This is what the New Scientist magazine publishes, according to two German researchers who conducted an experiment in which photons that traveled different distances reached the detectors at the same time
The speed of light is considered one of the speed limits that cannot be crossed, but scientists claim that they have succeeded in demonstrating the possibility of traveling faster than the speed of light. This statement is contrary to one of the central principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity - according to which, under all conditions, the speed of 300 thousand kilometers per second can be crossed - the speed of light.
Traveling faster than light is, according to the theory, also going back in time. According to conventional physics, an astronaut traveling faster than the speed of light may reach his destination before leaving Earth.
However, two scientists, Günter Niemetz and Alphonse Stahlhofen, from the University of Koblenz in Germany, claim that they succeeded in forcing light to overcome its speed by using the quantum tunneling phenomenon, according to which the particles pool their energy to cross the impassable barrier. They were able to make photons cross barriers of a variety of sizes, from several millimeters to one meter at a speed greater than the speed of light.
The experiments of the two focused on photons in the field of microwaves - energetic packets of light - through two prisms. When the prisms were separated, most of the photons returned from the first prism they encountered were captured by a detector.
However, some of them were seen "flowing" through the gap separating them as if the prisms were still connected together. However, even though these photons traveled a greater distance, they arrived at the detector at the same time as the photons returned from the prisms. This indicates that they moved between the two prisms at a speed higher than the speed of light.
Dr. Günter Mintz, of the University of Koblenz in Germany, told the weekly New Scientist: "For now, this is the first violation of special relativity that I know of."
63 תגובות
It is impossible to go back in time using the speed of light, because in order to go back in time, you have to move faster than the speed of time, it is very difficult to explain the speed of time, so just divide a second into two and another time into two and so on (as they did with matter, which eventually reached the atom...) and then think that you move faster than this time (you pass millions of millions of light years in a second, it's unimaginable..., and also go back in time after going back to normal speed...
By Castor and Pollux
Our world is crazy because people have moved away from science and scientific truth.
Why is this important in our crazy world???
Flying for distances of hundreds of light years or more requires supersonic speed, otherwise the astronauts who set out on the journey when they return to the starting point, will find that hundreds of years have passed and it has changed beyond recognition - and this is provided that they flew at a speed very close to the speed of light.
It is very likely that a very advanced civilization will not be satisfied with the speed of light for its aircraft.
Question: Is it possible to push an object at absolute zero temperature?
Is the bone considered an absolute solid?
And if so, then the speed of sound in such a solid whose length is greater than 300,000 km does not exceed the speed of light?
Black guy doesn't go faster than light?
Dave:
Not true. Gravitation is also limited to the speed of light.
By the way, even the particles that transfer the force (also called virtual particles, for example a graviton responsible for transferring the force of gravity) do not have the limit of the speed of light
So there is no contradiction here
It really looks to me like a photon that receives its energy from an unknown power source and this power temporarily, it seems, "accelerates" the photon to a speed that is beyond the speed of light. It may be that the same power source acts like the inverse of an electromagnetic force (ie not a "pulling" force more like a "pushing" force). Perhaps an external power source acts on the photon (and not from within the photon) that produces like constant pulses for a very short time radiation that allows it to move at a speed higher than the speed of light in a vacuum. If the photon moves faster than the speed of light then according to the obvious logic we should not see it (it seems as if the antiparticles are particles in themselves that simply move at a speed that exceeds the speed of light and cannot be "seen") perhaps as in a "mirror image" of the universe that is In terms of time, it is as if the anti-particle is near the particle, but in terms of distance, the particle is at the farthest end of the universe and since it moves at a speed that exceeds the speed of light, we cannot see it either.
I haven't gone through all the messages, but according to my understanding, they sent a beam of light through a prism and through air... It is clear that the movement of light in materials such as glass with a refractive index of X is not equal to the refractive index of air, and hence a change in speed results.
Joseph:
It's a mistake.
It is possible, with "retarded" tools, to discover small differences at high speeds.
