Slashdot Mirror


Matter Discovered Traveling at Near Light Speed

mcgrew writes to mention New Scientist is reporting that scientists have clocked matter traveling at 99.999% the speed of light. "The fastest flows of matter in the universe shoot out of dying stars at more than 99.999% the speed of light, new observations reveal. When a massive star runs out of fuel, it collapses to form a black hole or a neutron star. In the process, some of the matter from the star also explodes outward at blistering speeds, producing an intense burst of gamma rays and other radiation."

403 comments

  1. Kudos to the editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Much better subject line than what was found in The Firehose...

    (The original subject line said "Matter found travelling at the speed of light", or something along those lines.

    Close != At.

    Given all the Complaints and BS the mods have to put up with sometimes, I think they should get complimented for a job well done as well.

    1. Re:Kudos to the editor by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      They could have done even better. How about "Really damn close to speed of light." Though I guess at that speed, .001% is still a hefty amount of m/s.

      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
    2. Re:Kudos to the editor by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, the speed was calculated to be 99.9997% but there was a rounding problem when the report was generated via their new-fangled AI system and the system kept crashing from the unexpected logical impossibility...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    3. Re:Kudos to the editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agree

    4. Re:Kudos to the editor by Is0m0rph · · Score: 0

      Depends on the margin of error. If they say 99.999% with .001% +/- error then you could say at the speed of light.

    5. Re:Kudos to the editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Uh no actually you could not, and would not.

    6. Re:Kudos to the editor by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they should recompile the kernel. Solves everything.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    7. Re:Kudos to the editor by larpon · · Score: 3, Funny

      You Gentoo folks always have only one answer TO EVERYTHING DAMNIT!1! DAAMNIT!!1

    8. Re:Kudos to the editor by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Statistically, that would be useful, but not in physics. There is a world of difference between 99.999% and the speed of light. In fact, there is a huge difference between 99.999% and 99.9999% and an even larger one between 99.9999% and 99.99999%.

      That being the case you should never, ever equate any set of "nines" with the speed of light (except maybe infinite nines) as no speed below light speed is anything at all like light speed.

    9. Re:Kudos to the editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up +1 Asskissing?

    10. Re:Kudos to the editor by legallyillegal · · Score: 1, Informative

      899.377374 m/s (3237.75855 km/h)

      --
      ?giS
    11. Re:Kudos to the editor by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Infinite nines (99.999.... per cent) would be the same as the speed of light. I say this only to have an excuse to link to a list of proofs that 0.9 recurring equals 1.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    12. Re:Kudos to the editor by gameforge · · Score: 1
      What's not useful in Physics - margin of error? Don't go anywhere, I've got a mechanical schematic and a corresponding manufactured widget to sell you!

      The difference between 0.001% of the speed of light and the speed of light may indeed be astronomical, but number wise, it's true. If the method used to estimate the speed of the matter isn't perfect (I'm presuming it's not), then they might as well call it the speed of light.

      Relevant quote from TFA (emphasis mine):

      ...precisely measure the expansion speed of matter in these explosion to more than 99.999% the speed of light...the expanding matter initially produces gamma rays, but when it starts colliding with surrounding gas, it creates afterglows in visible and infrared light. The amount of time it takes for this afterglow to reach its peak brightness can be used to calculate how fast material in the jets is moving.

      The researchers used a robotic infrared telescope called Rapid Eye Mount (REM), based in La Silla, Chile, which quickly points at gamma ray bursts detected by NASA's Swift satellite.

      I think what you meant to say was that their tools and methods of estimating speed may well show that it was traversing at or even faster than the speed of light... but since it didn't take on any of the eccentric properties of matter which is traveling at light speed, they "know" that it wasn't "quite" the speed of light - and therefore must be really close. May as well have infinite repeating 9's in the decimal, like you said.

      Do the researchers think they would know if the afterglow had reached its peak brightness before the matter began expanding? How could you really prove such a thing? What would it look like?

      OP is correct, and margin of error is important in all of science because of imperfect humans.
    13. Re:Kudos to the editor by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Damn you for beating me to it! This one has irked me for years! Primarily because I had a ..7th? grade math teacher mark me as incorrect for putting "1" instead of "0.9 bar" on a test. I asked her what the difference was, but nobody laughed. Sad, sad day.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    14. Re:Kudos to the editor by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the post of Math teacher should not be appointed, rather based on a version of Open Challenge. So if you proved the Math teacher wrong, you would become Math teacher until someone proved you wrong.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:Kudos to the editor by tsjaikdus · · Score: 1

      Totally agree! Hear, hear! I just don't understand people can say such a thing without touching the tip of a ten times exactly right. It's NOT at the speed of light, only CLOSE to it. If you walk on a pavement, don't walk on the lines between the tiles.

    16. Re:Kudos to the editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about in miles per hour for us metrically-challenged Americans?

    17. Re:Kudos to the editor by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      In some areas of physics it's not such a good idea, especially relativistic physics. The problem is you're working with infinitesimal values. A Physicist will never work with values such as 99.9999% the speed of light, but will give you the particle's energy, or just "speed of light minus x".

      In this case, they were able to give a lower limit of the speed. This then translates to "more than x kinetic energy".
      If they were to say that they found matter travelling at 1.0 the speed of light, that would disprove known laws of physics. It would have a load of crazy implications, which aren't needed here.

      Saying that something's the speed of light just because you can't measure more accurately is simply a big no-no, the same as dividing by zero.

    18. Re:Kudos to the editor by gameforge · · Score: 1

      The problem is you're working with infinitesimal values.
      Light does not travel at infinite speed.

      Relativity is a theory, not a proof or a guarantee - humans have never traveled at the speed of light, nor willfully accelerated any matter to the speed of light. Again - how would we know or prove that it in fact did reach the speed of light, or surpass it? We can't. We can suppose that it didn't happen - we cannot prove it.

      The point is, "the speed of light" is a measurable scalar just like any other speed or velocity - something that travels at the speed of light is only moving slightly faster than something that travels at infinitely close to, but always less than, the speed of light.

      Again - there's no reason that it wasn't indicated that the matter was moving equal to or faster than the speed of light due to margin of error; we simply suppose that it couldn't have possibly done this because these implications you mention were false/did not occur, to our knowledge.
    19. Re:Kudos to the editor by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      The speed of light is indeed finite. But for a particle (with a rest mass) to travel at the speed of light, you need infinite energy.

      We know that you can give particles as much energy as you want. We know that you can accelerate particles to 99% the speed of light, and if you give them a bajillion times that energy, they might be something like 99.999999999% the speed of light.
      OTOH, saying that something is travelling at the speed of light means it has infinite energy and infinite mass.

      Anyhow, speed is not a scalar, but a vector. This is particularly interesting in this case. Say you're one light-second away from a lightsource, and you're travelling away from it at 99.9999% the speed of light. Contrary to what you might first assume, the light will still only take one second to catch up with you. When you look at some other crazy considerations, you can see that, in a sense, the speed of light is travelling "infinitely" faster than something at 99.999999999% the speed of light.

      Sure, you can always say that there might be something different or new out there, but to the best knowledge of modern physics, you just shouldn't say it. Full stop. Exactly the same as dividing by zero.

    20. Re:Kudos to the editor by ScuttleMonkey · · Score: 1

      It really is appreciated AC. :) Everyone is a critic, so we do like to know when we get something right once in a while. (Even as rare as that may be :P)

    21. Re:Kudos to the editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm... are you making this stuff up as you go, or...?

      light travels at varying speeds, there is no fixed speed of light. It can be slowed to less than 50mph, or move at up to 300x its normal vacuum speed; and as spacetime expands, it slows down even in a vacuum...

      and no, the light would not still catch up to you in a second - where are you getting this from? matter is plenty capable of moving at the speed of light... the blue glow in a nuclear reactor comes from electrons exceeding the speed of light. I think you've been reading too much sci-fi.

    22. Re:Kudos to the editor by LordVader717 · · Score: 1
      In most circumstances "Speed of light" translates to "speed of light in vacuum", which is an invariably physical constant.
      The only reason the speed of light appears to be slower in a medium is because the photons interact with matter, which causes a delay. But when the light travels from one particle to another, it does so with the speed of light in vacuum.
      And no, to the knowledge of modern physics, it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, even light itself (which can't travel any slower either, it only appears to travel slower in a medium)

      and no, the light would not still catch up to you in a second - where are you getting this from?


      It's called relativistic velocity addition. Read up on it.

      matter is plenty capable of moving at the speed of light... the blue glow in a nuclear reactor comes from electrons exceeding the speed of light.


      They travel faster than the perceived speed of light in water. As I said, the (vacuum) speed of light is constant, and light only appears to travel slower in a transparent medium. The electrons don't take as long to travel through the medium because the photons are being "captured", stored and released. But the electrons will never travel faster than the true (vacuum) speed of light, it's impossible.
  2. To be clear... by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Informative

    We've known about gamma ray bursts for a long time. It's just that now we know how fast the matter is moving that causes these bursts.

    1. Re:To be clear... by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Didn't we already know about superluminal motion (which turns out to be near-speed-of-light motion, viewed oddly), active galactic nuclei, etc.? What's the new info, here or is it just confirmation of what we'd known before?

    2. Re:To be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have known that the speeds are about the speed of light for
      about a decade now. This is just the best measurement to
      date.

  3. 99.999% by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slackers.

    1. Re:99.999% by hkgroove · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, report back to us when your contrails are plaid.

    2. Re:99.999% by the+dark+hero · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's Ludicrous!

      --
      You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.

      Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies

    3. Re:99.999% by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had a friend playing Silent Hunter, it was a German one, and when he put the boat into full speed ahead, they were saying "Wahnsinnige fortfahr aus!" I really had to listen to it a few times just to be sure. Then I confidently told him that one of the possible translations of that was "ludicrous speed".

      He also got a kick out of "periscope" being literally "see-pipe" in German.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:99.999% by bvimo · · Score: 1

      What was German, Silent Hunter or your friend?

      --
      In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
    5. Re:99.999% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, also a possible translation of periscope is Seerohr (Seepipe), the technical term is "Periskop". No one really wonders, that it was invented by a German, Johannes Hevelius.

      "Wahnsinnige fortfahr aus" is worong in very aspect, BTW. It shoul perhas be "Alle Kraft voraus", which is (word by word) "all power ahead"

    6. Re:99.999% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is old news. I discovered this the day after my first Chipotle burrito.

    7. Re:99.999% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, "Wahnsinnige Fahrt voraus" is even faster than alle kraft / volle kraft voraus. compare to the Kapitänsleutnant in Das Boot, when they get hit by that destroyer. he actually demands 'drei mal wahnsinnige fahrt voraus', that is, three times mad speed ahead. something you only do in an emergency.

  4. I know what it is, I know what it is! by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:I know what it is, I know what it is! by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1, Informative
      It's the Planet Express ship [wikipedia.org]!

      No need to link to a description. This is /. we all know! lol I can't wait till the new season of Futurama starts. Bender is hilarious.

    2. Re:I know what it is, I know what it is! by saibot834 · · Score: 1

      Read what you link.

      Wikipedia says on the Planet Express Ship: "The ship is capable of travel faster than the current speed of light, after the speed of light was increased to allow faster travel"
      [...]
      "allowing the ship to go faster than the speed of light"

    3. Re:I know what it is, I know what it is! by joe+155 · · Score: 1

      although the ship doesn't actually move at all, it instead moves the universe around it. So it could probably appear to move faster than any given light speed.

      The engines were designed in a dream and where then forgotten in a different dream...

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    4. Re:I know what it is, I know what it is! by denominateur · · Score: 1

      what what what? a new season? really? i thought futurama was dead... thank you!

    5. Re:I know what it is, I know what it is! by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

      Nope they are currently in production now. After it appeared on Adult Swim it became a huge hit. DVD sales from my understanding where really good so they are actually bringing it back! Can't wait. BTW here is a MATT GROENING Interview

    6. Re:I know what it is, I know what it is! by Shinmizu · · Score: 1

      Bah! The Planet Express ship doesn't move! It moves the universe around itself, interestingly providing a definite reference point for physical phenomena... hmm.

  5. Question? by jrwr00 · · Score: 0

    I wonder, How long does it travel at that speed, does it hit other things (like planets and other stars) or what?

    1. Re:Question? by brunascle · · Score: 2, Informative
      TFA answers just that:

      but when it starts colliding with surrounding gas, it creates afterglows in visible and infrared light... [they measured] peaks of 153 and 180 seconds
      turns out, the times it takes to produce the afterglow is actually what they use to measure how fast it was moving.
  6. 99.999% Of the speed of light by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    will be snails pace when we get warp technology.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by Gentoon · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the star trek world, but not in Einsteins.

    2. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the star trek world, but not in Einsteins.

      The confirmation of general relativity doesn't prove that it works in all cases.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it was Einstein who created the world afterall, everyone knows that, so i think that if he wants to, his theories will stay correct.

    4. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to do with curvature of spacetime/general relativity. Rather, the principles on which relativity is based: causality/speed of light.

    5. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by tcc3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes and all the technology you used today was impossible right up to the point whenre somebody figured out how it wasnt.

      I hate it when Einstein is used as a muzzle for imagination and thinking outside the box. I think he would hate it too.

    6. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by Gentoon · · Score: 1

      This is a little different than people all "knowing" the earth was flat. This is all logic, the math works... So how will we be proven wrong?

    7. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by tcc3 · · Score: 1

      No, the math works for a particular model of how the universe works as we understand it. It may not be the whole truth. Look at how the evolution of atomic theory progressed. The model changed as our understanding of subatomic particles changed. The older models aren't wrong, just incomplete or at a higher layer of abstraction.

      I just think its bold to speak in absolutes in a subject we've barely begun to explore.

    8. Re:99.999% Of the speed of light by Gentoon · · Score: 1

      Yea I guess I can give you that, it's like how we "understood" the Junk DNA, and are now realizing it is not junk.

