Faster than the speed of light?!

[CoffeeIncluded]

Holy... (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09/22/world/europe/AP-EU-Breaking-Light-Speed.html?_r=1&hp)

This is almost too fantastic to be real. Not even the scientists who did the experiment believe it. I'm not sold yet either. But if it's true...

[Castaras]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 yep, seems to be on the major places. Probably a glitch in the system, but hey, could end up being a major breakthrough that destroys physics as we know it. :smalltongue:

[Nix Nihila]

Interesting. Likely a glitch, but if not, that's pretty awesome!

[LaZodiac]

If this turns out true, we need to declare the day this was discovered a national holiday, or atleast have a moment where everyone must listen to the Wierd All song "Everything you know is wrong".

Because if this is TRUE, that means that yha, everything we know IS wrong. Our entire understanding of physics relies on this. Hell, this opens up a way for aliens to exist and visit us within a reasonable lifetime.

[Mono Vertigo]

And I was arguing about the evils of FTL travel/communication in fiction the other day!
:smalleek:
May science have a little mercy for me?

[Cobalt]

What? Well I guess I'm weird then, because I never thought of Light being the speed limit as something 'integral' to science as we know it. I mean, maybe this is just the mind of a simpleton, but 'things can always go faster' is what I thought was a base for most science. Some arbitrary limit according to how fast light fills us a room or travels through empty space? And that's science?

Well, clearly I am not meant as a scientist, because this was something I was under the impression was fact a while ago. Stupid science lectures. Now I'm the guy in the corner muttering math problems that don't use numbers.

[Whiffet]

I'm skeptical. It was probably a glitch.

I have to say that, or I'll lose my mind between panicking about how so much was wrong and getting excited about what could be possible.

[Spiryt]

How can they even clock something faster than light, if electromagnetic wave, and therefore information in their equipment cannot obviously go faster than light anyway?

Unless everything is wrong, I know, I know... :smalltongue:

Anyway, I can only recall that the last great discovery a.k.a. extraterrestrial life proofs had come to be... not proofs.

[Eon]

News travels fast. :smallwink:

This is actually fascinating. I wonder what this will lead to...

[leafman]

I guess thats why they call the Theory of Relativity a theory. :smalltongue:

So when can we start work on the world's (galaxy's?) first FTL drive? I want it done by 2103, so it is ready to go on the 200th anniversary of flight!

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

If it does prove to be true, all we need is about another 1,000 years, and to discover dilithium crystals and we'll be hearing "Warp factor 7 Mr. Sulu" in no time. :smallbiggrin:

[H Birchgrove]

I guess thats why they call the Theory of Relativity a theory. :smalltongue:

So when can we start work on the world's (galaxy's?) first FTL drive? I want it done by 2103, so it is ready to go on the 200th anniversary of flight!

You're confusing theory with hypothesis. These words aren't used in science as in everyday life.

[Mando Knight]

Our entire understanding of physics relies on this.

Not really. Our understanding of physics will be altered, sure, but mostly in a "OK, that's apparently not why things work the way they do" way. The laws and models written by Newton, Gauss, Kepler, and so forth will still hold true, so long as they were based off of empirical data rather than ones derived from the assumption of light having the purest form of kinetic energy possible.

[drakir_nosslin]

Because if this is TRUE, that means that yha, everything we know IS wrong. Our entire understanding of physics relies on this. Hell, this opens up a way for aliens to exist and visit us within a reasonable lifetime.

Yes! Pulleys can't work the way we think they do because light isn't the fastest thing in the universe! :smalltongue:


EDIT: Bah, swordsages in Friendly Banter. I'll go back to the Roleplaying section.

[LaZodiac]

Yes! Pulleys can't work the way we think they do because light isn't the fastest thing in the universe! :smalltongue:

Ok, I may of exagerated a little :smallwink:

[drakir_nosslin]

Ok, I may of exagerated a little :smallwink:

But only a little :smallbiggrin:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

My parents and I are not surprised. After all, you can only see as far as the horizon! And if this is verified, it'll just have been something that was over that horizon, that didn't hit us faster than we could see it. :smallwink:

Also, this makes sci-fi much easier. Instead of going "These space-ships create warp-holes" or "these ones bend space AROUND it", or "these ones are just magical", they just move faster than light. No silly explanations needed.

[Shadow of the Sun]

It's also worth noting that the media, being the media, tends to GET THINGS WRONG.

And, if this is faster than the speed of light, it might be that we can't send any info with it- see the EPR paradox, for example.