All that is needed is for the light to travel a long enough distance so that the differences in the time it takes to travel at these speeds are large enough for you to measure them.
This reminds me of one of the lies of the converts who tried to gather the precision of the Sage's knowledge of the time when the moon orbits the earth in order to claim that this is knowledge from a divine source because there were no instruments that made it possible to measure this at a time when everyone knows that if they are measured (even with the accuracy of a whole day ) the duration of enough laps can be reached with as high a precision as we wish.
I thought it was impossible to discover something faster than you are capable of, so if the detectors discovered a speed greater than the speed of light, that means that the reaction speed in them and the electricity are faster than light, and besides, what if the light is limited, even if it is, surely there is a way to pass it with another energy
Yehuda:
I assume you are asking this in relation to projectiles that travel faster than the speed of sound.
I don't know if there are any, but even if there are, you need to understand the following facts:
1. The most important fact is this: the projectile does not acquire its speed in an instant. It accelerates gradually
2. The projectile is indeed compressed during the acceleration but is not crushed to such an extent that its elasticity cannot restore its original structure
3. The speed of sound we must discuss when we talk about rifle bullets or cannonballs is the speed of sound passing through the materials that make up the bullet and not the speed of sound in air.
Therefore bullets should not be crushed during firing
To Michael
If what you say is true, wouldn't it happen that rifle bullets and shells would be crushed at the moment of firing?
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nadav:
This idea won't work because when you move one end of the stick, the other end doesn't move immediately!
In fact, the movement of a stick or any rigid body that you are trying to move progresses at the speed of sound, which is much smaller than the speed of light.
My idea is this…
Light takes about 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun, so if we establish that the fastest way to transfer information is the speed of light, the transfer of information will take 8 minutes.
If we take a solid metal strip and stretch it in space from the earth to the sun, for example, it will be possible to transmit information by pushing the strip. In fact, as soon as we push it on the side of the sun, it will at the same time move on the side of the earth. You can use it like a telegraph and set codes for the pulses in space, there will be a satellite that will transmit the information to the earth
I would love to know your opinion on the matter
I will clarify my question if there was a person or a machine the size of a galaxy, how long would it take him to move an axis or a hand from one end of the galaxy to the other, if everything is relative then it would take a second like if they built a small model of a galaxy the size of a human palm and measure how long it takes him to touch both ends of the model
But it costs a lot of money to register a patent, how is it profitable that the patent is only illustrative?
Roy,
I caught my friend but he didn't remember the proof. He promised to get back to me if he remembered and if that happens I will add to what I am saying now.
In any case, what I was looking for in him is a proof based on quantum mechanics itself that a contradiction with the theory of relativity is obtained in any case of transferring information at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.
It starts from the fact that two observers moving in relative motion at a relative speed will each think that the other's clock is running slower, but if each of them occasionally sends the other the time that their clock is showing, then it is impossible for these transmissions to verify the measurements of both, but it may become strange Even more so if it is noticed that this allows a violation of the principle of causality.
Such transmission capability will allow me to build a device in system A that transmits a signal to system B and in system B to build a device that is activated as a result of receiving the signal from system A.
Because when the distance between two events is greater than the distance that light can travel in that time, two systems can be found that encode the events in the opposite order of each other (and see in this regard the discussion I had with Uri Kol above the pages of this website at the following address:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/fig-leaf-of-quantum-theory-0812071/#comment-27662
)
After all, in at least one of these systems (we'll call it system C), the device in system B will see that it's working before the device in system A transmits the signal to it.
One can even think of an even crazier scenario where system C is the one that instructs system A to transmit the signal and still sees system B reacting to the signal before system B transmitted it.
Nadav:
I don't believe you are right but if you are sure of yourself run (as close to the speed of light as you can) and register a patent.
I made a lot of money on much less significant patents.
