Speed of light broken?

scaeagles · 08-16-2007, 02:30 PM

Interesting....

I admit a bit of confusion , but I have a few questions.

First of all....

Quote:

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.

How does someone measure this? If I did my math right, normal light speed would mean that 3 feet would be handled in just faster than .000000003 seconds. Is it possible to distinguish between instantaneous and that small of an amount of time?

Secondly, if a photon is a massless particle, than how do Einstein's theories apply? His theory is that it would take infinite energy to propel a mass to the speed of light. Well, it happens with massless particles everytime there is light, so I don't seem to understand why propelling something massless past the speed of light is any different in relation to the theories than propelling something massless to the speed of light. No mass, no problem, right? Am I missing something (a definite possiblity)?

Lastly, has this experiment been duplicated?

Alex · 08-16-2007, 03:28 PM

1. I don't know how it is being measured in this case but yes, periods of time much shorter than a picosecond (1.0x10^-12) can be measured. A picosecond is about how long it takes light to go one millimeter.

2. Einsteins theory is not that it would take infinite energy to excelerate mass to the speed of light. The relationship between mass and the energy of such acceleration is an implication of his theory but not the whole thing. The speed of energy (light) is very much at the core of Relativity and if it has been passed this would have huge repercussions. First of all, for energy, "acceleration" is pretty much a meaningless concept as it only has the one speed (in a vacuum; the speed of light is different in other mediums).

3. So far as I know, no the experiment hasn't been repeated. Though if the newspaper story is an accurate reflection of the claimed science (certainly no guarantee, newspaper generally suck at science reporting) then it will quickly be tried all over the place. That said, there are already quite a few known phenomena (such as the quantum tunneling mentioned in the article) that appear to violate relativity at first glance but actually don't. If it is in that class it may be more hype than substance.

Snowflake · 08-16-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interesting....

I admit a bit of confusion , but I have a few questions.

First of all....

How does someone measure this? If I did my math right, normal light speed would mean that 3 feet would be handled in just faster than .000000003 seconds. Is it possible to distinguish between instantaneous and that small of an amount of time?

Secondly, if a photon is a massless particle, than how do Einstein's theories apply? His theory is that it would take infinite energy to propel a mass to the speed of light. Well, it happens with massless particles everytime there is light, so I don't seem to understand why propelling something massless past the speed of light is any different in relation to the theories than propelling something massless to the speed of light. No mass, no problem, right? Am I missing something (a definite possiblity)?

Lastly, has this experiment been duplicated?

blah blah blah, snowflake

Betty · 08-16-2007, 05:00 PM

talk more of this science-y reletivity. I want a subscription to your newsletter because you make it sound understandable... somewhat.

Alex · 08-16-2007, 06:29 PM

Also it is pretty much known that relativity isn't complete since both relativity and quantum mechanics have passed pretty much every experimental hurdle thrown at them but at certain key points of contact between them they disagree and produce gibberish.

So when they are eventually reconciled (if they are ever reconciled; and that is what string theory is, an attempt to bring them into a single theoretical framework) it is possible that the absolute limit of the speed of light will have some weird exceptions but I don't think that has been suggested by any serious theory so far.

€uroMeinke · 08-16-2007, 06:30 PM

I sure hope they figure out a way to fix it

RStar · 08-16-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

A picosecond is about how long it takes light to go one millimeater

The Picosecond, no doubt named after it's discoverer, Dr. Albert Pico. Cousin to Pico de Paperis, the Italian name for the Disney character, Ludwig von Drake.

A picosecond is one millionth of one millionth of a second (0.000 000 000 001 seconds). Sounds like my first sexual experience.

scaeagles · 08-17-2007, 05:12 AM

I thought it was named after pico de gallo. Shows you waht I know.

JWBear · 08-17-2007, 09:12 AM

No... Pio Pico

Kevy Baby · 08-17-2007, 09:44 AM

I love this place!

RStar: you made my day.

08-16-2007, 03:28 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	1. I don't know how it is being measured in this case but yes, periods of time much shorter than a picosecond (1.0x10^-12) can be measured. A picosecond is about how long it takes light to go one millimeter. 2. Einsteins theory is not that it would take infinite energy to excelerate mass to the speed of light. The relationship between mass and the energy of such acceleration is an implication of his theory but not the whole thing. The speed of energy (light) is very much at the core of Relativity and if it has been passed this would have huge repercussions. First of all, for energy, "acceleration" is pretty much a meaningless concept as it only has the one speed (in a vacuum; the speed of light is different in other mediums). 3. So far as I know, no the experiment hasn't been repeated. Though if the newspaper story is an accurate reflection of the claimed science (certainly no guarantee, newspaper generally suck at science reporting) then it will quickly be tried all over the place. That said, there are already quite a few known phenomena (such as the quantum tunneling mentioned in the article) that appear to violate relativity at first glance but actually don't. If it is in that class it may be more hype than substance.
	Submit to Quotes

08-16-2007, 05:00 PM	#4
Betty Kicking up my heels! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Silver State Posts: 3,783	talk more of this science-y reletivity. I want a subscription to your newsletter because you make it sound understandable... somewhat. __________________ Nee Stell Thue
	Submit to Quotes

08-16-2007, 06:29 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Also it is pretty much known that relativity isn't complete since both relativity and quantum mechanics have passed pretty much every experimental hurdle thrown at them but at certain key points of contact between them they disagree and produce gibberish. So when they are eventually reconciled (if they are ever reconciled; and that is what string theory is, an attempt to bring them into a single theoretical framework) it is possible that the absolute limit of the speed of light will have some weird exceptions but I don't think that has been suggested by any serious theory so far.
	Submit to Quotes

08-16-2007, 06:30 PM	#6
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	I sure hope they figure out a way to fix it __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

08-17-2007, 05:12 AM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I thought it was named after pico de gallo. Shows you waht I know.
	Submit to Quotes

08-17-2007, 09:12 AM	#9
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	No... Pio Pico __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

08-17-2007, 09:44 AM	#10
Kevy Baby Chowder Head Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Yes Posts: 18,500	I love this place! RStar: you made my day. __________________ The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot verify their validity. - Abraham Lincoln
	Submit to Quotes