How do we measure faster than light speed ?

[RainbowUnicorn]

Now that there seems to be collective acceptance(in some groups) of the fact that scientists now recognise a force that travels faster than the speed of light, namely Gravity &/or Dark energy/Dark matter, how do we set about trying to find a way to start mapping its speed.
We cant just throw a laser into the middle of a super massive black hole however maybe there is some way to start the ball rolling.
im pondering some type of inverse proportional quantum duality sensor aray which might be possible with quantum computers and subattomic synthasisation particles etc...(casual thought)

what are your thoughts ? (general, casual, technical what~ever...)

[Syne]

What makes you think gravity propagates faster than light? I've seen no credible science suggesting that.

[C C]

[...] how do we set about trying to find a way to start mapping its speed. [...]

~ 4 Things That Currently Break the Speed of Light Barrier
~ Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass

FTL claims are often dependent upon eccentric ways of construing the potential candidates; with information / local disturbances not exceeding the limit.

In 2013, Chinese physicists clocked the the interaction between entangled quantum particles at 10,000 times faster than light. But that was simply the limit of their equipment and methods; and thus the researchers optionally allowed that the relationship could still be instantaneous.

If tachyons existed (much skepticism there) and had charge, they would continue to accelerate as they lost energy as Cherenkov radiation (a detectable byproduct). By this late date they would be so fast that the bluish glow of those emissions would have universal presence (tachyons tending toward so-called "infinite speed"). Also electroneutral tachyons supposedly could still scatter conventional matter with detectable effects in experiments (that's just relevant in terms of "do they exist?", though).

[RainbowUnicorn]

What makes you think gravity propagates faster than light? I've seen no credible science suggesting that.

i am basing my premise on basic binary principals.
light does not reflect off a black hole.
thus probability suggests 4 basic potentials.

1. difusion
2. refraction
3. absorbtion
4. nothing to bounce off or interact with

Arguementative premis RE Gravitational lensing (can we scientifically use the word gravitational in reference to causality of photons?)

Thus is light controlled/effected by Gravity ? (assuptive generic yes as a premis)

(i am particularily useless at algebra so maybe someone with some knowledge can apply it here)

Gravity bends light yet does not reflect it and/(potential) absorbs it or re-directs it in a manner that makes it impossible for science to currently locate.
err-go is light a constant or thus effected by something that travels faster than light ?

...thoughts ?

---

[...] how do we set about trying to find a way to start mapping its speed. [...]

~ 4 Things That Currently Break the Speed of Light Barrier
~ Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass

FTL claims are often dependent upon eccentric ways of construing the potential candidates; with information / local disturbances not exceeding the limit.

In 2013, Chinese physicists clocked the the interaction between entangled quantum particles at 10,000 times faster than light. But that was simply the limit of their equipment and methods; and thus the researchers optionally allowed that the relationship could still be instantaneous.

If tachyons existed (much skepticism there) and had charge, they would continue to accelerate as they lost energy as Cherenkov radiation (a detectable byproduct). By this late date they would be so fast that the bluish glow of those emissions would have universal presence (tachyons tending toward so-called "infinite speed"). Also electroneutral tachyons supposedly could still scatter conventional matter with detectable effects in experiments (that's just relevant in terms of "do they exist?", though).

Thanks C C awesome post precisely what i was considering.
the instantaneous duality would throw a spanner in the works until we have the ability to quantify the dual positioning i would guess.
That given, being able to tag, create or pre-define the quantum particle should potentially allow measurement.
... is there where quantum computers come in ?
in very laymens terms gravity err-go travels faster than light assuming gravity is a potential dimensional constant by its quantifiable definition of force ?
Is anyone attempting to map Gravity into a measurable speed dynamic ? (my only tiny amount of reading suggests it just accelerates to an unknown value soo far defined as potential infinite, yet... it is or was mass relative, queue dark energy ?

[Syne]

What makes you think gravity propagates faster than light? I've seen no credible science suggesting that.

i am basing my premise on basic binary principals.
light does not reflect off a black hole.
thus probability suggests 4 basic potentials.

1. difusion
2. refraction
3. absorbtion
4. nothing to bounce off or interact with

Arguementative premis RE Gravitational lensing (can we scientifically use the word gravitational in reference to causality of photons?)

Thus is light controlled/effected by Gravity ? (assuptive generic yes as a premis)

(i am particularily useless at algebra so maybe someone with some knowledge can apply it here)

Gravity bends light yet does not reflect it and/(potential) absorbs it or re-directs it in a manner that makes it impossible for science to currently locate.
err-go is light a constant or thus effected by something that travels faster than light ?

...thoughts ?

Photos do not have rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass, in the form of momentum. Since gravity acts on everything that has mass, this relativistic mass allow gravity to effect light. Gravity equally bends the path of any free-falling object, without us being able to observe its force carrier directly. Gravity doesn't need to propagate any faster than light. It only needs to propagate at the speed of light, which we believe it does, and has been experimentally verified by the measurement of gravity waves. If gravity propagated faster than light, we'd expect to see much more gravitational lensing than we do.

