'Mach c'? Scientists observe sound traveling faster than the speed of light

[alkemical]

'Mach c'? Scientists observe sound traveling faster than the speed of light (http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html)


<img src="http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/Superluminalsoundset-up.jpg" title="Superluminal sound set-up" alt ="Superluminal sound set-up" vspace="2" hspace="10">


In this schematic of the acoustical test system, the scientists could create superluminal group velocity of sound waves, as well as negative group velocity. In the latter case, the peak of the output pulse traveling through the loop filter exited the filter before the peak of the input pulse had reached the beginning of the filter. Image credit: Bill Robertson, et al.
For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson’s team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative.

Past experiments have demonstrated that the group velocities of other materials’ components—such as optical, microwave, and electrical pulses—can exceed the speed of light. But while the individual spectral components of these pulses have velocities very close to c, the components of sound waves are almost six orders of magnitude slower than light (compare 340 m/s to 300,000,000 m/s).

“All of the interest in fast (and slow) wave velocity for all types of waves (optical, electrical, and acoustic) was initially to gain a fundamental understanding of the characteristics of wave propagation,” Robertson told PhysOrg.com. “Phase manipulation can change the phase relationship between these materials’ components. Using sound to create a group velocity that exceeds the speed of light is significant here because it dramatically illustrates this point, due to the large difference between the speeds of sound and light.”

The experiment was conducted by two undergrads, an area high school teacher and two high school students, who received funding by an NSF STEP (Science, technology, engineering, math Talent Enhancement Program) grant. The grant aims to increase recruitment and retention of students to these subjects.

In their experiment, the researchers achieved superluminal sound velocity by rephasing the spectral components of the sound pulses, which later recombine to form an identical-looking part of the pulse much further along within the pulse. So it’s not the actual sound waves that exceed c, but the waves’ “group velocity,” or the “length of the sample divided by the time taken for the peak of a pulse to traverse the sample.”

“The sound-faster-than-light result will not be a surprise to the folks who work closely in this area because they recognize that the group velocity (the velocity that the peak of a pulse moves) is not merely connected to the velocity of all of the frequencies that superpose to create that pulse,” explained Robertson, “but rather to the manner in which a material or a filter changes the phase relationship between these components. By appropriate phase manipulation (rephasing) the group velocity can be increased or decreased.”

To rephase the spectral components, the sound waves were sent through an asymmetric loop filter on a waveguide of PVC pipe, about 8 m long. The 0.65-meter loop split the sound waves into two unequal path lengths, resulting in destructive interference and standing wave resonances that together created transmission dips at regular frequencies.

Due to anomalous dispersion (which changes the wave speed), sound pulses traveling through the loop filter arrived at the exit sooner than pulses traveling straight through the PVC. With this experiment, the group velocity could actually reach an infinitely small amount of time, although the individual spectral components still travel at the speed of sound.

“We also achieved what is known as a ‘negative group velocity,’ a situation in which the peak of the output pulse exits the filter before the peak of the input pulse has reached the beginning of the filter,” explained Robertson. “Using the definition for speed as being equal to distance divided by time, we measured a negative time and thus realized a negative velocity.”

[alkemical]

It might not seem that a negative velocity would exceed the speed of light, but in this case, Robertson said, the speed of the pulse is actually much faster than c.

“Consider the pulse speed in a slightly less dramatic case,” Robertson said. “Say the peak of the output pulse exits the filter at exactly the same time as the input pulse reaches the beginning. In this less dramatic case, the transit time is zero and the speed (distance divided by zero) is infinite. So we were beyond infinite! (‘To infinity and beyond,’ to steal a line from Toy Story.) In our experiment, we measured a negative transit time corresponding to a negative group velocity of -52 m/s.”

Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein’s law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist.

“The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,” said Robertson. “Because we were passing the pulse through a filter, the sped-up pulse was much smaller (by more than a factor of 10) than the input pulse. Essentially, the pulse that made it through the filter was an exact (but smaller) replica of the input pulse. This replica is carved from the leading edge of the input pulse. At all times, the net energy of the wave crossing the filter region was equal to, or less than, the energy that would have arrived if the input pulse had been traveling in a straight pipe instead of through the filter.”

