Slashdot Mirror


Light so Fast it Travels Backward

An anonymous reader writes "Slowing down light used to be considered a neat trick for physics wonks. But researchers in New York now say they've pushed light into reverse. And as if to defy common sense, the backward-moving light travels faster than light." While there's not much use to come of it yet, it will be interesting if Einstein himself is proved wrong.

38 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdot is like Charlie Brown by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Funny
    Slashdot ==> Charlie Brown

    Stupid Science Stories ==> Lucy & the football

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Slashdot is like Charlie Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And... Linus ==> Linus

      AARRGGH!!

    2. Re:Slashdot is like Charlie Brown by marshall_j · · Score: 4, Funny

      not true. i find slashdot funny on occasions.. :P

    3. Re:Slashdot is like Charlie Brown by radtea · · Score: 3, Informative


      This nonsense depends on an equivocation on "velocity". It is easy to get phase velocities that are not just faster than light, but infinite. It is impossible to get group velocities that are faster than c (the speed of light in a free vacuum, a universal constant.) Information travels with the group velocity.

      For a scientist to report this as "faster than light" is simply dishonest, a means of grabbing headlines and attention in the hopes that it will bolster the next grant application.

      The world is full of (mostly uninteresting) phenomena that travel "faster than light" by this definition. This is just one more. It is always a worthy effort to test established theory in regimes it has not been tested in before, but the odds of it producing any interesting results are staggeringly small. Absent the "faster than light" hook this story wouldn't be given any notice at all.

      The honest headline would be, "Scientist tests well-established theory under extreme conditions and finds full agreement with predictions." Yawn.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Slashdot is like Charlie Brown by AndyTheSayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      This site has a nice illustrative applet on group velocity which helps to visualise some of the points in the parent posts: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/2 0/20.html
      You can also use it to show why you can't transfer information faster than light.

  2. Reverse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    .gnola evoM .ereh ees ot uoy rof gnihtoN

  3. quote by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.

    Way to read the article, CowboyNeal.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  4. /Obvious by ThomK · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've done this too, it's called 'a mirror'.

    --

    TK

  5. Darkness quicker than light! by visgoth · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, basically, what scientists have shown is that reverse light (darkness) is faster than light!

    --
    My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    1. Re:Darkness quicker than light! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So Vader was right. You don't KNOW the POWER of the dark side!

      I wonder, could this be used to make an unlightbulb? I've always wanted one of those. Too bright in the room? Don't walk over to pull the curtains, just switch on the unlight and voila, light just gets sucked into it and darkness speads into every corner of the room. Even better you get paid by the grid for the electricity you generate. Goodbye suncream, I've got my unlight with me, no need for trees to make shadows just hang it up and relax back in the shade. Imagine the tricks you could play on people with a 3000W unspotlight! Mwaahahaha. Who said science was boring?

    2. Re:Darkness quicker than light! by orkysoft · · Score: 3, Funny

      Terry Pratchett already showed that. Everywhere light goes, darkness was there first.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  6. Speed of what? by hunterx11 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.

    I hate it when headlines use the semantics of "the speed of light" to sound sensational. "The speed of light" is just used to refer to the maximum speed of information propagation because light in a vacuum travels as that speed. I can change the speed of light by wearing glasses; while experiments similar to the one in TFA are much more complex and interesting, the point is that neither one is affecting the speed of information at all.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
    1. Re:Speed of what? by cyclopropene · · Score: 3, Informative
      The colloquial "speed of light" is the speed of light in a vacuum. These experiments are causing light & thus information to travel faster than that benchmark.

      So, yes - The speed of the information is being affected.


      No. In fact neither the speed of light nor the rate of trasmission of information exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. It is only the position of a relative maximum along the length of a light pulse that is accelerated or slowed. A light pulse (gaussian, say) consists of the sum of waves of many different frequencies extending out in both directions from the pulse maximum. If you create a region of space with a high gradient in the index of refraction, the different frequencies will change their relative phases, shifting the position of the pulse maximum. This can create the illusion of a change in the speed of light, since the pulse maximum appears to travel at a different speed. But for any information to be trasmitted, the whole pulse must be transmitted. It's not like a bullet--it's more like a vibrating string with a kink in it. When the string comes out the other side, the kink is in a different place, but the string moved the same speed. Since you can only send one whole string at a time, you can't send information faster than the speed of light. This is old hat.
      --
      Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
    2. Re:Speed of what? by tm2b · · Score: 5, Informative
      Er, no. It has to do with the idea that cause must preceed effect in all reference frames.

