m20gull
Well-known member
Mine too given the volume of experiments that have backed up the theory of relativity.
Faster than the speed of light?
- Thread starter Mr deez
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,029
my money is on new scientific discoveries to flow from new knowledge. remember, once upon a time the world flew through a universal aether, but when they carried out experiment to prove this, it was found to be false. related science from before that discovery wasn't discarded, amended instead, with relativly and quantum theory coming forward to explain the new understanding.
I completely agree with this, no arguments at all. However, along the line there will also be several claims that are later disproven, and I just think that the faster-than-light neutrinos will be one of them.
And don't forget what it was that ultimately proved there was no ether....... relativity.
JCL - the new kid in town
Well-known member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
Can't we just increase the speed of light.
As I understand it, (poorly), the theory of special relativity does not forbid faster than light travel.
Anything moving AT the speed of light would aquire infinite mass, and therefore require infinite energy to get it to that speed.
Hence the proliferation of SciFi stories proposing hyperspace, and warp speed, which entail a "jump" from sub-light travel to faster than light travel.
In other areas of science, we have the concept of inviolable areas which particles simply "jump" around. (I'm specifically thinking about electron orbits, (or more accurately, quantum energy trasitions) here), so why should a particle not have an ability to jump around the light speed barier.
Rather than proving Einstein wrong, IF this observed effect is real, then we may see the beginings of a theory to tie Einstenian physics to Quantum physics.
Anything moving AT the speed of light would aquire infinite mass, and therefore require infinite energy to get it to that speed.
Hence the proliferation of SciFi stories proposing hyperspace, and warp speed, which entail a "jump" from sub-light travel to faster than light travel.
In other areas of science, we have the concept of inviolable areas which particles simply "jump" around. (I'm specifically thinking about electron orbits, (or more accurately, quantum energy trasitions) here), so why should a particle not have an ability to jump around the light speed barier.
Rather than proving Einstein wrong, IF this observed effect is real, then we may see the beginings of a theory to tie Einstenian physics to Quantum physics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
So they've done it again. I might as well ignore my Physics A-Level, I wonder how many other LIES they taught me.
So they've done it again. I might as well ignore my Physics A-Level, I wonder how many other LIES they taught me.
Calm down, dear, it's only a preliminary result.
As other reports say, even if this re-worked version of the experiment is confirmed:
It's not 100%... yet.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
faster than the speed of light I wanna make a supersonic man out of you...
Wow, a fundamental cornerstone of modern physics could be unravelling in front of our eyes.
SPEED OF LIGHT
Wow, a fundamental cornerstone of modern physics could be unravelling in front of our eyes.
SPEED OF LIGHT
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Merged. Thank you.
Hopefully only badger noticed...
Hopefully only badger noticed...
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
It's not lies, its the beauty of science!
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,382
Seems to me if there is something wrong with the way the CERN kit operates and they rerun the experiment, then they could well get the same faulty result. According to the BBC website 'The US Minos experiment and Japan's T2K experiment will also test the observations. It is likely to be several months before they report back'. If these experiments give the same findings, then that will be the time to tear up the text books. IMHO, like.
skipper734
Registered ruffian
Think how fast they would go if they didn't have to travel through all that rock. Something that light can't do anyway!
How do they know that the Neutrinos that have been received are the same ones that were sent. Are they addressed, like my mail so that I would receive my electricity bill before I have even used the electricity I have been charged for.
My head hurts.
How do they know that the Neutrinos that have been received are the same ones that were sent. Are they addressed, like my mail so that I would receive my electricity bill before I have even used the electricity I have been charged for.
My head hurts.
I'm not sure how it unravels the theory of relativity. Surely it just means that the maximum speed is simply slightly higher than the speed of light, and that time stops at that new maximum speed as opposed to the slilghtly slower speed of light?
That is still the one bit I really can't get my head round. The neutrinos are emitted, then they're received. If they're still being received after they've been emitted then what's the problem? I don't see how that destroys the law of Cause and Effect and proves that I'm my grandfather's grandfather or whatever.
I think I asked this when the original thread was first posted, if one of the more clever souls who answered it before could point me in the direction of their answer I'd be grateful.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
The problem being that lots of our current understanding of physics is based upon the speed of light being the upper limit, and this understanding works, in that the adjustments that we make based upon this understanding give us correct results.
Sorry for being slightly O/T, but I heard this great talk in the Guardian Science podcasts over the last few weeks which explains the implications of some of this higher level physics. He was talking about the everyday application of the general and special laws of relativity in GPS tracking. (Very) Basically, GPS relies upon measuring the time that it takes a signal to bounce between a satellite and and a reciever - but time travels slower on the satellites because they are travelling around the earth at 7,000km an hour. At the same time, the curvature of space around the earth means that time is a little faster on the surface than in orbit; basically these two forces oppose each other (but not exactly). GPS calculations have to take account of these two separate movements, or else it would quickly become completely inaccurate. If our understanding of (the specific nature of) relativity isn't correct, then there's no way that we'd make the right adjustments, and GPS would be completely useless. I would imagine that a similar thing is true with regards to the speed of light - either our understanding of the magnitude (if not the reasoning) is correct, or we've been ridiculously lucky to have just happened to have reached a correct estimate of the effects based on a completely wrong methodology.
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?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
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!