[Phae Nymna]

What? Well I guess I'm weird then, because I never thought of Light being the speed limit as something 'integral' to science as we know it. I mean, maybe this is just the mind of a simpleton, but 'things can always go faster' is what I thought was a base for most science. Some arbitrary limit according to how fast light fills us a room or travels through empty space? And that's science?

Well, clearly I am not meant as a scientist, because this was something I was under the impression was fact a while ago. Stupid science lectures. Now I'm the guy in the corner muttering math problems that don't use numbers.

I randomly posed the question "Why can nothing travel faster than light?" to a physics teacher at school. Minutes later I found myself very very annoyed, yelling with a doctorate level physicist about illogical limitations on nature and physics and how scientists should reconsider all that they hold dear until they can demonstrably prove otherwise.

[Weezer]

So now we can, theoretically, go .0025% faster than we could before. Oh Yeah! :smallamused:

[Mercenary Pen]

Mentioned this to my father (who has a slightly better understanding of the underlying physics than I do) and he reckons that technically the special theory of relativity only precludes matter traveling at the speed of light, suggesting that once you were past the point of infinite mass there might be room for particles with negative mass traveling at those higher speeds.


I don't know enough to confirm whether or not his claims are within what Einstein laid down with special relativity, simply because my understanding of physics isn't up to that level... So, see what you guys think of this...

[Dimitri Ivanov]

When I read the article all I could think about was every sci-fi movie or show with spaceships capable of ftl travel.

I knew it! Take that Physics teacher who said it was completely impossible!

Okay, I better not get ahead of myself...But I really do hope this finding is supported by others, I would be grief stricken if it's an error of some sort.

[Dimitri Ivanov]

So now we can, theoretically, go .0025% faster than we could before. Oh Yeah! :smallamused:
It's not the fact that we can go .0025% faster, it's that going faster is possible at all. Am I the only one naive enough to hope for greater discoveries that will allow mankind to traverse the galaxy?

[Lord Raziere]

YAY!?
NO!?
YAY!?
NO!?
YAY!?
NO!?

...I don't know what to feel about this.

on one hand, this could totally change everything.

on the other, this could just be a blip. :smallfrown:

and even if is true......should I be happy? or screaming in fear?

[Liffguard]

Mentioned this to my father (who has a slightly better understanding of the underlying physics than I do) and he reckons that technically the special theory of relativity only precludes matter traveling at the speed of light, suggesting that once you were past the point of infinite mass there might be room for particles with negative mass traveling at those higher speeds.


I don't know enough to confirm whether or not his claims are within what Einstein laid down with special relativity, simply because my understanding of physics isn't up to that level... So, see what you guys think of this...

Exotic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter) and negative mass. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass)

[Liffguard]

Edit: double post.

[Mono Vertigo]

Mentioned this to my father (who has a slightly better understanding of the underlying physics than I do) and he reckons that technically the special theory of relativity only precludes matter traveling at the speed of light, suggesting that once you were past the point of infinite mass there might be room for particles with negative mass traveling at those higher speeds.

N-Negative mass? Is that even...
Oh boy. I'm starting to feel like I just woke up in a game of Mage: the Awakening, but without all the fun powers.
Must seriously study physics again. I'd have sworn I wasn't so terrible with the theories before...

[kaomera]

Yes! Pulleys can't work the way we think they do because light isn't the fastest thing in the universe! :smalltongue:
It's more that light isn't the fastest thing in the universe because pulleys don't work the way we thought they did.

[shawnhcorey]

Then, our estimate of the speed of light in a vacuum could be a little off. Light slows down in denser material, like air or glass. If there was something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) in a vacuum, then our measurements of its speed may be a little low.

[Tirian]

It's also worth noting that the media, being the media, tends to GET THINGS WRONG.

This is my first instinct when science is in the headlines (and some of the stories I'm seeing in Google News are totally irresponsible), although the scientists seem entirely sober about what's going on here. We'll have to wait to see if the experiment can be duplicated at CERN or at another site. My gut says that if neutrinos could travel faster than light then we would have observed it before now, but the reason they can't find their experimental error might turn out to be interesting and further our understanding of fundamental particles. Then again, there are amazing experiments that we go decades without being able to reproduce OR rationalize. (Remember cold fusion?)

[leafman]

You're confusing theory with hypothesis. These words aren't used in science as in everyday life.

Actually, I'm not confused at all.