  7. What's the speed of force? by TheBearBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey guys, let's say you have a 500 foot pole out in space, far away from anything (no friction, nothing). you are on one end of the pole, and i on the other. Then i push the pole towards you. When does the other end of the pole move towards you, after MY END MOVES? is it instantaneous? or does it take .000000005 seconds of whatever. Like the atoms of the pole push each other on and on and so forth till it gets to the end. if it does take time, is it faster than light, or slower? what if the pole was 300,000,000 meters long? does it take about 1 second for u to notice the other end moves?

    1. Re:What's the speed of force? by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only way you'd get a superluminal effect is if you had a perfectly rigid pole (and, seeing as how this is Slashdot, I'm going to discount that possibility.)

      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    2. Re:What's the speed of force? by totallygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey guys, let's say you have a 500 foot pole out in space, far away from anything (no friction, nothing). you are on one end of the pole, and i on the other. Then i push the pole towards you. When does the other end of the pole move towards you, after MY END MOVES? is it instantaneous? or does it take .000000005 seconds of whatever. Like the atoms of the pole push each other on and on and so forth till it gets to the end. if it does take time, is it faster than light, or slower? what if the pole was 300,000,000 meters long? does it take about 1 second for u to notice the other end moves?



      Do not try to push the pole. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no pole. Then you'll see, it is not the pole that is pushed, it is only yourself.


    3. Re:What's the speed of force? by sk8king · · Score: 1

      I have often had the same thought, except in my mental experiment, there is a rope instead of a pole.

    4. Re:What's the speed of force? by brunascle · · Score: 1

      well now you've got me wondering. i know it's not instantaneous, but i cant figure out the physics of it. someone please answer this or it'll bother me all day.

    5. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Inter atomic and magnetic interactions are goverened by the electromagnetic forces between electron shells. All fluctuations of the electromagnetic field propagate at the speed of light.

    6. Re:What's the speed of force? by mashade · · Score: 1

      I imagine this depends on the material the pole is made of. You could technically make a pole out of jello, though it wouldn't be very useful. (except maybe for dancers...)

      Probably, this would be a function of the density and hardness of the material the pole was made of. What you are getting at is interesting though -- and is essentially the way sound moves, pushing air molecules into each other until the wave of that sound reaches you.

      --
      Technology tips and tricks.
    7. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that this person might know.

    8. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speed at which the push propagates is the speed of sound in the medium.

    9. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not try to push the pole. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no pole. Then you'll see, it is not the pole that is pushed, it is only yourself.

      Woah!

    10. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I think you model the rigidity of the pole by the electromagnetic forces of the atoms.

      It's not at the speed of light; It's less. I don't know how much less.

      It doesn't take a full second for a 500 hundred foot pole to wiggle at the other end.

      But make it 500 hundred light years long, and, assuming you have the strength to push such an enormous mass, it's going to take you at least 500 hundred years for the other end to "wiggle."

    11. Re:What's the speed of force? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Im fairly sure physical movement moves at the speed of sound through that medium. Since sound waves are small compressions of the material it actually the same speed that the movement would be transmitted at.

    12. Re:What's the speed of force? by Barterer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "speed of force" as you put it, is not really a speed inherent to force. You would be measuring how fast a tensile or compressive wave passes through the pole, same as the speed of sound through it. It would be much slower than the speed of light.

    13. Re:What's the speed of force? by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Your shove on the pole would travel down it's length as a compression wave. I'm not sure but I suspect the the wave would travel at the speed of sound in whatever your pole was made from (if it was steel @ 4500 m/s it would take 1,111.1 hours for the compression wave to travel 3,000,000 meters)

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    14. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a consequence of the theory of relativity, it is impossible for a material to be perfectly rigid. The intermolecular forces between the molecules of the chain (mostly electromagnetic) will cause a "chain reaction" that propagates the force at sub-light speed.

    15. Re:What's the speed of force? by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 3, Informative

      I asked this question in a physics class and the answer I got, which makes quite a bit of sense, is that force travels through a material at the speed of sound. So if in your example your 500 foot pole was made of steel, the opposite end starts moving roughly 30 milliseconds after you push the near end. (The speed of sound in steel is very roughly 5000 meters/sec.)

    16. Re:What's the speed of force? by wanerious · · Score: 1

      In physics, we usually model the atoms in the solid pole as connected by stiff springs. The speed of communication of a force between one end and the other would depend on the stiffness of the springs (or, realistically, on the rigidity of the material the pole is made of). This is usually defined to be the speed of sound in the material, and it is typically much, much less than the speed of light.

    17. Re:What's the speed of force? by flyingfsck · · Score: 0, Troll

      The force will propagate at the speed of sound in metal, which is about 200,000km/s or 2/3 the speed of light typically.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    18. Re:What's the speed of force? by Cadallin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wow, I was hoping that there would already be an explanation answering this, but here you go: The speed of "force" as you put it, is actually quite slow. It's a actually the speed of sound through the object. Why? Because when you push the rod, you're bumping the molecules, they have to push the molecules in front of them, and on until you reach the end. This is actually a sound wave propagating the medium, you just usually can't hear it. Now, if you had a perfectly rigid pole (cue penis jokes here) it would seeming move instantly. However, no known substance is anywhere close to perfectly rigid. Even atomic nuclei, which are, far, far more rigid than bulk matter, behave like drops of fluid and can have waves propagate through them. So no, you can't forge a pole to another planet and communicate instantly, it would be hugely slower than normal radio.

    19. Re:What's the speed of force? by lelitsch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Way before you run into any relativistic effects--or even the speed of sound inside the pole--basic 17 century Newtonian physics will make the process less than instantaneous.

      Also, thanks to Newton's Third Law, space is like Soviet Russia: In space, the pole pushes you.

    20. Re:What's the speed of force? by EMeta · · Score: 1
      To oversimplify: Most solid matter has some stiffness. You know, like springs' K. Even the most brittle objects bend a bit. (Glass, say, has an extremely large stiffness.) Now model your rod like a system of two balls connected by a spring. [ O--VVV--O ] If you push one end (then stop), the other end will move, and eventually return to the same equilibrium (given no other forces applied). the time it takes to propagate the force, as you can probably now see, is determined by the spring's stiffness (& damping, etc., but mostly stiffness for your rod in question). Relativity might do some funky stuff to its rate, if you pushed it really fast, but it can still be well modeled by a suficiently long chain of above diagram.

      Ahh, the sadness of upper level Mechanical Engineering: rigid bodies are a fable.

    21. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming that the pole does move at the speed of sound or close to it, how do we even know what the speed of sound is in the environment where this pole is in the emptiness of space? All of our measurements for the speed of sound have been taken on earth where there are external forces that influence it.

    22. Re:What's the speed of force? by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd expect the physical force would travel along the pole at it's local speed of sound in the material that the pole is made of. The pole's molecules have some space between them and are attracted to one another such that you have a solid. Therefore, pushing on one part of the pole will slightly compress the pole's material until the newly repositioned molecules bump into their neighbors and cause the motion to be propagated. If you try to accelerate the pole too quickly (faster than its local speed of sound) a shock wave will develop instead. Assuming your pole is iron and 300,000,000 meters long, the time would be 300,000,000 / 5130 seconds (speed of sound in iron is 5130 m/s), or 58479.532 seconds (16.244 hours). Actually, a pole that long would act more like a wire and flex all over the place - your push would probably act like a wave instead (just like if you whipped a rope). A 500 foot pole would be about the same, just faster due to shorter length. 500 feet is 152.4 meters, so the time would be 152.4 / 5130 seconds, or 297.08 ms. You would not notice the far end move for about 1/3 second. Simple physics at work here!

    23. Re:What's the speed of force? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      As the other poster said, the only way the transmission of force would be instantaneous would be if the pole were perfectly rigid. However, that's not really possible.

      The best way to think about it would be to look at your pole as a series of springs and masses attached end-to-end. It will take time for the wave from your energy input on one end to propagate through and reach the other end. And since it consists of moving masses, that wave cannot travel as fast as the speed of light.

      At least, that's my understanding...

    24. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electromagnetic field may be "updated" at the speed of light, but it takes some time for the next atom in the bar to react to the change (i.e. to integrate the acceleration into a displacement).

    25. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know you're joking, but even a perfectly rigid pole would be subject to the propagation of forces. Think about what forces have to propagate in order to tell the other end of the pole to move. One atom has to repel the next atom using electromagnetic force, weak and strong nuclear forces, which has to in turn repel the next atom, etc, etc. There is an elastic repulsive process which goes all the way down the pole until it reaches the other end. And we know the fastest that this can happen is the speed of light. So the pole will be momentarily compressed as the force propagates.

      No information can travel faster than the speed of light, as a general rule.

    26. Re:What's the speed of force? by magarity · · Score: 1

      The speed of sound in steel is very roughly 5000 meters/sec
       
      So if you fire said steel pole out of a rail gun with a 10,000m/sec muzzle velocity the pole would come out -500 feet long?

    27. Re:What's the speed of force? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure there are plenty of ridged poles around. Just very few of them are used.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    28. Re:What's the speed of force? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      I have often had the same thought, except in my mental experiment, there is a rope instead of a pole.

      In your mental experiment, you're pushing a rope?

    29. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh my god
      slashdot you're killing me!

    30. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your mental experiment, you're pushing a rope?

      He meant pulling a rope. But he did not mention "pulling a rope" in order to avoid the rabid attack of slashdotters making the predictable jokes about rope pulling.

      What do I mean? "Pulling YOUR rope or someone else's?!" Or perhaps, "You'll never get anything done, light speed or not, if you just sit around pulling your rope!" Or maybe, "So you say somehting happens really fast when your ropeis pulled?"
    31. Re:What's the speed of force? by gatkinso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> is it instantaneous

      No. Imagine a train at rest. The engineer decided to back up. Boom boom boom go all the cars in sequence as the slack between them is eliminated by the cars compressing together. Finally, the caboose moves. Same deal with matter, but on a much smaller and faster scale, involving molecules and atoms.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    32. Re:What's the speed of force? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you're saying essentially is that there's no such thing as a perfectly rigid pole.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    33. Re:What's the speed of force? by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Only if all the force of the rail gun is applied to only the back end of the pole. If the force is applied equally to the entire pole at once, there shold be no distortion.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    34. Re:What's the speed of force? by ArtuRocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      And which fundamental law of the universe is the one that dictates good use of a rigid pole requires more than one entity?

    35. Re:What's the speed of force? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      So if you fire said steel pole out of a rail gun with a 10,000m/sec muzzle velocity the pole would come out -500 feet long?


      I'm pretty sure the entire object has to be accelerated before it can leave the muzzle.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    36. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, no. Speed of sound in steel is approx.
      4500 meters/second.

    37. Re:What's the speed of force? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think he's just yankin' your chain.

    38. Re:What's the speed of force? by tbfee · · Score: 1

      Let's say it's a series of tubes, not a single 500 foot pole (and not a big truck). If I try to send an internet through the tubes, is it instantaneous, or does it get stuck behind the enormous amounts of other material?

      --
      It's not the heat, it's the futility.
    39. Re:What's the speed of force? by alzoron · · Score: 2, Informative

      The steel pole isn't going to have a constant compression rate. As the pole is compressed more and more its density increases thus changing the speed of sound through it. Both ends of the pole would likely "catch up" with each other before we experienced any major space-time paradoxes that destroyed the universe as we know it.

    40. Re:What's the speed of force? by a_ghostwheel · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that shooting steel pole from a rail gun is equivalent to pushing one end of it. Most likely it is not. However if for the sake of discussion we'll assume that you just bumping something into the generic steel pole at the speed of 10km/s, I highly doubt we will be talking about elastic deformations at this point - thus same model of compressed wave propagation will no longer apply.

    41. Re:What's the speed of force? by whimmel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Woah! I can see why this hasn't been modded up yet. Too much emotion in your impression. Whoa.
      --
      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    42. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I push air on one side of the room, how long after does the air move where you are standing at the other end?

      Answer: it depends on the speed of sound in air.

      The answer to your question is the same, and it depends on the composition of the material making up the rod. At the scale that we normally interact with objects, the propagation speed for solids only looks instantaneous. In reality, it is quite slow compared to light. Even fairly rigid materials only have compressive propagation speeds of a few kilometres per second. Even if you were to make an inanimate carbon rod consisting of diamond (one of the fastest materials), the velocity would be only 12km/s. That's pretty slow compared to the speed of light (~300 000km/s).

      For your 300 000 000 metre example, the light would be at the other end in about 1 second. If the rod was made of steel (about 5000m/s), it would move over 16 hours later ((300 000 000m / 5000m/s) / 3600s/hr) .

      Somebody correct me if I messed that up.

    43. Re:What's the speed of force? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Um, what? The speed of sound inside the pole, not that of the surroundings.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    44. Re:What's the speed of force? by Hugonz · · Score: 1

      The speed of any interaction is slower that the constant c (speed of light in the vacuum) This is one of the consequences of General Relativity.

      Is the sun exploded right now, that earth would start drifting into space ONLY after about eight minutes, which is the time it takes to the sunlight to reach us.

    45. Re:What's the speed of force? by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      Since the pole would be made of some type of matter, the time it took the person on the other end of the pole to notice that you had pushed it would be the length of the pole divided by the wave velocity of the material.

      Force (in the traditional sense, as we're taking here) is passed by compression waves within the pole; this "information" travels down the pole in the form of compression waves, the velocity of which depends on the material you're using. A steel tube, for example, has a very high speed compared to air (note that this applies to solides, liquids and gases equally). Try this. Stand some distance apart from a friend with a steel tube (like the top of a fence or something) and put your ear against the tube. Have your friend bang the tube with a hammer. You'll hear the sound through the tube before you hear it through the air, but its still limit to the speed of compression.

      As someone else replied, you would need a perfectly rigid body to trasmit signals in this way faster than light; however A) no such material is known to man and B) I am convinced some other force would intervene, preventing this case from occuring even if you could design a "perfectly rigid" material.

      Aikon-

    46. Re:What's the speed of force? by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Hey guys, let's say you have a 500 foot pole out in space, far away from anything (no friction, nothing). you are on one end of the pole, and i on the other. Then i push the pole towards you. When does the other end of the pole move towards you, after MY END MOVES? is it instantaneous? or does it take .000000005 seconds of whatever. Like the atoms of the pole push each other on and on and so forth till it gets to the end. if it does take time, is it faster than light, or slower? what if the pole was 300,000,000 meters long? does it take about 1 second for u to notice the other end moves?