My theory is very simple, every plumber can understand it, I don't want to reveal my idea just like that, anyone who is serious should contact me by email roobocoppp@walla.com
It's too complex and I don't know the whole explanation at the moment - I only know that since the idea also came to my mind, I investigated the point and this explanation exists. I will try to find a text that explains this (in fact, when I first inquired about it, they promised to look for a text for me and did not keep their promise, so I will try to pay off the bill again).
As a principle, this is related to the fact that the particles are intertwined in such a way that some combination of their properties is known, but the values of the properties are unknown (which also means that they cannot be determined in advance).
The measurement affects the attribute values on both sides while preserving the combination but since the initial value was unknown then when you measure you don't know if the value you got is the result of the collapse of the wave function because of your measurement or if this function has already collapsed because of a measurement made on the other side.
All kinds of ideas related to the matter are still floating around in my mind and have some glimmer of hope but the answer I got from someone who really knows the subject was unequivocal.
Michael,
Could you explain / link to the reason for disqualifying entanglement as a means of transmitting information? I have not heard of the proof of this.
Nadav:
The EPR "paradox" from the field of quantum theory makes anyone who comes across it think about a way to instantly transfer information from one place to another.
A deeper investigation of the matter shows that this is impossible.
I say this so that you know that if your idea is based on particles that are "quantum entangled" (I tried to translate the professional expression Entangled) then this is a solution that has already been tried and rejected.
Nadav,
I am not aware of such a theory. Even if it exists, I am sure that an engineering solution to its application has not yet been found.
Hi, my name is Nadav and I wanted to ask, if there is even a theory that information can be transmitted at a speed that exceeds the speed of light hundreds of times twice? Because theoretically I have such an idea and it is very simple
post Scriptum. I'm interested in physics but I don't know much about it and I would be happy for explanations...
And for starters - what is Pioneer's anomaly?
I'm interested to know what discoveries it will be possible to make this way
A. Can we reach new stars and explore them?
B. What will happen to someone who drives at that speed?
third. What and how will someone who flies at such a speed look like?
Anyone have a spare? ;)
Lar Basha
To your first response, the simple universe explanation states that everywhere you will see everyone moving away from you just like in a gas that spreads the distance between all the molecules increases in every area and in every direction, and regarding the fact that you feel wind in the direction of movement, this is exactly what happens in the Pioneer anomaly that it slows down and you don't exactly understand why.
Regarding gravity according to relativity, well, an extreme conclusion of the theory is that gravity decreases as a function of distance at a much greater rate than a Newton and it actually does not exist at galaxy sizes and what drives the galaxies is something else
It should be remembered that there is no proof of the existence of significant gravitation that operates according to Newton, at galactic and intergalactic distances, it is hard to believe, but it is so!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Oh, I forgot to mention
According to my understanding, gravity in your case is expressed as the blocking of the mass carrying particles of gravity, thereby reducing the flow of particles to another mass.
So, when the mass moves in space in some direction, it will hit the carrier particles with a higher force (as I feel wind in my face when I run). Even if it is assumed that the carriers move at the speed of light, and therefore every speed relative to them is the same, the wavelength will still be affected as a result of the Doppler effect, and therefore there will be differences in energy from different directions.
Secondly, this theory only explains gravity according to Newton, and I have not seen a reference to gravity and relativity - is the same explanation of an ocean carrying gravity also valid to yield the equations of general relativity?
Lesbadramish Yehuda,
I read a bit about your theory of an expanding universe as an ideal gas.
According to your theory there should be a center of expansion somewhere in the universe, that is, for anyone not standing in this center the speeds of expansion from all other galaxies are not the same.
But according to observations (and according to Hubble's law) the speed of flattening is the same in all directions, regardless of where you are located (you must be familiar with the analogy of the surface of an inflating balloon).
I was just wondering if you have a solution for this in theory.
In the experiment there is no transfer of information at a speed exceeding the speed of light, in the tunneling phenomenon it is not possible to transfer information at a speed exceeding the speed of light - and because of this, there is no refutation here of the theory of relativity...
