German Scientists have discovered a way to travel faster than the speed of light

[GTS_300_Coupe]

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.

advertisement
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."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cispeed116.xml

[Mongoose]

That's interesting, but instead of working out stuff like this, why dont they work out how to make BMW's and Merc's cheaper, it will be alot better for alot of people

[Van D]

How would they get there before leaving?

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Van D

How would they get there before leaving?

Well he would get there look back into the rear wiew mirror and see himself coming!

[thefargo]

Originally Posted by Van D

How would they get there before leaving?

consider that travelling at the speed of light it takes sunlight 8 min to reach us (earth), therefore if you travelled instantly you could get there before leaving. some stars we see no longer exist, the light they gave off before their death is still on its way

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by thefargo

consider that travelling at the speed of light it takes sunlight 8 min to reach us (earth), therefore if you travelled instantly you could get there before leaving. some stars we see no longer exist, the light they gave off before their death is still on its way

I've heard about all that before.
Its crazy to read about these things.

Most of the stars we see in the sky at night probably died thousands of years ago but it will take another million years before we witness it.
I love this kind of stuff, sends chills down my spine.

[Mental]

This was found out a long time ago actually, and the reason people have such a hard time understanding how you could leave before you began is because we all have this perception that everything we see is happening at the same time.

Draw two points on a piece of paper, imagine that they are clones of each other and as such, when one moves the other one replicates it instantaneously. Now, even on your piece of paper, if one of those dots was to move and observe its other self, the light traveling between the dots takes time to get there. So even over a small distance the dots will see each other as moving a couple of nano-seconds behind each other. Move those dots farther and farther away and the effect increases.

In the example of Sunlight reaching earth, if I was to place one of those dots at the sun, when it moves it would have to wait a whole 8 1/2 minutes before it will see the its partner mimic those moves, but in -real time- they still both moved in unison.

Now take the possibility that you can outrun light, if you were to travel away from th earth at the speed of light and turn around, time would appear to be standing still. Now going faster than the speed of light means that you are essentially catching up to _and overtaking_ light that was emitted in your past! So, once again moving away from the earth, this time Faster than the speed of light would appear as though the earth is going backwards.

So, to spin you out a little, next time you look into the night sky ... your not actually looking at the present - so to speak - but your actually observing the past some many millions of years ago, and the farther and deeper into the night sky you look, the farther back in time your seeing! That is why scientists are so keen on space telescopes, the farther into space they can focus, the farther back in time they can observe stars and solar systems being born billions of years ago!

[AUIIForte]

Originally Posted by Mental

Draw two points on a piece of paper, imagine that they are clones of each other and as such, when one moves the other one replicates it instantaneously. Now, even on your piece of paper, if one of those dots was to move and observe its other self, the light traveling between the dots takes time to get there. So even over a small distance the dots will see each other as moving a couple of nano-seconds behind each other. Move those dots farther and farther away and the effect increases.

So you're saying that if I was to look at my self in a mirror that was, lets say 50 meters away, and I moved around, I would see my reflection move 'after' me?

[TURBOTAXI]

Originally Posted by Van D

How would they get there before leaving?

We require an amount of light to see and image, so if we travelled faster than that light the image would "stand still" actual effect on aging etc.... can only be theorised.

[Nikked]

dang, i thought this about a new AMG...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by TURBOTAXI

We require an amount of light to see and image, so if we travelled faster than that light the image would "stand still" actual effect on aging etc.... can only be theorised.

Not quite, for the image to stand still you would need to travel at the speed of light, slightly faster and the image will start to rewind, any slower and the image will begin to play in super slowmo.

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by Van D

How would they get there before leaving?

Id say rather quickly lol!

Also, the worlds sharpest object is a fart, it goes strait threw your pants and doesnt leave a hole or tear!

[Auslandau]

I'm sorry but I seemed to have lost it after, "A pair of German physicists claim......." Physics was never kind to me...



| [/url] |

[the_scotsman]

My cat's name is mittens...

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by the_scotsman

My cat's name is mittens...

Hahahaha! classic Ralph Wiggum quote!

[AUIIForte]

Well in that case, I choose not to believe it until I try it. Now I just gotta find my self a big mirror :P

But honestly, I don't see how that works. Is this all still a theory, that when we look out at the stars, we are actually not looking at them because they most likely died out and are gone and its just taking a long time for that image to reach us?

I'm not some brain dead fool, but I just don't believe it to be the case. People always make things seem A LOT more complicated than they actually are.

[FlipXW]

Also according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, if a person could travel at this speed they would not age.

[AUIIForte]

Yeah, Einstein was proven to be wrong. And it is BS that you wont age. Goes against common sense.

Ah well, they are all theories.

[Scott]

It's not some crazy concept, it's just the way it is. Everything we see is visible because light is reflecting off of the object. Take away the light and we see nothing.

The reflected light travels at, amazingly, the speed of light. The speed of light is damn fast - but it is not instant. Therefore, with the above in mind, we deduce that if you travel away from the object which is reflecting the light (say a clock) you would see it stand still because you are travelling at the same speed as the reflection that was there when you left.

