300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal?
Posted by mark on July 08, 2001 at 14:50:23:

Last year, a Dr. Wang at Princeton University sent a photon along at 300 times the speed of light. Supposedly it "arrived" before it was sent...(I haven't read the paper...just heard the interpretations). Nothing is supposed to exceed the speed of light (per theory) though there is a glaring contrary example in addition to the above example.

This experiment has supposedly caused a stir ...and has some recasting "physics" into the domain of "hyperspace physics"....

So..what may be considered ridiculous by some could have them coming around later to exactly the idea of "Why not" ? There's a long way to go to build supporting proof /evidence...though.

In another area, there is "scientific evidence" that a person can subconsciouly perceive something in the future by about a 1/2 second interval or so (several automatic nervous system responses are measured with sensors).

The terminology of saying event A "caused" event B is probably not the best. It's probably better to say that event A may be linked to event B and may be a "result" of the latter event manifesting at an earlier time interval.

Some wily coyotes may even go so far as to say that the experience of "deja vu" (?) is nothing more that this same phenomena, etc. Of course we don't want to delve into ESP, etc. as this could taint someone as a "non-scientist" , etc.

Did you know that a guy wrote a book about an 800 foot ship called Titan about 14 years before the Titanic sank (yeah...the Titan sank too).

How about the author of a book about the daughter of a newspaper mogul turned terrorist who was interviewed by the FBI about the Patty Hurst case...How did he know so much about it that he could write a book about it years in advance...?

Dunno how true these examples are but they do give one a chance to "play" with "what if...scenarios...."

OF course, in order to answer the questions more data and analysis would have to be undertaken.

So...yeah...it sounds crazy.... It sure does sound unbelievable...but it looks like that's where the train is heading...(at the photon level anyway...).


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell  16:53:59 - 7/8/2001  (8358)  (4)
        ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Canie  08:24:27 - 7/9/2001  (8371)  (1)
           ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell  12:50:12 - 7/9/2001  (8380)  (0)
        ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Roger Hunter  05:21:50 - 7/9/2001  (8369)  (0)
        ● Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - mark  20:03:28 - 7/8/2001  (8362)  (1)
           ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell  13:06:39 - 7/9/2001  (8381)  (1)
              ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Don in Hollister  14:17:50 - 7/9/2001  (8382)  (1)
                 ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell  16:06:01 - 7/9/2001  (8384)  (1)
                    ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Don in Hollister  16:46:32 - 7/9/2001  (8386)  (0)
        ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Petra Challus  18:19:50 - 7/8/2001  (8360)  (2)
           ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie  08:29:47 - 7/9/2001  (8372)  (1)
              ● Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark  18:53:07 - 7/9/2001  (8391)  (1)
                 ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie  16:10:44 - 7/10/2001  (8436)  (1)
                    ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie  16:57:20 - 7/10/2001  (8437)  (1)
                       ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark  21:46:06 - 7/10/2001  (8440)  (1)
                          ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie  07:58:53 - 7/11/2001  (8445)  (1)
                             ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark  19:07:28 - 7/12/2001  (8476)  (0)
           ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark  20:12:18 - 7/8/2001  (8363)  (2)
              ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Petra Challus  00:57:05 - 7/9/2001  (8368)  (0)
              ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Don in Hollister  21:00:39 - 7/8/2001  (8364)  (1)
                 ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark  23:29:44 - 7/8/2001  (8366)  (1)
                    ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Don in Hollister  00:01:26 - 7/9/2001  (8367)  (1)
                       ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark  18:27:53 - 7/9/2001  (8389)  (0)