The scientist himself sums up the experiment with the sentence - "We are used to seeing such phenomena in a "source"" and adds that - "this is the first time this has been carried out macro" (meaning along a meter...).
Basically all the confusion stems from different languages between the two theories (relativity and quantum), one speaks in a deterministic language while the other in a statistical way...
zoro
In fact "time travel" to the future is already quite scientifically established
According to the theory of relativity.
"Time travel" to the past is what remains to be proven or disproved.
The fact that it seems logical or illogical to someone does not serve as scientific proof that something is true or false.
and Judah,
Sorry for the delay.
Towards the weekend I will send you the email.
There is something much, much simpler than the speed of light
speed of thought
Think you are in the moon and now you are in the sun and now you are home
Wow much faster and therefore thought is the fastest speed that exists in the concepts we perceive
And the issue of going back in time was closed a long time ago, there is no such thing because time is only a reality of our world and nothing in other worlds
The speed of light is forged at high speeds
When two objects are in a static state, the distance measured according to the speed of light will be correct.
But as the speed of the distance between the two objects increases, so the distance measured according to the speed of light will be falsified and will be smaller than the actual distance.
So visible galaxies are moving away at a speed less than the speed of light, in reality they are moving away from us beyond the speed of light.
The visible universe will never exceed the speed of light.
To Alex
I think the response has value only if it is more detailed for you
I would love to know the problematic points (ten) you found, and I would be happy to check the mathematical error if you would like, then to my email
sevdermishy@gmail.com
And to the point, nice, so others also said it and even before. It's always fun not to be alone.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
lesbian,
How many times will you repeat that the speed of light changes. This is an old idea, if I'm not mistaken Schrödinger (or Eddington) was the one who came up with this idea, already 60 70 years ago.
And since then no significant confirmation has been found for this, so there is no point in repeating these trite statements over and over again.
Omri,
I disagree with you about the "time machine". Although the phenomenon is only theoretical, this is because no data has been found that confirms or contradicts this claim. In fact, this claim is in line with the theory of relativity and is quite common (as everyone has their own opinion) (see Tachion's entry in Wikipedia).
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
You intrigued me first with your claims, but already in the first article I started reading (a simple universe), even before I got to the middle of the article I already encountered about 10 very problematic points in terms of accepted science, contradictions and inconsistencies (and also a perpetual error in one of the calculations).
Science originates from facts that translate into formulas,
And by no means the "intuition and common sense" that try to match the facts on the ground.
Peace to Omri
The universe is not empty, but full of countless particles such as the well-known neutrinos, not to mention all the dark mass that is being talked about.
Therefore there is no such thing as an empty universe.
Apart from that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the fact that the universe is full of particles should not affect the theory of relativity. as well as that the Earth's atmosphere has no effect.
Assuming that the theory of relativity exists, the change in the speed of light over the ages does not contradict the theory of relativity. Generation, generation, and its own speed. It is very easy to describe a universe with a speed of light of 400,000 km per second with the appropriate theory of relativity.
Changing the speed of light would explain the phenomenon of the inflationary universe where the expansion of the universe was greater than the speed of light. So the universe was hot and the speed of light was greater and this solves the contradiction. The accepted explanation in which the universe expanded but not the material in which seems a bit "shaky" to me.
Note that I warn every reader that this is my personal opinion so believe it or not. But it's nice to see that this small speed change solves all kinds of unclear points in the science of cosmology. And by the way, from time to time a few more believers like me appear on the Internet and it's fun not to be alone.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
From what I understood from the article, some photons arrived before other photons
And a higher speed than the speed of light was not simulated, but simply certain photons arrived before other photons.
A. The speed of light is not constant, it is constant in vacuum, but varies from material to material.
B. The contradiction between quantum theory and relativity in certain cases is known to everyone. What you forget in all cases, is that
1. There is a measurement system, which affects the results of the experiment
2. You can try to explain the slaps by all kinds of theories that do not contradict the maximum speed, the speed of light.
third. In any case, it is very possible that the team of German scientists discovered a new and unknown phenomenon, but I doubt that they succeeded in making the photon, which is pure energy, receive more energy that would give it more speed.
d. All the nonsense that is listed here about a time machine is simply absurd and should not be listed on a site that claims to be a science site.