Now, if you travelled at the speed of light for 2 mins, you'd be lucky to see earth, let alone the clock but for the point of the argument, lets say the clock is 10 times the size of the earth. If you travelled at twice the speed of light away from a clock that was 2 times the size of earth, you would catch and pass the reflection that was there when you left and by the time you landed on your viewing platform in space, you would see the reflection of yourself checking the time before departure. The faster or further you go, the further back in time you see.

This isn't time travel, just a concept of how to view a previous time.

edit - another way of thinking about it is:

Imagine a machine gun is shooting at you. Every bullet is a new photo of a working clock. Every bullet (or photo) that reaches you will be slightly different. If you ran away from the gun at the same speed as the 100th bullet, you would only see that bullet and only that photo. If you sped up, you would see the 99th, 98, 97------50th bullet and the appropriate photos attached to them. If you stopped, the bullets would keep coming at you in the order they left which would show you photo after photo of the clock and you would see the hands move in every one.

[monkeydog]

If you looked behind you, you most likely wouldn't see yourself because you have created a void of light behind as light doesn't travel through you, you'd never be able to overtake the light as you are constantly reflecting forward.

On another note, if you managed to have two atomic clocks in the same building synced at the exact same time, put one in a plane that was capable of flying with it, and flew it around the world, and then brought it back to the stationary clock, they'd be at different times.

[AUIIForte]

Ok ok. So with that theory that you believe in, it means that If could travel faster then the speed of light, I could outrun light it self and not be able to see anything..

Just say I am on a nice big foot ball oval and there is a football placed on the ground on one side of the oval. I am standing in front of it, looking at it. Now I start running backwards faster then the speed of light (but still looking at the ball)... Does that mean the football disappeared out of my vision because the 'reflected light' that gave me the vision of the football cant catch up to me?

GTP006, what thoughts do you have about my other post about the mirror?

[monkeydog]

Originally Posted by AUIIForte

Ok ok. So with that theory that you believe in, it means that If could travel faster then the speed of light, I could outrun light it self and not be able to see anything..

Just say I am on a nice big foot ball oval and there is a football placed on the ground on one side of the oval. I am standing in front of it, looking at it. Now I start running backwards faster then the speed of light (but still looking at the ball)... Does that mean the football disappeared out of my vision because the 'reflected light' that gave me the vision of the football cant catch up to me?

GTP006, what thoughts do you have about my other post about the mirror?

No, you just wouldn't see yourself, because you have removed that light from that space, you would still see the football, because the light between you and it always existed uninterupted. Put your hand infront of a lazer, can you see the lazer still? no, move your hand closer, can you see it? no. At no stage did the light exist behind your hand for you to see, even if you moved your hand towards the light beyond the speed of light.

If you didn't run in a straight line you'd see yourself, in places, because you've allowed the light to travel uninterupted.

[FlipXW]

Its called time dilation which leads to the famous Twins Paradox, which is not a paradox but rather a simple fact of special relativity. Since clocks run slower in frames of reference at high velocity, then one can imagine a scenario were twins age at different rates. There are two twin brothers. On their thirtieth birthday, one of the brothers goes on a space journey in a superfast rocket that travels at 99% of the speed of light. The space traveller stays on his journey for precisely one year, whereupon he returns to Earth on his 31st birthday. On Earth, however, seven years have elapsed, so his twin brother is 37 years old at the time of his arrival. This is due to the fact that time is stretched by factor 7 at approx. 99% of the speed of light, which means that in the space traveller’s reference frame, one year is equivalent to seven years on earth. Yet, time appears to have passed normally to both brothers, i.e both still take 5 mins to shave each morning in their respective frames of refence.

All the predictions of special relativity, length contraction, time dilation and the twin paradox, have been confirmed by direct experiments, mostly using sub-atomic particles in high energy accelerators. The effects of relativity are dramatic, but only when speeds approach the Speed of light. At normal velocities, the changes to clocks and rulers are too small to be measured.

Will people ever travell at the speed of light, No, because of the incredible amounts of energy needed to accelerate a spacecraft to these speeds. The forces are likely to crush any person traveling at this speed and destroy any vehicle before it comes even close to the required speed. In addition, the navigational problems of near-to-speed-of-light travel pose another tremendous difficulty.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by PhilXR8

In addition, the navigational problems of near-to-speed-of-light travel pose another tremendous difficulty.

Depends where you're going doesn't it.

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by GTP006

Depends where you're going doesn't it.

True lol

[AUIIForte]

Well, once again this is all theory. You cannot say a twin brother came back to earth for his 31st birthday, but when he returned his brother was 37 and then say its true and thats how it works, because It has not been experimented with and never been done before. These are all just theories.

Another theory is that you actually can have a human going at the speed of light if you, just say, had the capabilities to do so. It wouldn't crush you or anything. In 'Theory' (which is what everything on this page is), you could gradually speed up to that speed without experiencing any G-force.

