74 réponses à ce sujet

[A-K-M]

http://news.discover...ton-110724.html

"The study, which showed that single photons also obey the speed limit c, confirms Einstein's causality; that is, an effect cannot occur before its cause," the university said.

"By showing that single photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light, our results bring a closure to the debate on the true speed of information carried by a single photon," said Du, assistant professor of physics.

"Our findings will also likely have potential applications by giving scientists a better picture on the transmission of quantum information."

The team's study was published in the U.S. peer-reviewed scientific journal Physical Review Letters.

Bummer 

 

[naughty99]

Scientists said it was impossible for a human to travel faster than 30 MPH or a heart attack would kill the traveler.

Scientists said it was not physically possible to travel faster than the speed of sound

Scientists also said open heart operations were impossible

Then they said heart transplants were impossible

Many scientists believed that the first nuclear detonation would ignite the atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet

Some scientists believed that it was impossible for a human to survive outside the earth's atmosphere because of the radiation present in space.

[Russalka]

For now.

[Gterror]

Scientists say a lot of things

[naughty99]

Exactly, these foolish scientists even claimed at one time that vampires were a mathematical impossibility:

On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.

If mortality rates were taken into consideration, the population would disappear much faster. Even an unrealistically high reproduction rate couldn't counteract this effect.

According to University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou: "In the long run, humans cannot survive under these conditions, even if our population were doubling each month, and doubling is clearly way beyond the human capacity of reproduction."

Source

Modifié par naughty99, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:42 .

[ipgd]

The theory of relativity is not exactly news.

It's also not exactly on the level of the other things that were impossible to technology, to the point where "for now" is kinda, well, no.

Even if traveling at or past the speed of light ever became possible, it would never be practical, because it would essentially be a form of time travel. Maybe some day we'll have the technology to send human beings being thousands of light years away relativistically within their lifetime, but by the time they reach that destination all of the people who sent them off would have been dead for centuries.

[Eternal Phoenix]

naughty99 wrote...

Exactly, these foolish scientists even claimed at one time that vampires were a mathematical impossibility:

On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.

If mortality rates were taken into consideration, the population would disappear much faster. Even an unrealistically high reproduction rate couldn't counteract this effect.

According to University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou: "In the long run, humans cannot survive under these conditions, even if our population were doubling each month, and doubling is clearly way beyond the human capacity of reproduction."

Source

LMAO. We knew that ages ago. Even when the stories of vampires were around, there were many who didn't believe them because they themselves had invented some of the stories!

[naughty99]

Elton John is dead wrote...


LMAO. We knew that ages ago. Even when the stories of vampires were around, there were many who didn't believe them because they themselves had invented some of the stories!

Little did the scientists know, we don't have to convert everyone we feed from.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Well there are vampire bats:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Vampire_bat

But vampires? No.

Heard of Psychic vampires? I have too but verily, they don't exist either.

[Wicked 702]

Space is like a blanket. A freezing cold and curved blanket. I say we find a way to fold it. Forget this linear travel business...

[Stanley Woo]

naughty99 wrote...

Scientists said it was impossible for a human to travel faster than 30 MPH or a heart attack would kill the traveler.

Scientists said it was not physically possible to travel faster than the speed of sound

Scientists also said open heart operations were impossible

Then they said heart transplants were impossible

Many scientists believed that the first nuclear detonation would ignite the atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet

Some scientists believed that it was impossible for a human to survive outside the earth's atmosphere because of the radiation present in space.

That's all correct, but your conclusion is wrong. Just because we keep discovering new information and are able to modify earlier conclusions, it does NOT mean that we should automatically disbelieve the science that is being reported. Science should always be judged by what we know to be true "at this time." When new and/or contradictory information comes up and we are proven to be wrong, well then, we start the process of discovery again from a new starting point. That's how science works.

[naughty99]

Stanley Woo wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

Scientists said it was impossible for a human to travel faster than 30 MPH or a heart attack would kill the traveler.