Is this phenomenon simply the result of a clever set-up, or can it actually occur in the real world? According to the scientists, the interference that occurs in the loop filter is directly analogous to the “comb filtering” effect in architectural acoustics, where sound interference occurs between sound directly from a source and that reflected by a hard surface.

“The superluminal acoustic effect we have described is likely a ubiquitous but imperceptible phenomenon in the everyday world,” the scientists conclude.

Citation: Robertson, W., Pappafotis, J., Flannigan, P., Cathey, J., Cathey, B., and Klaus, C. “Sound beyond the speed of light: Measurement of negative group velocity in an acoustic loop filter.” Applied Physics Letters 90, 014102 (2007).

By Lisa Zyga, Copyright 2006 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

I could have told you that. When my wife screams at me when I come home drunk I hear it before I see the flashlight in my eyes. :D

Seriously though, We are on the verge of some great scientific break throughs. It will be fun to see them play out.

[-Slap-]

I could have told you that. When my wife screams at me when I come home drunk I hear it before I see the flashlight in my eyes. :D


I knew this post - in some form - was coming.

:)

[alkemical]

No doubt Big Guy - this stuff really holds my interest.

[PLOWHORSE]

"If youre traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights...What Happpens?" --Steven Wright

[cutthemdown]

I'm looking foward to Helium-3 being used in fusion for electricity. I don't know much about it but it sounds remarkable.

Helium-3 undergoes the following aneutronic fusion reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion), among others, although this is the one most promising for power generation:
<dl><dd>D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) + ³He → ⁴He (3.7 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)</dd></dl> The appeal of helium-3 fusion stems from the nature of its reaction products. Most proposed fusion processes for power generation produce energetic neutrons which render reactor components radioactive with their bombardment, and power generation must occur through thermal means. In contrast, helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy proton produced can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which results in direct electricity generation.
However, since both reactants need to be mixed together to fuse, side reactions (D + D and ³He + ³He) will occur, the first of which is not aneutronic. Therefore in practice this reaction is unlikely to ever be completely 'clean'. Also, the temperatures required for D + ³He fusion are much higher than those of conventional D + T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium) fusion, so it is unlikely that this type of fusion will be achieved before the problems with conventional fusion are worked out.

[Rock Chalk]

"If youre traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights...What Happpens?" --Steven Wright

Einstein proved that the speed of light is the same regardless of how fast you are moving. It is relative to your current speed. So, the answer to Steven Wright (who is a comic genius btw) is, the headlights come on.

[Rock Chalk]

I'm looking foward to Helium-3 being used in fusion for electricity. I don't know much about it but it sounds remarkable.

Helium-3 undergoes the following aneutronic fusion reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion), among others, although this is the one most promising for power generation:
<dl><dd>D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) + ³He → ⁴He (3.7 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)</dd></dl> The appeal of helium-3 fusion stems from the nature of its reaction products. Most proposed fusion processes for power generation produce energetic neutrons which render reactor components radioactive with their bombardment, and power generation must occur through thermal means. In contrast, helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy proton produced can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which results in direct electricity generation.
However, since both reactants need to be mixed together to fuse, side reactions (D + D and ³He + ³He) will occur, the first of which is not aneutronic. Therefore in practice this reaction is unlikely to ever be completely 'clean'. Also, the temperatures required for D + ³He fusion are much higher than those of conventional D + T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium) fusion, so it is unlikely that this type of fusion will be achieved before the problems with conventional fusion are worked out.


I think it needs 300 million degrees to cause fusion compared to tritium which requires only 100 million degrees (or something like that). Either way, the radioactive material has a half life of 12 years in teh standard method compared to fission's radioactive by products half life of like a million years.