And the gentleman who claims that the speed of light changes from year to year...
Sir, temperature does not affect a void, a vacuum
Although the universe is expanding, and the mass remains the same, but the story of the dark mass is sublime in the understanding of scientists, so you want to change the speed of light?
In conductors the speed of light at low temperatures actually increases
Now change your theory?
What you read with the moon can be influenced by many things
There are so many variables
To change the speed of light because of such a thing is absurd
Peace to Moshiko
First, I hope you understand that the two commenters before me are not me. Although they seem to give an answer.
And your question.
My answer to your question is this:-
My assumption is that the universe is made of particles and as in gas the speed of the waves is proportional to the root of the temperature, so I assumed that the speed of the (electromagnetic) waves in the universe is also proportional to the root of the temperature (the background of the universe) and since it is known that the universe is getting colder then the speed of light is also getting smaller. According to the expansion of the universe it is possible to reach the degree of cooling and hence the decrease in speed which should be about XNUMX cm per second per year.
Please note that this is only my personal opinion and it does not correspond to the existing scientific mindset.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Error correction 🙂
I realized too late that your question referred to the change in the speed of light as a value, and not as a point.
I'm not a scientist and I don't have an academic background in the field, but from the little knowledge I have (and the experts will correct me), according to quantum theory, light is both a wave but also a particle, as a particle, I don't think it's problematic to explain what can slow it down..
Yehuda Hello!
You wrote that the speed of light changes.
What do you think could cause this? After all, light is actually electromagnetic radiation (at a frequency that the human eye is sensitive to) and has no mass, so what can slow it down?
moshiko/
There is no coup here!!!
The EPR phenomenon has been known since Einstein's time. The problem is the transmission of information speed. Even when the particles pass the speed of light, for example by quantum means, the random feature does not make it possible to understand the data on the other side without additional information that must pass at the speed of light.
why new
You are right in your words that the accepted explanation for the moving away of the moon is the tides, and in addition, the movement of the continents on the earth and even a remnant of the change in momentum of the formation of the moon from the earth.
This claim is explained by the fact that since we are in a closed Earth-Moon system, any change in the Earth must also affect the Moon.
I find it hard to see such a causal relationship. I believe that during the four billion years since the moon was formed it has reached a state of equilibrium and relaxation with the earth so that the only change in motion is that resulting from the expansion of the universe.
However, the accepted claim is that the expansion of the universe is only in large bodies such as galaxies or even clusters of galaxies, and at smaller distances only gravity works.
But the moving away of the moon can show that celestial bodies can be bound by gravity and also move away according to Hubble's constant. But, caution, this is just my personal opinion and most scientists advocate the accepted explanation.
You will be able, Mr. Responder, to go with the majority or join the "persecuted" and slandered minority. as you please.
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for everyone,
calm down calm down
This is not a leap forward, but normal phenomena from the field of quantum mechanics that arise from the uncertainty principle and the tunneling phenomena derived from it.
These are extremely local phenomena (in space-time) and are allowed in quantum theory. And the fact that there is a fundamental problem in the theory of relativity regarding quantum phenomena has been known since the days of the EPR paradox, and these things are not new.
So please, relax. There is no revolution here.
To Judah
Is the reduction of the angular momentum of the earth as a result of
A tide exerted by the moon on the Earth's oceans
Is one of the main reasons for the moon moving away from the earth?
To dear Yonatan most of the day!
I'm sorry, but the task you assigned to the scientific academy to determine a speed change of one centimeter per second per year is beyond its ability let alone its desire. To remind you, the speed of light has been declared constant and it is she who determines the size of the standard meter which, to the best of my recollection, is one part 299,792,458 of The way light travels in one second. So this makes it even more difficult to experiment. An experiment must be done to compare the speed of light over time under extreme conditions of accuracy.