      Do not try to push the pole. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no pole. Then you'll see, it is not the pole that is pushed, it is only yourself.
      Are universe is infinitely small when viewed outside of it. Is it even mathematically possible to have something that's infinitely small on the outside and infinitely large on the inside? Could that explain quantum entanglement?
    47. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have often had the same thought, except in my experiment, I am pulling my pole instead of pushing it.

      Oh wait, what were we talking about?

    48. Re:What's the speed of force? by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      uh, no. Speed of sound in steel is approx. 4500 meters/second. Which is

      much, much less than the speed of light. I'm not sure why you are contradicting the fact that 4500 299,792,458.
      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
    49. Re:What's the speed of force? by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      It would seem that /. ate my less than sign, which was supposed to live between 4500 and 299,792,458.

      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
    50. Re:What's the speed of force? by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      Damnit. My apologies. It had hidden the post you replied to. Sorry to gripe at you for nothing.

      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
    51. Re:What's the speed of force? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      No because it wouldn't accelerate that quickly.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    52. Re:What's the speed of force? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Hey guys, let's say you have a 500 foot pole out in space, far away from anything (no friction, nothing). you are on one end of the pole, and i on the other. Then i push the pole towards you. When does the other end of the pole move towards you, after MY END MOVES? is it instantaneous? or does it take .000000005 seconds of whatever. Like the atoms of the pole push each other on and on and so forth till it gets to the end. if it does take time, is it faster than light, or slower? what if the pole was 300,000,000 meters long? does it take about 1 second for u to notice the other end moves?

      Is than in Standard or Pacific time?

      Anyhow, assuming I get what your asking, it would generally be at the rate of the sonic velocity of the material your pole is made out of. One rudementary way to find this is to smack it with something and find its resonate frequency.
      Something tells me you have experience in this smacking of your poll already.
      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    53. Re:What's the speed of force? by Wookietim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know what the universe looks like when viewed outside of it?

      --
      http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
    54. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, given Newton's third law of motion, aren't you pushing the pole while the pole is pushing you?

    55. Re:What's the speed of force? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      I believe you are mistaken - given the effect of porn on the internet, the number of ridgid poles is unbounded.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    56. Re:What's the speed of force? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      ...good question. You could just wave your pole around in the air and you'd still be using it. GP never said it had to be a "good use". Though, I guess if I were to try to determine the usefulness of an object, I would have to determine if it did any amount of work.

      Ask yourself if the pole created something...
      Also, ask yourself if the pole expended energy to produce said item...

      I said ask yourself, don't tell us!

      To the original question, I guess it would depend on the electrical field surrounding the atoms of the pole. How strong are these fields and do they repel each other with more force than your capable of pushing?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    57. Re:What's the speed of force? by buraianto · · Score: 1

      The other problem you have is in communicating from one to the other that the force has been received at the other end. That involves relativity, too.

    58. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe this "speed of energy propagation" is exactly equivalent to "the speed of sound in your medium".

      if your pole's wood, push, and I'll feel the force after it's traveled at "the speed of sound in wood." etc. etc.

      my $.02

    59. Re:What's the speed of force? by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      What if what you were pushing wasn't really anything at all, just a figment of your imagination. So when you thought that you pushed it, how long would it take the person on the other end to realize that you were crazy?

      But then I wonder if that should be measured in time or in number of "attempts"? Now there is something to think about.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    60. Re:What's the speed of force? by mikewolf · · Score: 1

      um, you are in zero-g space, if you push the pole, you will move backwards, the pole won't move... now if you propelled yourself forward holding the pole, that would be different.

    61. Re:What's the speed of force? by Dipsomaniac · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now that John Holmes is dead, anyway.

    62. Re:What's the speed of force? by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      It depends if the universe has a net neutrality policy.

    63. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of the coulomb (electromagnetic) force, it's mediated by virtual photons. Take a guess how fast they travel.

    64. Re:What's the speed of force? by will.perdikakis · · Score: 0

      The pole itself would deform since it could not possibly be perfectly rigid. Assume the force was directly exactly into the center of mass of the pole (i.e. 0 units of torque), there would be a traverse wave created by compressing the bonds in the material that make up the pole. I would think that the velocity of that wave would be similar to the compression wave velocity acoustic properties of the material. If you assume the pole is perfectly rigid, then you assume that the force applied at the end of the pole would propagate instanteously throughout (i.e. Infinite speed).

      Another assumption that has to be made is the mass of the pole. A huge pole would be so massive that the impulse you applied on it would force you back in such a way that it would seem like you were doing a push-up. Something that massive would behave like a fixed object in space. For example, how much does the Earth accelerate towards you when you jump off a desk?

      --
      -Will P.
    65. Re:What's the speed of force? by no1nose · · Score: 1

      That's a good analogy. The atoms probably transmit the "information" to move in a wave when the pole is that long. There would probably be inertia and a lot of mass involved, unless the rod was very thin. So, I am guessing that the rod would either be too heavy to move, or it would "scrunch-up" when pushed from one direction. Got me thinking about portals and wormholes. It would be cool to build a really big/powerful engine in a warehouse and place a wormhole/portal on the driveshaft end. Then put the output wormhole/portal under the hood of my car and connect the driveshaft to my transmission. It would reduce the weight of my car by locating the engine in a garage far, far away.

    66. Re:What's the speed of force? by Kurt+Granroth · · Score: 1

      That's a great answer and makes perfect sense. You say that "no known substance is anywhere close to perfectly rigid"... but does that necessarily mean that there isn't such a thing? Is it even theoretically possible that there is such a material and we just haven't discovered it?

      I ask that because if there is, then it seems that that allows for the possibility of faster than light information traversal after all.

      Or maybe the logic goes like so:

      1. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light
      2. A perfectly rigid substance would allow information to travel faster than light
      3. Therefore, it is physically impossible for a perfectly rigid substance to exist in our universe

      Does that sound about right?

    67. Re:What's the speed of force? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I've seen a few rigid poles, but I don't think any of them would qualify as "perfectly" rigid...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    68. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will this explanation hold true if more than the 4 dimensions are determined to physically exist? Or, if the Time-Space threshold is found not to be 'static'?

      (by static I mean not physically constrained; i.e.... speed of light)

    69. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously, it's 0.99999*c^(-2).

    70. Re:What's the speed of force? by asninn · · Score: 1

      You'd need a perfectly rigid pole for that - and in fact, the fact that (classical) information cannot travel faster than light therefore proves that no perfectly rigid pole can exist. (I remember this thought experiment from highschool...)

      --
      butter the donkey
    71. Re: What's the speed of force? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Hey guys, let's say you have a 500 foot pole out in space, far away from anything (no friction, nothing). you are on one end of the pole, and i on the other. Then i push the pole towards you. Too bad Freud didn't live long enough to hear that one.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    72. Re:What's the speed of force? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      The motion will propagate down the pole at the speed of sound in the material.

      Yes, this means relativity rules out infinitely-rigid materials.

    73. Re:What's the speed of force? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      All you need to do is mention 'Natalie Portman'

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    74. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it even theoretically possible that there is such a material and we just haven't discovered it? Anything is technically possible, but for such a material to exist it would completely destroy our understanding matter.
    75. Re:What's the speed of force? by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      I don't think it actually would. I really meant to say that it would seem to allow for faster than light information transfer. Your second logical analysis is what I think is probably true. Such a substance wouldn't just need to be perfectly rigid, it would have to be infinitely strong as well, to resist shearing stresses, which would be infinite at the speed of light (to make matters worse, mass at the speed of light becomes infinitely large, so you've got infinitely strong gravity of the object itself to contend with.) That sounds pretty implausible to me for such a thing to exist. But like any decent scientific thinker, I know that I could be shown to be incorrect.

    76. Re:What's the speed of force? by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      The meaning in your post is infinitely small when viewed from outside your head. Could that explain why you are getting all metaphysical on us?

      Sorry, please take that as a friendly jab. I'm sure your question had some valid meaning, but I could not deduce it from your post (and maybe it's just me that didn't get it).

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    77. Re:What's the speed of force? by genner · · Score: 1

      Polish people aren't that rigid.
      Their a very laid back people.

    78. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh....rigid pole...I just got that

    79. Re:What's the speed of force? by Shadowruni · · Score: 0

      Actually, if the sun exploded right now, we'd have about 8 minutes before a level N shockwave destroyed most everything in the star system. Damn trilithium and crazy El-oreans.

      --
      "Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet
    80. Re:What's the speed of force? by jcgam69 · · Score: 1

      You say that "no known substance is anywhere close to perfectly rigid"... but does that necessarily mean that there isn't such a thing? Is it even theoretically possible that there is such a material and we just haven't discovered it? A neutron star is probably the most rigid object in the universe since it is the result of a collapsed star. From the article:

      A neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon of its material would weigh 100 million metric tons.
    81. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The action travels through the pole at the speed of sound in that material. So of you have an unobtanium pole 500 feet long and the speed of sound in unobtanium is 500 feet per second, then the other end of the pole would move one second later.

    82. Re:What's the speed of force? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Hey guys, let's say you have a 500 foot pole out in space, far away from anything (no friction, nothing). you are on one end of the pole, and i on the other. Then i push the pole towards you. When does the other end of the pole move towards you, after MY END MOVES? is it instantaneous? or does it take .000000005 seconds of whatever. Like the atoms of the pole push each other on and on and so forth till it gets to the end. if it does take time, is it faster than light, or slower? what if the pole was 300,000,000 meters long? does it take about 1 second for u to notice the other end moves? Because you neglected to provide a hypothetical place for yourself to stand in this example, and a 500 foot pole likely masses far more than you do, you ended up just pushing yourself away from the pole, off to die alone, tumbling, in the unforgiving vastness of space.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    83. Re:What's the speed of force? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Like the atoms of the pole push each other on and on and so forth till it gets to the end. if it does take time, is it faster than light, or slower? what if the pole was 300,000,000 meters long? does it take about 1 second for u to notice the other end moves?

      Things seem rigid because of the electromagnetic force. This force is conveyed by photons. Photons move at the speed of light. Therefore, if you had a very long rod and pushed one end, the other end could not possibly start to move sooner than a photon could have travelled from one end to the other.

      This exact question was asked when I attended a lecture by David Greene. Unfortunately, the questioner used the word "string" instead of "rod," Dr. Greene got confused and thought he meant something about string theory, and didn't answer the question correctly. But yes. The force is conveyed from one end of the rod to the other no faster than the speed of light.

    84. Re:What's the speed of force? by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      This actually can't be solved, it eventually forms a paradox, which I call "The Atomic Paradox". But not atoms in the technical sense, but atoms as things without parts.
      If an atom doesn't have parts (which is what the word means), it has to move uniformly, meaning that it has to move instantaneously.
      If it does have parts, it isn't an atom. It then has to be made up of smaller parts. Which are then the "real" atoms.
      Of course, if you take atom literally, it can have no parts, not even different sides, or a center and a radius, because those would be parts. All atoms would have to be point particles.
      And yet, if atoms are point particles, they can't interact with each other, because they would never be able to interact with each other.
      There is no way around this paradox that I know of.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    85. Re:What's the speed of force? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Mass does not change with speed. I'm not sure where this idea got started, nor why there are still universities that teach this to undergrads (it's as bad as saying "force of inertia": just nonsense). It's all about time dilation.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    86. Re:What's the speed of force? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Ridged? Like a more uncomfortable version of "ribbed for her pleasure?"

    87. Re:What's the speed of force? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The core of a neutron star may be degenerate neutron matter, which may be "super-rigid" (the opposite of superfluid). But it seems likely that most of a neutron star would be superfluid, making it the least rigid object in the universe.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    88. Re:What's the speed of force? by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      I'm not dead!

      ---John Holmes...

    89. Re:What's the speed of force? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      The force would move through the object at the speed of sound in that object, if I'm not mistaken.

      Yes, atoms have to push on each other until it gets to the end.

    90. Re:What's the speed of force? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      From Voltaire's "Worf's Revenge":

      I'm not a lowly white p'tak like that Barclay guy
      I don't need a holodeck to get a parma'kai
      When the ladies see the beast I got between my thighs
      They say "Perhaps today is a good day to die"
      I hit Ezri ,Troi, Jadzia too
      Watch out Janeway I'm coming for you
      Cause I'm the MacDad Klingon with the humaniod bitches
      My head ain't the only part of me that's got ridges

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    91. Re:What's the speed of force? by loudawg · · Score: 1

      Ok, this prompted the mandatory... In Soviet Russia, pole pushes you!

    92. Re:What's the speed of force? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      You're asking the wrong question. Light (and information) can go faster than c. Matter can not. "The speed of light" is really "the speed of light in a vacuum". There have already been a ton of experiments in which the speed of light in matter exceeded the speed of light in a vacuum. That's old news. The real limitation is on how dense something can be and still remain intact.

      It is possible that, prior to the big bang, the universe was a perfectly rigid substance. As soon as the universe realized this, it corrected the situation. IAMNAQP, but I'd imagine that a black hole is what you get when matter tries to become perfectly rigid/dense. Perfect rigidity requires perfect density. There can not be room for matter to compress in such a substance.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    93. Re:What's the speed of force? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Sorry, bad answer on my part. Obviously I'm not a physicist. Information, it appears, like energy and matter can not go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. I still don't understand how light being able to go faster != information being able to go faster, but I'll accept it for now. The speed of light or the speed of sound in a particular medium may be slower or faster than the other, and the speed of light in a medium can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. It now appears that the speed of sound in a medium can indeed exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

      Feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    94. Re:What's the speed of force? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So if you fire said steel pole out of a rail gun with a 10,000m/sec muzzle velocity the pole would come out -500 feet long?

      No, you'd be trying to create a paradox. But the Universe would resolve this by having all matter explode into quarks travelling at the speed of light just before you pressed the fire button.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    95. Re:What's the speed of force? by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      Even at truly relativistic speeds? By which I mean asymptotic approach of the speed of light? I just looked up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Re lativistic_mass article on Wikipedia, and it does reinforce what you are saying, and I apologize for my error. In defense of my University, I'm fairly certain that the things I said are what I gleaned from my own independent studies, rather than things taught to me by Physics professor, who was a very sound, very rational nuclear physics Ph.D. that I respect very much.