---

Thanks C C awesome post precisely what i was considering.
the instantaneous duality would throw a spanner in the works until we have the ability to quantify the dual positioning i would guess.
That given, being able to tag, create or pre-define the quantum particle should potentially allow measurement.
... is there where quantum computers come in ?
in very laymens terms gravity err-go travels faster than light assuming gravity is a potential dimensional constant by its quantifiable definition of force ?
Is anyone attempting to map Gravity into a measurable speed dynamic ? (my only tiny amount of reading suggests it just accelerates to an unknown value soo far defined as potential infinite, yet... it is or was mass relative, queue dark energy ?

Nothing that travels faster than light can relay information, so c is effectively the top speed of causation. No quantum system that has instantaneous action at a distance can relay information, so it does not violate causality.

[RainbowUnicorn]

What makes you think gravity propagates faster than light? I've seen no credible science suggesting that.

i am basing my premise on basic binary principals.
light does not reflect off a black hole.
thus probability suggests 4 basic potentials.

1. difusion
2. refraction
3. absorbtion
4. nothing to bounce off or interact with

Arguementative premis RE Gravitational lensing (can we scientifically use the word gravitational in reference to causality of photons?)

Thus is light controlled/effected by Gravity ? (assuptive generic yes as a premis)

(i am particularily useless at algebra so maybe someone with some knowledge can apply it here)

Gravity bends light yet does not reflect it and/(potential) absorbs it or re-directs it in a manner that makes it impossible for science to currently locate.
err-go is light a constant or thus effected by something that travels faster than light ?

...thoughts ?

Photos do not have rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass, in the form of momentum. Since gravity acts on everything that has mass, this relativistic mass allow gravity to effect light. Gravity equally bends the path of any free-falling object, without us being able to observe its force carrier directly. Gravity doesn't need to propagate any faster than light. It only needs to propagate at the speed of light, which we believe it does, and has been experimentally verified by the measurement of gravity waves. If gravity propagated faster than light, we'd expect to see much more gravitational lensing than we do.

(Hi Syne)

Putting light to the side for a moment and defining our positional reference;
we are under force of current position and what ever force holds us from not being effected by other force passing by or close by
e.g another planet in our solar system(arguebly equally balanced and thus at a loss to potentiate a dynamic that is unrelatavistic).
Queue... muse... unified field(theory) when we have no ability to measure the entire range... queue... "gravitational lensing" being a lens on a flow point being purely relative to the postioning of the lens relative to the flow 'rather than' being a measure of the quantifiable spectrum.

funny thought... we only see light because it is being efected by Gravity(qwasi premise per say)
thus why cant we see standing light ?(light that is not moving)
this is starting to sound a little schrodinger yet is that not the realm in which we find ourselfs ?

is the light there but we just cant see it until we exert a force (gravity)(electrical frequency) upon it ?
(attempting to steer clear of the inverted universe theory of fractal energy matrices)

[[leaving it there for the moment]]
((appologies for the grammar & spelling))

[Syne]

(Hi Syne)

Putting light to the side for a moment and defining our positional reference;
we are under force of current position and what ever force holds us from not being effected by other force passing by or close by
e.g another planet in our solar system(arguebly equally balanced and thus at a loss to potentiate a dynamic that is unrelatavistic).
Queue... muse... unified field(theory) when we have no ability to measure the entire range... queue... "gravitational lensing" being a lens on a flow point being purely relative to the postioning of the lens relative to the flow 'rather than' being a measure of the quantifiable spectrum.

funny thought... we only see light because it is being efected by Gravity(qwasi premise per say)
thus why cant we see standing light ?(light that is not moving)
this is starting to sound a little schrodinger yet is that not the realm in which we find ourselfs ?

is the light there but we just cant see it until we exert a force (gravity)(electrical frequency) upon it ?
(attempting to steer clear of the inverted universe theory of fractal energy matrices)

[[leaving it there for the moment]]
((appologies for the grammar & spelling))

That is all gibberish.

[RainbowUnicorn]

(Hi Syne)

Putting light to the side for a moment and defining our positional reference;
we are under force of current position and what ever force holds us from not being effected by other force passing by or close by
e.g another planet in our solar system(arguebly equally balanced and thus at a loss to potentiate a dynamic that is unrelatavistic).
Queue... muse... unified field(theory) when we have no ability to measure the entire range... queue... "gravitational lensing" being a lens on a flow point being purely relative to the postioning of the lens relative to the flow 'rather than' being a measure of the quantifiable spectrum.

funny thought... we only see light because it is being efected by Gravity(qwasi premise per say)
thus why cant we see standing light ?(light that is not moving)
this is starting to sound a little schrodinger yet is that not the realm in which we find ourselfs ?

is the light there but we just cant see it until we exert a force (gravity)(electrical frequency) upon it ?
(attempting to steer clear of the inverted universe theory of fractal energy matrices)

[[leaving it there for the moment]]
((appologies for the grammar & spelling))

That is all gibberish.

what is light when it is not moving ?

[Syne]

what is light when it is not moving ?

Light can only exist moving.

[Secular Sanity]

What is light when it is not moving ?

It can be stored for a short time in the excited states of atoms.

BTW, a photon doesn't experience time or distance.