The problems with fusion aren't really in the physics but the engineering and computing. 40 years, 40 billion dollars and not a single kilowatt of net energy produced and likely 50 more years before the problem is figured out and 50-100 more years before it is commercially available.

Call me a fusion skeptic. Sounds great, but they have shown little in the way of progress to justify the time and money spent so far.

[Rock Chalk]

Oh and Josh, didnt this sound faster than light thing happen like 2 or 3 years ago? Seems like I remember them doing this.

[orangeatheist]

So, to make this relevant to me, is this saying that by 2063 we're gonna see something like this:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9749/phoenix.gif

and make first contact with the Vulcans?

[watermock]

I'm still working on my ice cube cold fusion theories.

[fdf]

I'm looking foward to Helium-3 being used in fusion for electricity. I don't know much about it but it sounds remarkable.

Helium-3 undergoes the following aneutronic fusion reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion), among others, although this is the one most promising for power generation:
<dl><dd>D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) + ³He → ⁴He (3.7 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)</dd></dl> The appeal of helium-3 fusion stems from the nature of its reaction products. Most proposed fusion processes for power generation produce energetic neutrons which render reactor components radioactive with their bombardment, and power generation must occur through thermal means. In contrast, helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy proton produced can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which results in direct electricity generation.
However, since both reactants need to be mixed together to fuse, side reactions (D + D and ³He + ³He) will occur, the first of which is not aneutronic. Therefore in practice this reaction is unlikely to ever be completely 'clean'. Also, the temperatures required for D + ³He fusion are much higher than those of conventional D + T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium) fusion, so it is unlikely that this type of fusion will be achieved before the problems with conventional fusion are worked out.

If you're interested in fusion, check out a recent talk by Dr. Robert Bussard (THE Dr. Bussard) called "should google go nuclear?" It is referred to in this link. He claims his company has achieved net output fusion with a simple (by fusion standards) device and that 200 million gets a prototype fusion plant running.

This guy is a former vice-chair of the Atomic Energy Commission and the inventor of the Bussard Ram Jet--a serious physicist.

Here's another link that discusses it:

http://www.rexresearch.com/bussard/bussard.htm

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Einstein proved that the speed of light is the same regardless of how fast you are moving. It is relative to your current speed. So, the answer to Steven Wright (who is a comic genius btw) is, the headlights come on.Really, is there an equasion for that?

[SoCalBronco]

Transparent aluminum?

That's the ticket, laddie.

[Bronco Billy]

Well, I certainly feel smarter now! I think I'll go out to Borders and buy Nanotechnology for Dummies to futher stimulate my brain! (Just kidding, the article was interesting.)

[Bronco Billy]

Einstein proved that the speed of light is the same regardless of how fast you are moving. It is relative to your current speed. So, the answer to Steven Wright (who is a comic genius btw) is, the headlights come on.

Okay, so the headlights come on, but they wouldn't actually illuminate anything in front of you since the vehicle is already travelling the speed of light. Therefore, the headlights would be of no use. Correct?

[watermock]

The pointi is that even if you might be able to move waves faster than light, it has little to do with matter.

I don't like to discount anything, but waves and matter are well...two different matters.

[TheChamp24]

What the flying freakin f? Some of you guys are way geekier than I thought, lol.

[Taco John]

Really, is there an equasion for that?

I don't know about equation, but it's Einstein's addednum to Gallileo's general rule of relativity (ie. all uniform motion is relative). Einstein added that even at the speed of light, all uniform motion is relative.

[alkemical]

Oh and Josh, didnt this sound faster than light thing happen like 2 or 3 years ago? Seems like I remember them doing this.

I dunno, it just caught up with me so it must move slower than I. ;)

j/k - i'm not sure - and to be honest - i don't want to remember right now. Too much V.I.editor today.

Blargh

[alkemical]

This thread is awesome. Lots of good info.

Yes, yes i am a dork.

[Vegas_Bronco]

Random Tidbit: If you were to free fall from the earth's crust to the center of the earth it would take 36 hours - that's a lot of skydiving!

