Faster than the speed of light?

[Simster]

The Bartender says "you can't go that fast in here!".

A neutrino walks into a bar.

 

[Brovion]

If only it were that simple. E=mc2 is supposed to be a universal equation to be able to calculate the energy of all particles, however it isn't going to be applicable to a particle that could supposedly go faster that the speed of light when Einstein's theory maintains in that event, the particle would have infinite mass (special relativity dictates that a particle gains mass the faster it goes, and therefore requires more energy to go faster). Therefore you can't just adjust the speed of light that Einstein held as a constant in the universe, because we can measure that speed and know what it is.

The problem is, if the neutrinos are going this fast, we currently have no scientific theory or explanation as to why this is the case, or to make any calculations thereafter.

I remember doing this proof for my A-level, very rewarding to get to such a simplistic equation at the end of it. To be honest, can hardly make head nor tail of it now!

Ah! So is the problem more because this faster-than-light particle should be 'impossible' (because the theory says it would have infinite mass), rather than the 'Cause and Effect' stuff I was going on about?

 

[sten_super]

I understand what you're saying (no I do, really), but surely the differences here aren't sufficient to throw off yer bog-standard £100 satnav system? In much the same way as wind-up clocks work perfectly well in daily use and also the way that Newtonian science explained the basics of gravity and planetary orbits?

The guy doing the talk suggested that the difference due to the speed of the satellites was 10 microseconds per day, while the effective of the curvature of space was 45 microseconds a day, while the time measurements need to be accurate to a degree of nanoseconds (1000 nanoseconds in a microsecond) to get an accuracy of around 5 metres. After 2 minutes without accounting for relativity the location would be out by 10 metres; after a day 10km. Now you could obviously approximate these measurements through trial and error, but the point is that our understanding of the physics involved tells us what these numbers should be - the chances of the actual adjustments just happening to be the same (or, I assume, within a certain range allowing for error) is very very small.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ah! So is the problem more because this faster-than-light particle should be 'impossible' (because the theory says it would have infinite mass), rather than the 'Cause and Effect' stuff I was going on about?

In a nutshell yes. The theory still holds for every other application that has been thrown at it for 100 years until this pesky show off Usain Bolt wannabe particle comes along and travels over a set distance 0.00000006 secs faster than it should do.

Must be pretty exciting being a physicist over at Cern at the moment.


Higgs Boson walks into his local Catholic church and sits down. The Priest comes over and says 'your kind are not welcome in here'. Higgs Boson replies 'but without me you won't have any mass!'.

 

[leigull]

So, looks like this was all wrong. Some dodgy cables to blame....

Scientists who last year found particles that appeared to break the Universe's speed limit are looking at two technical issues that could have skewed the controversial finding, CERN said on Thursday.

The European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) confirmed a report by the US journal Science on Wednesday that the team were verifying a cable connection.

"It may have caused a slight discrepancy (in the results), and they are checking to see if this is the case," CERN press officer Arnaud Marsollier told AFP by phone.

They are also verifying a timing instrument called an oscillator, he said.

Full story here: Hitches blamed over CERN's 'faster-than-light' claim - Yahoo!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

So, looks like this was all wrong. Some dodgy cables to blame....

Scientists who last year found particles that appeared to break the Universe's speed limit are looking at two technical issues that could have skewed the controversial finding, CERN said on Thursday.

The European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) confirmed a report by the US journal Science on Wednesday that the team were verifying a cable connection.

"It may have caused a slight discrepancy (in the results), and they are checking to see if this is the case," CERN press officer Arnaud Marsollier told AFP by phone.

They are also verifying a timing instrument called an oscillator, he said.

Full story here: Hitches blamed over CERN's 'faster-than-light' claim - Yahoo!

That'll save re-writing several hundred books then. Einstein lives on.