Theory noun
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Hypothesis noun
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences


Plausible but not definite.

[BaronOfHell]

Our entire understanding of physics relies on this.
No it does not. Quantum mechanics is pretty independent from relativity. The same goes with most everyday physics we observe, as in classical newtonian mechanics.
It however would have major implication for electrodynamics, the best understood force.


Hell, this opens up a way for aliens to exist and visit us within a reasonable lifetime.
This is already theoretical possible in so many ways. The reason why we don't know if those theories are true, are because we lack the energy to make sufficient tests. The same would be true even if you could accelerate beyond the speed of light.



Some arbitrary limit according to how fast light fills us a room or travels through empty space? And that's science?
The "limit" is not arbitrary, unless you mean arbitrary in what number the universe "picked". It's confirmed through numerous tests and that is exactly what science is.


You're confusing theory with hypothesis. These words aren't used in science as in everyday life.

No he isn't. He's exactly right. A theory is only as good as the amount of falsification it's withstanded. It'll never be 100%. That's why it's a theory, not a fact.


I randomly posed the question "Why can nothing travel faster than light?" to a physics teacher at school. Minutes later I found myself very very annoyed, yelling with a doctorate level physicist about illogical limitations on nature and physics and how scientists should reconsider all that they hold dear until they can demonstrably prove otherwise.
You asked the wrong question. No one can tell you "why", we didn't make the universe the way it is after all, but we can tell you what we've measured so far. Guess what, it fits with the theory, no illogical limitation, the increase in required energy for accelerating has so far fitted exactly with the expected curve of relativity. Also you can't really prove anything in science, but you can make one theory more likely to be true, than another. Some theories, like relativity and its implications are very very likely to be true, because every test over many many years have each and every time been in accordance to the predictions made by using relativity. Everyday life possibilities is a testimony to this, many of the things you use each and every day would not work, if not for the predictions made by relativity.


Mentioned this to my father (who has a slightly better understanding of the underlying physics than I do) and he reckons that technically the special theory of relativity only precludes matter traveling at the speed of light, suggesting that once you were past the point of infinite mass there might be room for particles with negative mass traveling at those higher speeds.


I don't know enough to confirm whether or not his claims are within what Einstein laid down with special relativity, simply because my understanding of physics isn't up to that level... So, see what you guys think of this...
His claim is in accordance with the concept of relativity. That's also why space itself can expand beyond the speed of light (which is actually required to make the big bang theory work, i.e. inflation).

[Haruki-kun]

And I was arguing about the evils of FTL travel/communication in fiction the other day!
:smalleek:
May science have a little mercy for me?

If it makes you feel better, I was arguing that a planet with twin suns like Tattoine isn't possible either. And look how that went. :smalltongue:

I find this fascinating. I'm not gonna pretend I know a lot about physics, but still, it's pretty interesting. I'll bet a few of those scientists must be thinking "Oh, please let it be a glitch or something, or else we'll have to scrap a whole bunch of theories :smalleek:".

[Weezer]

It's not the fact that we can go .0025% faster, it's that going faster is possible at all. Am I the only one naive enough to hope for greater discoveries that will allow mankind to traverse the galaxy?

I know, I was being snarky.

Though, being a pessimist, I'd be more excited about the FTL travel possibilities if we already had the capability to get to even a respectable percentage of the speed of light. I'm more excited/worried about the fact that it'll require a major reworking of some pretty intricate theory/math. Just think of all the books that would have to be thrown out!

[Heliomance]

Mentioned this to my father (who has a slightly better understanding of the underlying physics than I do) and he reckons that technically the special theory of relativity only precludes matter traveling at the speed of light, suggesting that once you were past the point of infinite mass there might be room for particles with negative mass traveling at those higher speeds.


I don't know enough to confirm whether or not his claims are within what Einstein laid down with special relativity, simply because my understanding of physics isn't up to that level... So, see what you guys think of this...

The equations don't actually prohibit anything from going faster then c. What they do do, is suggest that c is an impenetrable barrier - anything going slower than light speed can never accelerate past it, and anything already going faster than light speed can never decelerate to slower than c.

[Weezer]

For any of those who can actually understand it (I know I'm not one of those), here is the paper written by the scientists at CERN who did the experiment, it just went up on arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

[Cobalt]

The "limit" is not arbitrary, unless you mean arbitrary in what number the universe "picked".

This is what I was saying, yes. Universes can be fickle.

