|
On September 23 2011 06:58 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:42 oniman999 wrote:
This deserves heavy scrutiny, but my inner self wants this to be true. So many possibilities :D The funny thing is that this result will probably be scrutinized to a point where there is either found an error in it or these occurances and especially the geology the neutrinoes has passed will be studied and mapped and documented for many years to come.
The earth that the neutrinos pass through should have no effect on the beam. Neutrinos only interact weakly so passing through the earth is like passing through nothing to them.
|
I believe due to time dilation that the "experience" is that it will come at you at .999999c however the measurable time difference is such that 1.8c can be observed from a historical standpoint (after the fact)
I'm not understanding what you are saying. What do you mean by "historical standpoint"?
Just point out that, according to every physical observation and theory made until this last discovery there was no way an object could travel faster than speed of light.
|
On September 23 2011 07:02 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:59 rubio91 wrote:On September 23 2011 06:55 Duban wrote:On September 23 2011 06:51 Medrea wrote:On September 23 2011 06:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 23 2011 06:37 Medrea wrote:
There was a similar finding in the 90's.
Its really easy to think something is moving faster than the speed of light.
All you have to do is witness one object moving at .6 times the speed of light towards you, who may also be moving at .6 times the speed of light.
Then you would go "OMG 1.2 SPEED OF LIGHT WE DID IT GUYS" and you would even be somewhat correct. Uh.... no. You need to read up a little more on relativity. The reason the speed of light is so important in physics is because it is an ABSOLUTE constant, regardless of the relative perspectives. Speed of light is taken from point of origin. As far as we know, there is no absolute point of origin in Space. Time dilation is also relevant. Also speed of light is the same as speed of information. If I move a magnet one light year away from another magnet, it would take one light year for the other magnet to respond. According to modern physics the speed of light holds constant for ALL perspectives. Modern physics= 1915 physics? On September 23 2011 06:55 Medrea wrote:On September 23 2011 06:52 Chocolate wrote:On September 23 2011 06:51 Medrea wrote:On September 23 2011 06:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 23 2011 06:37 Medrea wrote:
There was a similar finding in the 90's.
Its really easy to think something is moving faster than the speed of light.
All you have to do is witness one object moving at .6 times the speed of light towards you, who may also be moving at .6 times the speed of light.
Then you would go "OMG 1.2 SPEED OF LIGHT WE DID IT GUYS" and you would even be somewhat correct. Uh.... no. You need to read up a little more on relativity. The reason the speed of light is so important in physics is because it is an ABSOLUTE constant, regardless of the relative perspectives. Speed of light is taken from point of origin. As far as we know, there is no absolute point of origin in Space. Time dilation is also relevant. Also speed of light is the same as speed of information. If I move a magnet one light year away from another magnet, it would take one light year for the other magnet to respond. Do your reading good sir. It would be a shame if you were to embarrass yourself. + Show Spoiler +Basically what you are saying is that the light coming from the headlights of a moving car is going faster than one that is not moving. NOT TRUE. That's actually not completely what I am saying, really close though, although I should have been more accurate for certain. Maybe i misunderstood your thought, so explain me what do you think about this: If you see 2 trains moving 1 against each other at something like 0.9c (c= light speed)m what is the speed of 1 train, seen by the other one? I believe due to time dilation that the "experience" is that it will come at you at .999999c however the measurable time difference is such that 1.8c can be observed from a historical standpoint (after the fact)
What physics classes have you taken?
|
On September 23 2011 07:06 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +I believe due to time dilation that the "experience" is that it will come at you at .999999c however the measurable time difference is such that 1.8c can be observed from a historical standpoint (after the fact) I'm not understanding what you are saying. What do you mean by "historical standpoint"? Just point out that, according to every physical observation and theory made until this last discovery there was no way an object could travel faster than speed of light.