This earth is huge and it magnetic pull keeps our speed in check although I do wish they'd raise the speed limit again to 80-85 for modern vehicles. I can't wait to travel at the light speed of sound!

[alkemical]

Random Tidbit: If you were to free fall from the earth's crust to the center of the earth it would take 36 hours - that's a lot of skydiving!

This earth is huge and it magnetic pull keeps our speed in check although I do wish they'd raise the speed limit again to 80-85 for modern vehicles. I can't wait to travel at the light speed of sound!

http://www.yingwa.edu.hk/physics/picture/thunder.jpeg

[Rock Chalk]

Okay, so the headlights come on, but they wouldn't actually illuminate anything in front of you since the vehicle is already travelling the speed of light. Therefore, the headlights would be of no use. Correct?

No, light leaving the headlights from the drivers perspective leave away from you at the speed of light. So says Einstein. It defies logic, but so does relativity.

Einstein knew that all objects were in perpetual motion. We are rotating on the Earth, the Earth revolves around the sun, the sun eddies up and down (north and south) as it revolves around the galaxy and the galaxy itself is racing towards Andromeda. The Local Group of galaxies we live in is moving towards a larger super cluster of Galaxies and so on and so forth. As such, Einstein figured out that the speed of light was the only constant and that it remained the same no matter what the relative speed of the observer was. This has to do with time dilation I believe, (admittedly I could be wrong as to WHY we perceive it as moving the same regardless of our current velocity) as one travels faster time travels slower so your perceptions of what you see remain the same relative to how fast light travels.

[Rock Chalk]

To scale (this seemed like a cool place for it)

[Rock Chalk]

The Outer planets (+ inners)

[Rock Chalk]

More...

[Rock Chalk]

Now it really gets cool...

[Rock Chalk]

And finally....Antares is the biggest known star in our galaxy

[Rock Chalk]

Betelgues can be seen in Orion constellation it is the red star on the right shoulder.

Rigel is the blue star in Orion on the left knee.

[Rock Chalk]

So, to make this relevant to me, is this saying that by 2063 we're gonna see something like this:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9749/phoenix.gif

and make first contact with the Vulcans?

I doubt anything in 2063 is going to be relevant to you wormfood ;D

[Rock Chalk]

Random Tidbit: If you were to free fall from the earth's crust to the center of the earth it would take 36 hours - that's a lot of skydiving!

This earth is huge and it magnetic pull keeps our speed in check although I do wish they'd raise the speed limit again to 80-85 for modern vehicles. I can't wait to travel at the light speed of sound!

Two things: Earth is a tiny little insignificant rock.

The moon, since its creation, has dictacted the speed at which the Earth rotates and the suns gravity dictates the speed at which the Earth revolves around the sun.

The Earth's magnetosphere keeps UV and other high energy rays from killing us and prevents the solar wind from blowing away our protective atmosphere.

[Bronco Billy]

Thanks for the lesson, Alec. I know Deneb is in the "Summer Triangle" constellation. How big is that relative to the other stars you mentioned?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't know about equation, but it's Einstein's addednum to Gallileo's general rule of relativity (ie. all uniform motion is relative). Einstein added that even at the speed of light, all uniform motion is relative.I thought inertia and monmentum slowed and there was a state of rest then no matter the linear motion?

EDIT: I learned this stuff over 30 years ago so I guess I got it wrong after doing some research.

[Bronco Billy]

Hey Alec, is that one star pronounced "Beetle Juice"?

[Rock Chalk]

Thanks for the lesson, Alec. I know Deneb is in the "Summer Triangle" constellation. How big is that relative to the other stars you mentioned?

Alpha Cygni

I wiki'd it and apparently it is anywhere from 200 to 300 times the size of our sun. A fairly large star. If placed in our solar system, its outer edge would be where Earth's orbit is.

Betelguese by comparison in our system would have its outer edge out where Jupiter is.

It is one of the most luminous stars known however ranging from 60,000 to 250,000 times brighter than our star (depending on how far it is, which is uncertain but estimated at 3200 to 7400 ly away).

