Physicists extend special relativity

Don't editorialize the title. The title of the article is "Physicists extend special relativity beyond the speed of light"

Several comments here are reminding me of general objections to PhysOrg as a source. As I recall, PhysOrg appears to have been banned as a site to submit from by Reddit. Users here on HN think there are better sites to submit from.<p>Comments about PhysOrg:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869</a><p>"Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet."<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249</a><p>"Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam:<p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/</a> (press release),<p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/</a> (video),<p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1116.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien...</a> (paper).<p>"PhysOrg: just say no."<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888</a><p>"The physorg article summary is wrong, I think."<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857</a><p>"Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong."

..I was under the impression that special relativity only forbade <i>accelerating</i> to the speed of light - particles that always traveled FTL (i.e. tachyons) were explicitly fine.<p>So.. what have they added with this work, exactly? IDGI.

Quote from original paper: "In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion." <a href="http://bit.ly/RswJIr" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/RswJIr</a>

I wish the full paper were available.<p>Stepping into general relativity, there's been a fair amount of work lately on Alcubierre's warp drive idea. The original required enormous amounts of negative mass and was infeasible in other ways, but more recent papers have modified it in ways that almost sound workable. Now a guy at NASA named Harold White is trying an experiment. (Google turns up plenty of articles.)<p>Not directly related: experiments continue on Woodward's Mach effect idea.

&#62; <i>I have a feeling the world will change in some dramatic way as we move through the speed of light. All sorts of things could happen. Time and space could interchange.</i><p>Penrose diagrams, light cones and scenarios like approaching a black hole event horizon help a lot on gathering what he means here.

Seems like an interesting article, sad that it is behind a paywall.

Well the answer is obvious. Just make light go faster.

So is this just saying that a particle traveling at .75 c will appear to be moving at 1.5 c to another particle moving towards it at .75 c? If so then duh?