German Physicists Claim Speed of Light Broken

Byzanthy writes "Two German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light by using 'microwave photons.' According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any object beyond the speed of light. However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they did it by using a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons — energetic packets of light — traveled 'instantaneously' between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart." New Scientist, however, is running an article that suggests Einstein can rest easy. Aephraim Steinberg, a quantum optics expert at the University of Toronto, explains that the German physicist's results aren't necessarily wrong, they are just being interpreted incorrectly.

Re:186,000 miles per second

[pkvon]

Laws are there to be broken :)

Idiocy

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Light is light, no matter the frequency. I think when you say "light", you're trying to refer to light in the visible part of the spectrum.

The summary does however call photons "energetic packets of light" when I think they're trying to say "packets of energy".

Re:Actually

[kebes]

As an aside, I find it interesting how different people interpret Einstein's famous stance on Quantum Mechanics. As indicated in that quote, Einstein felt that Quantum Mechanics was fundamentally incomplete, and was not an accurate representation of reality. Now, many people point to Einstein's disbelief to support their own arguments that Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Thus their argument is: "See! If a smart guy like Einstein says it's wrong, then it's probably wrong!"

However Einstein himself, over his entire life, was never able to disprove Quantum Mechanics, despite many attempts. All the thought experiments and physical experiments he proposed instead bolstered the case of Quantum Mechanics, since the predictions of the theory were verified time and again. In the years since Einstein's death, the case has only gotten stronger: Quantum Mechanics is now one of the most thoroughly and rigorously verified theories we have (along with relativity, of course).

So, the alternate interpretation of Einstein stance is: "See! Even a really smart guy like Einstein is wrong sometimes!" Just because Einstein "felt" that Quantum Mechanics was wrong does not make it so. In this case, his intuition seemingly failed him.

(Incidentally, one thing we do know is that there is a mismatch between our two best theories: quantum mechanics and relativity. It's not at all obvious how to reconcile them, and it is likely that they are both "wrong" in the sense that they both need to be modified to be united into a single coherent theory. However the aspects of Quantum Mechanics that Einstein didn't like (nonlocality, randomness, etc.) are firmly established and are probably not going to be "undone" by even a unified theory.)

Re:Matter People, Matter!!!

[manowar821]

You're not getting it. This is quantum mechanics/physics, not conventional.

They're using quantum tunneling to change the photons position rather than making it "travel" faster than light moves on its own. The photons in this experiment are not "traveling" in our definition of the word, they're leaving regular space and instantly appearing somewhere else. If the particles/matter we wish to transport can leave conventional space, they no longer need to follow the rules that state "matter with mass cannot move faster than light". Also, photons actually do have mass... Look it up. :)

Our entire understanding of why objects behave the way they do in regular space has been limited to our own percievable surroundings up until the last century. We're finally starting to see that our visible universe is only the cover sheet to a much more vast and complicated system. There are levels of existence that have different rules and structures that we cannot see yet, but we're just starting to poke them with our scientific stick, so to speak.

Personally, I'm hoping to see quantum tunneled (or something similar) matter within the next two decades, and I don't believe I'm giving my hopes up when I say that... So long as we don't fuck everything up by killing each other and/or dropping into another religiously provoked dark age, I think we're in for some absolutely rediculous scientific advancements in the next 20 years.

Re:Repealed law of gravity?

[DenDude]

How about we have one single science discussion where it does not degenerate into a political bashing session. Please. I'd love to be able to read about a cool development in science without having to read about Bush, Clinton, Republicans, Democrats, or anything other than funny "you broke it, you buy it" jokes about the subject. Let's all stop obsessing on politics for just one freaking story. Please?

Re:quantum spin

[Troed]

It's almost like we're living in an approximation running on a superscalar processor...

Not just almost. It's increasingly becoming the most likely explanation. Occam's Razor and all that.

Re:Actually

[Pfhorrest]

I think the point of the parent poster was that if you have a theory, like quantum theory, which predicts that we will be unable to predict certain results, how could you empirically verify that theory, or at least that prediction of it? You could falsify it - by showing that we can in fact predict the results which said theory predicts we should not be able to predict - but just showing over and over that we keep failing to make successful predictions does not establish that such predictions are impossible, and thus does not verify the prediction of our theory that such predictions are impossible. Consider a formally similar "theory" from a very different camp: that certain phenomena do not have natural causes, i.e. they are miracles. While you can falsify this (by showing a natural cause), you can never verify it; at best, all you can show that we still can't tell what the natural causes for those phenomena are, but not that there *are* in fact no natural causes for for those phenomena.

Of course, in general it's practically impossible to ever actually *verify* any scientific theory; we just build our confidence in them because they make many successful predictions and we have been unable to falsify them thus far, despite our best efforts. But it's always possible something new observation could throw a wrench in the whole thing. So quantum theory isn't any worse off in that regard than any other theory. And of course there are logical proofs from the axioms of quantum theory that prove that certain predictions are impossible, but that's just to say that it's a theorem of quantum theory that certain predictions are impossible - which is sort of begging the question, since the question is whether quantum theory is right about that.

Which I guess is pretty similar to your conclusion - if you accept quantum theory as established (i.e. having held up well to testing), then you've got to accept its implications like randomness, including quantum randomness, just as a matter of course. But what people like the GP are saying is that quantum theory's particular prediction that we cannot predict certain things is in itself untestable, and another theory might come along later which successfully predicts the same things that quantum theory successfully predicts, but also predicts that we can make the predictions that quantum theory says we can't, i.e. describes a method for making such predictions. But unless something like that comes along and shows that we *can* make such predictions, it's an open question whether or not we can, because it's impossible to show that we *can't*, and it seems to me a rather defeatist attitude to just say "oh well, it's completely random", just as much to say "oh well, it's a miracle". Maybe it is - but it's more productive to keep searching for an explanation.