[Bronco Billy]

Isn't it true that we can see a star that is directly behind the Moon because the light produced from the star bends around the Moon's gravitational pull? A college prof told me that, but never read anything more into it.

[Rock Chalk]

Hey Alec, is that one star pronounced "Beetle Juice"?

Thats how I pronounce it ;D

[Rock Chalk]

Isn't it true that we can see a star that is directly behind the Moon because the light produced from the star bends around the Moon's gravitational pull? A college prof told me that, but never read anything more into it.

I dont know if the moon has enough gravity to warp space enough to do that but I do know that they can do that with stars. Its called lensing. Its a new technique for planet hunters.

[Bronco Billy]

Thanks again. :notworthy

[Rock Chalk]

Gravitational Lensing (apparently they do it with Galaxies, not stars, so doubtful the moon)...

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html

[Lev Vyvanse]

Einstein proved that the speed of light is the same regardless of how fast you are moving. It is relative to your current speed. So, the answer to Steven Wright (who is a comic genius btw) is, the headlights come on.


He did postulate that light travels the same speed regardless of how fast you are moving. Which means regardless of velocity of the observer or the velocity of of the emitting source the light will travel 3X10^8 m/s.

[Rock Chalk]

I guess "proved" was a strong word, though its likely to never be proven incorrect.

[Lev Vyvanse]

Einstein proved that the speed of light is the same regardless of how fast you are moving. It is relative to your current speed. So, the answer to Steven Wright (who is a comic genius btw) is, the headlights come on.

This is the part I was talking about. The speed of light is not relative to your current speed. It is always traveling at the same speed. The answer to the question is headlights(matter) could never move at or faster than the speed of light.

[Donk]

Go Broncos

[Rascal]

Go watch Star Trek Slug and you'll learn about light while traveling at the speed of light.

Beem me up Scotty!!

[Rock Chalk]

This is the part I was talking about. The speed of light is not relative to your current speed. It is always traveling at the same speed. The answer to the question is headlights(matter) could never move at or faster than the speed of light.

Well, relative in your perception. From your perception, light is moving at 180,000 miles per second, no matter how fast you are moving or the source is moving (assuming of course you are going slower than the speed of light itself). If you are moving 185,999 miles per second (and the source of the light is as well) relative to you, that light is moving 180,000 miles per second.

Its not going 359,999 miles per second no, its still travelling at the same speed at 180,000 miles per second. I guess I didnt word it right, and I didnt figure I would since Im not a physicist.

99.999999999999999999 percent the speed of light, this all works, 100% the speed of light requires an infinite amoung of energy and you are right, matter itself cannot accelerate to or above the speed of light so its an impossible scenario.

[Lev Vyvanse]

Well, relative in your perception. From your perception, light is moving at 180,000 miles per second, no matter how fast you are moving or the source is moving (assuming of course you are going slower than the speed of light itself). If you are moving 185,999 miles per second (and the source of the light is as well) relative to you, that light is moving 180,000 miles per second.
Its not going 359,999 miles per second no, its still travelling at the same speed at 180,000 miles per second. I guess I didnt word it right, and I didnt figure I would since Im not a physicist.



I still don't think we are on the same wavelength. It is not relative to you. This constant is the basis of relativity. It is not relative to observer(a), observer(b), or observer(c) regardless of who has the headlights the speed of the light is constant for all.

[Willynowei]

Man, I saw this article floating around. From what i can gather, group velocity and pulse speeds are not real disposition of that wave. If you go by group velocity, technically light can travel faster than the speed of light. It makes sense because you are talking about the speed of the pulse, however you can't actually send information or anything for that matter faster than the speed of light, if that makes any sense...

Pulse speed is not the actual speed of the wave traveling through space, its just that propogation at that particular point. I'm not sure why this was such a great discovery??

[Willynowei]

Okay, so the headlights come on, but they wouldn't actually illuminate anything in front of you since the vehicle is already travelling the speed of light. Therefore, the headlights would be of no use. Correct?