      I glean from the Wikipedia article that that what changes is the apparent mass as seen by an outside observer in an independent reference frame. So this change is not apparent to an observer in the same reference frame as the relativistic object? Also does this apparent change in mass change the force required to accelerate the object further? I'm sorry, I merely wish to understand correctly to the best of my ability.

    96. Re:What's the speed of force? by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Also, my explanation of why you can't communicate faster than light by moving a rod between to locations is correct, is it not?

    97. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a reasonable push the force and displacement wave propagates at the speed of sound (that is, speed of sound within pole's material). If it's a steel pole that speed is 5.1 km/s (pretty fast but way way slower than the speed of light).

    98. Re:What's the speed of force? by Fyz · · Score: 1

      It would take at least one second for your friend at the other side of the pole to register the movement

      If your pole is made of conventional matter, the force you exert on it would on a microscopic scale be a pressure wave of electrons repulsing electrons all the way through your pole at close, but not quite, the speed of light.

    99. Re:What's the speed of force? by Fyz · · Score: 1

      I would submit that rigidity is a ideal construct that doesn't apply to physics at all, except in the cases where it simplifies equations.

      Just like particles don't really exist, but are simply(or maybe not so simply) expressions of the underlying quantum fields.

    100. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah crap. There go my holiday plans.

    101. Re:What's the speed of force? by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

      The whole "exceed the speed of light" thing is just an apparent effect.

      You can create a harmonic wave using lower frequency "true" waves that appear to propigate faster than the speed of light, but they are essentially like the thought experiment of the laser beam that is waved around in the air. The beam of the laser shined on a distant planet may appear to move faster than C, but there is not actually anything that is actually exceeding C. There is only the appearance.

      Stew

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    102. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should work on your technique?

    103. Re:What's the speed of force? by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      "When does the other end of the pole move towards you, after MY END MOVES? "

      It is best not to be overly concerned about such things when making love. I really can't help you anyway since I'm not into bears, bear bears or even bare bears. Otters, maybe.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    104. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While my pole may or may not be rigid (that's none of your business! :P) I can assure you that much to my wife's disappointment it is not ridged...

    105. Re:What's the speed of force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      force is constrained to the speed of light just like everything else. Wiggle a 1 ly pole, the far end will wiggle a year from now (minimum) - and actually I'd wager that the speed of transference of force through solid matter is probably related to the speed of sound in that material - they both are really, microscopically, definitions of limits of molecular motion before a collision occurs

    106. Re:What's the speed of force? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'm behind in my /. reading, but this is an interesting question...so I'll bite.

      It depends on the material, but even a marble shaft will compress (ever so slightly) when you push it. This is how sound waves move through solid rock. To determine the quickest reaction that the other end will see your push, all you have to do is look up the mach speed for the material in question.

      The question you pose is actually a very important one when engineering very large structures. If you have two forces working on the opposite ends of a long beam, how will they interact through the beam? Can't answer the question until you know how quickly the beam will transmit the force.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    107. Re:What's the speed of force? by lgw · · Score: 1

      F = ma, or d(mv) = F dt

      As you approach the speed of light this seems to stop being true - what gives? The simple (but wholly incorrect) answer is "relativistic mass". If the mass increased then the same force, same change in momentum, would produce less change in velocity. However, there's another answer: if the time over which the force was applied, as measured in your "stationary" reference frame, was not the same as the time over which the force was applied as measured in the rapidly moving object's reference frame, the "dt" might be much less than Newton would predict.

      Either answer, greater mass or "slower" time, works if all you care about is "F = ma". However, kinetic energy is proportional to mv^2. You have to square the multiplier that accounts for the effects of "relativistic velocity" on momentum when calculating kinetic energy. The effects of relativity follow the "t^2" term, not the "m" term. Here the idea of "relativistic mass" just falls flat: it gives entirely the wrong answer. Objects moving near the speed of light have far more kinetic energy than "relativistic mass" would predict, but exactly the kinetic energy that time dilation would predict.

      And of course that's just the simplest answer, the idea of "relativistic mass" fails in many other measurable ways. The other thing to keep in mind is that a space ship that traveled from here to Alpha Centauri at a constant 1g acceleration (flipping over midway) would have a travel time, as measured by the passengers, of exactly what Newton would predict. It doesn't take all that long at 1g acceleration (approx c/year) for relativity to matter, but you could still travel many thousands of light years in your lifetime--of course, if you returned to Earth, many thousands of years will have passed.

      So, short answer, if you could observe the clock ticking on the fast-moving object, changes in both momentum and kinetic energy (as measured in your reference frame) from an applied force are just what you would expect based on the slowed passage of time (as measured in your reference frame) of that fast-moving object.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  8. Once again they got it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    From the article:

    "The speed can be translated into something called a Lorentz factor, a number that describes how much time slows down for objects moving close to the speed of light.?"

    Let it be clear, time does not slow down for the object. Time, if there even is such a thing, rolls along as it always rolls along for the object. It's just that for most of the rest of the universe (which is more sedentary compared to that of the object), time speeds up.

    1. Re:Once again they got it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There, sir, is such thing as time, and you have just wasted all of ours.

    2. Re:Once again they got it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you have just wasted all of ours. So I take it you don't have time to go with me for a quick lunch?
    3. Re:Once again they got it wrong by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      "It's just that for most of the rest of the universe (which is more sedentary compared to that of the object), time speeds up."

      not according to the theory of general relativity it doesn't.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  9. That explains it! by navygeek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The fastest flows of matter in the universe shoot out of dying stars at more than 99.999% the speed of light And since we know that mass increases as something approaches the speed of light, I suppose this explains why so many of the FORMER (read: career death) stars of American Idol have put on so much weight!
    1. Re:That explains it! by navygeek · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters any more, but I wonder what jackass modded the parent as 'Redundant'. Pretty sure this was a unique comment. Idiot...

  10. Speeding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "mcgrew writes to mention New Scientist is reporting that scientists have clocked matter traveling at 99.999% the speed of light"

    I hope someone pulled it over for speeding? Wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.

  11. Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are theories that light has the same properties as particles. So if light moves "at the speed of light", then it stands to reason other particles could as well.

    1. Re:Light is particles... by brunascle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      yes, light is particles, called photons. they are massless, which is what i believe allows them to move at the speed of light. and they always move at the speed of light too. i believe, in order to move at the speed of light, you must have always been, and always will, move at the speed of light. at light speed, time doesnt move, so you cant get out of light speed because that would require time to do so. i think it works the other way too.

    2. Re:Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, it moves at the speed of light because that's what it is. Also, what the hell do you mean time doesn't move? If time didn't move then the light couldn't move it would be frozen in place. Since we can see light travel from point A to point B we know it moves. Ergo time does move when travelling at the speed of light.

    3. Re:Light is particles... by brunascle · · Score: 1

      time does move when travelling at the speed of light.
      no, it doesnt. read up on special relativity.
    4. Re:Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong!

      The difference is that light (photons) has no mass. Particles with mass cannot travel at the speed of light.

    5. Re:Light is particles... by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, and believe you me I am no damn physicst (can't even spell it), a photon has no "resting mass", but does have momentum, which implies that there is an upper limit to is mass which cannot be zero.

      WTF does that mean? Dunno. OK screw that. No more Wiki for me.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    6. Re:Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      light can slow down greatly when passing through matter though. They have materials where lasers are slowed down to dozens of km/h through them.

    7. Re:Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll tell you what just reached the speed of light. The particles of my former brain, after it exploded from reading your post.

    8. Re:Light is particles... by GrayCalx · · Score: 1

      Like the other replier said, at light speed there is still time. If you were to travel the speed of light, you'd still notice/experience the passing of time, its just the experience of time relative to some one else, or more specifically someone not in your reference frame, thus relativity.

      Also, light can be slowed down depending on what medium its passing through. And I would hazard a guess that the commonly used term "speed of light" or c, is based on the speed of a light photon in a vacuum, and that light here on earth would travel slower than c through the air. I'm not sure though, so don't quote me.

    9. Re:Light is particles... by brunascle · · Score: 1

      no you wouldnt. at the speed of light time stands still. outside of your reference frame, yes, time would still exist but you could not experience it because that would require time. you'd be completely still, unable to move. the universe would pass by instantaneously.

      yeah, i forgot light changes speed in some mediums. not sure how that fits in to relativity though.

    10. Re:Light is particles... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      No mass, but mass-like qualities.

      For example, those little thingies with the black and white paddles in them that look like light bulbs from middle school science class work on the idea that photons transfer and take momentum from stuff they interact with. Momentum is a quality very closely tied with mass.

      Likewise, photons are affected by gravitational fields. Having gravity and being affected by it are also qualities very tightly bound with mass.

      So, you sort of need to define how you mean "mass" before claiming photons don't have it. No mass in "high school physics" sense, but sure has some mass when you are talking about cosmological stuff or high-energy physics. Indeed, you can really only say "mass: having mass like qualities X, Y and Z" and photons have some of them. So either a grid to define mass with check boxes, or make up some nomenclature Mass: x',y',z" where 1 tick means has, two has not.

    11. Re:Light is particles... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what if by moving the speed of light, matter becomes light? If matter could accelerate to the speed of light, I would think that it would collide with other matter, exploding, expelling energy in the form of light. Hitting an object at that speed would cause it to slow and scatter, but at a slower speed exponentially until it came to rest. However, light bouncing off "stalled matter" would reflect at such speeds leaving behind a trail of energy from the collision (heat). It would also explain to me how shadows work. The question I always had using that principle is: could two particles of light/matter hit or near-miss (close orbit/slingshot) each other in such a way that it would accelerate them beyond light speed? I go back to the thought that if light was matter, it would build up over time. Matter (Light particles at sub-light) would be attracted to other light particles and form orbits and collections. (Planets, moons, matter as we know it...)

      ...too much thought for one day.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    12. Re:Light is particles... by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      When the light is moving, it moves at the speed of light. Materials which slow light down (pretty much anything light passes through to some degree) do so by absorbing the light then re-emitting it in the direction (approximately) it was going. The time it takes to do so is what changes the lights apparent speed, and is why denser materials slow light down more. It has to stop and restart more times. At least, that is the high school physics explanation I remember.

      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
    13. Re:Light is particles... by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Photons always travel at c. It's just that anywhere except in a vacuum, they bump into atoms, get absorbed, and reemitted shortly after. Macroscopically, light slows down through objects, but the photons themselves always travel at c.

    14. Re:Light is particles... by nweis · · Score: 1

      yes, light is particles, called photons. ... and they always move at the speed of light too. Light always moves at the speed of light in the same way that my car always moves at the speed of my car. However fast my car is going, that's its speed. A common misconception is that light always travels at a particular speed: the constant c (roughly 300,000,000 m/s). The truth is that the speed of light varies depending upon the medium through which it is traveling. c is the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum. Light can be slowed down, stopped, or maybe even sped up (in light of recent experiments [no pun intended]) by sending it through different media.
    15. Re:Light is particles... by GrayCalx · · Score: 1

      no you wouldnt. at the speed of light time stands still.

      I respectfully disagree.

    16. Re:Light is particles... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      For example, those little thingies with the black and white paddles in them that look like light bulbs from middle school science class work on the idea that photons transfer and take momentum from stuff they interact with.

      That was disproved a long time ago (but it's still a common misconception). There are a couple theories explaining the movement of a radiometer, both involving differential gas pressure.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer/
      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    17. Re:Light is particles... by klaun · · Score: 3, Informative

      For example, those little thingies with the black and white paddles in them that look like light bulbs from middle school science class work on the idea that photons transfer and take momentum from stuff they interact with. Momentum is a quality very closely tied with mass.

      Crookes radiometer (the aforementioned little thingy with the black and white paddles) does not rotate due to light imparted momentum (the force is too small). This theory of the rotation is disproved by the fact that after a certain point making the vacuum in the bulb stronger reduces the effect, which is the opposite of the expected result if the rotation was due to radiation force.

      The actual forces responsible for rotation are a combination of forces due to molecule movement between the hot and cold sides of the vanes near the edges. Wikipedia has a good write up about it here.

      There is an invariant mass for an object, i.e. a quantity that remains the same in all reference frames. This can be calculated based on energy and momentum. True of photons as well. Photons don't have a rest mass because rest mass is defined as the mass of an isolated and at rest relative to the observer object. Photons can't be at rest relative to an observer (and if they are isolated they are travelling at c).

    18. Re:Light is particles... by Goaway · · Score: 1

      I didn't know you could post to Slashdot from the seventeenth century.

    19. Re:Light is particles... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That's true, but photons do have momentum, and this is the concept by which solar sails work. My first problem with the radiometer trick was the idea that the momentum of photons would be sufficient to overcome the friction of the axle -- when you turn on a lightbulb, do you get pummeled to the ground? No, because photons have tiny amounts of momentum.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Light is particles... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Actual solar sails would move by the pressure of the Solar wind, which is much greater than light pressure.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:Light is particles... by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      Like the other replier said, at light speed there is still time. If you were to travel the speed of light, you'd still notice/experience the passing of time, its just the experience of time relative to some one else, or more specifically someone not in your reference frame, thus relativity.

      Matter cannot travel at the speed of light. As you accelerated towards the speed of light, time would slow down for you as measured by an observer in the frame you left and distance to other objects would appear to decrease. If you were able to get close enough to the speed of light, it would be a shorter distance to the end of the farthest known quasar than from one end of your ship to the other. Eventually you would experience the heat death of the universe before you ever reached the speed of light.

