The speed of light has been broken ! "allegedly"

Raymond Lin · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:20

Article in the Telegraph no less, not the Daily Mail

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.

West · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:24

Killer

We'll have our own Starship Enterprise in no time.

Theeeeres Klingons on the starboard bow..

/Gets coat

Azza · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:27

This is very interesting.

If it is proved true and that they can do it again it is certaintly going to shake things up a bit.

Johnny Girth · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:28

Every few years something like this seems to pop up. Last time it was something to do with a gas and something getting to the finish before it left. Don't think it's much to get excited about...

collisster · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:29

here we go bloody germans

Azza · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:30

collisster said:
here we go bloody germans

First they think they can take over the world then they think they have made stuff travel faster than the speed of light. Them crazy germans.

Surfer · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:36

German efficiency ehh?

Vorsprung durch Technik lol

Sinque · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:38

Azza said:
First they think they can take over the world then they think they have made stuff travel faster than the speed of light. Them crazy germans.

They make some rather sweet cars though

daven1986 · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:41

tbh at a distance of 3 feet light DOES travel "instantaneously" how about he tries a distance of a few miles?

Inquisitor · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:42

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

This is a bit dodgy; this would happen in theory according to STR, but since it doesn't allow it to happen, then STR must be wrong in this area, and as such cannot be applied meaningfully (assuming the observations are correct).

daven1986 said:
tbh at a distance of 3 feet light DOES travel "instantaneously" how about he tries a distance of a few miles?

Instantaneously != very quickly.

fini · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:49

I thought quantum tunnelling was pretty much random?

daven1986 · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:53

Inquisitor said:
This is a bit dodgy; this would happen in theory according to STR, but since it doesn't allow it to happen, then STR must be wrong in this area, and as such cannot be applied meaningfully (assuming the observations are correct).

Instantaneously != very quickly.

instantaneously in quotes == very quickly

Dist · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:54

can some1 explain (not with complex stuff) why the speed of light cant be broken?

ive never understood why the speed of light happened to be so special that nothing can be faster then it. People talk about instant travel and such at beyond light speeds, but if light has a speed of 186,000 miles per second, and you reach speeds of 187,000 miles per second, then traveling 374,000 miles will still take 2 seconds, it wont be instant.

daven1986 · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:57

well e = mc^2, e is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light.

as you speed something up, it gains more energy and therefore increases in mass. to make it go faster you give it more energy and therefore more mass. the closer you get to the speed of light, the heavier the object becomes, and as such you get closer and closer to the speed of light but can never reach it, as you would need an infinite amount of energy to overcome the infinite mass.

Skree · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:57

if something can arrive before it has left... imagine the headache it would get if it did, then someone decided not to send it...

Inquisitor · 17 Aug 2007 at 00:59

daven1986 said:
instantaneously in quotes == very quickly

So what's your point? :/

Dist said:
can some1 explain (not with complex stuff) why the speed of light cant be broken?

ive never understood why the speed of light happened to be so special that nothing can be faster then it. People talk about instant travel and such at beyond light speeds, but if light has a speed of 186,000 miles per second, and you reach speeds of 187,000 miles per second, then traveling 374,000 miles will still take 2 seconds, it wont be instant.

Basically because time and space are distorted when moving, to put it simply. This isn't noticeable at low speeds, but when you approach the speed of light time dilation and length contraction occur: time passes more slowly for you the closer you get to the speed of light, so travelling 186,000 miles at c (the speed of light) will take no time at all for you, but to a (relatively) stationary observer, it'll take 1 second.

STR is rather complicated, so I can't really simplify it more than that I'm afraid

Dist · 17 Aug 2007 at 01:01

daven1986 said:
well e = mc^2, e is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light.

as you speed something up, it gains more energy and therefore increases in mass. to make it go faster you give it more energy and therefore more mass. the closer you get to the speed of light, the heavier the object becomes, and as such you get closer and closer to the speed of light but can never reach it, as you would need an infinite amount of energy to overcome the infinite mass.

'light' doesnt have mass though does it? so whats stopping something else without mass traveling just as fast, or faster?

daven1986 · 17 Aug 2007 at 01:02

Inquisitor said:
So what's your point? :/

my point is that if the article has it in quotes then it just APPEARED to be instant and wasn't, it was infact just very fast. i mean if i turn on my light then it lights up my room "instantly".

what i was trying to say, is if the guy proved it worked instantly over a few miles then maybe i could begin to believe him.

daven1986 · 17 Aug 2007 at 01:03

Dist said:
'light' doesnt have mass though does it? so whats stopping something else without mass traveling just as fast, or faster?

the mass is not of the light, but of the object you are accelerating

Inquisitor · 17 Aug 2007 at 01:05

daven1986 said:
my point is that if the article has it in quotes then it just APPEARED to be instant and wasn't, it was infact just very fast. i mean if i turn on my light then it lights up my room "instantly".

what i was trying to say, is if the guy proved it worked instantly over a few miles then maybe i could begin to believe him.

You can't really make judgements on the factual accuracy of their findings if you don't even know anything about their experimental procedure.