EPTCERN finds neutrinos faster than light - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
| ||
|
ChinaRestaurant
Austria324 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:16 Haemonculus wrote: Nooope. Well, at a super basic level. We've always thought the speed of light was basically the fastest possible speed for anything, matter or energy. Now it turns out that some other tiny magical part of matter may be able to go faster. What that actually means for science or society as a whole is a total mystery to me, lol. Is it just me or is the only thing this will change (only ... lol) that theories that rely on light speed as maximum achievable speed will have to be changed/are obsolete, no? And of course that this might be the basis for a whole lot of new theories to come into existance. | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:13 Toxi78 wrote: it doesn't make much sense. waves can also travel faster than light, because they have no real physical body so to say. What do you mean. A physical wave is simply pressure differences between molecules. It cannot exceed c. Even photons (light) as a massless electromagentic wave cannot exceed c, atleast for the purposes of transmitting information. | ||
|
Holykitty
Netherlands246 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WTYLK.jpg) more seriously though, he may be tryyyyying to refer to frames of reference. speed of light is the limit for a given frame of reference, i can walk towards a beam of light and it appears to be going faster for me. i havent read the article yet, but from the headlines its sounds exciting. the chances are it will be a mistake and someone out there will notice what they did wrong, but its always exciting to hear about advances at the bleeding edge of science | ||
|
Soleron
United Kingdom1324 Posts
Well the group velocity of light (the speed the wave appears to move) can exceed the speed of light, that is known. What is important is that information in that wave can't be transmitted faster than c. Again, moving faster than c is equivalent to moving backwards in time in other reference frames. | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:25 Soleron wrote: Well the group velocity of light (the speed the wave appears to move) can exceed the speed of light, that is known. What is important is that information in that wave can't be transmitted faster than c. Again, moving faster than c is equivalent to moving backwards in time in other reference frames. You are thinking of the phase velocity. The group velocity cannot, if I recall correctly, exceed the speed of light. Phase carries no information, whereas group velocity (corresponding the movement of wave packets, essentially) does. | ||
|
Encrypto
United States442 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Perhaps they are mistaking the distance between the source and the detection. Do you think they're dumbasses? | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:05 hp.Shell wrote: This breaks relativity, which I have been expecting for some time. I don't know what a neutrino is, but I have known that thought can travel faster than light over vast expanses (in fact, thought can travel instantly from one place to another) and this just seems to justify the idea. Great stuff. You don't know what a neutrino is but you think you can make predicitions regarding the validity of special relativity. Great. FYI, thought does not travel faster than light, you can however in theory, as a result of vacuum fluctuations in QFT, create signals that travel faster than the measured speed of light in vacuum. You can show that such signals do not break causality in special relativity. You can read a paper on it here. That said I don't think these neutrinos are actually superluminal. Special relativity is extremely well founded experimentally and it would take much, much stronger evidence to disprove it. On September 23 2011 08:25 Soleron wrote: Well the group velocity of light (the speed the wave appears to move) can exceed the speed of light, that is known. What is important is that information in that wave can't be transmitted faster than c. Again, moving faster than c is equivalent to moving backwards in time in other reference frames. Well the wavefront never moves at v > c. If you use the relativistic formulas for velocity addition the group velocity shouldn't exceed c because nothing exceeds c if you use them. I mean, the wavefront moves at c and the waves move towards the wavefront, but you can't add velocities as v = v1+v2 in relativity. If S is the laboratory frame and S' is the frame of the wave going at v=c in S, then any speed v1'>0 defined in S' will be transformed to v1=c in S. | ||
|
Soleron
United Kingdom1324 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:32 scFoX wrote: You are thinking of the phase velocity. The group velocity cannot, if I recall correctly, exceed the speed of light. Phase carries no information, whereas group velocity (corresponding the movement of wave packets, essentially) does. A few quick searches say group velocity is the one that can exceed c. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
he is just guessing. we are all guessing. these scientists are geniuses, and they probably have accounted for every fking thing. However, the error could be mundane and simply not appear as an error. For example....relativity as we understand it now, could be wrong. | ||
|
jeparie
United States65 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:20 Holykitty wrote: more seriously though, he may be tryyyyying to refer to frames of reference. speed of light is the limit for a given frame of reference, i can walk towards a beam of light and it appears to be going faster for me. This is false. Light always appears to be going the same speed no matter your frame of reference. That's what makes things get all wacky when you start considering normal things happening at velocities near c | ||
|
NPF
Canada1635 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:15 Medrea wrote: It's that last part about space warping that is especially curious as it tends to fly in the face of causality. I'm not sure what you are refering to as causality since I'm French and unfimilar with the term but a quote from a wiki article on Wormholes (yes Wiki = no trust etc.) but here the idea Faster-than-light travel The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. I'm really no expert on the subject, or even midly interested. My physics department has like no astronomy teachers. So I don't know much about space expansion. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:35 Soleron wrote: A few quick searches say group velocity is the one that can exceed c. Afaik both group and phase velocity can exceed c in anomalous dispersion, the signal velocity on the other hand cannot. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:19 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Is it just me or is the only thing this will change (only ... lol) that theories that rely on light speed as maximum achievable speed will have to be changed/are obsolete, no? And of course that this might be the basis for a whole lot of new theories to come into existance. No. A lot more will change. All of relativity relies on the fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. | ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
Scientists has now admitted that Information can travel at the speed of light theoretically. It's the basis for the idea of quantum computers. While we wont get to that level practically, quantum pairing is going to change the way the world works if it doesn't turn out to be a crock of shit. Towards the neutrinos. We dont really know shit about how neutrinos work. We have geusses. GOOD geusses. We also have observable activities, if we can call neutrinos observable. Overall, we just know they seem to violate most laws of physics before their discovery and are always the "exception" even now. It wouldn't be to amazing for them to be an exception to the speed of light. Will we ever know what caused it within the near future? probably not, but it's another "well neutrinos can do this" bulletin point in the physics book. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On September 23 2011 08:46 NPF wrote: I'm not sure what you are refering to as causality since I'm French and unfimilar with the term but a quote from a wiki article on Wormholes (yes Wiki = no trust etc.) but here the idea Faster-than-light travel The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. I'm really no expert on the subject, or even midly interested. My physics department has like no astronomy teachers. So I don't know much about space expansion. Well when A event cause B to occur is important. An object traveling faster than light is basically saying A cause B to happen before A happened, which is an absurdity, but that's what we're looking at here. | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
This by no means tells us that our previous models and ideas are incorrect. We have so much data that proves everything Einstein theorized and modern physical models that this is probably some sort of fluke or unknown phenomena that hasn't been studied. I'm no physicist but I highly doubt they will throw out decades of hard evidence for one experiment that went awry, and we have yet to see if its legitimate. There's most likely unknown physics at work here. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On September 23 2011 09:18 darklight54321 wrote: Quantum Pairing is a huge step. Scientists has now admitted that Information can travel at the speed of light theoretically. It's the basis for the idea of quantum computers. While we wont get to that level practically, quantum pairing is going to change the way the world works if it doesn't turn out to be a crock of shit. Towards the neutrinos. We dont really know shit about how neutrinos work. We have geusses. GOOD geusses. We also have observable activities, if we can call neutrinos observable. Overall, we just know they seem to violate most laws of physics before their discovery and are always the "exception" even now. It wouldn't be to amazing for them to be an exception to the speed of light. Will we ever know what caused it within the near future? probably not, but it's another "well neutrinos can do this" bulletin point in the physics book. I thought it wasn't just at the speed of light, but literally instantaneously? | ||
|
Tuba
United States45 Posts
| ||
| ||