[CoffeeIncluded]

For any of those who can actually understand it (I know I'm not one of those), here is the paper written by the scientists at CERN who did the experiment, it just went up on arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

I can only understand a little bit. I sent it over to my friend; maybe he'll know more.

EDIT: From what I can understand, the paper says the following.

1. This is the machine we use and how it works.

2. The neutrinos arrived about 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light.

3. What. There has to be some mistake.

4. A very detailed breakdown of everything. Tidal patterns, earthquakes, continental drift, day/night cycles, measurement errors, everything they can think of.

5. The scientists have compensated for all of these. And the calculations are still within the margin of error.

6. Even in the margin of error, some of these particles traveled faster than they should have with calculating the speed of light in a vacuum.

7. These particles may have traveled faster than the speed of light.

8. HOLY ****.

9. Fermilab and whatever the one in Japan is called, please try to replicate it. There's got to be some mistake.

10. Did we mention HOLY ****?

[Mando Knight]

I can only understand a little bit. I sent it over to my friend; maybe he'll know more.

The first page is the list of contributing authors.

The experiment had them shooting neutrinos down 730 km at a 625 ton mass. They go into an enormous amount of detail about the experiment setup and data analysis procedure. The published conclusion boils down to "The neutrinos went faster than our lightspeed assumption, and we have no clue why, but we're sure our numbers are right."

Then the paper ends in a couple pages of acknowledgments and references.

[Tirian]

The equations don't actually prohibit anything from going faster then c. What they do do, is suggest that c is an impenetrable barrier - anything going slower than light speed can never accelerate past it, and anything already going faster than light speed can never decelerate to slower than c.

At least anything that has a mass, from what I recall (which was in a physics class, half in a graduate math class, and many enough years ago). Do neutrinos have mass? That is still an open question, and from what I've been reading today it might not have a one word answer when all is said and done.

[CoffeeIncluded]

The first page is the list of contributing authors.

The experiment had them shooting neutrinos down 730 km at a 625 ton mass. They go into an enormous amount of detail about the experiment setup and data analysis procedure. The published conclusion boils down to "The neutrinos went faster than our lightspeed assumption, and we have no clue why, but we're sure our numbers are right."

Then the paper ends in a couple pages of acknowledgments and references.

Yeah, I read it and that's basically it. Thanks.

[Eurus]

Then, our estimate of the speed of light in a vacuum could be a little off. Light slows down in denser material, like air or glass. If there was something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) in a vacuum, then our measurements of its speed may be a little low.

Hah! I like this idea. "Turns out there was a glitch, but it's not the one we thought it was."

[Mando Knight]

Yeah, I read it and that's basically it. Thanks.

Experiment reports like that are generally easy to read. Most of what differs from university to university is the stylistic requirements. Usually it goes something like Cover, Abstract (an overview of the experiment), Setup and Procedure, Data Analysis, Conclusions, Appendices.

Once you realize that, you can skip most of the details while they talk about reversing polarities and Jefferies tubes and stuff, then get down to the Data and Conclusions to see what they got and how they interpret what they got. If you think they did something wrong, though, you have to slog through the technobabble to figure out where they crossed the wrong wire or let the dilithium leak into the antimatter field or whatever.

[Dr.Epic]

Of course there's something faster than the speed of light. It's called Chuck Norris's fists.:smallwink:

[goplayer7]

I feel that this idea might be completely incorrect, but I want to see what the answer could be to this question. Is it possible in theory (even if it hasn't been observed) for there to be something less then a vacuum (idk, a negative-vacuum / a vacuum that is actively pushing stuff away from it somehow) to be produced by interactions of the particules in the collider that could allow for light to move faster than in a "regular" vacuum?

[Mr.Bookworm]

Experiment reports like that are generally easy to read. Most of what differs from university to university is the stylistic requirements. Usually it goes something like Cover, Abstract (an overview of the experiment), Setup and Procedure, Data Analysis, Conclusions, Appendices.

Once you realize that, you can skip most of the details while they talk about reversing polarities and Jefferies tubes and stuff, then get down to the Data and Conclusions to see what they got and how they interpret what they got. If you think they did something wrong, though, you have to slog through the technobabble to figure out where they crossed the wrong wire or let the dilithium leak into the antimatter field or whatever.


We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.

They quite sensibly did nothing but offer the raw data and details.


I feel that this idea might be completely incorrect, but I want to see what the answer could be to this question. Is it possible in theory (even if it hasn't been observed) for there to be something less then a vacuum (idk, a negative-vacuum / a vacuum that is actively pushing stuff away from it somehow) to be produced by interactions of the particules in the collider that could allow for light to move faster than in a "regular" vacuum?