      Special relativity starts with the notion that you will measure light as going C no matter how fast you're going, or what direction you're going. (Why? Because that's what experiments showed when they tried to find an absolute frame of reference - if there were one, you could find it by looking at how light behaves). Briefly, something going faster than C means that you can find a reference frame in which cause follows effect - time travel.

      The way the math shakes out, all of special relativity is based upon the notion that light in a vacuum travels along the geodesic:
      dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2 = 0
      and that simultaneity happens along those geodesics. C, the "speed of light in a vacuum" is critical as the normalizing factor for distance and time (in doing SR and GR, velocities are best expressed as fractions of C - so half the "speed of light in a vacuum" is the unitless 0.5 - unitless because time and distance have the same unit).

      Now, if light travels slower than C in any particular medium, even in a vacuum, as long as it's consistent in all reference frames that's no great shakes for special relativity per se - it just means that light isn't as special to space-time as we thought and that the M-M experiments seemed to show. If light travels faster than C, *that* is what breaks special relativity and the definition of simultaneity. In essence, it means that you can define a reference frame in which an effect will preceed its cause.

      If you want to learn more about it, google on terms (along with "special relativity") like "light cone," "simultaneity," "absolute past," "absolute future," and "absolute elsewhere." For the history of special relativity, start with the link I included earier, or "Michelson" and "Morley".
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  7. Negative time was the subject of an Asimov novel by Harry+Balls · · Score: 5, Informative

    From a 1985 paper http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw08.html/ :

    When advanced-wave light travels from point A to point B it arrives at point B earlier than the time it left point A. Shortly after World War II, when radar was still new, a pulsed radar beam was first bounced off the Moon and reflected back to Earth. Measuring the round trip time of the radar pulse (about 2.5 seconds) became a very precise way of determining the Earth-Moon distance. If the same measurement were done with advanced radar waves the reflection from the Moon's surface would arrive back at the Earth 2.5 seconds before the pulse was transmitted.

    From there, it isn't much of a trick to lengthen the interval with automatic repeaters which bounce the advanced waves many times, lengthening the look-ahead time from seconds to minutes or hours or even days. A computer could be hooked up to broadcast ASCII-coded advance-wave messages to the past and to receive and decode them when received. Such messages could be used in any number of schemes for fun, profit, or military preparedness. The reader who is interested in possible applications is referred to Isaac Asimov's pseudo-science-fact articles in the Astounding SF's of the 1950's concerning "thiothimoline", a kind of soluble organic crystal with the unique property that it dissolved slightly before water was added.

    Guess we are almost there now.
    Just think of the applications:
    Knowing any stock price swing several minutes (OK, just give me one minute!) in advance.

    Ah, the possibilities...

  8. Faster than light! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Last Post

  9. what if you change your mind? by HyperTiger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, the article says the light comes out the other end before the putting-in end has light going in, so that it goes backwards through the fiber (from the end it came out of, towards the end it came into).

    What if you are about to put the photon in, and it comes out of the fiber at the other end, but you change your mind and don't put it into the going in end?

    1. Re:what if you change your mind? by jj13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i think the point is that...this result could make us question sense of fate... do you still have freedom of choice if you learn about actions you will perform in the future? if you get a photon out the system before you sent one, are you locked into sending one?

    2. Re:what if you change your mind? by JanneM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      if you get a photon out the system before you sent one, are you locked into sending one?

