| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
On September 23 2011 09:57 jbee wrote: A lot of things move faster than light. For example: light on a speeding train. Look up relativity on wikipedia Edit: Wait, was I trolled? | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On September 23 2011 09:57 jbee wrote: A lot of things move faster than light. For example: light on a speeding train. This is not what physicists believe, I believe. Speed of light = c, which is a constant, under standard model | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
That's kinda adorable. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
| ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:01 arbitrageur wrote: The growing consensus on physics forums is that this is not a violation of SR/GR... light may be massive. Explain please... | ||
|
theBOOCH
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:03 theBOOCH wrote: Lol. I never really thought there was good evidence that nothing could move faster than light. All of our knowledge of the universe is based on detecting light and radiation that we know doesn't travel faster than light. So we just assumed that nothing could be faster. Silly humans... Occam's Razor means that it would be foolish to assume that something is faster until we found evidence to support this notont (i.e., until now). | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:03 theBOOCH wrote: Lol. I never really thought there was good evidence that nothing could move faster than light. All of our knowledge of the universe is based on detecting light and radiation that we know doesn't travel faster than light. So we just assumed that nothing could be faster. Silly humans... Erm. No. Nothing can move faster than a massless particle. And light is presently thought to be massless - hence nothing moves faster than light. If photons turn out to have mass, fine - but it's certainly not a lot of mass, and we'll still have 'C' - the speed limit of the universe - it'll just be a tiny tiny tiny bit higher. | ||
|
yarkO
Canada810 Posts
| ||
|
tuestresfat
2555 Posts
| ||
|
Atarirocks
36 Posts
| ||
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:16 tuestresfat wrote: This is going to sound stupid but can someone explain why this is so ground breaking? A big part of Einsteins theory of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than light, and anything with mass must travel slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have a infinitesimal but nonzero mass, so if it is true that these neutrinos travel faster, then relativity is pretty much invalidated and almost all the physics done in the last 100 years will need to be reevaluated. That's a pretty big deal. Though personally I don't think these results are too conclusive so we just have to wait and see. | ||
|
Holykitty
Netherlands246 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:20 Holykitty wrote: i dont see why you're all poking around with the idea that this is all about light having mass or not being the issue. neutrinos have mass and it was one of them causing the controversy. C's speed is nothing to do with its mass or lack thereof It has everything to do with its mass. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:20 eatmyshorts5 wrote: A big part of Einsteins theory of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than light, and anything with mass must travel slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have a infinitesimal but nonzero mass, so if it is true that these neutrinos travel faster, then relativity is pretty much invalidated and almost all the physics done in the last 100 years will need to be reevaluated. That's a pretty big deal. Though personally I don't think these results are too conclusive so we just have to wait and see. Relativity is not invalidated if photons also have non-zero mass. Relativity states that nothing can move faster than a massless particle - an example of which is thought to be light. If light has mass, then it simply ceases to be an example of the upper speed limit. The upper speed limit does not go away, or even change very much. | ||
|
j0k3r
United States577 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. Sorry thought has to do with electrical charges in your brain and distances between cells inside, so yeah, there is distance to be traversed and it is probably related to little c. | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
| ||
|
PepperoniPiZZa
Sierra Leone1660 Posts
Can somebody explain? | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:20 eatmyshorts5 wrote: A big part of Einsteins theory of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than light, and anything with mass must travel slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have a infinitesimal but nonzero mass, so if it is true that these neutrinos travel faster, then relativity is pretty much invalidated and almost all the physics done in the last 100 years will need to be reevaluated. That's a pretty big deal. Though personally I don't think these results are too conclusive so we just have to wait and see. People at physicsforums.com disagree with your point that relativity will be invalidate.d | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6232 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:43 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: What I don't understand is, how do they detect something that's faster than the speed of flight? Isn't it too fast to interact with everything else? Can somebody explain? Neutrinos are fucking weird. There's your explanation. Seriously we don't have any good idea what they do or are. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