Scientists said it was not physically possible to travel faster than the speed of sound

Scientists also said open heart operations were impossible

Then they said heart transplants were impossible

Many scientists believed that the first nuclear detonation would ignite the atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet

Some scientists believed that it was impossible for a human to survive outside the earth's atmosphere because of the radiation present in space.

That's all correct, but your conclusion is wrong. Just because we keep discovering new information and are able to modify earlier conclusions, it does NOT mean that we should automatically disbelieve the science that is being reported. Science should always be judged by what we know to be true "at this time." When new and/or contradictory information comes up and we are proven to be wrong, well then, we start the process of discovery again from a new starting point. That's how science works.

Yes, of course, we can only draw conclusions to prove or disprove hypotheses based on what is known at the time.

I merely wanted to point out that previous studies based on the sum of scientific knowledge at the time of those studies drew conclusions of impossibility that turned out to be completely wrong.

And this is quite common. The conclusions drawn by these scientists could turn out to be correct for posterity. Or they could turn out to be faulty due to some missing part of humanity's current scientific knowledge regarding some aspects of photons and properties of light, etc.

Modifié par naughty99, 25 juillet 2011 - 09:45 .

[KenKenpachi]

Forgot the name but I seem to remember a theory in terms of relitivity that stated moving at FTL speeds wouldn't actully slow your aging. But keep time current in a manner. Like say we had a FTL drive that went 50 times the speed of light. And went to a system say 60 light years away. Hit it, came back and it took three years time. Only three years would have passed on Earth due to a constant time of departure. Or maybe that was about Worm Holes, bah I'll get the book down and type what it said word for word later.

Anyways I think the only scifi universe that has any sort of FTL or worm hole tech that holds even a little merit, is Star Wars. given how lanes must be constantly updated, scanners are in place. A whole lot of **** to read whats ahead. (and there tech wasn't so fast it took the Falcon a few days to two weeks to reach Alderaan. Just not shown in film as that would be boring. Still while fast its not instentanious.)

I'm not prepaired to say its impossible or that we know jack **** in either reguard to cosmo's Hell we've have ALOT in that reguard proven wrong daily.

EDIT Apperantly it was on Quatum effects and bending space with gravitational force, other topics of that nature. Basically it states that though its unlikely or impossible to say bend light or tavel faster than it while as it, for a ship provided the technological hurdels you could/would need to get past. Would be traveling at more or less real time but would cause havoc in terms of traditional observational means. Such as you have planet A, B, and C All in say 10 light years from one another. Planet B spots C's shipyard being built for an FTL ship, the image is 10 years old when the light allows them to see it so to speak, When it points it back to planet A it sees a ship from said "Unfinished" shipyard attacking Planet A, who captures it and copies the ships drive. And then attacks the Shipyards at c, which appears at Planet B's observation. Funny enough the artical went on to say the Scientist at Planet B preplexed by all of this out law FTL drives on there world lol. Basically though the light being reflected takes 10 years to reach you, it is still the same "Time" everywhere. If you can outrace the speed of ight to the point of near real time travel, You could go to pluto and back in a few hours or less, and thats all the time that would have passed on Earth. However someone looking in a teliscope would see your flight well "after" it happend. Basically such technology came to be and I doubt anyone would own a teliscope anymore. And it would be neat to see how the universe looks in "real time" rather than as the light allows us to see things way old that may not even be there now. Hell all we know tomorrow a fleet leaving at Light speed 100 light years away could show up, we look in the teliscope, and see it, then the next day it shows up at the moon. Having left 100 years ago and staying constant, it would arrive in real time, would be one hell of a wake up call.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 25 juillet 2011 - 10:40 .

[Godak]

Stanley Woo wrote...

That's all correct, but your conclusion is wrong.

I am not sure if was necessarily trying to present a definitive conclusion. Rather, he was showing examples of how science should be approached as a constantly changing field, where evolution and growth should be expected, even where previously thought to be impossible.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Just because we keep discovering new information and are able to modify earlier conclusions, it does NOT mean that we should automatically disbelieve the science that is being reported. Science should always be judged by what we know to be true "at this time." When new and/or contradictory information comes up and we are proven to be wrong, well then, we start the process of discovery again from a new starting point. That's how science works.