      I read a great short story on that theme once (really short; I believe it was less than two full pages). A researcher built a time machine, and sent a brass cube five minutes back in time during a demonstration. An audience member, looking at the "two" brass cubes on the desk asked what would happen if he never sent the original cube. They tried - and the universe, except for the brass cube, ceased to exist.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:what if you change your mind? by PhysSurfer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, the article says the light comes out the other end before the putting-in end has light going in

      False, if you read the article nothing comes out the output end until the proceding edge of the light enters the input. The proceeding edge contains all the information about the light pulse, so causality is never violated and your thought experiment would never work.

    4. Re:what if you change your mind? by snookums · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like to explain this type of paradox with a parallel universe theory. In your story, the universe ceased to exist because of an irresolvable paradox -- a dead-end in the timeline beyond which there was no internally-consistent state for the universe to be in. A little like what happens to the "wrong" answers when doing calculations with a quantum computer.

      The thing is, there were other universes where everything was fine. The scientist put the cube into the machine and everything was okay, or the scientist never put the cube into the machine and the demonstration failed. Nobody died, and the whole of everything didn't suddenly end, they just continued along one of the consistent timelines. The versions of the people in the dead-end timeline didn't know what happened (because they ceased to exist) and the people in the continuing timeline were unaware of the existence of any others (except in a "I wonder what would have happened if..." sense).

      I'll concede that this is kind of fatalistic, but if you want to allow time travel, then you really have to give up on the idea that the "forward" direction of time is special. If the second brass cube was on the table then someone must have put it there in exactly the same way that someone must have put the first one there. Cause and effect become indistinguishable because the causal relationship can run in either direction.

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
  10. FP! by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait to harness this technology. I'll be able to make First Posts without actually having to be the first poster. I will rule Slashdot!!!

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  11. Dupe by mattOzan · · Score: 5, Funny

    The first story was rushed out so fast it hasn't gotten here yet.

  12. Phase velocity vs. group velocity by Fruny · · Score: 4, Informative

    It has to explained out all over again every time an article of that type gets posted: phase velocity can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, group velocity cannot.

    1. Re:Phase velocity vs. group velocity by birge · · Score: 4, Informative

      It has to be explained all over again every time someone explains group velocity all over again: group velocity can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum in resonant conditions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity cannot.

  13. Obvious how they did that by mobby_6kl · · Score: 3, Funny

    They got Chuck Norris to roundhouse kick the regular light until it started moving backward!

  14. Two photons travelling in opposite directions by Danuvius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been curious about this for a while... so someone please explain where I am missing the obvious.

    Would not two photons/beams of light travelling in opposite directions be moving faster than the speed of light *relative* to one another?

    I'm sure I'm missing something... so please, rip apart the above over-simplified statement. I hope to learn something by observing the process. ;-)

    --
    Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    1. Re:Two photons travelling in opposite directions by taustin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The short answer is "no." The long answer is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

    2. Re:Two photons travelling in opposite directions by DarkProphet · · Score: 4, Funny

      ;-)

      If I had mod points, I'd be unsure whether to mod this up +1 Informative or +1 Funny.

      --
      What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  15. Original Press Release has animations by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 4, Informative

    See original press release with animations.

  16. Dupe! by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    This was posted next week.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Will be fixed in the next upgrade by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Funny

    This does not disprove Einstein's theory, it only exposes a flaw in the implementation. For some reason the idiot who implemented it didn't use a large enough data-type to store c, causing it to overflow in certain situations.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  18. Further dossier that Einstein is still the geezer by overacid · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/2 0/20.html
    No information ever acutally travels faster than the speed of light.
    Nice visual explanation anywho.

  19. Another Stupidly Confusing Physics Story by logicnazi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article was pretty confusingly written so I can't be totally sure what is going on but i think this only sounds cool because we confuse the speed the actual photons travel and the speed the wave appears to travel.

    It is perfectly possible to get *effects* from light that appear to travel at faster than the speed of light. Just take a flashlight in a super huge room and whip it around really fast. The spot of light on the wall may very well 'travel' faster than light but no actual photons traveled faster than light so this isn't a problem.

    While this experiment is somewhat different I believe a similar confusion makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. In particular there are two different speeds one needs to talk about when you are talking about how fast light goes. There is the speed at which a crest of the wave advances and then there is the speed that a photon travels (probably some other ones too than I'm forgetting). I believe all this experiment is doing is making it so the crest of the wave appears to travel faster (or with negative speed?) than light even though all the photons in the light are not moving faster than light.

