[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35828426][URL="http://jqi.umd.edu/news/312-first-fast-and-faster.html"]Ahem.[/URL]
[h2]NIST scientists emphasized that, while the information detection could be advanced, no information could actually travel faster than the speed of light and that, consequently, principles like causality in special relativity were always respected in these experiments.[/h2]
[/QUOTE]
Such a respectful bunch, world needs more people like these
You know what's gonna happen now, right guys?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlcClVEIAKU[/media]
Welcome to 2012, AKA: awesome.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35829205]Welcome to 2012, AKA: awesome.[/QUOTE]
Just wait till next year. It only gets better from here
[QUOTE=Liem;35830562]Just wait till next year. It only gets better from here[/QUOTE]
If we don't off ourselves with nuclear fire first.
Also, wake me up when we actually make some progress toward pseudo-FTL travel.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;35828004]not too sure if this effect could be used anywhere... but still cool[/QUOTE]
I'd say give it a century or two:
[img]http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/7/74/Enterprise_NX-01.jpg[/img]
[B]EDIT[/B]: OH NO I GOT RATED DUMB BY A MOD IM BAD AT FACEPUNCH
[B]DOUBLE EDIT[/B]: WHERE DID THE VIDEO GO?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5vt-_cm1Qs[/media]
WE GET SIGNAL
super saiyan sonic the hedgehog can go faster than light
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;35827975]I don't understand enough physics to really grasp what's happening here
how much of a big deal is this? and how true is it?[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, this is what's happening:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vxIGl.png[/IMG]
The first wave is the normal sine wave (picture not accurate, looks more like cosine, sorry,) which is even. This is going at light speed. The second wave is what they've managed to do. They made the crest hunch forward, so while I guess it may not technically be breaking the speed of light, it bends it in a way that makes the light appear faster. It's a weird concept to grasp and I'm not sure how it works, but basically they're bending waves.
[QUOTE=Jonii;35832020]From what I understand, this is what's happening:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vxIGl.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I couldn't read the rest because this part was just too goddamn funny.
They manipulated the [u] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity]PHASE VELOCITY[/url][/u]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;35828046]I was expecting light that was traveling at 1.5c, not 50 nanoseconds faster.
Besides, the last faster-than-light claim turned out to be a fuckin loose cable at CERN.[/QUOTE]
That's completely unrelated...
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DrLuke;35828061]I think the article is a bit misleading. What they meant is, that the hump is travelling faster than it should, but still below light-speed.
Some of you might not know it, but light speed isn't equal to light speed, as light propagates slower if it's in a medium like air. This is due to the light getting refracted by the atoms of the air (or in this case Rubidium gas), so it doesn't propagate in a straight line anymore, and thus appears to be a bit slower than light in vacuum.
[U]So they probably found a way to make light propagate faster than the light speed you'd expect in the specific medium rubidium, but this isn't breaking the light speed in vacuum.[/U]
The possible application for this could be in optical fibers, as light only propagates at around 80% of the vacuum light speed within those, so maybe this new research can lead it to being raised to 85%, resulting in a smaller ping when playing on servers across the ocean.[/QUOTE]
"In the experiment, the pulses' peaks arrived 50 nanoseconds faster than light traveling through a vacuum."
Doesn't this break relativity? Because they imply that they can send information superluminally. On the other hand it involves two waves so I suppose this indeed implies they're talking about phase velocity, but I never really understood why it can't convey information.
[quote=Wikipedia]Phase velocities above c
The phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave, when traveling through a medium, can routinely exceed c, the vacuum velocity of light. For example, this occurs in most glasses at X-ray frequencies.[12] However, the phase velocity of a wave corresponds to the propagation speed of a theoretical single-frequency (purely monochromatic) component of the wave at that frequency. Such a wave component must be infinite in extent and of constant amplitude (otherwise it is not truly monochromatic), and so cannot convey any information.[13] Thus a phase velocity above c does not imply the propagation of signals with a velocity above c.[14][/quote]
Well that's not very clear, unless with infinite in extent they mean that it cannot be seen as a pulse.
[URL="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Objection_Against_the_Theory_of_Relativity_and_its_Removal"]Welp this is confusing...[/URL]
I am confused too.
They say they used a sin-wave, that would an ideal mono-frequency and that is impossible to achieve.
Well let's say they came very very close within certain error bondings.
But from what I gather they bursted a laser and interpreted these bursts as frequencies via Fourier-Transformation. And that tends to give you (Especially if the bursts are very very sharp) an endless array of frequencies(alas with different amplitudes) you have to overlay to get said burst.
I am not too sure you can say this is ideal monochromatic light.(it isn't)
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
All right I have the paper through my Universities VPN network.
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
[quote]We report the stimulated generation of light pulses that
propagate with a group velocity faster than the speed of
light in vacuum, via four-wave mixing (4WM) in hot
rubidium vapor. The 4WM process employed here involves
injecting one weak beam into the medium and pumping
with a beam at a different frequency, as seen in Fig. 1. A
beam at a third frequency is generated via the process, as
photons from the pump beam are converted into photons in
the injected seed and generated conjugate modes. The
amplified seed pulse is shown to have a negative group
velocity due to the 4WM dispersion, and stimulates the
generation of the conjugate pulse that may appear to
propagate even faster, as seen in Fig. 2. The anomalous
dispersion results from asymmetric gain and absorption
lines at the seed and generated conjugate pulse frequencies[/quote]
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
[quote]The scheme could be applicable to a variety of
optical communications scenarios, where the correction
of pulse jitter by advancing or delaying pulses may be
necessary. The present results will allow us to investigate
the effects of superluminal group velocities on quantum
entanglement and squeezed light, both of which may be
produced via the 4WM process[/quote]
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
I'll read everything and try to explain it better than the dumb article once I have the time, I have to do laundry.
