QuoteNothing is supposed to move faster than light, at least according to Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity: The famous E (equals) mc2 equation. That stands for energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
But neutrinos — one of the strangest well-known particles in physics — have now been observed smashing past this cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/astounding-discovery-faster-than-light-particle/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/astounding-discovery-faster-than-light-particle/?gt1=43001)
They're asking independent scientists to verify the findings. There are other questions as well, but if true, this could rewrite the laws of physics. :o
I remember hearing about this more than 30 years ago, I thought they had settled it then?
The only faster then light particles you could have heard about thirty years ago were theoretical particles called "tachyons".
No one's ever detected them and I don't believe there's much serious effort going into detecting them. This is different. This is a beam of neutrinos which aren't theoretical. On the other hand, they're not supposed to go faster then the speed of light so there's the rub.
My guess is that it's experimental error although the folks involved are at the top of their field and have serious resources. So, they've got a lot to lose and a lot of resources to help make sure they don't screw up. I guess we'll just have to wait but the high likelihood is that it's not something new and exciting.
Quote from: arpad on September 24, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
The only faster then light particles you could have heard about thirty years ago were theoretical particles called "tachyons".
No one's ever detected them and I don't believe there's much serious effort going into detecting them. This is different. This is a beam of neutrinos which aren't theoretical. On the other hand, they're not supposed to go faster then the speed of light so there's the rub.
My guess is that it's experimental error although the folks involved are at the top of their field and have serious resources. So, they've got a lot to lose and a lot of resources to help make sure they don't screw up. I guess we'll just have to wait but the high likelihood is that it's not something new and exciting.
Nope, I remember it quite well, but it wasn't proven, just hypothesizing, something to do with the fact that they can travel through solid objects.
Its been a longtime ago, but I remember reading about it in the library in a science mag, which would put it around 1979 or 80.
Well neutrinos can sure as heck go through matter. I can't remember the exact percentage that would be stopped by 100 million miles of lead but I do remember it's not 100%.
If those neutrinos really were going faster then light it would very seriously major stuff. My money's still on experimental error.
Quote from: arpad on September 24, 2011, 09:30:47 PM
Well neutrinos can sure as heck go through matter. I can't remember the exact percentage that would be stopped by 100 million miles of lead but I do remember it's not 100%.
If those neutrinos really were going faster then light it would very seriously major stuff. My money's still on experimental error.
Yeah, I have no idea, the theory is beyond my expertise since I never got beyond ninth grade math due to dyslexia. :-[
But I still love this stuff and try and follow all ground breaking material, which is why I remember hearing about it.
As to whether it breaks the laws of physics as we know them, is yet to be seen.
I saw the article. They act like this contracts Einstein's theory of relativity, which doesn't quite say that "nothing travels faster than the speed of light." I believe it is a little more specific to say that nothing can travel at the speed of light.
Quote from: MFA on September 25, 2011, 07:26:11 PM
I saw the article. They act like this contracts Einstein's theory of relativity, which doesn't quite say that "nothing travels faster than the speed of light." I believe it is a little more specific to say that nothing can travel at the speed of light.
Good point MFA, and neutrinos fall in the category of light energy, so no laws have been broken.
Everybody out of jail... :))
Quote from: MFA on September 25, 2011, 07:26:11 PM
I saw the article. They act like this contracts Einstein's theory of relativity, which doesn't quite say that "nothing travels faster than the speed of light." I believe it is a little more specific to say that nothing can travel at the speed of light.
Not quite. Nothing can be accelerated
to the speed of light.
Accelerating an object makes its mass increase. The greater the mass the more energy is required to make it accelerate.
It's not a linear function so the amount of energy increases drastically as you get close to the speed of light and it would require an infinite amount of energy to make it that last, little bit to achieve the speed of light.
Weirdly enough, there's no reason why, theoretically, there couldn't be particles that increase in mass as they're decelerated
to the speed of light. That's the famous "tachyon" of lots of cheesy science fiction movies.
If you figure out how to prove the existence of the tachyon there's an outfit in Norway that'd like to have a word with you though.
Yes, that's more precise than what I said.
Fermilab is going to try to confirm/disprove the faster-then-light neutrinos detected at CERN - link (http://www.51voa.com/VOA_Standard_English/Fermilab-Scientists-Testing-Faster-Than-Light-Neutrino-Claims-43384.html).
My money's on experimental error but as they say in horse racing, every now and then the Kentucky Derby's won by a horse out of Texas by truck.
Quote from: arpad on October 01, 2011, 11:59:55 AM
Accelerating an object makes its mass increase.
Um, doesn't accelerating a mass make its
weight increase?
No, its mass.
Quote from: arpad on October 09, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Fermilab is going to try to confirm/disprove the faster-then-light neutrinos detected at CERN - link (http://www.51voa.com/VOA_Standard_English/Fermilab-Scientists-Testing-Faster-Than-Light-Neutrino-Claims-43384.html).
My money's on experimental error but as they say in horse racing, every now and then the Kentucky Derby's won by a horse out of Texas by truck.
2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particleshttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/)
Quote from: Solar on November 19, 2011, 08:27:23 AM
2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/)
Hmmm...I don't think Mr Einstein will be turning over in his grave over this. :))
Quote from: tbone0106 on October 11, 2011, 06:59:34 PM
Um, doesn't accelerating a mass make its weight increase?
