Is it possible to travel faster than light?

[°Leprechaun]

Based on the opinions of scientists I would say "no", but I'll vote "other answer" instead,
because there is always the possibility that they could be wrong.

The question is can anything travel faster than light, for example particles that are already doing that? (tachyons)

[muon2]

It's possible to travel faster than light in air or water. When a particle does that it creates the light equivalent of a sonic boom, called Cherenkov radiation. We see it as blue light, and it is the glow seen around radioactive material such as in the water in a reactor. Particles can do that because light travels slower in air or water than it does in a vacuum, but a particle's speed is limited to the vacuum speed of light. Thus we see the radioactive glow.

[Mr. Morden]

Depends on how you're defining "travel faster than light".  Spacetime itself can "travel faster than light" in the sense that distant parts of the universe, beyond the cosmological horizon, are receding from us "faster than the speed of light".  Or we are receding from them faster than the speed of light, if you don't want to be too Earth-centric about it.

[The Other Castro]

It's pretty easy, just build a spaceship that goes the speed of light minus 3 mph, and then go for a light jog.

[Xing]

It's pretty easy, just build a spaceship that goes the speed of light minus 3 mph, and then go for a light jog.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work because of time dilation.

[°Leprechaun]

As you know, I voted other, but I would like to point out that it is less likely to be able to discover a way to surpass the speed of light (in space) if one decides ahead of time that it is impossible.
If there are shortcuts, then getting from point A to point B wouldn't actually be exceeding the so called "cosmic speed limit", but as for these shortcuts, we can only speculate. We are far from any of this, and therefore it is all moot. Even at the speed of light a trip to the nearest solar system would take over four years and a round trip obviously twice as long. We are no where near this.

[°Leprechaun]

Finding life "out there", time travel, and the existence of a multi-verse, for now is best left to science fiction. I say that because such things are currently only speculation and of course time travel (backwards, of course) contains at least one paradox, if not many.

Certainly forward time travel is happening as I write, so "time travel" is meant to imply going back in time. This would inevitably change the timeline, which itself equates to an obvious paradox.

Life "out there"? What are the odds? Why bother even speculate and the same goes for the "multi-verse".

The universe is very big, one could speculate that it never ends, as well. These are the kinds of things that create such awe among not only scientists but others as well.

[°Leprechaun]

Sad, however, is the fact that science can and has been used for both good and ill.

[Sir Mohamed]

Very likely no. If that were possible, time would move backwards.

[FairBol]

It seems like it would be possible....with technology advancing all the time, why not?

[°Leprechaun]

To argue that faster than the speed of light (in space) is not possible, seems to imply that the speed of light (in space) is a constant. Do we know with absolute certainty that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a constant?

It has been hypothesized (albeit not proven, of course) that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is variable. The hypothesis of course is called VSL (variable speed of light).

Since all of these theories have not been proven, one can't say for sure that faster than light speed is possible, but many have claimed that it is not. It seems that there may still be room for debate on the topic, even if the general consensus is that it is not possible.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Afaik it is possible.  But everyone who is anyone knows the fastest way to get from the top-left corner to the bottom-right corner of a piece of paper is not by straight line... but by folding the corners together and taking the elevator.

[Associate Justice PiT]

To argue that faster than the speed of light (in space) is not possible, seems to imply that the speed of light (in space) is a constant. Do we know with absolute certainty that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a constant?

It has been hypothesized (albeit not proven, of course) that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is variable. The hypothesis of course is called VSL (variable speed of light).

Since all of these theories have not been proven, one can't say for sure that faster than light speed is possible, but many have claimed that it is not. It seems that there may still be room for debate on the topic, even if the general consensus is that it is not possible.

     And the general consensus is what counts, because it is based on evidence. Maybe it happens that FTL is possible or that the speed of light is variable, but such hypotheses need evidence to support them. Until convincing evidence of these hypotheses is presented, there is no need to take them seriously.