You could do an internet search on "tachyons," and whether they exist, travel faster than light, or perhaps backward in time. You might post what interesting observations or  conclusions you might tend to draw.  As far as I know, there has been evidence from particle experiments regarding this for several decades, but I expect it is generally considered still in doubt.

You could do an internet search on "tachyons," and whether they exist, travel faster than light, or perhaps backward in time. You might post what interesting observations or  conclusions you might tend to draw.  As far as I know, there has been evidence from particle experiments regarding this for several decades, but I expect it is generally considered still in doubt.

Its Human Mind, which Physics cant harness

Thanks James and Rajdeep. I am aware that there are many side discussions and experiments trying to prove this statement of nothing travels faster than light wrong but if really there is something that travel faster than light, then the evidence should be more than mere experiment. We should understand basic physics and mathematics that govern such and that is the bottom line of my question. I will be glad to see any reference to that if there is such.

Accelerating to light speed or exceeding it would also violate certain fundamental energy conditions. It could even allow for time travel.

http://zidbits.com/2011/05/why-cant-anything-go-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

The answer to your question is certainly positive. Let me signal the following paper:

Article Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames

Misunderstanding your question intentionally: Yes, particles can move substantially faster than light. Or from where else could Tcherenkov radiation could arise? :-)

 Dear Olaniyi,

Let me give you two answers. First, from the principle of relativity (Einstein-Pauli) one can derive the Lorentz transformations. Since it includes the velocity of light in vacuum as a constant it seems to imply an answer to your question from the beginning.

However, if you add the assumption that superimposing two (positive) velocities you get as a result a positive velocity a, one can prove (Löwdin) that there must exist a limiting velocity, which one then can identify as c, or a=c.

The other point is that in quantum mechanics, QM, it might seem as this limit is violated as a macroscopically large wave function can "immediately" decohere, or collapse  locally, implying that "something" is travelling faster than light. This is, however, a peculiarity of QM and does not impart that information has been conveyed from one point to another faster than light.

I am sure that others will mention the notion of tachyons, that appears to be faster than light in certain media, but this motivates a separate discussion

I don't understand what tachyons (exotic particles) centre around Olaniyi's question who asks if there are non-exotic objects that move with greater than light speed. Postmodern physicists accept conclusions of a theory based on Lorentz's Transformations that is a theory of modern physics and believe the answer to the initial question is negative. Other thoeries like the Theory of Reference Frames, classified as theories of contemporary physics , prove the answer is positive. The only serious thing that we can say is that a serious comparison has to be made among different theories.

Olaniyi - 

Did you restrict your question, perhaps to baryons?   It was not my impression that you had any restrictions, though apparently some think so.  Was that your intention?  -

Thanks -  Jim

Thanks to everyone for your comments on this question. Jim, my question is out of curiosity and I do not, as scientist, believe that something is impossible just because someone very famous in his time has made the claim. There are many things that they did not understand in their time due to very limited technology. So please, take my question as general as possible.

Light always travels at the speed of light locally (in your frame) unless it enters a dielectric.  This is an example of light changing velocity non-locally.  Near an event horizion light will stop completely.  However as light slows down by relativity, space contracts so that it can't be detected locally.  A parallel to relativity is to think of space near gravitational bodies as increasing in dielectric constant slowing light and suggesting why light bends. Gravitational lensing.  

There is the possibility for light to exceed it's max velocity away from gravitational bodies.  I suspect light would non-locally exceed it's normal speed when passing between 2 casmir force effected plates.  The plates block energy from existing between the plates reducing the dielectric constant of free space and possibly increasing the non-local speed of light.  (I may have this backwards, light may slow down between the Casimir force effected plates according to this paper:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270278645_Practical_Engineering_Principles_of_Warp_Drive_Propulsion)  This sort of suggest gravity is some how related to the changes in the local vacuum energy levels.  

It is possible reducing the local energy of free space could reduce the effective mass of light and momentum being conserved speed it up.  The same may apply to a spaceship, reducing its mass but also, non-locally speeding up time and expanding space.  I am reminded of the enterprise stretching when it took off for example.

I think this paper touches on the concept a bit.  http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1203.0090v1.pdf

Article Practical Engineering Principles of Warp Drive Propulsion

The fact that nothing can move with a speed greater than the speed of light is not an "assumption" that ensures causality. Rather, it is a consequence of the special theory of relativity as follows: the energy of a massive body of mass m moving with a speed v , . Thus, for a body to be accelerated to the speed c you will require an infinite amount of energy! This makes c a natural upper bound to the velocity a massive body can attain.

Causality is a logical principle that is appealed to when you want to explain why c is the upper bound for velocities using the relativity of simultaneity.