      If you accelerate at 1g (according to an observer in the frame you left), that would happen in about a year (354.06 days at 9.8m/s^2). However you would have to be accelerating at 1g according to you. Since your mass would appear to increase towards infinity to an outside observer as you approached the speed of light so it would take enormous amounts of energy, and the only thing they could use to accelerate you is a laser, which would get weaker and weaker to you as you approached the speed of light. You would need your own means of propulsion then. If you constantly accelerate at 1g according to you, it would look to an outside observer like your acceleration was decreasing as time dilation took effect. At about 0.6c you would experience 25% time dilation. While you saw yourself accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, to an outside observer it would look like you were accelerating at 7.8m/s^2. At 0.9999c it would appear to them like you were accelerating at only 0.14 m/s^2. At that rate it would take you 68.55 years to reach the remaining gap to light speed. At 0.99999999999c it would appear to an outside observer like you were accelerating at only 0.000044 m/s^s and it would take you 217,000 years to reach the speed of light. Since your acceleration keeps decreasing, the target of light-speed according to an outside observer keeps getting further and further away.

    22. Re:Light is particles... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Photons always move at C. Light doesn't spend all it's time as photons, however, even in a vacuum. Calling C "the speed of light" is a slight oversimplification.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:Light is particles... by sankyuu · · Score: 1

      Anything with energy has momentum, which kinda intuitively makes sense.
      Also, I just remembered the famous equation that states mass and energy are interchangeable (E = mc^2) .
      I'm not sure how the equation E = .5mv^2 + U would have to be transformed to suit it, though -- IANAP either :)

    24. Re:Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can divide matter into two (or three) categories:

      Fermions - half spin particles - the half spin brings the Pauli exclusion principle into play, causing these particles to have mass and take up space. Fermions always go less than the speed of light.

      Bosons - full spin particles - the full spin allows Bose-Einstein condensation, allowing these particles to occupy the same space (and therefore being massless - or rather, their mass derived only from their energy) Bosons always go the speed of light

      Tachyons - theoretical particles having negative mass, and created going faster than the speed of light. Interestingly enough, as they lose energy they speed up. However, the big problem with Tachyons is exactly what you've gathered from the above two descriptions; we can explain bosons and fermions' fundamental properties and differences solely as a function of spin. And all the possible spins are accounted for without Tachyons. (while you can have a negative spin, that will still be an integer or half integer spin)

    25. Re:Light is particles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time doesn't move for the photon, so from "its" point of view... what? It's everywhere it'll ever be and has ever been, simultaneously? From our point of view, the photon does continue to exist from one moment to the next, in a different location. Is our perception of the photon just a movie frame of something that actually doesn't move at all, but is continuous throughout time? That'd make the speed of light analogous to how fast the movie projector was running...

      Bah, I should've taken another physics class. Still, if there's an intuitive way of thinking about how time works for something traveling at c, I'd sure appreciate a pointer to a good overview.

    26. Re:Light is particles... by brunascle · · Score: 1

      well, the best way to explain the oddities here: you can never move at the speed of light, so you dont really have to understand what it would be like to do it. only the photon can, and presumably the photon isnt sentient, so no one/nothing ever experiences what it's light to move at the speed of light.

      you can, however, move at 99.999999999% the speed of light. at that speed, you wouldnt notice anything weird about your time, but it would seem like the rest of the universe was passing by (in time) much faster than it should be. you could, for example, only be travelling at that speed for what felt like a few seconds, but when you're done most of the universe could have passed by many years.

  12. Re:Speed of sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will be whatever the speed of sound is in the pole. Assuming a perfectly rigid material it would be instant, but there is no such thing and the actual speed will much less than c.

  13. cool by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Funny

    now all we need is to capture a sun in supernova mode to power out space ships, hope it has a good fuel tank...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as crazy as it sounds at first blush... Of course, you're not capturing a sun, but creating little micro-novas. Containment is an issue, of course, but imagine if you could..

    2. Re:cool by Mogster · · Score: 1

      Or we could collapse it into a black hole, grab control of the eye of harmony and build ourselves a TARDIS
      Maybe even get those 12 regenerations too ;)

      --
      ACK NAK RST
  14. This is not new... by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Superluminal" expansion from Quasars have been known since the 1960's. (They appear to be superluminal, i.e., faster than light speed, as they are so close to the speed of light that time dilation becomes important.)

    1. Re:This is not new... by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 1

      Actually, superluminal expansion has nothing to do with time dilation (which operates in the other direction, anyway -- *slowing* time). In fact, one of the fundamental bases of relativity is that gamma (= sqrt(1 - v/c) the common factor in most relativistic phenomena -- and the addition thereof -- will not allow any sum of effects to exceed the speed of light. Velocities don't add linearly, for example, that's just a pretty good approximation of the actual equation when you are operating at a small fraction of c.

      Superluminal expansion is just a known optical illusion one an astronomical scale.

      Let's say that a mass of plasma exploded on Jan 1, 1707, from a star 300 ly away at .99c, headed directly at Earth. Let's call the explosion P-1707 (the Point in spacetime where the plasma was on New Years Day 1707). 150 years later (New Years Eve 1857), it would have travelled 135 ly (150 years * .99 c) towad us, and still be 165 ly from us. (Let's call that point P-1857.)

      However, an Earth astronomer couldn't see the plasma at all until 2007, when the light from the explosion finally reached Earth (traveling 300 ly at c). That much is straightforward. The illusion arises as the astronomer continues to observe. For example: the light from the plasma reaching P-1857 (165 ly years away) would reach us in 15 years later in 2022 (165 years after 1857). Therefore it would appear (to someone who assumed the observations reflected an instantaneous truth) that the plasma covered 135 ly in 15 years at 9c!

      This may seem more straightforward, if you imagine a continuous film of the plasma, starting with the explosion (seen by Earth in 2007) and ending with the plasma hitting the Earth in 2010 (after covering 3000 ly in 303 years, traveling .99c) The film would obviously run a hair over 3 years (2007-2010), but would cover 300 years of the events on the plasma ball. This isn't time dilation, it's an observational illusion.

      What's the difference? Well, for one thing, time dilation make time appear to move more slowly. The superluminal fireball appears to move *faster* than it can. On a more physical level, imagine that the explosion fired an asteroid made of 100% Fe-55, an iron isotope with a half life of 2.73 years. If it were a genuine time effect, rather than an illusion, the asteroid would "experience" a hair over 3 years, and would be a little under half Fe-55 when it hit the Earth. However, since it was an illusion, it would have experienced 111 half-lives, and even a star-sized mass of Fe-55 wouldn't (statistically) have a single Fe-55 atom left. It would be ~100% Mn-55, a stable manganese isotope

    2. Re:This is not new... by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

      Superluminal motion actually happens around black holes due to frame dragging. Essentially, as a black hole rotates, spacetime is dragged with it...objects moving close to light speed (say, .8c) on spacetime that relative to us is moving .3c appear to be going 1.1c; GR only states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light *relative to the local spacetime*. It's sort of like a moving sidewalk -- you might have a top speed of 15 mph, but get on a moving walkway going 5mph (and move in the same direction) and to me, you're going 20.

  15. Blistering speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What exactly does that scientifically mean?

    THANKS SLASHD0T FOR YOUR PR0FESSIONALISM!!

    1. Re:Blistering speeds? by forrestt · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the speed at which an object in a vacuum must travel to spontaneously get blisters to appear on its surface. What did you think it meant?

    2. Re:Blistering speeds? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's between laughable speed and ludicrous speed.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Blistering speeds? by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean between ridiculous speed and ludicrous speed, right? Wasn't that the order on Spaceballs? Light Speed, Ridiculous Speed, Ludicrous Speed?

    4. Re:Blistering speeds? by drkich · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please, for the sake of Scientific completeness, do not forget PLAID!

    5. Re:Blistering speeds? by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Laughable speed is the speed limit on UK motorways - 70mph.

      Please do not try to enforce all humour to follow a strict set of rules. While it may seem that rules help to control the fun at first, in the end they only stifle your donut making skills.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Blistering speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      where the hell does "insightful" come up for that one?

    7. Re:Blistering speeds? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You forgot Lint speed! (The Tick.)

      "Ever wonder how lint gets on the clothes in your dryer? It's THAT FAST!" (not sure of the actual quote)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Blistering speeds? by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      That it's plaid?

    9. Re:Blistering speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's the speed at which an object in a vacuum must travel to spontaneously get blisters to appear on its surface."

      Aka Yngwie Malmsteen speed.

    10. Re:Blistering speeds? by millermj · · Score: 1

      Blisters appear when the air pressure and friction is enough that physical decay occurs in a way that is similar to solids rubbing against each other. Except that unlike a solid, a gas is fine enough to get under the surface and fill an area under the surface until it pops, creating a blister.

      In this article, matter is traveling without abrasive friction from air -- the matter travels through a vacuum. So "blistering speed" isn't accurate when speaking of speeds in a vacuum. ...unless tachyons or other particles found in space can create the same effect.

      --
      Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
    11. Re:Blistering speeds? by forrestt · · Score: 1
      Things wrong with your post:
      1. Blisters appear when delamination occurs close to the outermost surface of an object, not from physical decay.
      2. This does not only have to be caused by friction at the outermost surface, but can be caused by anything that stresses the binding layer to failure.
      3. A blister need not be filled with gases.
      4. A blister need not "pop" in order to be a blister.
      5. "...in a vacuum..." implies in a vacuum, and therefore there was "no air" (or any other gases for that matter) to cause friction in my fake definition either.
      6. You assume I don't have a physics background when in fact I do, and therefore you assume that I do not know that there is no force of friction through "air" for my fictitious object.
      7. You did not read the +5 funny mod and get a clue that this was in fact supposed to be FUNNY.
      8. You aren't able to imagine how fast something would have to travel in a vacuum to gain friction from the surrounding gases that, due to the vacuum it is traveling in, aren't there.
      9. You failed to get the joke.
  16. The future of The Internet... by Nullav · · Score: 1

    ...will be carving shit into poles.

    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  17. So what happens... by SporkLand · · Score: 1

    ... when one of these hits earth?

    1. Re:So what happens... by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      Bad stuff depending on how much hits. Full blast = no planet.

    2. Re:So what happens... by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      According to the show "Universe" which is showing on the History Channel now. If a gamma ray burst from a quasar hit the earth, it would boil off the ozone layer and basically kill the planet. I believe they said the likelyhood of that happening was 1% of the lifetime of the earth, whatever that really means. Was kind of a cool show, but had lots of the boogie man universe is gonna get ya. Kind of irritating actually.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:So what happens... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      that happens, and that. There's another one. Again. Another.

      the point is, basically nothing. It happens all the time.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:So what happens... by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      When a particle flying at c hits the brain of a nerd, a world-class genius is born!

    5. Re:So what happens... by lazlo · · Score: 1

      This made me think of that too... I kind of wonder, how far away from us are these things? Because, according to the article, the matter is moving at 99.9997% the speed of light. To my mind, that means that if it's coming in our direction, then if the origin is, says 1 million light years away from us, then the matter will get here about 3 years after the gamma ray burst.

      So, the follow up question would be, which has more energy, the gamma rays, or the relativistic matter?

      Of course, it's one of those things that's a combination of highly unlikely, yet, if it happens, there's not much anyone can do about it. Unless, of course, we send Bruce Willis out to personally steer that blob of near-light-speed matter away from our planet.

      Yeah.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    6. Re:So what happens... by witte · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll have [0,001% of the speed of light * distance] time to react when we first spot it. That's plenty of time to *CARRIER LOST*

    7. Re:So what happens... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I believe they said the likelyhood of that happening was 1% of the lifetime of the earth, whatever that really means.


      Are you sure that wasn't a 1% chance in the lifetime of the Earth, i.e., a 1% chance of such a burst occurring close enough and with the right orientation to cause the described harm to the Earth before the Earth was destroyed through other means (mainly, the death throes of our own Sun)? Because that (no idea if it is true or not) makes more sense than 1% of the lifetime of the earth...
    8. Re:So what happens... by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Not to nit-pick, but if something ejecting matter shoots it at us from 1 million light years away at just under the speed of light, wouldn't it take slightly more than 1 million years to arrive?

    9. Re:So what happens... by lazlo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, yes, but the gamma ray burst is traveling at 100% of the speed of light, it being light and all. So the matter, travelling at 99.9997% of the speed of light, is trailing the gamma rays by an extra .000003 lightyears (94 light-seconds) every year.

      So yes, the event happened 1 million years ago. The gamma rays took 1 million years to travel the distance, and arrived this year. The matter takes 1,000,003 years to make the same trip, and so it will arrive in 3 years.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    10. Re:So what happens... by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. (Physics was never my thing)

    11. Re:So what happens... by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      I guess I really don't understand your question... and I really don't understand their statement either. 1% of what? They said the event would last about 15 minutes if it happened, so would that be 1% in a given 15 minute period of all 15 minute periods in the lifetime of the earth? 35040 such periods in a year, and Earth has around 5 billion years left before the Sun cooks it, so thats around 175.2 trillion 15 minute periods. So to me that means a chance of 1 in 17.5 quadrillion that we could get cooked via a gamma ray burst. Winning the powerball is around 1 in 146 million chance.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  18. Red-shift? by bugnuts · · Score: 4, Funny

    "But officer, the light looked green!"

    1. Re:Red-shift? by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Funny

      "But officer, the light looked green!"

      I tried that and got a citation for speeding instead. Do you have any idea what the fine is for going 201,184,560 mph in a 35-mph zone?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Red-shift? by digitig · · Score: 1

      "But officer, the light looked green!"
      "Then I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a ticket for exceeding a hundred-million miles per hour in a built-up area."
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Red-shift? by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You should fight that. If you were traveling what, about 16% of the speed of light toward the stoplight, that "red" light (650nm) would have appeared "green" (550 nm) to you.

      Not to mention that there would probably have been relativistic effects making your speed (from your viewpoint) and your speed (from the cop's viewpoint) significantly different!

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Red-shift? by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Speed is constant between reference frames, at least in this case. You and the cop would have disagreed on the speed you threw the beer can from your window though.

    5. Re:Red-shift? by metlin · · Score: 1

      You were going *that* fast and you missed going through the green light?

      What are you, a NASCAR driver or something? :)

    6. Re:Red-shift? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that actually WAS a problem in my college physics textbook: how fast would you have to be moving to make a red light appear green? Then it gave the wavelengths of red and green light.

      Then it asked "Would you get a ticket?"

    7. Re:Red-shift? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is how the hell the officer manage to pull your ass over.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  19. Decimal Point.... by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    The 500 foot pole would actually take 29.7 mS, not 297 --- decimal error. So expect about 1/30 second delay between push and movement at far end.