Maybe you misread my post. I was arguing that the speed of light was constant for all perspectives which is exactly what you just said...
|
1915 is the basis of modern physics. We haven't made any significant advances on relativity since then, and special/general relativity forms the basis of most theoretical cosmological and particle physics discoveries made since then. It is in fact the basis of nearly all electromagnetic theory, the standard model, and cosmology.
So yeah, it's pretty modern, and pretty important. Which is why this probable error, if it turns out to not be one, is staggering.
|
Maybe you misread my post. I was arguing that the speed of light was constant for all perspectives which is exactly what you just said...
In fact i was referring to Medrea  the post quoted was by him
|
On September 23 2011 06:55 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:52 Chocolate wrote:On September 23 2011 06:51 Medrea wrote:On September 23 2011 06:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 23 2011 06:37 Medrea wrote:
There was a similar finding in the 90's.
Its really easy to think something is moving faster than the speed of light.
All you have to do is witness one object moving at .6 times the speed of light towards you, who may also be moving at .6 times the speed of light.
Then you would go "OMG 1.2 SPEED OF LIGHT WE DID IT GUYS" and you would even be somewhat correct. Uh.... no. You need to read up a little more on relativity. The reason the speed of light is so important in physics is because it is an ABSOLUTE constant, regardless of the relative perspectives. Speed of light is taken from point of origin. As far as we know, there is no absolute point of origin in Space. Time dilation is also relevant. Also speed of light is the same as speed of information. If I move a magnet one light year away from another magnet, it would take one light year for the other magnet to respond. Do your reading good sir. It would be a shame if you were to embarrass yourself. + Show Spoiler +Basically what you are saying is that the light coming from the headlights of a moving car is going faster than one that is not moving. NOT TRUE. That's actually not completely what I am saying, really close though, although I should have been more accurate for certain.
Time dilation is the effect of the fact that the speed of light is always the same for every observer, not the cause - so, no - time dilation can't be used to justify its cause. There is really no widely accepted explanation for the behavior of light, but it is an observation that we all accept as true. I'm not sure what you are trying to point out.
|
We must stop sern before it is too late and they start world war 3! EL PSY CONGROO!
|
Made this in honor of the minds who came up with this.
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/w7050w.png)
User was warned for this post
|
So if this is true.. what exactly is it going to change?
Does this mean neutrinos are always traveling back in time or whatever? lol
|
On September 23 2011 07:06 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +I believe due to time dilation that the "experience" is that it will come at you at .999999c however the measurable time difference is such that 1.8c can be observed from a historical standpoint (after the fact) I'm not understanding what you are saying. What do you mean by "historical standpoint"? Just point out that, according to every physical observation and theory made until this last discovery there was no way an object could travel faster than speed of light.
I am not sure myself, I went into school for Computer Engineering and we only touched upon quantum mechanics. Quantum pairing is a brand new field of theory where interactions at a distance happen instantly and not held to c. That was all we new back then and the science is moving so fast.
Evidently when measuring these incomprehensible actions the results do not always make sense to us even when the laws are known and no mistakes were made. There was a similar finding like this sometime in the late 90's or early 2000 where we thought we accelerated something past the speed of light. I still can't comprehend what the end findings were.
Evidently you cannot merely take "it left here at this time, and arrived there at that time, and that value is greater than the speed of c" as proof of anything moving faster than c.
|
On September 23 2011 07:09 Evangelist wrote:
1915 is the basis of modern physics. We haven't made any significant advances on relativity since then, and special/general relativity forms the basis of most theoretical cosmological and particle physics discoveries made since then. It is in fact the basis of nearly all electromagnetic theory, the standard model, and cosmology.
So yeah, it's pretty modern, and pretty important. Which is why this probable error, if it turns out to not be one, is staggering.
