backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 168 comment(s) - last by jerryglen.. on Aug 30 at 2:45 PM

A "Macroscopic Violation" of Special Relativity

According to modern physics, the speed of light is a fundamental, unbreakable limit.  Yet two physicists are now claiming they have done just that, and propelled a stream of photons faster than the speed of light. 

Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen of the University of Koblenz, Germany, have been researching a phenomenon known as quantum tunnelling.  Two prisms are placed together. When a light is shown through the prisms, a detector picks up the light and records information about the photon.  However, when the two prisms are separated, Nimtz and Stahlhofen discovered that photons would occasionally "tunnel" between the prisms -- arriving at the detector sooner than should theoretically be possible.

The two scientists say they have now tunneled photons "instantaneously" across a distance of up to one meter.  Their conclusion, stated in a recent paper, is that the speed limit of special relativity has been violated.  Dr. Nimtz claims quantum tunneling is a little understood process that is  "the most important" aspect of quantum physics, one that may be responsible for the computational efficiency of the human brain.

Being able to violate the speed of light would undermine our current understanding of space and time, and lead to a number of bizarre effects, such as being able to travel backwards in time.

However, Dr. Aephraim Steinberg, from the University of Toronto, disagrees with the findings.  He says its all just a matter of interpretation.  The "wave packet" of the virtual photon exceeded the speed of light, but no actual information was transmitted that fast.   Therefore, according to Steinberg, Einstein's cosmic speed limit remains safe.

Nimtz and Stahlhofen may be the first scientists to create a macro-scale experiment.

In a statement published sortly after the paper was announced, Nimitz claims, "For the time being, this is the only violation [of special relativity] that I know of."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

hmm
By Gul Westfale on 8/16/2007 11:58:24 PM , Rating: 3
i guess we will have to wait for someone else to replicate these experiments, and to see whether there are any practical applications. but, any bit of research helps, and going faster than light one day is something that i want to see in my life time. hopefully...




RE: hmm
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/17/2007 12:00:26 AM , Rating: 3
The interesting thing is that the experiment seems somewhat easy to do. I think we're going to have confirmation or debunking pretty quickly!


RE: hmm
By Jedi2155 on 8/17/2007 12:19:04 AM , Rating: 3
Hasn't quantum tunneling been known for a while?

From my understanding of elementary Quantum physics, and what I read in the paper, it doesn't seem like they broke any new ground.


RE: hmm
By Jedi2155 on 8/17/2007 12:21:59 AM , Rating: 3
Oh wait, nevermind my previous comment. They were dealing with photons quantum tunneling on a large scale (meters) versus electrons on the nanoscale.


RE: hmm
By GlassHouse69 on 8/19/2007 7:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, that's true.

however, the concept of a photon and the concept of any small, defined particle is similar. the article is misleading like most articles on DT.

However, nothing can travel continuously faster than the speed of light. Jumping in and out of existence does not mean you moved faster, just that you appeared. from 0mph to speed of light speed, accelerating through that, you would max out.

THis is what Einstein was saying. he found it exciting that light was the barrier for normal travel. It meant that other travel existed.


RE: hmm
By 16nm on 8/20/2007 7:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the article is misleading like most articles on DT


Don't you mean their headings are misleading?

anyway, I'd like to use this technology to travel into the future to see who wins the Bluray/HD-DVD format war. I would also like to know when Microsoft will add support for this format in Media Center. And since I'm there I may as well take a look at the stock market and see who wins the world series, etc. How long till I can do that?


RE: hmm
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/17/2007 12:22:05 AM , Rating: 4
Not on meter-sized scales ... from my understanding.


RE: hmm
By knowyourenemy on 8/17/2007 12:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
they have now tunneled photons "instantaneously" across a distance of up to one meter.


RE: hmm
By Cygni on 8/17/2007 11:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
R -> C -> P


RE: hmm
By kmmatney on 8/17/2007 3:24:37 PM , Rating: 1
I thought that was kind of funny, though, since light already does almost travel instantly across 1 meter. AT normla speed that would only take 3.33564e-9 seconds.


RE: hmm
By Oregonian2 on 8/17/2007 4:50:04 PM , Rating: 5
Three nanoseconds is a *LONG* time to me. I've worked on circuits where I was tweaking tens of picoseconds (thousandths of a nanosecond) and that amount of time is a long time to others! A modern PC would have about ten clocks in that period of time. That's *forever*. :-)

BTW - If they can make photons go at whatever speed they say, isn't the flow of photons kinda what "light" is? .. So wouldn't it still be going at the speed of light not matter what "by definition"?

:-)


RE: hmm
By GlassHouse69 on 8/19/2007 7:46:37 PM , Rating: 1
LOL!

that's an awesome thought :) made me laugh actually out loud.

Yeah, that is true, that means like um, the speed of light isnt the speed of light.

neat :)


RE: hmm
By johndenver on 8/21/2007 2:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
A state which is transmitted faster than the speed of light is nothing new, this has been accomplished in the qunatum teleportation experment using entanglement. Einstein's theory of relativity is only violated if information can be sent, this is a very subtle arguement, but it is possible for a state to not carry any information. If this kind of state is being transmitted faster than the speed of light, than this experiment does not disprove Einstein. Determining wheather information can be transferred in this way may not be a simple task, even thought the experiment seems to be fairly streight forward. For more details on quantume teleportaion see the quantum mechnaics text book by LeBellac, it has a fairly good explaination of quantum teleportaion and why it does not violate reletivity.


RE: hmm
By Christopher1 on 8/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: hmm
By otispunkmeyer on 8/17/2007 3:57:58 AM , Rating: 1
same here, i dont believe that laws like this are set in stone forever, only unitl our understanding takes on a new level or we discover something new.


RE: hmm
By Gatt on 8/17/2007 4:09:42 AM , Rating: 1
I agree as well. I think our science is primarily limited only to the things that can be observed by or derived from our senses, and as such is almost absolutely flawed.

We arrogantly assume that our senses encompass all possible "Things" that can exist, be measured, or "Function". It's very likely that there are "Things" we don't know about, much like a Blind person has no understanding of sight.

Pretty much everything we know is derived from our senses, Atoms("I wonder what this is made of!"), Time("Hmm, the sun moves in regular intervals and I can't go backwards to yesterday"), Lasers("I wonder what light is"), Sonar("I wonder what sound is"), Electricity("I wonder what lightning is"), even Magnetics and Gravity.

Everything we know is sense-derived, we need to start recognizing that there's almost absolutely a vast amount of "Stuff" that exists beyond our senses or our ability to derive through pure sense-based research. We know the math doesn't work for a number of things, we need to quit making stuff up or fudging numbers and start recognizing that it's probably something we can't derive from sense.


RE: hmm
By JonnyDough on 8/17/2007 5:00:49 AM , Rating: 1
You mean like...religion?

*Gets shot at by superstitious zealots.

"The key to understanding ourselves is science. Understanding ourselves leads to solutions of our problems and ultimately unveils the truth about our reality."

~Me (Someone might have said something like this before him, I don't know)


RE: hmm
By therealnickdanger on 8/17/2007 8:11:30 AM , Rating: 4
You can't prove there's NOT a Spaghetti Monster...


RE: hmm
By logaldinho on 8/17/2007 8:20:06 AM , Rating: 3
pizza the hutt


RE: hmm
By therealnickdanger on 8/17/2007 8:23:14 AM , Rating: 3
"... or else Pizza is gonna send out for YOU!"