I'm not buying it, biscuit!

[The Saltman]

Ya jsquared questions everything. He knows more than everyone on the huddle combined.

[Jase]

the theory of relativity is only a theory. ;)

[Bronn]

If you are slowing time, you are manipulating it and not yourself, and therefore modifying the environment around you, not the variable within it (yourself).

ie. time relative to you moved, but you did not within it...

I thought I heard a theory that if you were to go around the Earth, opposite it's natural spin, faster than the speed of light, you would eventually start going back in time...

The concept of forward time travel has never made sense to me because it would mean all futures of every particle in the universe are predetermined, and the odds of that are pretty much beyond infinity...

Backwards travel makes sense because things have already happened... Heck, every time you look up at a star you are staring into the past... because of the speed of light... therefore if you were to surpass the speed of light, you'd be moving towards something that had already happened (since the light took that long to reach you), and not something that is yet undetermined...

I guess if you left the center of the universe and were traveling towards the end of it (disregarding the hypothesis that it is still expanding), then you could technically move forward in time... but then again, what happens when you leave the point of universal existence (which you would technically have to surpass to move forward in time)???...