:P

One day the speed of light will be broken, just as the speed of sound was. And before it happened people all over the world were saying, NO that is bullshit, never, its impossible. Even highly acclaimed scientists, in their mind KNEW humans could not travel faster then the speed of sound.

Now its happening with speed of light. And our whole understand of it will change once again. Mr. Albert will have all his theories down the toilet

[It'sTheVibe]

If memory of uni physics serves me correct (which it rarely does these days), it would take 6months of continuous acceleration at about 10g's just to get to half the speed of light. The human body, even with G-suits and all the artificial environment technology available today, would perish long before we got anywhere near the speed of light.

[AUIIForte]

Originally Posted by It'sTheVibe

If memory of uni physics serves me correct (which it rarely does these days), it would take 6months of continuous acceleration at about 10g's just to get to half the speed of light. The human body, even with G-suits and all the artificial environment technology available today, would perish long before we got anywhere near the speed of light.

Then slow down and take it at 1G. Might take a lot longer, but in 'theory' it is possible.

Scientists of these days are already starting to prove Einsteins theories wrong.

Light travels at 3x10^8 m/s. The closest star to earth (after the sun) is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. There are 31,449,600 seconds in a year, therefore it takes
9,434,880,000,000,000 seconds or 299,178 years for the light to reach earth... I think. but i guess it gives you a rough idea... Bring on the wormholes!!!

[BadMac]

Originally Posted by J.O

Light travels at 3x10^8 m/s. The closest star to earth (after the sun) is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. There are 31,449,600 seconds in a year, therefore it takes
9,434,880,000,000,000 seconds or 299,178 years for the light to reach earth... I think. but i guess it gives you a rough idea... Bring on the wormholes!!!

If its 4.2 light years away and the light is travelling at the speed of light, it takes 4.2 years to get here and if you wanted to visit and could travel at the speed of light, you would take 4.2 years to get there. I think you confused yourself somewhere in the seconds to planets root mean squared constant.

Interesting thread, I have read of this before and theres plenty of contoversy.

Latest "faster than the speed of light" claims wrong (again)
By Chris Lee | Published: August 16, 2007 - 07:38PM CT

A paper submitted to the physics arXiv has been picked up by a number of major news outlets (e.g., the Daily Mail) because the paper suggests that its authors have measured something traveling faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately, the claim is worse than weak; it is silly. I'll talk about why that is after briefly discussing their research.

The paper in question has no data at all so; although it asserts that it has measured superluminal velocities, it offers nothing to back that up. It also has very little in the way of experimental detail, so we can't determine with certainty what they are measuring, making it very difficult to evaluate their claims. We'll take as close a look as we can, given these limitations.

The researchers make use of the property called total internal reflection (brief discussion). When light is above a certain angle of incidence on an interface between two materials—say, at the face of a prism—it can be totally reflected, provided it is arriving at this interface from the higher refractive index material. However, near the boundary, something called an evanescent wave forms that does not propagate like normal light (technically it does not propagate at all) and quickly decays away to nothing. If you take a second prism and place it very close to the interface where total internal reflection occurred, then some light from this evanescent wave will leak across the interface and exit the second prism. The prisms have to be no further than the wavelength of light involved for this to work.

Now the interesting questions are: where did the energy in this light come from? How fast did it travel across the boundary? The first question is interesting because the evanescent field has no energy in it. This is because the electric and magnetic fields that make up the field are phased in such a way that the product is always zero. The second question is interesting because the speed of light is not defined in a way that is intuitive to non-physicists. Suffice it to say that, for the evanescent wave, the speed of light is zero, and therefore any measurable speed is faster than the speed of light.

So, how are these authors measuring an excessive speed of light? In practical terms, most experiments measure light in terms of what is called the group velocity, which is how fast a pulse propagates along an underlying carrier frequency. This can, in some circumstances, lead to the pulses traveling faster than the speed of light in the medium they're in, but not faster than light in vacuum. Although the setup in the new paper is not entirely clear, they were measuring the arrival time of pulses, which means we're talking about group velocity rather than the actual speed of light.

Another problem that occurs in these experiments comes from determining when the pulse actually arrived. If you analyze a pulse of light, you find that it is made up of a huge number of frequencies that, as you move away from the fundamental frequency, get lower and lower in amplitude. Once you look at the experimental set up in detail, you find that it is triggering on the pre-pulse noise generated by these high frequency components.

Separate from the whole speed of light issue, the answer to the energy question in this experimental setup is interesting. Once the two prisms are close to each other, the evanescent wave is partially reflected from the second prism back to the first prism. When this happens, the total electric field and total magnetic field are no longer such that their product is always zero—there is energy in the field. Furthermore, if you analyze the components of the fields that contain the energy, you find that they do have a non-zero speed of light and it is—you guessed it—the same c that applies everywhere else in the universe.

So although this makes for an interesting physics lecture—or at least I thought it was interesting—it is not new physics and not a breakdown of special relativity.

If you fully understood that, you are wasting your life on this forum.