  20. Re:Speed of sound by TheBearBear · · Score: 1

    AH. THEN here is the truly weird part! Let's say you have a 600,000,000 meter pole. it will take light about 2 seconds to reach from one end to the other. Let's just say, for simplicity's sake, the actual speed of is such that it will take 10 seconds for the other end of the pole to actually move. If I pushed the pole 4 meters forward, and the other end hasn't moved YET, wouldn't the pole be 599,999,996 meters long, for that time being? That is to say, it shrunk? isn'tthat weird???

  21. Transwarp by eqisow · · Score: 1

    Bah! Keep your antiquated warp technology. Transwarp is where it's at.

  22. Compression & Flex by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    The pole would compress and flex. Even solid steel can be compressed like air with enough force.

  23. I am a genius by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet in the direction I was going, that bullet would break the speed of light!

    1. Re:I am a genius by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      No. It would not. The bullet would appear to do many different things, depending on your frame of reference.

      None of them involve the bullet appearing (or actually) attaining or surpassing the speed of light regardless of the frame of reference.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:I am a genius by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet in the direction I was going, that bullet would break the speed of light!

      No, because 0.001% of the speed of light is still 300,000 meters per second. I don't believe you will find a gun that shoots a bullet that fast.

      But you have an interesting theory there, nonetheless. I once asked myself what would happen if two space ships flying at 70% of the speed of light and one cross the another, flying in opposite directions. Since speed is relative to the a point of reference, one space ship would be at 140% of the speed of light to the other. So, what happens?

      --
      So say we all
    3. Re:I am a genius by drxenos · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    4. Re:I am a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speeds don't add up linearly. It's more complicated formula involving c and a square root, but for low speeds it seems like they just add together.

      From your point of view, you would be going at 0m/s and the bullet would be travelling at, say 300m/s.
      From some one else's point of view, they might seee you travelling at 0.99999c and the bullet would be going at 0.99999c+$something_much_less_than_300m/s

    5. Re:I am a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the bullet would not. The bullet would still be going some appreciable fraction of the speed of light, but it would not exceed it. Think about the fact that relative to the matter exploding out the other side of the star, the lump you're on is - by your rationale - going ~199.99998% the speed of light. Except, it's not. They're both going 99.9999% the speed of light, in different reference frames, that have little in common.

    6. Re:I am a genius by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      on each ship, the other appears to be appraoching at a speed approaching the speed of light.

      on a 'stationary point between, each ship appears to be approaching at thier respective speed, but the rate of closure appears to be approaching the speed of light.

      I think that is how it goes.

      I know, makes no sense except to the guy whose avatar is beside this story!

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    7. Re:I am a genius by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      >>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet in the direction I was going, that bullet would break the speed of light!

      Or better yet, turn on a flashlight. Light would break the speed of light!

    8. Re:I am a genius by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Oh. My. God.

      I cannot believe how many people wrote serious responses to a non-serious post.

      I was originally going to put in an "its a joke" disclaimer at the bottom, but I thought that would be silly, nobody would think I was serious, so I instead made the "I am a genius" subject line to indicate that it was meant to be humorous.

      If you can't tell dumb physics jokes on Slashdot, then I guess you really can't tell them anywhere.

    9. Re:I am a genius by Wooster_UK · · Score: 2, Informative

      What happens is that velocities don't add together using the simple addition rule. See the Wiki. Once you're at reasonable fractions of the speed of light (say about 10%; certainly by the time you hit 50%), the fact that it's not simple addition makes an appreciable difference. In your example, each space-ship measures the other as going at about 94% of the speed of light.

    10. Re:I am a genius by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you can't tell dumb physics jokes on Slashdot, then I guess you really can't tell them anywhere.

      If you don't want serious responses, you should try to make your dumb physics jokes actually funny. :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    11. Re:I am a genius by WaZiX · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what the general theory of relativity proved would _NOT_ happen. From wikipedia article: "The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

    12. Re:I am a genius by wanerious · · Score: 5, Informative

      What really happens is that velocities don't add like that. They seem to for everyday objects, but relativistic effects become important at 0.7c. You should add them according to the Einstein formula: v = (B+v')/(1 + Bv') where B is the speed of one ship relative to an observer at rest (0.7c), and v' is the speed of the other ship in it's frame (0.7c). So the speed of one ship relative to the other is just v = 1.4/1.49 = 0.94c. You can see that, for small speeds, the product in the denominator is small, so we have the usual addition.

    13. Re:I am a genius by FedeLebron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Time dilation and space contraction take place here. Relativity states that if, say, you were going at 75% of the speed of light, and shot a missile at 50% the speed of light, neither you, nor the torpedo, nor a 3rd observer would see the torpedo go faster than light. They'd see it go juuust under c, about 95% of c. In relativity, adding of velocities isn't as simple as absolute v + relative v, it's an asymptotic function that means you never actually reach the speed of light.

    14. Re:I am a genius by D4MO · · Score: 1

      Frame of reference... Bullet, assuming no resistance, moves from the gun in direction d at x meters per second. If gun is travelling in direction d at 300,000 meters per second from other frame of reference, then the bullet will appear to be going 300,000 + x meters per second
       
      The speed of light postulate states that that the speed of light should be the same in every frame of reference. That means time dilates. The space ships, while going 70% the speed of light in their frame of reference, will be appear to be a different speed when one observers the other. (I think...)

      --

      Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
    15. Re:I am a genius by zCyl · · Score: 1

      on a 'stationary point between, each ship appears to be approaching at thier respective speed, but the rate of closure appears to be approaching the speed of light.

      Not quite. From the perspective of an observer between them, each ship appears to be approaching at 70% of the speed of light, and the apparent relative difference in speeds from that middle observer's perspective is 140% of the speed of light. However, this does not violate anything in special relativity, since the 140% is only an apparent relative velocity.

      From the perspective of either of the two ships, the opposite ship is traveling toward it at 94% of the speed of light, as given by the velocity addition formula. As a result, each ship observes that it is closing with the middle observer at 70% of the speed of light, and each ship observes that the OTHER ship is closing with the middle observer at only 24% of the speed of light. So it can appear from one perspective that two OTHER things are traveling at an apparent speed in comparison to each other which is faster than light, but from each observer's perspective, every other object is traveling at a speed below (or equal to) that of light.

      Confused yet?
    16. Re:I am a genius by D4MO · · Score: 1
      --

      Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
    17. Re:I am a genius by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      >>>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet...

      >>I don't believe you will find a gun that shoots a bullet that fast.

      I don't believe you will find that you can stand on this matter flying out of a sun either...

    18. Re:I am a genius by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      >>>>>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet...

      >>>>I don't believe you will find a gun that shoots a bullet that fast.

      >>I don't believe you will find that you can stand on this matter flying out of a sun either...

      I don't believe I let myself walk right into this conversation! He he...

      --
      So say we all
    19. Re:I am a genius by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      >>>>>>>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet...

      >>>>>>I don't believe you will find a gun that shoots a bullet that fast.

      >>>>I don't believe you will find that you can stand on this matter flying out of a sun either...

      >>I don't believe I let myself walk right into this conversation! He he...

      I don't believe that you would believe that you could avoid walking into a conversation like this on Slashdot...I believe...

    20. Re:I am a genius by kalirion · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what the general theory of relativity proved would _NOT_ happen.

      No, that's exactly what the general theory of relativity theorized would _NOT_ happen.

    21. Re:I am a genius by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      No, they would travel at the same speed (speed of light) for an observer.

      From the perspective of the pilot; the bullet can travel at max with the speed of light and the environment he passes with the speed of light would be standing still in time.

      Sounds like a contradiction but it's not.

      For instance. We are traveling through space at an incredible speed, around the core of the milky way. Still the speed of light in all directions is the same. It's called relativity.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    22. Re:I am a genius by xPsi · · Score: 2, Informative
      What really happens is that velocities don't add like that. They seem to for everyday objects, but relativistic effects become important at 0.7c.


      Your post is right on. I might add that when relativistic effects become important for everyday objects might be a matter of application. For example, some GPS systems need to account for relativistic effects for the relativive motion of objects in orbit with respect to the surface of the earth (moving much smaller than 0.7c). It depends on the accuracy required.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    23. Re:I am a genius by jae471 · · Score: 1
      The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Nothing will happen to the spaceships. Each will see the other spaceship's headlights' photons comming at the speed of light [doppler [blue] shifted], followed by the spaceship.

      IANAPBMSI

    24. Re:I am a genius by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "...would see the torpedo go faster than light. "

      But what would be the calculated speed to a non-observer.
      i.e. time the bullet crossed a finish line - the time it was fired. ;)

      I am kidding. to prove it:
      u= (v + w) / (1+vw/c^2)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:I am a genius by syousef · · Score: 1

      They seem to for everyday objects, but relativistic effects become important at 0.7c

      0.7c is quite an arbitrary figure. With zero context, that's at best put very badly. For some things that travel much slower than 0.7c relativistic effects are very important. If you're keeping time precisely, you have to take relativity into account if you have a satellite travelling much much slower than 0.7c since it's clock will differ from a precise clock on the ground. (Think about GPS).

      Also speed isn't the only thing to worry about. Mercury doesn't travel anywhere near that fast but Newtonian mechanics don't explain the orbit well because it's so close to a large mass (the sun) and therefore it's path is through "bent" space.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    26. Re:I am a genius by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet in the direction I was going, that bullet would break the speed of light!
      And if you shot a bullet fast enough in the opposite direction it would have negative velocity and it would travel back in time to before you shot it so when you came to shoot it you wouldn't have that bullet you'd already fired and so you couldn't fire it and so it would never get fired even though it had already been fired and shot the President. Or something.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:I am a genius by wanerious · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the context was the post I was replying to, where the poster was imagining two objects headed for each other at a speed of 0.7c, each with respect to a rest frame. Certainly, the imprecision of the Galilean transformation depends upon the experimental sensitivity as well as the speed.

  24. Microblackholes? by zymano · · Score: 1

    Could this create blackholes?

    microblackholes = Dark matter?

    1. Re:Microblackholes? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      No, a black hole contains dark matter.

      Unless you just had a klysma.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  25. Speed of Gravity by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

    What if it is the gravitational field that changes. Say the sun disappeared or exploded, would we find out about it immediately or after so many minutes. In other words, do the gravitational field disturbances also propagate at the speed of light?

    1. Re:Speed of Gravity by EMeta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, Gravity moves at the speed of light. That's all part of general relativity.

    2. Re:Speed of Gravity by WaZiX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That same question was what got Einstein started in the first place actually....

    3. Re:Speed of Gravity by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whats funny is if the sun imploded you would never know (except for the loss of light of course) because you would be the same distance from the center of mass with the same total mass.

      But as other guy said, yea gravity propagates at the speed of light. We can test this (with precise instruments) because you can measure the pull of the moon easily. If gravity propagated instantly the moon would be pulling from an angle that would be 1.28 seconds ahead of where the moon appeared to be.

    4. Re:Speed of Gravity by Khaed · · Score: 1

      If the sun disappeared, it would take a few minutes for the last rays of light to reach us before it went dark. Around eight, if I recall correctly. Light doesn't get here instantly from the sun.

      If it exploded, it should still take the same amount of time. Unless I'm missing something and an exploding star can send energy faster than light.

      The math, for anyone interested:

      The sun is roughly 150 million kilometers from us, or 150,000,000,000 meters. The speed of light is (rounded off) 300,000,000 meters per second. Dividing the first by the second, that's 500 seconds, or 8.33 minutes.

      So, basically, if the sun disappears we all have about eight minutes, twenty seconds to work on our tans. (all numbers, of course, rounded to make the math easier because /. doesn't grade me on significant digits. :)

    5. Re:Speed of Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did you really fall for clever pseudoscience, or are you trolling?

    6. Re:Speed of Gravity by WaZiX · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Aberration in general relativity?

      This finite speed of gravitational interaction in general relativity may at first seem to lead to exactly the same sorts of problems with the aberration of gravity that Newton was originally concerned with. Following Laplace, Van Flandern claims that also in general relativity the speed of gravity must be at least 20 billion times that of light.[8]

      But in general relativity (similar to the field theories above), gravitomagnetism effects cancel out the effects of aberration. As shown by Carlip, in the weak stationary field limit, the orbital results calculated by general relativity are the same as those of Newtonian gravity (with instantaneous action at a distance), despite the fact that the full theory gives a speed of gravity of c.[9] Although the calculations are considerably more complicated, one can show that general relativity does not suffer from abberation problems just as electromagnetic retarded Liénard-Wiechert potential theory does not. It is not very easy to construct a self-consistent gravity theory in which gravitational interaction propagates at a speed other than the speed of light, which complicates discussion of this possibility.


      a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravit y" title="Thanks Wikipedia">Link

    7. Re:Speed of Gravity by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1
      But how would you know until it happened? For the entire 8 minutes and 33 seconds, you'd still be seeing the sun as you've always seen it, feeling the effects of it's gravity as you've always felt it...

      Light only moves as fast as light can move, and telescopes only make it easier to see the same light your eyeball does. When stars a hundred light-years away go supernova, we don't know it for a hundred years. Same principle for our sun, just a shorter distance.

    8. Re:Speed of Gravity by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      "Whats funny is if the sun imploded you would never know (except for the loss of light of course) because you would be the same distance from the center of mass with the same total mass."

      If it did implode, or even explode instantly *poof*, no one on earth would see any difference at all for 8.3 minutes. The Sun would be gone and I would still be getting a tan for another 8 minutes.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    9. Re:Speed of Gravity by bberens · · Score: 1

      If the sun exploded, you'd probably continue to get a tan for at least a few seconds after 8 minutes.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    10. Re:Speed of Gravity by Khaed · · Score: 1

      I know, my tan line (pun NOT intended) wasn't meant seriously.

      I'm not sure we'd notice after the light went away, if the sun just vanished, for a little longer. Maybe not MUCH longer, but I think at first there would be some confusion before it occurred to anyone that "hey, maybe the sun vanished."

      If it were to explode, on the other hand... we'd probably notice when the bands of helium gas vaporized us.

