[QUOTE=Koxinga]
Of course you know this means that a mad German scientist will now use this technology to go back in time and bring back Hitler.
[/QUOTE]
Not again! At least the Soviets won’t conquer Europe this time.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Mr Moto, of all the times I’ve wanted to punch you, none equal my desire to punch you right now. 
[/QUOTE]
So I guess it’s pretty unfortunate that you can’t simultaneously be arbitrarily certain of where he is and how fast he’s going, huh?
… 
[QUOTE=Ale]
That sounds interesting if true, cite?
[/QUOTE]
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168
This article seems to have the most information including the scientist from Berkeley that replicated the results
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/101ns_001.htm
[QUOTE=Procyon]
My intention is not to rain on anyone’s parade, but an article on Ars Technica fairly lucidly analyzes why this experiment, like many that have come before it, is not the end of Einstein’s theory.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that. It was simple and convincing.
So we’ve finally achieved Ludicrous Speed?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
A laboratory is as much a part of “real life” as anywhere else.
[/QUOTE]
No, not exactly. They can use some particularly weird circumstances to force some ludicrously small particle or bit of energy to jump faster than light. But you’ll NEVER see it in nature, and it takes advantage of some weird quantum entanglements effect or some other Star-Trekish technobabble, and it’s totally useless for any practical application, ever.
[QUOTE=Eyer8]
Hmmm…
From here:
I remain skeptical. I wasn’t aware that the group velocity of evanescent waves was anything special. I have done work on coupling evanecent waves when looking at near-field storage techniques. I’ts going to take a little more reading, but I still think it is unlikely…
[/QUOTE]
Does anyone else feel like Charlie Brown listening to the teacher talk? Please don’t explain. I’ll google around later to see how much backfill I need before that starts making sense.
It’ll be fun.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They are an excellent light snack.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t they be fast food?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
So we’ve finally achieved Ludicrous Speed?
[/QUOTE]
…they’ve gone plaid?
[QUOTE=Giles]
Wouldn’t they be fast food?
[/QUOTE]
Naah, they’re better than Mickey D’s. Thay give you a nice healthy glow.
No, wait, that’s Chernobyl Chicken.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
No, not exactly. They can use some particularly weird circumstances to force some ludicrously small particle or bit of energy to jump faster than light. But you’ll NEVER see it in nature, and it takes advantage of some weird quantum entanglements effect or some other Star-Trekish technobabble, and it’s totally useless for any practical application, ever.
[/QUOTE]
How do you know that?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How do you know that?
[/QUOTE]
That is exaclty right.
Nothing new to see here. Some particles behave like they have mass and some don’t. The ones that have mass have relativistic effects and the others do too. To a point.
I think we should get excited about it. Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That’s what being a scientist is all about!
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
No, not exactly. They can use some particularly weird circumstances to force some ludicrously small particle or bit of energy to jump faster than light. But you’ll NEVER see it in nature, and it takes advantage of some weird quantum entanglements effect or some other Star-Trekish technobabble, and it’s totally useless for any practical application, ever.
[/QUOTE]
You never see Baked Alaska in nature either. What does that have to do with anything?
Wierd quantum entanglements do occasionally turn out to be useful. Lasers, superconductors, josephson junctions, SQUIDS, tunneling and atomic force microscopes…
The apparent violation of C probably can’t be used to transmit information, anymore than the instant collapse of waveform in the Bell experiments can. It doesn’t mean the thing won’t be useful.
[QUOTE=Yllaria]
Does anyone else feel like Charlie Brown listening to the teacher talk? Please don’t explain. I’ll google around later to see how much backfill I need before that starts making sense.
It’ll be fun.
[/QUOTE]
All I know is, I want to be entangled with the lead singer of Evanesence.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How do you know that?
[/QUOTE]
Just going by what they said some years back when they broke it. This isn’t the first time. But it relied on ridiculous and impossible conditions to attain a useless result -one which inherently couldn’t be used on anything mankind might actually care about, including information. It’s been awhile and I don’t recall the eact specifics.
[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168
This article seems to have the most information including the scientist from Berkeley that replicated the results
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/101ns_001.htm
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. I’m still not impressed. The only evidence they’ve added is the cheapest and least reliable method for nuetron detection available. As one person noted in that article, the amount they measured would have resulted in them being fried. It reminds me of P&F’s ‘burned a hole in the floor’ claims. Tritium does not impress me either, its a notorious contaminant.
The lack of independent, consistant replication is also bothersome.
Something is happening in those chambers, but they have yet to convince me its anything other than a poor chemical battery.
Those photons are maniacs, and I hope the cosmic traffic cops pull them over.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
[Quote=xtisme]
Anyone know what microwaved photons taste like btw?
[/quote]
They are an excellent light snack.
[/QUOTE]
That was worth the $15 alone. 
<snip>
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
As one person noted in that article, the amount they measured would have resulted in them being fried.
[/QUOTE]
You got that backwards! Skeptics tried to attribute the results to background radiation from an unknown source, or cosmic rays… the researchers refuted this by stating that any background radiation powerful enough to influence the test would have cooked them.