Reading further, the real advancement here seems to be that for the first time they don't have a "signal in - signal out" scenario, but rather that a new, manipulated signal is generated.
At 6 MHz one of them moves slower and one moves faster than a reference signal.
Further investigation could give us possibilities to compensate for dispersion-relation in information technology so that rather than time your (for example) light signals, you send them through a device equiped with this at arrival and bam your once out of order pulses are suddenly timed correctly.
[quote]y. In an on-off keying optical
communications system, if the jitter is small relative to the
pulse width, it may be beneficial to advance a pulse rather
than delay the entire pulse train. The benefits of applying
this type of jitter correction would have to be weighed
against the disadvantages, which include added noise and
some degree of pulse reshaping[/quote]
"No, no lightspeeds too slow. We have to go straight to... LUDICROUS SPEED!"
[QUOTE=Secrios;35828180]Is it true that if we ever made a car that went precisely the speed of light, "Thou shalthenurned on the head lights; would that technically catapult the light to go even faster than light?[/QUOTE]
"Thou shalt not add to the speed of light"
[QUOTE=DrLuke;35828299]No, you'd perceive the light as still moving away at lightspeed.
Also travelling at exactly lightspeed is wacky, as space shrinks with increasing speed. At lightspeed, space shrinks to zero, so any distance you'd want to travel would have the length of 0, but so would you. This is another proof that light speed can't be reached, as you'd create a division by zero problem when moving through space.
Another interpretation could be, that you suddenly appear to be everywhere in the universe at once, as any distance is 0 and you can instantly travel to it.[/QUOTE]
I thought if you had a car going at the speed of light with the headlights on, you wouldn't be able to see it because the light propelled through the headlights are going the same speed you are, and thus will never reach your eyes.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35834117]I thought if you had a car going at the speed of light with the headlights on, you wouldn't be able to see it because the light propelled through the headlights are going the same speed you are, and thus will never reach your eyes.[/QUOTE]
"If all laws of the currently observable universe would be violated, what would we see according to the laws of the currently observable universe?"
:downs:
[QUOTE=Killuah;35834138]"If all laws of the currently observable universe would be violated, what would we see according to the laws of the currently observable universe?"
:downs:[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about a hypothetical where said human and car has no mass.
Come on dude, hypotheticals are fun, especially when you are talking about the speed of light!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35834217]I'm talking about a hypothetical where said human and car has [b]no mass.[/b[
Come on dude, hypotheticals are fun, especially when you are talking about the speed of light![/QUOTE]
Straight up never gonna happen, and even then it would just break every law of our universe, as such we have no idea because all we have to go by are our universal laws.
Herpaderpa.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35834217]I'm talking about a hypothetical where said human and car has no mass.
Come on dude, hypotheticals are fun, especially when you are talking about the speed of light![/QUOTE]
You're wrong, anyway. That would break the principle of relativity, because you could know how fast you were travelling, without reference to an outside frame, which isn't allowed in an inertial frame of reference. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Postulates[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35834217]I'm talking about a hypothetical where said human and car has no mass.
Come on dude, hypotheticals are fun, especially when you are talking about the speed of light![/QUOTE]
Not when the initial hypothesis is already selfcontradicting.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35828426]
Never. Trust. Popular. Science.[/QUOTE]
this this this
Is the only way to read about science news that isn't sensationalized to hell and back academic journals or something?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;35834818]this this this
Is the only way to read about science news that isn't sensationalized to hell and back academic journals or something?[/QUOTE]
Nature does a pretty good job imho. A step lower is Scientific American (when it comes to knowledge/scientific background it requires).
[QUOTE=kirderf;35828279]No, and this is explained by relativity. It's simpler to explain at close-to-light speeds, since things get a bit weird when you go at the speed of light (infinite mass, relative time freezes etc.). If you're familiar with relativity, you'll know that the closer you get to the speed of light, the faster time passes for you. This acceleration of time will counteract the decreased speed of c compared to you. Speed is measured by how far something moves in a certain time unit, for example one kilometer per hour. When you go faster, the distance light has traveled from someone else's perspective relative to you will be shorter, but since what you perceive as one second is more than one second from an observer standing still, light would have moved the same distance in the same time unit for you. I'm trying to explain some fairly odd and complex physics here, and if someone think they can explain it better, feel free to do so.[/QUOTE]
Time slows time the closer you are to the speed of light. Any observers looking at you would see you in about half-speed.
I've never heard any theories of timing moving faster relative to you, that'd seem counter intuitive to the whole 'you can't go faster than the speed of light' thing. Would make a lot more sense to slow you down so you can never quite break it.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;35827975]I don't understand enough physics to really grasp what's happening here
how much of a big deal is this? and how true is it?[/QUOTE]
if I'm reading it right, not such a big deal. we've been able to fuck with the phase velocity of light for quite a while now, slowing it down to a snail's pace or making it go faster than c in a cloud of caesium gas. read [url]http://plus.maths.org/content/faster-light[/url] for more information
no information travels faster than light here, so relativity isn't broken or anything
[QUOTE=DrLuke;35828061]
The possible application for this could be in optical fibers, as light only propagates at around 80% of the vacuum light speed within those, so maybe this new research can lead it to being raised to 85%, resulting in a smaller ping when playing on servers across the ocean.[/QUOTE]
I think the funny part is that of all the network traffic that goes across the ocean, game server ping is the one you'd specifically mention.
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
Good post other than that. :v:
What the fuck.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;35828046]I was expecting light that was traveling at 1.5c, not 50 nanoseconds faster.
Besides, the last faster-than-light claim turned out to be a fuckin loose cable at CERN.[/QUOTE]
Warp 1.5 is 3.375c :eng101:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.