Well I could see it illuminating the area around you but not in front of you. Imagine you are driving on a frictionless road at the speed of light. If you turn your head lights on, the diffusion of light would suggest that light traveling in a straight line parallel to you would not illuminate anything in front of you. However, light traveling at an angle would act like water spilling out of a moving vehicle. It would illuminate the road behind you, but not to you because it would not reflect back at an appropriate speed.

But any observers would see a half bulge of light on the road, like a comet with a tail and all.

[Lev Vyvanse]

Well I could see it illuminating the area around you but not in front of you. Imagine you are driving on a frictionless road at the speed of light. If you turn your head lights on, the diffusion of light would suggest that light traveling in a straight line parallel to you would not illuminate anything in front of you. However, light traveling at an angle would act like water spilling out of a moving vehicle. It would illuminate the road behind you, but not to you because it would not reflect back at an appropriate speed.

But any observers would see a half bulge of light on the road, like a comet with a tail and all.

So you are explianing how the head lights would react in an environment that is not physically possible? Where did you get your data?

[fdf]

I don't know about equation, but it's Einstein's addednum to Gallileo's general rule of relativity (ie. all uniform motion is relative). Einstein added that even at the speed of light, all uniform motion is relative.

OK. I'll be picky. Gallileo didn't propound a general rule of relativity. Probably what you meant is that relativity adjusts Newton's laws of motion for objects traveling at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light.

[fdf]

Isn't it true that we can see a star that is directly behind the Moon because the light produced from the star bends around the Moon's gravitational pull? A college prof told me that, but never read anything more into it.

You could if the star were really, really, really, really near the edge of the Moon. The Moon doesn't have enough mass to bend light very much.

If you think that's cool, though, look up gravitational lensing. Astronomers are using galactic size masses as a light-years size focusing lens to view stuff behind them we could never see without the lensing. Gravitational lensing works the same way as the star-behind-the-moon principal.

[alkemical]

that's cool **** FDF

[sisterhellfyre]

I'm still working on my ice cube cold fusion theories.

Take two ice cubes.

Place them side by side in the freezer, with their sides touching.

They will bond together, forming one unit of ice.

Voila: ice cube cold fusion. It's simple! :-)

Regards,
m.

[watermock]

And to think I had to use an atomic accelerator. All I got was fission but no actual energy other than a bit of kinetic with bits of the colliding cubes flying around.

And my energy bill from Tennessee Valley Authority at Oak Ridge is astronomical.

[broncs2bowl]

Let me just say WHO CARES! about speeds of sound and light. jk our future is bright in the scientific world

[Dr.5280]

Speed of light. Speed of sound. Stasis versus static. Javon Walker scored a touchdown before the ball even left Jay Cutler's hand. The new reality.

[yavoon]

Well I could see it illuminating the area around you but not in front of you. Imagine you are driving on a frictionless road at the speed of light. If you turn your head lights on, the diffusion of light would suggest that light traveling in a straight line parallel to you would not illuminate anything in front of you. However, light traveling at an angle would act like water spilling out of a moving vehicle. It would illuminate the road behind you, but not to you because it would not reflect back at an appropriate speed.

But any observers would see a half bulge of light on the road, like a comet with a tail and all.

I haven't read all of this thread so maybe there's some trick to it all. but the speed of light is independant of observation.

[fontaine]

So it’s not the actual sound waves that exceed c, but the waves’ “group velocity,” or the “length of the sample divided by the time taken for the peak of a pulse to traverse the sample.”

What a bunch of small print bullshiat.

That's like saying the fastest thing in the universe is your imagination because you can picture the furthest reaches of our galaxy in your mind from having seen conceptual illustrations of it.

Yay!

:clown:

[alkemical]

Speed of light. Speed of sound. Stasis versus static. Javon Walker scored a touchdown before the ball even left Jay Cutler's hand. The new reality.

*cue wah-pedal solo over fuzzy bass & grovin' drums - of course with a roving picture of psycedelica superimposed overtop*