Yes, particles can exceed the speed of light. How can that be so?
What you have probably been told is that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. In a non-vacuum, e.g. air, glass, water, light will travel slower than its maximum speed. Than particles such as electrons and helium nuclei, emitted by radioactive materials, will exceed that speed. When it does so, just like a plane making a sonic boom when breaking the sound barrier, these particles will break the light barrier, emitting a flash of light - a ‘light boom’ if you like. This is known as Cerenkov Radiation. Google images will return dozens of great pictures of this happening.
I only skimmed it, but the Wikipedia article on Cherenkov radiation appears to be accurate. It’s a reasonably well-known phenomenon, and very well documented. But indeed, though things might exceed the local speed at which light travels, nothing still exceeds c.
Chronos didn’t call it gibberish on a knee-jerk reaction. He did it for the same reasons you would call a nonsense and ungrammatical string of English words gibberish. When you know what content is you can recognize when something has none.
I wasn’t talking about Chronos–I’ve already specified his call of “gibberish” was somewhat justified.
Exapno’s, in my opinion, was not. There is nothing in JBeam’s original post which shows it has no content. He is not using good terminology, that’s certainly true, and he’s almost certainly saying things that are false. But none of this is to say his post is without content.
And even if Exapno’s gibberish call had been justified in some sense, it was certainly not appropriate–not appropriate according to the standards of politeness, not appropriate according to the standards of constructive conversation, and not appropriate according to Exapno’s purpose in posting.
It (the post you linked to, minus the quote from you in that post) looks like pseudo-science to me, which is not gibberish.
It’s not gibberish, because it clearly communicates content–content that is false, but content nevertheless.
In fact, to be honest, I think the post you linked to makes more sense than JimBeam’s. But neither that post, nor JimBeam’s, would I call “gibberish.” They are simply wrong. *
But you’re missing my point. Even if I thought both posts were literal “gibberish,” it would be, let’s say, “infelicitous,” for me to respond to them by saying “your post is gibberish.” I can achieve what such a declaration is supposed to achieve by much more reliable and constructive means.
-FrL-
*Now, maybe you meant something other than literal “gibberish” by using the term "gibberish. Perhaps by “gibberish” you didn’t mean literally “nonsense” or “contentlessness,” but rather, “a lot of incorrect statements.” Or, maybe, “a lot of statements using terms not usually used by those who study this subject matter, or using terms in ways different than the way they are used by those who study this subject matter.” I can’t tell which of these claims (if any) you meant to make about JimBeam’s post, and this is further evidence that whatever you’re trying to do by calling the post “gibberish,” it’s not working.
Perhaps your intent had nothing to do with any possible denotation to be assigned to the term “gibberish” and more with its connotation and its nature as epithetical. What kind of intent might this have been? Were you trying to shame JimBeam into abandoning his views? Your declaration, as you probably well know, is very unlikely to have that effect in any context, much less this context. Your further comments afterwards in that post also did not serve that purpose. Were you, then, simply trying to identify yourself to others as being superior (non-gibbering–whatever you might mean by that!) compared to JimBeam? Perhaps you succeeded then, but at the same time you succeeded in portraying yourself as unkind and unconcerned with JimBeam’s taking away anything positive from the experience. This is not in keeping with the best SDMB traditions. Here’s another possibility: Perhaps you were warning others away from JimBeam’s post, posting a “here there be dragons” sign next to it so no one else will contaminate themselves with its content. But who’s really going to do that? Anyway, you hadn’t in that post established to reasonable satisfaction that JimBeam’s post is wrong or nonsense, rather than simply confusedly communicated. The cart, in that case, was put before the horse.
Model poster that I am, I shall deign to exhibit the proper manner of responding to a post such as JimBeam’s.
jimbeam:
I’m having trouble following your post. I feel like I understand each individual sentence, but I can’t tell what they’re supposed to be telling me when taken all together.
I take it you’re saying an experiment producing an increase in the speed of light is conceptually impossible, since it would require simulation of something that can’t possibly exist. (Right?) But then, what is the basis for this claim? Is this simply the trivial claim that, since going faster than C is actually impossible, any model allowing for such a phenomenon is a model for something that can’t actually happen? I don’t think you mean to be making that trivial claim, and I hope you can clarify what you do mean.
Following that, you seem to be saying an “infinite” speed of light could be obtained in a universe of zero dimensions (or do you mean a universe of zero width in all directions–is that the same thing? I don’t know). If that’s the right way to interpret the post, then a claim you make, I think, is wrong–no one thinks anymore (to my knowledge) that the universe was ever literally of zero dimensionality. It was a singularity (I think most still believe this–maybe Mathochist or Chronos or someone can confirm or disconfirm that) but its width wasn’t literally zero in any direction. Anyway, if it were of zero dimensionality, there could be no light to travel in it, at any speed.
But how important is that to the point of your post? I’m not sure because like I said, I wasn’t sure what that point was.
Could you tell me what the main idea or ideas of the quoted paragraph was supposed to be? I’ll try to organize the sentences you’ve provided around that idea, and then I’ll probably have further questions for you.
-FrL-
Then from there we’d tease out his meaning, and find out where, if anywhere, he’s thinking something wrong.
Hey guys, I’m sorry if my previous posts were hmmm… confusing. I chose my name appropriately the other night. A half gallon of whiskey will do that to you.
What I was attempting to convey is the idea that physics as we understand it have little or no meaning when applied to the universe prior to the big bang. We use terms like singularity in an attempt to explain what our universe was like before space/time existed. Whether or not singularity is an accurate depiction is questionable. Singular in the sense that it has no dimensions. Some say infinitely dense or “small”. Size has no meaning where space/time doesn’t exist.
The first experiments I referred to showed that light could be slowed or even stopped. The experiments I referred to afterwards supposedly produced speeds faster than light but did NOT transfer information or matter. I didn’t mean to imply that they did. Only that lightspeed had possibly been exceeded in a “cesium vapor” medium.
The OP questions whether the universe could expand faster than the speed of light. I agree with that possibility. I don’t think I said matter exceeded lightspeed. If I did then I was incorrect. I’m sure I missed some points but I will attempt a more sober explanation if asked. Without the patronizing please.
I didn’t think it was possible on a board like this, when discussing a subject like the one you and I are discussing, but, to my amazement:
You officially lose the argument.
It is clear, I am sure, to most following this thread that your joking comment here is without basis and does not succeed in painting me in any negative light. If you have nothing else to offer, then, I guess, you have nothing else to offer.
I hit submit instead of edit. I meant to add a comment along these lines:
If rather you find you simply grow weary of a conversation that seems pointless to you, that’s perfectly fine. Still, even in that case, your “how many drinks” comment isn’t fooling very many people, if any at all.
