Does this article support the existence of FTL particles?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of a specific article regarding the existence of faster-than-light (FTL) particles and whether it suggests a violation of the speed of light (c) as a fundamental limit. The article in question is hosted on arXiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3713), but it has not undergone peer review, raising concerns about its validity. Participants emphasize the importance of peer-reviewed research in establishing scientific credibility before drawing conclusions about FTL particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity and the speed of light as a limit.
  • Familiarity with scientific publishing and the peer review process.
  • Basic knowledge of particle physics and theoretical physics concepts.
  • Ability to interpret scientific papers and research articles.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the peer review process and its significance in scientific validation.
  • Explore the implications of special relativity on particle physics.
  • Investigate other theoretical frameworks that propose FTL travel.
  • Study the history of scientific claims regarding FTL particles and their reception in the scientific community.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and science enthusiasts interested in the implications of FTL particles and the scientific process surrounding unverified claims.

Fiziqs
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
I would like to know how this article applies to the possible existence of FTL particles. Does it point to a possible violation of c as the ultimate speed limit of a particle? In layman's terms what is this paper saying?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3713

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, but this hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal (and given the authors' history, this might not happen at all). When that changes, PM a mentor and we can reopen this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K