All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
06 Mar 2007
Scientists at NEC have managed to get a light beam to exceed the speed of light, something once thought to be an unbreakable universal constant.
In the experiment a beam of light was passed through a specially prepared caesium atomic chamber. The beam of light arrived at the far end 62 nanoseconds sooner than would be expected under normal conditions.
"Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein's special relativity, but it does show that the generally held misconception that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is wrong," the laboratory reported.
"The statement only applies to objects with a rest mass. Light can be viewed as waves and has no mass. Therefore, it is not limited by its speed inside a vacuum."
The special chamber was cooled to as close possible to absolute zero (-273.15 Celcius). Combined with the caesium, this "rephased" the light waves, taking them beyond 186,000 miles per second.
Latest stories from Software
Related videos
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
My client, a leading international name in Manufacturing...
My client is looking for an Automated Engineer/Developer...
*** Java Architect - IT Services/Consultancy - London...
Skills: C#, WCF, ASP.Net, Real Time Systems, MVC, SQL...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
the speed goes on !!!!!
I new that the speed of light could be beaten , for this very simple reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you get it ?????
Posted by: wavecatcher 10 Aug 2008
It's been done before...
Back in 1958 Pavel Cherenkov received the Nobel Prize for characterizing the electromagnetic radiation of a charged particle passed through an insulator at a speed greater than light. The blue glow eminating from the water of a nuclear reactor core is an example of this radiation called Cherenkov radiation. NEC is keen to get their scientist's name in the paper. Stick to high speed computers guys... something your good at already instead of faking this new research for others to blindly believe.
Posted by: Jason Bourne 07 Sep 2007
"C" Constant What?
Many,many godd minds have aways thought that the big"C" was just a "Rule of thumb", through other methods, labs have brought SOL under 180,000mps. So the real deal would be to bring it to Zero mps! Hog Wash!
Posted by: Jim West 19 Apr 2007
Great!!
now the lights beat itself :)
Posted by: Icang 19 Apr 2007
What's a "specially prepared caesium atomic chamber"?
What's a "specially prepared caesium atomic chamber"? Michael
Posted by: Michael D 23 Mar 2007
Uhh...whoa.
First today I read that light had been stopped cold. Literally. I could handle that. Now, light can exceed the previously thought ultimate barrier of transference in our universe? What? Doesn't this destroy the very core of modern physics? They say it doesn't contradict Einstein because he referred to objects with mass, but Einstein certainly new that light was massless and could be viewed as a wave. He asserted that absolutely nothing could travel faster than 186,000mi/s. Holy shit. Am I right in be blown away or am I really that tired?
Posted by: Ted 07 Mar 2007
lame
It's not that they made something go faster than the speed of light, we just learned that light can go faster than previously thought. Basically, light just set itself a new world record for speed. I'm sure it will be usefull for something.
Posted by: forthelove 07 Mar 2007
Huh?
A clearer explanation would be good. "Rephasing" the light makes it faster? What does this mean?
Posted by: Michael Noonan 07 Mar 2007