    11. Re:Speed of Gravity by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "yea gravity propagates at the speed of light.
      "
      which brings a lot of questions up. So gravity is made out of what? If it take time to travel that means it take time for space to 'flatten'. So what is holding the curved parts in place for 8.3 minutes?
      Gravitons?

      Of course the proof that it moves at the speed of light is derived from 1 experiment. 2002, I believe... or did they? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_spee d_030116.html

      I know the evidence was overwhelming that it will be at the speed of light, but nature has a tendency to throw a real cool twist at us once in a while.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Speed of Gravity by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Gravity moves at the speed of light. That's all part of general relativity. Yeah, that always had me wondering. It sure would look weird if the Sun were to disappear, you'd see the Earth still moving along happy as you please for 8 more minutes until you get that global WTF?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    13. Re:Speed of Gravity by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Whats funny is if the sun imploded you would never know (except for the loss of light of course) because you would be the same distance from the center of mass with the same total mass.

      Contrarywise, if the sun exploded then we would notice as soon as the sphere of exploded solar mass expanded past our orbit, at which point we would drift away from our orbit.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Speed of Gravity by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but what happens when the sun explodes holds no relation to what happens when it implodes.

    15. Re:Speed of Gravity by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      What "really did" was really ask a question about something where I really didn't know the answer and really wanted the person to whom I was replying to really expand.

      I'm not sure in what crazy alternate universe that's trolling, but I'm pretty much done with Slashdot and this just puts the last nail in the coffin. Deleting bookmark now.

    16. Re:Speed of Gravity by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Thus "contrarywise". I'm struggling to think of why you think I was implying a relation.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Speed of Gravity by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, who do I listen to; the guy with the Ph.D. in cosmology, or the Anonymous Coward who posted not logged in so he wouldn't lose his moderation.

    18. Re:Speed of Gravity by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      If it does flatten that doesn't necessarily mean you need gravitons or anything. The simple propagation of the curve of spacetime would have to move in a relativistic time frame, same as the propagation of any wave really. Drop a ball on a stretched out piece of fabric the bending and eventual pull of other objects will happen at about the speed of sound through that material.

  26. Cause we've been there? by slapout · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We know this because we've sent starships out to observe it up close...no wait, we haven't.

    I really wish we were doing more in the area of manned space exploration.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Cause we've been there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We know this because, even though it is happening very far away, WE CAN SEE IT YOU GODDAMN DOLT.

    2. Re:Cause we've been there? by WaZiX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's send some people watch the formation of black holes!

    3. Re:Cause we've been there? by TommydCat · · Score: 1

      We know this because, even though it is happening very far away, WE CAN SEE IT...
      ...but only from our own frame of reference...
      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    4. Re:Cause we've been there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish you were on the spaceship observing this phenomenom up close.

  27. 99.999%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just haven't "seen" anything traveling at light speed.

    1. Re:99.999%? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      That's how Chuck Norris can round-house kick everybody without anybody being able to see or record it.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  28. my Tachi joke by phrostie · · Score: 1

    Boom Boom Boom,

    fire the tachion cannon!

  29. Consider the force involved by benhocking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you were to push a 600,000 km pole 4 meters over a period of 1 second, then you've probably exerted a lot of force (pressure) in order to do so. Imagine that the pole weighs 100 grams per meter (i.e., it's fairly light). That pole has a total mass then of 60,000,000 kg. Assume that the force/acceleration is uniform, and you find that 4 meters over 1 second (starting from rest) requires an acceleration of 8 m/s^2. That implies a total force of 480,000,000 Newtons or about 108 million pounds of force. Not surprising that it would shrink a little under so much force...

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Consider the force involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprising that it would shrink a little under so much force...

      Oh, come on. It isn't that much. You could do it with less than twenty Saturn V first stages. Or if you were trying to squish poles en-masse, there's enough energy in one 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake to squish about 3.5 million of them. We're talking about poles ten times the length of earth, here. Get some perspective :)

  30. Re:Speed of sound by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    Not really. At that length the pole would be like pushing a wet noodle. The other end may never move.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  31. Re:Speed of sound by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

    Actually, by my understanding of it, the pole would only be 599,999,996 at the exact moment the other end begins to move. The rest of the time it is either shrinking to that length, or growing to it. This only even applies if you push it 4 meters in less than 2 seconds. More than 2 seconds and the other end will have started moving before you reached full compression. Unless you were able to instantaneously push the end of the pole, then it would simply be growing for the full 2 seconds.

    --
    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
  32. Re:Speed of sound by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

    Thank you. You brought a wonderful image to mind of Archimedes in space, pressing on a gigantic pole, and having the end spring back sending him caroming around the solar system.

    --
    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
  33. Re:Speed of sound by NMerriam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is to say, it shrunk? isn'tthat weird???


    Not really. Take a brick of Jell-O. Push one end. You'll move it, but it will distort in shape, compress, wobble, send waves, etc.

    The only difference between Jell-O and every other solid substance is that your eyes and brain just aren't precise enough to see at a small scale that they are all behaving the same way, just to different degrees.
    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  34. Beating the previous record... by jpellino · · Score: 3, Funny

    of chairs flying through meeting rooms in Redmond WA.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Beating the previous record... by jb.cancer · · Score: 1

      of chairs flying through meeting rooms in Redmond WA. well only just..
    2. Re:Beating the previous record... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Give it a year or five.

      I wouldn't be surprise if Ballmer will implode while doing a monkey dance out of rage shouting: "Com-mu-nist-de-ve-lo-pers-com-mu-nist-de-ve-lo-pe rs!"

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-166836580 8879026423&q=developers

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  35. Re:Speed of sound by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    isn'tthat weird???

    That you are dutch???

    Sorry couldn't resist.

  36. Why? by LordKaT · · Score: 1

    Why in the world did I read "Matter Discovered" as a name?

  37. Re:Speed of sound by zCyl · · Score: 1

    That is to say, it shrunk? isn'tthat weird???

    It's not really as weird as it sounds. Try this with a basketball (the rubbery version of this), and you will see shrinking easily with your eye. A pole is simply more rigid, but if you push it fast enough and hard enough to cause that compression, that's exactly what you'll get. If you apply force to the front of a free-floating car sufficient to cause motion before the speed of sound can propagate the energy, then you get a crumpled bumper. This is the same phenomenon, except with the caveat that the speed of light is as fast as the speed of sound can go.
  38. Huh? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why is this news? I read this article ten minutes from now.

    1. Re:Huh? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Hello Doofus,

      This is a post from yourself, in the year 2023.

      To prove this to me, let me tell me something that only I (/you) know; that thing I did to the dog in uncle's basement on the 7th of February '07.

      Follow the pink squirrel ...

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  39. Finally the solution by Sierpinski · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now all they need to do is figure out how to get the old people in Buicks to explode in the same manner, then maybe they'll stop driving 35 in a 65!

    Seriously though, that's very interesting news. I'd like to know though, how do they know it was only 99.999% the speed of light? Could that be a measuring error, or some point-of-view discrepancy? With all of the constants in the Universe, it seems silly to me that something would be travelling at 99.9999% the speed of light (or however many 9s there were.)

    1. Re:Finally the solution by EricWright · · Score: 1

      Because, according to the theory of special relativity, to move a massive particle at the speed of light would require infinite energy. See, mass changes with relative velocity, such that m = m0/(1-beta**2) where beta is v/c and m0 is rest mass. Since kinetic energy is proportional to mass, as v -> c, m -> m0/0 -> infinity, and so does the kinetic energy.

      What you actually have is a stream of VERY low mass particles moving VERY close to the speed of light, containing large but finite amounts of kinetic energy.

    2. Re:Finally the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a Buick, it's a Crysler Concorde. And I wasn't doing 35, I was doing 50. And I was only going that slow because I had a fucking donut spare on my right front, you dumb kid. And why in the hell can't they have REAL spare tires like they used to in the good old days anyway?

      Now get the hell off my lawn.

    3. Re:Finally the solution by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      "then maybe they'll stop driving 35 in a 65!"

      35 for you, is like 65 for them.

      It's all relative.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    4. Re:Finally the solution by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Because matter can not ever attain the speed of light. This stuff has so much energy thrown into it that our brains can't even begin to comprehend and is going about as fast as you can go, period.

      Anyways, they are getting pretty good at measuring stuff like that. The technique they used is in TFA and is pretty interesting.

  40. 50 Ft Pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are you going to find a 50 foot Polish person anyways?

  41. Incorrect by BlackGriffen · · Score: 2, Informative

    We think it's time goes slow, it thinks our time goes slow. It's one of the symmetries of a Lorentz transformation. What happens is that when one of the observers accelerates so that it can sit down and compare notes with the other observer the observer that did the accelerating will have seen less time go by. It's a peculiarity of the geometry of spacetime that an inertial observer takes the path of longest proper time, that is the time that the observer will see go by.

    1. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We think it's time goes slow, it thinks our time goes slow. This seems like a paradox for many because it's often simplified as the object's time slowing and object becoming thinner. But this is wrong. The axes that contract and expand are not x and t, but x+t and x-t.
  42. Yes, it is new... by Ryan+C. · · Score: 1

    The superluminal quasar jets are just optical illusions, as your link points out. Their apparent speed is superluminal, but their measured speed is subluminal. This article talks about the fastest measured speed of matter we have ever encountered.

    --
    -Ryan C.
  43. Neutrinos, Anyone? by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    Have they figured out how fast neutrinos typically go yet? I mean, since we're pretty sure they're massive they must go at a speed less than c, but since it has taken us so long to figure it out, it must be really close to c.

    1. Re:Neutrinos, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1987 supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud produced a neutrino burst that was detected on Earth at essentially the same time as the supernova's light. The supernova was 168,000 light-years from Earth. Even if you assume that the neutrinos got a 24-hour head start (for some astrophysical reason), that would put their speed at 99.999998 percent of c.

    2. Re:Neutrinos, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we don't know yet, only that it's very close to c. We'll probably find out next time there's a supernova in the Milky Way, as we'll be able to detect neutrinos from it and compare their arrival time to the photons.

  44. Warp 0.9999 by Tol+Dantom · · Score: 1

    It's good to know its at least possible to get matter moving at such a highly relativistic speed. Too bad it takes a collapsing star to jump start it. I'm pretty fond of the one closest to us.

    1. Re:Warp 0.9999 by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      You also need to remember that, with such a blast, your ship and crew will not only travel very fast, it will also be disintegrated and scattered across billions of cubic miles when it will have reach destination (moreover, even if the ship could conserve some integrity, you'll need another exploding star to stop).

  45. Matter go boom? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    It's unclear to me if the article is saying the matter is destroyed (well, transformed into energy) after colliding with gases and such. Anyone out there know? If not, I wonder how this relates to the dark matter question. I would think that a bunch of matter moving at 99.999% of the speed of light would make for a lot of mass, especially considering these explosions have been happening for billions of years. Or has this already been taken into account?

  46. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A great big black hole is created when one of these puppies explodes.

  47. So here's a question.... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    If a star 100LY away goes supernova and launches this much matter our way, how much warning would we have before the planet was destroyed?

    Would this much matter at that speed ignite Jupiter?

    This is the sort of thing that helps me not care too much about what goes on in the world, we could all be snuffed out in an instant by something like this, asteroid strike, supervolcano, etc..

    1. Re:So here's a question.... by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      Simple mathematics reveal the time--100 LY (the distance light travels in one year) for something traveling just under the speed of light: just over 100 years, 8 hours, and 45 minutes.

      Now, that simple calculations discount gravitational effects and friction, so the reality would be quite different. Still affected by the remaining mass of the black hole (or neutron star) that was left behind, the matter would decelerate. It is quite possible that much of it would eventually fall back toward the gravity source from which it was ejected. The matter would need to escape its own solar system (former solar system, in the case of a black hole), incurring gravitational effects from other orbiting bodies.

      That's not even considering the odds that the trajectory would align it with our solar system.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    2. Re:So here's a question.... by dm0527 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe he asked how long it would be until it got here, I believe he asked how much of a warning we would have.

      Granting that the matter continues at the observed speed discussed in TFA (and therefore isn't traveling at the full speed of light), we would have a only small warning (relatively...no pun intended) prior to the matter hitting us.

      We wouldn't have 100 years because the light from the explosion is only traveling slightly (again, relatively) faster than the matter from said explosion.

      --
      - dm - The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
    3. Re:So here's a question.... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we had a device that could send a signal to earth from that star at the moment it expels this matter, we would have about 8 hours and 45 minutes. That's how much a radio signal traveling at the speed of light would beat the particle traveling at 99.999% at speed of light over 100 LY. If the signal isn't moving at exactly the speed of light, then we would have no warning at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:So here's a question.... by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      Good point. I follow the logic. Oh, by the way, we just observed a new gamma burst from our dear neighbor 200 LY from here...[less than 18 hours later]...BOOM!

      I still doubt that the matter would continue indefinately at that velocity or without its trajectory being affected by other bodies.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    5. Re:So here's a question.... by aegl · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not much of that high speed matter will hit us though. If it spreads out evenly in all directions (doesn't quite fit with the article's description of "jets of matter") then the 200*mass-of-the-earth will be spread out across 125,000 square lightyesrs. Which comes to 10e-7 grams per square meter. Now it is moving pretty fast, so maybe it might be a bad idea to get hit by that.

      If the distribution is uneven ... then we'd be pretty unlucky to have our planet parked directly in the path of one of these jets.

      How many likely-to-go-supernova-sometime-soon are there in our near (100LY) neighborhood?

    6. Re:So here's a question.... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      If a star 100LY away goes supernova and launches this much matter our way, how much warning would we have before the planet was destroyed?

      1-.99999 * (100Y) = about 8.76 hours or 525 minutes.

  48. 500 foot Pole? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    The largest Pole I ever knew was a guy named Kowalski who towered over everyone at some 7 feet. I don't know where you're going to find one more than 50 times his size!

    1. Re:500 foot Pole? by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't touch a ten-foot Pole with a guitar.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  49. Older similar observation from 1994. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html

    "Now how many nines did you say, sir?"

    1. Re:Older similar observation from 1994. by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      according to that article, the ohmygod particle was traveling 9.7 million times faster than light.

      we geeks were all born too soon.

