|
On September 23 2011 06:31 SpiffD wrote:
Why do people assume they've made mistake. This is not just some half-assed science. This is the fucking CERN. Besides, Fermilab got the same result prior to this experiment, but their uncertainty was too great for them to find anything conclusive.
The reason people are assuming it is a mistake is because decades of theory and mathematics and testing are far more reliable than a group of humans who are prone to error trying to measure a 60 nanosecond difference across hundreds of miles.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I don't know much about neutrinos, but they have like really low mass and they go through stuff right? Does that mean it would be impossible to use them to replace, say, fiber optic cables? This is going to be really big.
Edit: Nvm they're basically neutral electrons. But still.
|
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.
Actually, it doesn't work like that. Even if two objects are approaching each other at .6C from an outside perspective time for the two moving perspectives is warped. Basically it'll still look like the object is approaching you at less than the speed of light.
|
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.
Heard of relativity?
|
Interesting to see what will come of it, as has been said. "wooo one step closer to FTL travel!"
|
FTL Travel!? gogo BSG woo :D
|
This deserves heavy scrutiny, but my inner self wants this to be true. So many possibilities :D
|
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.
Not. Even. Close.
|
THE WORLD WILL END!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE!!!
User was warned for this post
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:22 j0k3r wrote:
60 nanoseconds is a tremendously significant figure. This could reshape modern physics. I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant?
It's not by what margin it seems to have exceeded the speed of light, but the fact that it has at all. Einstein's postulate that nothing in the known physical universe can move faster than light is one of the foundations for many areas of modern physics. Quantum physics/mechanics, Particle physics, and many others all incorporate that postulate as the ground from which they build their theories up. If this actually turns out to be genuine, then that pretty much throws a lot of what's accepted now out of the window. It's has humongous implications as to what we actually know, and how much of what we've discovered and seen in recent times has to be re-thought and re-explained. Oh man I'm pretty freaked out.
|
On September 23 2011 06:45 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote:On September 23 2011 05:22 j0k3r wrote:
60 nanoseconds is a tremendously significant figure. This could reshape modern physics. I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant? It's not by what margin it seems to have exceeded the speed of light, but the fact that it has at all. Einstein's postulate that nothing in the known physical universe can move faster than light is one of the foundations for many areas of modern physics. Quantum physics/mechanics, Particle physics, and many others all incorporate that postulate as the ground from which they build their theories up. If this actually turns out to be genuine, then that pretty much throws a lot of what's accepted now out of the window. It's has humongous implications as to what we actually know, and how much of what we've discovered and seen in recent times has to be re-thought and re-explained. Oh man I'm pretty freaked out.
If it is true it still could be some kind quantum phenomena like double slit.
|
|
|
On September 23 2011 06:23 Tiberius1992 wrote:
If the Sun disappeared instantaneously, it would take ~8 minutes until we see it vanish, of course due to the speed of light.
So if information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, would the Earth continue in circular motion about the Sun for 8 minutes, or fly away at a tangent immediately?
Just a cool idea while we're on the subject :D
Gravity cannot travel faster than the speed of light either. 
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On September 23 2011 06:47 villageidiot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:45 Telcontar wrote:On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote:On September 23 2011 05:22 j0k3r wrote:
60 nanoseconds is a tremendously significant figure. This could reshape modern physics. I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant? It's not by what margin it seems to have exceeded the speed of light, but the fact that it has at all. Einstein's postulate that nothing in the known physical universe can move faster than light is one of the foundations for many areas of modern physics. Quantum physics/mechanics, Particle physics, and many others all incorporate that postulate as the ground from which they build their theories up. If this actually turns out to be genuine, then that pretty much throws a lot of what's accepted now out of the window. It's has humongous implications as to what we actually know, and how much of what we've discovered and seen in recent times has to be re-thought and re-explained. Oh man I'm pretty freaked out. If it is true it still could be some kind quantum phenomena like double slit.
That's the beauty of it! Everything will have to be re-examined and all cards are on the table. As frightening as it is that what we've accepted as truth for many decades could be wrong, it's also very exciting because it opens up a million doors. I should call up my prof to discuss this.
|
On September 23 2011 06:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I'm going to be so disappointed when it turns out they made a mistake or something.
I sooooooooooooooooo want this to be true.
|
In the unlikely event that this turns out to be not an era, it will force a fundamental rethink of everything we know about modern physics because pretty much everything we do know about modern physics, particularly as it relates to the standard model, is based on the idea that light speed is an immutable unbreakable constant for anything with non-zero mass, which we know neutrinos have.
For now I am leaning towards error but as a physics grad I would absolutely love for it to be reproduced in laboratory conditions.
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.
You don't understand relativity. The speed of light is invariant regardless of reference frame and if anything is seen to exceed it, it violates relativity. If true, this neutrino falls outside of the light cone for the event that created it, which is completely impossible.
It has nothing to do with frames of reference or anything similar to that. Go look up Lorentzian co-ordinate transforms and go work it out.
|
On September 23 2011 06:47 villageidiot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:45 Telcontar wrote:On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote:On September 23 2011 05:22 j0k3r wrote:
60 nanoseconds is a tremendously significant figure. This could reshape modern physics. I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant? It's not by what margin it seems to have exceeded the speed of light, but the fact that it has at all. Einstein's postulate that nothing in the known physical universe can move faster than light is one of the foundations for many areas of modern physics. Quantum physics/mechanics, Particle physics, and many others all incorporate that postulate as the ground from which they build their theories up. If this actually turns out to be genuine, then that pretty much throws a lot of what's accepted now out of the window. It's has humongous implications as to what we actually know, and how much of what we've discovered and seen in recent times has to be re-thought and re-explained. Oh man I'm pretty freaked out. If it is true it still could be some kind quantum phenomena like double slit.
That, or a nuetrino is a building block of light itself, which would support the particle theory, but then we get another contradiction in teh wave theory... what a mess fi this is true... hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