For myself, I have already tested this change in a very simple and logical way, but it is a shame that it is not acceptable.
As we all know, the exact distance of the moon from the earth is known, which is measured with the help of a laser beam. It was set at a size of 38 mm per year. Assuming that the distance is determined only by the expansion of the universe (I have already said that this is something that many will disagree about and I do not understand why) then, the size of the expansion determined according to Hubble's constant, should be 25 mm per year. The question is asked:- Where does this difference of 13 mm come from?, and the answer in my opinion is from the change in the speed of light which is 13 mm per year for a distance of 385,000 km (the distance of the moon from the earth)
For those who are interested, please refer to the file of my articles according to the link in my previous response, to the article:
A smiling look at a possible farewell to the moon
After answering this simple problem I will proceed to your more difficult proposal, which is full of mixed feelings, and that is to change the name.
I'm sorry but I disagree with you! The foundations of this name are mainly Turkish and in light of the fact that there are not many Turks who have won the Nobel Prize, if any, I think that the attachment to the name Sabdarmish may encourage the people of Sweden in their difficult decision, but I am flattered that you see an obstacle to receiving the prize only in my name.
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
They are not the first nor the last
If the breakthrough was indeed made, then it will be the physical revolution of the 21st century.
This work and others, similar to the studies of Prof. Raymond Chiu of UC Berkeley, since 2000, have not been accepted in scientific circles, since it is a matter of changing basic worldviews.
It will be interesting to follow the developments.
Thanks to my father for posting the information and the article.
Lesverdamish.
1. You wrote the article on the change of the speed of light three years ago, if the speed of light decreases by a centimeter per second every year, then it would already be possible to measure the change. What did you do about it?
2. If you want to be the next Einstein, then, for the sake of the Jewish people, the first step you must take is to urgently change your last name.
To the seeker of truth
If you succeed in raising Uncle Albert from the Ob then all metaphysics and astrology will have to be improved.
Perhaps at a speed greater than the speed of light we can go back to the days of King Saul, and a Redeemer came to Zion!
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Well, then, if Sabdarmish believes that the theory of relativity must be urgently overhauled, there is no other choice but to raise Uncle Albert from the obscurity.
Hello Alex
Below is a file of my articles in Hidan
https://www.hayadan.org.il/sevdermish.html
See simple universe theory, and also expanding universe and the speed of light.
I would love to hear comments on these and other articles of mine. As you will notice the comments are quite "charged".
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Led. Peretz - the very fact that there is a speed difference contradicts the axiom of the theory of relativity because in light of uniform speed in all systems. And I guess they know according to the conditions of the experiment if they were late or early.
Lesbadramish Yehuda
1. What were your articles based on and where can they be viewed
2. Search google news for the word light
When I read the article I thought exactly like Gil Dotan.
To my father
It is desirable to have a link to the source from which the article was taken, it would help in understanding the article.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And what if the other photons moved at a lower speed than the speed of light?? For currently unknown reasons?
This is also a possibility that must be taken into account!! Besides, a distance of one meter does not determine facts.. When they reach a distance of millions of kilometers, we will start to consider it!!
Will someone answer my question?
The particles didn't move from place to place, just a moment here, a moment there, didn't they?
According to quantum mechanics it is possible and thus there is no conflict with the light barrier.
Regarding a time machine, its foundation is also undermined if this fundamental principle of the theory of relativity - constancy of the speed of light, is undermined.
To remind you, I have always argued that the speed of light was different in the past, and therefore there is a mistake in taking it as a constant throughout history.
In my humble opinion it changes in cm per second per year and I even wrote several articles about it.
I think relativity urgently needs an overhaul!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
But why would I want to see something that I go through the speed of light?
The speed of light is really not the maximum speed.
The problem is different
Since light is limited to the speed of light
The viewer will never be able to see beyond the speed of light.
Lordy!
Can anyone explain?
Are there any immediate apps that spring to mind due to this finding? (except for a time machine)