      I wish I could be around in 200 years to see human progress.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Older similar observation from 1994. by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      according to that article, the ohmygod particle was traveling 9.7 million times faster than light.

      No, it says it was traveling at 0.9999999999999999999999951 times the speed of light.

      As a general rule, if an article initially appears to state that something is traveling at more than the speed of light, you should re-read it until it doesn't.

    3. Re:Older similar observation from 1994. by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? From TFA, the ohmygod particle was traveling slower than light, if only very slightly slower than light. At the end of a bunch of math:

      And thus, approximately: v = 0.9999999999999999999999951 c

      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  50. I found something much faster than that... by dbdweeb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Light speed is way too slow... With certain substances I can travel to the farthest reaches of the universe at the speed of thought. ;-P

  51. Re:Speed of sound by Belacgod · · Score: 1

    "Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand, and I will---Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

  52. Re:Speed of sound by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

    Not really. deltaL = FL/EA, where F is the applied force, L is the initial length, A is the cross sectional area, and E is Young's Modulus. This of course assumes that the force is perfectly on the center and perfectly orthogonal to the face. That said, there's nothing weird about materials being compresses as you push on them. It simply seems small because the materials we deal with are usually very short.

  53. It's all relative by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we're traveling at 99.999% the speed of light and the matter in question is stationary? No wonder time seems to fly by these days.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:It's all relative by Dial-Up · · Score: 1

      If we were traveling near the speed of light, time would moving slower.

    2. Re:It's all relative by DNeoMatrix · · Score: 1

      actually, time itself wouldn't be moving any slower or faster, but our existence would be traveling through speed at a slower rate, .5 seconds per second anyone? haha. complicated but fun concept

    3. Re:It's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually since it's all relative, you can say we are moving at 99% light speed, or the particle is moving at that speed. To us, the particle's time is moving slower, but to the particle, our time is moving slower. Yeah it's kind of paradoxical.

    4. Re:It's all relative by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      And what exactly would we use to measure that slowdown? A clock?

  54. Conservation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what does that say about efficiency and/or the speed of the thing pushing the matter out at 99.999% of the speed of light? Either it's an extremely efficient transaction or whatever pushed on it was traveling faster.

    1. Re:Conservation by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Either it's an extremely efficient transaction or whatever pushed on it was traveling faster.

      Or, it's a star collapsing into a black hole ahem rtfa, that's super massive AND releasing a ton of energy. Remember, the closer you get to C, the energy required to get there grows exponentially.

      But then again, the energy emanating from the event horizon at the moment of formation of a black hole is just about as intense as anything anywhere in the universe that we know of.

      Stew

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  55. Check my math by cyberfunkr · · Score: 0, Troll

    The fastest flows of matter in the universe shoot out of dying stars at more than 99.999% the speed of light, new observations reveal.

    Soooo.... That would be 100%?

    1. Re:Check my math by witte · · Score: 1

      >Soooo.... That would be 100%?

      For small amounts of 100% : yes.

    2. Re:Check my math by DemonThing · · Score: 1

      About 99.9997%, according to TFA.

  56. The speed of light relative to what? by flyingrobots · · Score: 1

    What is the point of reference that is used to measure the speed of something? How does matter know how fast it is going?

    1. Re:The speed of light relative to what? by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      Blueshift relative to Earth or even blueshifts relative to other objects relatively near the supernova in question.

  57. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now who could've seen that coming?

  58. Ludicrous by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    We've known about gamma ray bursts for a long time. It's just that now we know how fast the matter is moving that causes these bursts. I know that matter moving at ludicrous speed causes bursts of plaid.
  59. Very thin pole, however by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Remember that my calculations were based on the assumption that the pole had a mass of only 100 grams per meter. That means it's either a very thin pole or has a very low density.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  60. uh oh by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    Brace for Second Impact!

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  61. What if the pole was made of diamond? by safiire · · Score: 0

    What if it the pole was made of diamond, would diamond compress?

    I mean the structure of diamond is pretty sturdy..

    1. Re:What if the pole was made of diamond? by naoursla · · Score: 1

      It might shatter from the force you would need to apply to it.

    2. Re:What if the pole was made of diamond? by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

      The structure of diamond is rigid on a micro scale, but on a scale of millions of miles (ie septillions of atoms), yes it would compress.

      Stew

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  62. Imagine a long, rigid pole.. very long, very rigid by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    held in a vacuum and you're at the middle of the pole... (it's very, very long, say 100 miles long, and extremely rigid...)

    now start to turn it around the middle (not the long axis though... around the middle of it's length)

    keep turning and applying force to increase the rate of rotation...

    what happens to time for an ant that's on the pole and decides to walk towards one end of the pole (he's got good feet and doesn't slip)

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  63. Re:Speed of sound by jcgam69 · · Score: 1

    Matter is mostly empty space, so there's plenty of room for compression.

  64. REmatter discovered travelling at near light speed by secPM_MS · · Score: 1

    Actually, we knew this decades ago. The apparent superluminal motion of emission spots from quasars required highly relativistic particle beams. The measurement here is just of an exceptionally high Lorentz factor. From another viewpoint, cosmic rays are matter as well, and some of them are exceptionally energetic. Indeed, particle physics at the highest energies can only be studied with cosmic rays, as no manmade accelerator can reach these energies. There have been particle physicists studying cosmic rays for decades (probably since the 50's).

  65. Hrm... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    I thought superluminal was like, "Hey! You guys! Join the Navy!!!"

  66. Re:Speed of sound by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    It will be whatever the speed of sound is in the pole.

    That's right. One way to verify this and see it in a macroscopic manner would be to hit such a pole very fast and hard with a huge hammer. You'd see a big wave propagate through the pole, bending it, making it vibrate like there's no tomorrow.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  67. Re:Speed of sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I pushed the pole 4 meters forward, and the other end hasn't moved YET, wouldn't the pole be 599,999,996 meters long, for that time being? That is to say, it shrunk? isn'tthat weird??? Can I buy some pot from you, Professor Jennings?
  68. Electrons in a wire by bruins01 · · Score: 1

    When you have an electric current flowing through a wire, the information it passes in the electron cascade (as in a computer) moves at (close to, depending on the resistance of the wire) the speed of light, but the actual individual electrons move MUCH slower than that. Determining the actual velocity of an electron in the current is an easy calculation to perform if the resistance of the wire is known.

  69. Re:Speed of Gravity/Sun exploding by Thinghy · · Score: 1

    The sun explodes, diameter increases, so it takes less and less time for us to see the event as it approaches, hummmmmmm.

  70. Oops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry dudes, my fault... I should go easier on that damn porn.

  71. Re:Speed of sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the steel making up the frame of this building has bananas in it, too.

  72. Time for a retarded question. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I have a laser that can maintain it's tight coherent beam over distances of many many many many many MANY light years. I'm up in space with a full spherical viewpoint with nothign in my way for those light years, all around me. I turn on the laser, wait a few years or so, then I shift the beam a few degrees. In that one or two seconds I shift that beam, altering the direction it points past a certain distance by a light-year or so, does that beam (knowing it will "bend" if perceived from outside my vantage point) point suddenly move faster than light and travel a few light years in just a few seconds?

    I know the answer is probably not. Can I get a link to explain?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Time for a retarded question. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I turn on the laser, wait a few years or so, then I shift the beam a few degrees. In that one or two seconds I shift that beam, altering the direction it points past a certain distance by a light-year or so, does that beam (knowing it will "bend" if perceived from outside my vantage point) point suddenly move faster than light and travel a few light years in just a few seconds?

      Yes, you could make the dot of your laser pointer on some distant object appear to move faster than the speed of light by waving your pointer back and forth.

      The reason I say "appear", and the reason this doesn't violate Relativity, is because the dot is not really moving. The dot is not really an object; it is not a collection of glowing matter/photons that moves along the distant surface as you wave the laser pointer. It is merely the point at which the laser pointer beam hits a surface. Relativity does not constrain logical reference points in that way.

      The only thing that is actually moving, the photons coming out of the laser pointer, are travelling at c. You're just changing the trajectory of those photons.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Time for a retarded question. by Achoi77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought about this when I was younger. I came to the conclusion that it would probably react similarly to a water hose. Shoot it in one position, but move the trajectory, and quickly enough, the 'beam' of water bends. This time instead of water think: light shooting out. Sure it can 'bend,' but we are unable to see far enough to tell the difference.

  73. Lorentz Factor by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that there would probably have been relativistic effects making your speed (from your viewpoint) and your speed (from the cop's viewpoint) significantly different!

    Not much different actually. The Lorentz factor is only about 1.3% for traveling at 0.16c. To get the expected blue shift from 650nm to 550nm, you would have to have a Lorentz factor of about 1.154. To get this, you would have to be travelling about 50% the speed of light.

    Also, speed is constant between the reference frames. Let's say you are approaching a stop light and pass a cop when the stop light is 299,792,458 meters away (the exact distance light travels in a vacuum in one second, let's say you are in a vacuum). The cop clocks you at 47,966,793 meters per second or 172,680,455 km/hour and sees that you pass the stop light 6.25 seconds later (he actually sees it 7.25 seconds later, but he is measuring with a synchronized clock at the stop light). You show yourself as moving relative to the cop and the stop light at the same exact speed, 0.16c, but time is moving about 1.3% slower for you (the Lorentz factor is 1.013051123), how can that be? The answer is that objects shrink in the direction of relative motion, so it appears to you like you only traveled about 295,930,236 meters in about 6.17 seconds. So while it looks to you like you made the trip from the parked cop to the stop light in 0.08 seconds less time than the cop says, it also looks to you like you traveled 3,862,222 meters less than the cop says.

    1. Re:Lorentz Factor by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Well, I have to confess that I guessed and simply made up a number, knowing with utter certainty that SOMEONE on slashdot would have the time/knowledge to actually figure it out.

      Teh intarnet for the win! :)

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:Lorentz Factor by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      Are you writing a paper on using human computation by posting on slashdot? :)

  74. Murphy's Law of Checks In The Mail by mbstone · · Score: 1

    New Scientist is reporting that scientists have clocked matter traveling at 99.999% the speed of light.

    They probably paid the phone bill. A check mailed to a creditor travels through the postal and banking systems at 99.999999% of c. Conversely, a check payable to you travels through the postal system, and clears the bank, at 0.000000001% of c.

  75. Not fastest matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be the mass of dorks on slashdot rushing to post tired 640k and balmer chair throwing jokes for each new story.

  76. lots of 9's, what does it mean? by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    according to the formula, matter traveling at .99999c appear to be 224 times heavier. and its kinetic energy is 223 times of its "rest energy". a single electron traveling at that speed has the same kinetic energy as a person moving at the speed of one micrometer per second.

    1. Re:lots of 9's, what does it mean? by z-j-y · · Score: 1

      it is tens of thousands times more powerful than nuclear reaction though which only release a tiny fraction of rest energy.

    2. Re:lots of 9's, what does it mean? by aistain · · Score: 1

      Pffuf, light is gonna get sick travelling so fast :D http://www.wavelengthcalculator.com/

  77. Re:Speed of sound by the.Ceph · · Score: 1

    No only snitches... or maybe that's the foundation.

  78. Re:Speed of sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really. Take a brick of Jell-O. Push one end. You'll move it, but it will distort in shape, compress, wobble, send waves, etc.

    If you've got a brick of Jell-O, I'd say you have bigger problems.
  79. Information CAN travel faster then c... by frakir · · Score: 1

    Imagine very long scissors, both edges very close to each other. Or a guillotine with very small angle. Now we can use a _non-material_ point of intersection of both scissor hands to transmit information. Of course it can be made to move in excess of c for brief period of time.

    However we can't use such scissors to transmit information between 2 points at speed>c.

    1. Re:Information CAN travel faster then c... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Clever, but not enough: in order to make all points of the sloped bars move with same speed, you need to transfer the push on all of their points in same instant, which you can't, because they are too far away from each other and from your point-of-attack. Same assumption of rigidity fails again in similar way as in the example with long pole.

  80. Re:Speed of sound by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not really. Take a brick of Jell-O. Push one end. You'll move it, but it will distort in shape, compress, wobble, send waves, etc.

    Boobs also act similarly. Or so I've heard.

    Eureka, that's it! Boobie physics! What else could better attract young males to science and fluid dynamics?

  81. What about a 10 foot pole? by yanw · · Score: 1

    Will my 10 foot pole be 50 times faster than a 500 foot one?

  82. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  83. Speed of Light Maximum Velocity? by rising_hope · · Score: 1

    This study tends to lend credence to the theory that the speed of light is the Maximum Velocity. It doesn't prove anything, per se, but matter moving at *nearly* the speed of light (not quite, but not over) at least makes it seem as if there's a speed limit of "c".

  84. And then... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    ...it crashed into Antarctica and caused the Second Impact.

    I made an Evangelion reference, my day is complete.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  85. Re:Speed of sound by Yewbert · · Score: 1

    Not really so weird. This is just longitudinal vibration with a kinda counterintuitively large amplitude. The speed of propagation of the deformation is just analogous to the speed of sound through a solid. The whole "perfectly rigid pole" assumption is just for the sake of argument, and doesn't work so well in reality. There's an old engineering joke that ends with the punch-line, "First, assume a spherical horse,..." that puts the situation in a more easily grasped perspective.

  86. Re:Speed of sound by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

    uhm no. /me pushes on his co-workers rotund belly

    gee, he got skinnier for a second before he fell over.

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm did i violate relativity? Isn't that weird?!?!?! :-)

    Stew

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  87. Re:Speed of sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's an old engineering joke that ends with the punch-line, "First, assume a spherical horse,..."

    And you engineers wonder why you never get invited to the good parties... ;)

  88. 99.999% speed of light by bronsinbound · · Score: 1

    The Hadron Collider will do much better than that (99.99999%), and it has no were near the energy of a dying star. Then, again, it has no where near the mass.

  89. Near Light Speed Propulsion Proposed by nlspropulsion · · Score: 1

    Concept uses proven physics of 50 years.

    Mining the The Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud is the purpose of technology.

    http://nlspropulsion.net/

    Man's continued survival counts on someone coming up with a solution for interstellar
    space travel.