Speed of Light Broken?

[RMNIXON]

'We have broken speed of light'


By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007

A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.

However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.


The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.

Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.

For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.

The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.

Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."


'We have broken speed of light' - Telegraph


__________________________________________________ ____________


While this will obviously need to be verified by any number of independent labs it is none the less an exciting claim! It also mean that perhaps Warp Drive is not so far off?

[DosEquis]

Sweet. I am going to name my first kid zefram cochrane

[WickedLou9]

i still dont believe it

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

i still dont believe it

they're german, what's not to believe?

[Nonphixion]

Awesome

[Thomas Crown]

It is called the THEORY of relativity for a reason.

[PetriW]

No luck as usual:
Latest "faster than the speed of light" claims wrong (again)

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by PetriW

No luck as usual:
Latest "faster than the speed of light" claims wrong (again)

ha.
Einstein is still right fuckers.

Usually these "faster than light" experiments are simply some sort of illusion that seems to have the result of faster than light travel but is really just some sort of phenomenon that creates an illusion , when in fact nothing actually traveled faster that light.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

It is called the THEORY of relativity for a reason.

Educated people everywhere are throwing up in thier mouths.

[PetriW]

Article from new scientist tomorrow:
Light seems to defy its own speed limit

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Educated people everywhere are throwing up in thier mouths.

Pardon me whilst I roll my eyes.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

It is called the THEORY of relativity for a reason.

Clearly not the reason you are thinking. In scientific terms, the word theory has nothing to do with its validity.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

It is called the THEORY of relativity for a reason.

Much like the theory of gravity.

[mididoctors]

measuring the group velocity of a phenomena is like measuring the rate at which things "change" rather than travel.

in effect the moving "thing" is not the same "thing" from one location to the next...

the classic example is a spinning lighthouse beam where the beam can "move" faster than light if we stand far enough back as it scans across space.

but on examination we realise the spot the beam makes is a different group of photons arriving one moment to the next rather than some single group of photons moving across our field of view.

eventually you end up measuring the rate at which time passes from one event to the next rather than something "moving"

the illusion is created by being localised... if i look at a white wall I see light is hitting all the time all over I do not assume some wave of white light is moving across it at a infinite velocity.

group velocity is no different except only certain portions are being hit from moment to moment

Boris
London

[Thomas Crown]

Science is not absolute. As our ability to understand grows, our knowledge grows. Scientific fact has changed just as much in the past 100 years as it has in the past thousand as our ability to understand and learn has changed.

Right now, with current technology, understanding and knowledge, it is impossible to travel faster than light. As technology, understanding and knowledge grow, we might find ways to travel faster than the speed of light.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Science is not absolute. As our ability to understand grows, our knowledge grows. Scientific fact has changed just as much in the past 100 years as it has in the past thousand as our ability to understand and learn has changed.

Right now, with current technology, understanding and knowledge, it is impossible to travel faster than light. As technology, understanding and knowledge grow, we might find ways to travel faster than the speed of light.

yes but first understand what it is we understand

Boris
London

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Science is not absolute. As our ability to understand grows, our knowledge grows. Scientific fact has changed just as much in the past 100 years as it has in the past thousand as our ability to understand and learn has changed.

Right now, with current technology, understanding and knowledge, it is impossible to travel faster than light. As technology, understanding and knowledge grow, we might find ways to travel faster than the speed of light.

While the basic premise of what you are saying is true, the degree with which you doubt current scientific understanding based on the premise that some future development will negate current understanding is a little unfounded. Eiinsteins theorys and the predictions based on those theories have been proven, experimentally, time and again. His theories even predicted the existance of what we now know to be black holes, although at the time he didn't use that word, and none had so far been discovered. His work was groundbreaking and has stood the test of time and scientific scrutiny. It is unlikely that the speed of light will ever be broken in a meaningful way. I will never say that anything is impossible, but the idea of breaking the speed of light, in terms of physical travel, is just about as close to impossible as you can get.
Some things do not change, even if our explanations for them do. Our observation that gravity exists is not goingb to change. Our explantion for why it exists might change, but the existance of gravity and the effects of gravity will never change. The speed of light, while not an observation with this degree of certainty, is close to that of the existance of gravity. Any experiments which purport to have exceded the speed of light should be viewed with great scrutiny and scepticism. You can not just say " well, relativity is just a theory, lets implicitly believe anything that might contradict it". You sould view these sorts of experiments with the same sort of scepticism that you would if someone came to you claiming that you just won the European lottery.

[Thomas Crown]

Stood the test of time?

Early scholars works stood for centuries, even millennia before they were broken. Einstein's have been around for 50 years.

This isn't exactly a long time in the grand scheme of things.

Granted, the amount our understanding has progressed in the past 100 years is exponential in comparison to the thousands of years before that.

The point still stands. Einstein himself said it was possible, just improbable.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Much like the theory of gravity.

There is no such thing as "the theory of gravity." Gravity, itself, is a word used to describe a force that can be empirically observed. In other words, gravity is a fact. This is not to be confused with "gravitational theory," which is a theory that describes the force.

Whether gravity reacts instantly (Newtonian) or at the speed of light (relative) is irrelevant to the fact that the force itself does physically exist. The force is not theoretical, but there is a theory behind the manner in which the force works.

I know it seems like semantic bullshit, but there is a fundamental difference here.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Stood the test of time?

Early scholars works stood for centuries, even millennia before they were broken. Einstein's have been around for 50 years.

This isn't exactly a long time in the grand scheme of things.

Granted, the amount our understanding has progressed in the past 100 years is exponential in comparison to the thousands of years before that.

The point still stands. Einstein himself said it was possible, just improbable.

I agree that nothing is impossible, but there are degrees of improbability. Is it impossible for a monkey to sit down at a tyepwriter and write the gettysburg address? No. It's not impossible. It's improbable. It's also improbable that it will rain today as the weather is saying 10% chance of rain. Saying that both events are simply "improbable" is a bit misleading as it implies a similar level of probability when in fact the two events have vastly different probabilities.

Breaking the speed of light is not impossible, as nothing is impossible. However it is so improbable that I would sooner put my money on the monkey than the person saying that they could accelerate a mass to the speed of light or more.