MFA got there ahead of me but no.
"Weight" is the quality mass displays in a gravitational field. That's why your weight will be different on the moon then on the surface of the Earth but your mass won't change.
Also Walks is
probably right about Mr. Einstein but eventually we'll bump up against the conditions in which Einstein is wrong. That's how science goes; no matter how right you are eventually you're wrong. Newton was right until Einstein proved him wrong and, sooner or later, someone, somewhen will prove Einstein wrong.
Maybe, but not too likely, that time is now.
That is so true, every theory can be proven wrong at some point in time and later it is proven correct as well.
Someone that only saw ice, would claim water as a solid and would be correct if we all lived in temperatures below 32 deg.
The more facts that become available, the more data changes.
It is for this very reason that I despise the left using science to make wild claims about Co2, we just don't have all the facts/data.
Quote from: Solar on November 20, 2011, 06:51:46 AM
That is so true, every theory can be proven wrong at some point in time and later it is proven correct as well.
Someone that only saw ice, would claim water as a solid and would be correct if we all lived in temperatures below 32 deg.
The more facts that become available, the more data changes.
It is for this very reason that I despise the left using science to make wild claims about Co2, we just don't have all the facts/data.
That what I love about science, it is always changing based on new data. 8-)
Quote from: walkstall on November 20, 2011, 07:18:38 AM
That what I love about science, it is always changing based on new data. 8-)
Me too actually, I love when Nature proves science wrong, it keeps them humble. 8-)
Nature just is. Science is our way of teasing out the details of nature with some reason to believe we've gotten it right.
To second Walk's sentiment, what I love about science is that, at intervals, it delivers a smart slap in the face to our conceits.
This is starting to sound alot like climate change.
snip~(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.zaazu.com%2Fimg%2Fomg-omg-oh-my-god-shock-smiley-emoticon-000702-medium.gif&hash=fc4ee4bc034830f3bc4aaeda5e4dcb03db12f65f)
Study rejects "faster than light" particle finding
In a paper posted Saturday on the same website as the OPERA results, http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2, (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2,) the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result."
more @
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20111120/SCIENCE-US-SCIENCE-NEUTRINOS/ (http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20111120/SCIENCE-US-SCIENCE-NEUTRINOS/)
LOL!
When science refutes itself.
Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2011, 07:14:06 AM
LOL!
When science refutes itself.
Einstein has to be RIHGLOL ( Rolling in his grave laughing out loud) :))
Looks like what they're saying in the abstract is that because Cherenkov-like[url=http://radiation wasn't observed the results have to be in error.
Not exactly in the highest traditions of pursuit of knowledge but then the scientific method's always been an uncomfortable fit around the necks of scientists. Fortunately, even all those smart folks haven't figured out a way to avoid the grip of the scientific method. At least not for very long.
I'm still pretty sure it'll be experimental error but....every once in a while...] radiation wasn't observed the results have to be in error.
Not exactly in the highest traditions of pursuit of knowledge but then the scientific method's always been an uncomfortable fit around the necks of scientists. Fortunately, even all those smart folks haven't figured out a way to avoid the grip of the scientific method. At least not for very long.
I'm still pretty sure it'll be experimental error but....every once in a while...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation)[/url]
Quote from: arpad on November 20, 2011, 06:30:06 AM
MFA got there ahead of me but no.
"Weight" is the quality mass displays in a gravitational field. That's why your weight will be different on the moon then on the surface of the Earth but your mass won't change.
Also Walks is probably right about Mr. Einstein but eventually we'll bump up against the conditions in which Einstein is wrong. That's how science goes; no matter how right you are eventually you're wrong. Newton was right until Einstein proved him wrong and, sooner or later, someone, somewhen will prove Einstein wrong.
Maybe, but not too likely, that time is now.
Um, maybe I'm still stupid, but isn't "a gravitational field" the exact same thing as "exposure to acceleration?"
Why would you slap me around on this?
Accelerating an object does make its weight increase. But the general theory of relativity says that when an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases; not the same thing.
Quote from: MFA on December 22, 2011, 07:41:03 PM
Accelerating an object does make its weight increase. But the general theory of relativity says that when an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases; not the same thing.
Yeah, yeah, but where am I misunderstanding this? A man on the moon WEIGHS roughly 1/6 what the same man on Earth WEIGHS because of the lesser gravity -- expressed in terms of ACCELERATION -- of the moon. The mass doesn't change but the weight does BECAUSE of the difference in gravitational pull, which is expressed as ACCELERATION.
Please 'splain.
No, you're right. Weight changes because of gravity/acceleration. There is no discernible difference between gravity and acceleration. They are effectively the same thing.
Don't misunderstand. I'm trying to point out that there is a relationship between mass and weight in our "real" world, and it's based on gravity, which can be expressed as a force that results in acceleration. But I have a certain appreciation for the more cosmic aspects of physics, including Einstein's famous postulations.
Frankly, I've never understood what the speed of light has to do with any of it. Why THAT for a constant? Why isn't it widely known that practically ANY electromagnetic energy has the same velocity in a vacuum?
When I read about the neutrino thing in Europe, I thought... "Cool! I'm here in Italy with my catcher's mitt and watching the gun in Switzerland on closed-circuit TV, and that li'l puppy plops into my mitt before I see the guy on the other end pull the trigger!!!" Well, about 60 nanoseconds before... :P :P :P