Dude, that's not true. Since special relativity and quantum mechanics LOTS of improvements and new theories were made, we just have came over the point where a physical theory have a direct impact on our way we view the world
|
On September 23 2011 07:10 redFF wrote:
We must stop sern before it is too late and they start world war 3! EL PSY CONGROO!
it's too late, CERN already, obtained the technology capable to establish the dystopia, the only way to change this is to use erase all the experiment done by D-mails up to date, this way we can break the barrier of 1%. That way we can move to the beta worldline to a world where CERN doesn't have time traveling technology.
|
+ Show Spoiler +I am not sure myself, I went into school for Computer Engineering and we only touched upon quantum mechanics. Quantum pairing is a brand new field of theory where interactions at a distance happen instantly and not held to c. That was all we new back then and the science is moving so fast.
This is true, in fact those interactions can happen instatly through distant space locations. See EPR paradox for more information.
The main limitation of this way to "link" 2 particles is that there is the necessity of a parallel "conventional" way of communication, that is bounded to the relativistic speed-of-light limitation. See also Quantum teleportation
|
On September 23 2011 07:13 rubio91 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:09 Evangelist wrote:
1915 is the basis of modern physics. We haven't made any significant advances on relativity since then, and special/general relativity forms the basis of most theoretical cosmological and particle physics discoveries made since then. It is in fact the basis of nearly all electromagnetic theory, the standard model, and cosmology.
So yeah, it's pretty modern, and pretty important. Which is why this probable error, if it turns out to not be one, is staggering. Dude, that's not true. Since special relativity and quantum mechanics LOTS of improvements and new theories were made, we just have came over the point where a physical theory have a direct impact on our way we view the world
Would you like to suggest any of them? I'm always intrigued to learn of advances I don't know about.
|
Quantum electro dynamics, quantum chromodynamics, just 2 of them (the first bounds special relativity and Quantum Dynamics, the second uses special relativity and QD to explain strong interactions)
|
On September 23 2011 07:17 rubio91 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I am not sure myself, I went into school for Computer Engineering and we only touched upon quantum mechanics. Quantum pairing is a brand new field of theory where interactions at a distance happen instantly and not held to c. That was all we new back then and the science is moving so fast. This is true, in fact those interactions can happen instatly through distant space locations. See EPR paradox for more information. The main limitation of this way to "link" 2 particles is that there is the necessity of a parallel "conventional" way of communication, that is bounded to the relativistic speed-of-light limitation. See also Quantum teleportation
Right on. Although I don't think entanglement is at play here, it is one such example where you can point to an object leaving an origin, and passing through a destination at a time thats less than what the speed of c can allow (implying movement greater than c), and be wrong. Why? NO FUCKING IDEA CAP'N.
|
Oh god the amount of people here who don't know what they're talking about is ridiculous.
There is no 732km long tube from CERN to Gran Sasso. The neutrinos are just shot through the earth. Sure a handful may not make it but the vast majority will.
It could be a systematic error, that cannot be ruled out but given that their margin for error is quite a bit lower than the perceived difference and they have 15,000+ samples, it should be fairly accurate.
They are getting it peer reviewed so it'll be interesting to see the results in a few weeks.
|
On September 23 2011 04:44 Warlike Prince wrote:
my guess, the curvature of the earth is to blame. 700km is enough distance on land that if it went right through the ground it would not have to travel quite than far.
my guess, this is not the case... so many physicists are working on this project it would likely be an equipment/measurement error or something much harder to explain. the news article claims that the physicists were sending it through the ground. for a team of phd phsycisits to overlook the curvature of the earth is unbelievable.
|
Right on. Although I don't think entanglement is at play here, it is one such example where you can point to an object leaving an origin, and passing through a destination at a time thats less than what the speed of c can allow (implying movement greater than c), and be wrong.
Well, if this happen to be true, it is very likely that entanglement is not concerned, for the reasons you explained (they don't move instantly, but just a little bit faster). It could be a characteristic of low mass particles, or just of neutrinos, idk, I'm not (already) a physicist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