    Thus it is a big analagous to the flashlight case where you have some effect (in this case the crest of the light wave) which appears to move faster than light even though no actual photons or information is really doing so.

    To give an idea of how this could happen (though not the mechanism here) imagine a bunch of rods in a row like this:

    _____ (time 0)

    Now suppose we put activators under these rods to raise them at prearranged times. If we did this right we could get a 'wave' moving like this:

    -______ (time 1)

    --_____ (time 2)

    _--____ (time 3)

    __--___ (time 4)

    Now if we timed the activators right we could make this 'wave' travel down the line arbitrarily fast (in principle even faster than the speed of light) even though no information or particle is actually being moved that fast.

    While clearly the mechanism is different in this case I believe this is all that is happening. Namely the peak of electric field moves faster than light (or negative?) even though no real thing is doing so.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  20. Asimov sez: by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In the case of the Asimov short story (Not a novel; it was 29 pages), there was a repeater that sent a one-bit signal 24 hours back in time, by having a series of some 14K automatic vials, each one putting a drop of water on its sample when it sensed the previous one dissolving. One of the researchers decided (once) he wasn't going to press the button after getting a signal. A freak storm caused severe damage to the lab, and it ended up getting pushed anyway.

    Course, as it's been said - this was fiction, so it had to make sense. :)

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  21. previously termed 'Reflection' by Falcon040 · · Score: 4, Funny

    " But researchers in New York now say they've pushed light into reverse. "

    Ah, when I were a lad, back in the days before this backwards superluminal light was deeply researched it was known more commonly as reflection.

  22. The pulses aren't the same. by nanepul · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a Physics grad student who just happens to be doing my Master's project on negative index materials (or commonly known as NIM). I'm not an expert in this subject but our reseach group actually discussed this same subject last week. The point here is that the individual photons are not moving faster than light. In fact (what I was told by my professors and others) is that the pulse going in is NOT the same pulse going out. It's the front end 'tail' of the pulse which 'piles up' to become a new pulse which is seen coming out the other end in the shape of the original pulse. The incoming 'peak' of the pulse collapses (actually a portion of it gets reflected which for some reason doesn't ever show up in these simulations of the phenomenon) so only a portion of it exists after going in (I see this in my 1D FDTD simulation all the time). There is actually alot of distortion of the pulse at the interfaces (and inbetween) to the point that it's hard to say what is the original pulse and what isn't. In fact, if you just send light in with no 'peak' you will still detect a 'peak' coming out.

  23. Parent needs to read up on modern optics by ZombieWomble · · Score: 5, Informative
    It is impossible to get group velocities that are faster than c (the speed of light in a free vacuum, a universal constant.) Information travels with the group velocity.

    This statement, and your criticism of the experiment, is based on out of date (or simply ill-researched) information, and it worries me that it got modded up to 5.

    In this case, the group velocity is indeed faster than the speed of light - the form of the wavepacket peak (the speed of which is the definition of the group velocity [1]) travels through the fibre almost instantaneously, much faster than c. This is one of the two things about this experiment is interesting, as by the old-fashioned definition you are championing, information has just been transmitted faster than the speed of light (as has been done before [2], although I believe it was generally in quantum-tunneling type situations, rather than something as normal-seeming as a optical fibre.)

    The significant point to take home from that part is that the "It's the group velocity that carries information" mantra is not strictly true. In this case, the leading edge of the pulse is all that is needed to reconstruct the whole thing, and then suddenly we're faced with a battle between our definition of information transportation at the group velocity (with the wave peak) and causality. Causality obviously wins, and information transportation needs a more complex definition than is covered in introductory optics courses.

    References, cos I like that sort of thing:

    [1] http://www.rp-photonics.com/group_velocity.html - definition of group velocity

    [2] http://www.rp-photonics.com/superluminal_transmiss ion.html - article on superluminal transmission, including a reference to situations where the group velocity is greater than c.