I do, however, disagree with parts of this sentiment (if I misunderstand, feel free to correct me). A scientific conclusion should not be immediately thrown out as invalid, I agree. However, we should not disregard a possible alternative simply because the tools at our disposal do not allow said conclusion to occur.

Waiting for contradictory information to simple show itself would likely be a fruitless endeavor. Many scientific discoverys of the last millenium can be attributed to men and women who went against the grain, not those who went with it.

[sympathy4saren]

I've noticed far too often that scientists label things as "theory" when it violates their own definition of what a theory is.

At times, it's like a stamp...."theory".

However, like Naughty pointed out, on the flipside just because something cannot be proven or there is no evidence for its existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Example: The DNA molecule wasn't discovered until a few decades ago. There was no evidence for it. But it didn't mean it didn't exist.

Despite the fact there is zero evidence mass can travel faster than light, maybe it can. Unlikely, but possible.

[TheBlackBaron]

This is also coming from a country that has recently banned any discussion or depictions of time travel.

I'm just sayin'.

[Boiny Bunny]

I'm not really sure that this study adds much to what we already know - for the moment, travel at speeds faster than the speed of light is theoretically impossible, based on the sum of our knowledge as a species to date.

It's worth noting that most sci-fi universes that have FTL, usually don't actually break this rule - but rather work around it (e.g. rather than physically travelling faster than the speed of light, tunnelling into sub-space, or folding the universe like a piece of paper, etc.)

[Stanley Woo]

Godak wrote...
A scientific conclusion should not be immediately thrown out as invalid, I agree. However, we should not disregard a possible alternative simply because the tools at our disposal do not allow said conclusion to occur.

I don't think I said anything about disregarding possible alternatives. in fact, I believe I made explicit mention of accepting a disproven conclusion (if the science is sound, of course) and moving on and discovering anew from that point.

Waiting for contradictory information to simple show itself would likely be a fruitless endeavor. Many scientific discoverys of the last millenium can be attributed to men and women who went against the grain, not those who went with it.

I am aware that science does not exist in a vacuum, to coin a phrase. Science happens because people are pursuing knowledge and testing ideas and analyzing data to prove hypotheses. Contradictory information would "simply show itself" through the data gathered by those working on experiments. i'm not suggesting we sit around and believe whatever scientists say until a piece of evidence pops out of the ether.

I'm just waiting for a "definitive" answer on whether coffee and wine are good for you. How about it, science?

[N7M]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am aware that science does not exist in a vacuum, to coin a phrase.

Enough time goes by many things seem new again.

[Inquisitor Recon]

These scientists are like the turian councilor. How about they work on building a better engine rather than saying theoretical stuff can't be done? It's more constructive.

[KenKenpachi]

ReconTeam wrote...

These scientists are like the turian councilor. How about they work on building a better engine rather than saying theoretical stuff can't be done? It's more constructive.

Recon Team, and his "idealism" We've dismissed that claim. For Science.

[ipgd]

naughty99 wrote...

Yes, of course, we can only draw conclusions to prove or disprove hypotheses based on what is known at the time.

I merely wanted to point out that previous studies based on the sum of scientific knowledge at the time of those studies drew conclusions of impossibility that turned out to be completely wrong.

And this is quite common. The conclusions drawn by these scientists could turn out to be correct for posterity. Or they could turn out to be faulty due to some missing part of humanity's current scientific knowledge regarding some aspects of photons and properties of light, etc.

There's a difference between something that is technologically impossible for humans to achieve and completely physically impossible on the most fundamental level. The concept of violating the laws of relativity are nowhere near anything like technology being developed for heart transplants. It wouldn't be a matter of "oh, I didn't think of using a massive metal tube to achieve human flight", it would be "um, well, time to throw out pretty much the entirety of physics".