Uh, no. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. In theory. In practice, a "perfect" vacuum is more-or-less impossible to get. Pushing things away requires matter.

[Mando Knight]

They quite sensibly did nothing but offer the raw data and details.

That's because they have absolutely no idea what just happened. They'll probably run more experiments to test hypotheses, but the conclusions were anomalous enough that they basically had to publish a paper that stated that their test resulted in unexplained anomalies, especially since their current working model specifically states that the anomaly is utterly impossible.

[Mr.Bookworm]

That's because they have absolutely no idea what just happened. They'll probably run more experiments to test hypotheses, but the conclusions were anomalous enough that they basically had to publish a paper that stated that their test resulted in unexplained anomalies, especially since their current working model specifically states that the anomaly is utterly impossible.

I was responding to you saying...


Once you realize that, you can skip most of the details while they talk about reversing polarities and Jefferies tubes and stuff, then get down to the Data and Conclusions to see what they got and how they interpret what they got. If you think they did something wrong, though, you have to slog through the technobabble to figure out where they crossed the wrong wire or let the dilithium leak into the antimatter field or whatever.

...which you clearly can't do with this paper, because they offer no interpretation of the data.

[Mando Knight]

...which you clearly can't do with this paper, because they offer no interpretation of the data.

Actually, they do offer the most simplistic interpretation of the data: "The data are calculated to yield this, and thus are different from what we intended." You need to interpret the raw data in some form, otherwise you can't draw results or conclusions. What they don't do is interpret the results from the data, and their conclusion here is that they don't know why they got the results they did and will leave interpretation of the results to another experiment.

Were it up to me, though, none of those guys who wrote the paper could submit it for a thesis. That many scientists should have been able to come up with something other than 23 pages of "Here's what we did, and we don't know why what happened happened" if their degree was on the line.

[PirateMonk]

Actually, they do offer the most simplistic interpretation of the data: "The data are calculated to yield this, and thus are different from what we intended." You need to interpret the raw data in some form, otherwise you can't draw results or conclusions. What they don't do is interpret the results from the data, and their conclusion here is that they don't know why they got the results they did and will leave interpretation of the results to another experiment.

Were it up to me, though, none of those guys who wrote the paper could submit it for a thesis. That many scientists should have been able to come up with something other than 23 pages of "Here's what we did, and we don't know why what happened happened" if their degree was on the line.

Are you saying that they should have pretended to know what was going on, or claiming that they could have come up with an explanation more accurate and useful than "I don't know" if they had thought about more? Why do you think whichever one you mean?

[Mando Knight]

I mean that they are interpreting the data somewhat, but if they wanted to use this experiment as the basis for their Master's or a PhD, they'd have to go back and figure out something as to why they got the results they did, and then support that with math.

[WitchSlayer]

There's a real simple answer for this.

Some say he thinks Quantum is a type of soft drink and that when he drives neutrinos they REGULARLY exceed the speed of light.

All we know is, he's called the Stig!

[LaZodiac]

There's a real simple answer for this.

Some say he thinks Quantum is a type of soft drink and that when he drives neutrinos they REGULARLY exceed the speed of light.

All we know is, he's called the Stig!

Hate to dissapoint but I think there IS a type of drink calld Quantum. Nice one though

[Fera Tian]

If this turns out true, we need to declare the day this was discovered a national holiday, or atleast have a moment where everyone must listen to the Wierd All song "Everything you know is wrong".

Because if this is TRUE, that means that yha, everything we know IS wrong. Our entire understanding of physics relies on this. Hell, this opens up a way for aliens to exist and visit us within a reasonable lifetime.

Are you serious? Physics isn't going to just stop working because a portion of a theory made a hundred years ago was wrong. It'll just be corrected and science will move on with its research.

[Feytalist]

Are you serious? Physics isn't going to just stop working because a portion of a theory made a hundred years ago was wrong. It'll just be corrected and science will move on with its research.

Not quite. A lot of modern science is built around the assumption in that theory. If this experiment does happen to be accurate (and if it is even accepted to be accurate; they'll have to duplicate the results many many times), the "corrections" to modern theories may well take decades. But as you say, empirical studies will still be viable. Our understanding of why will just have to change.

I for one am not breaking out the champagne just yet. As I said, both the experiment and the results will have to be examined and duplicated rigourously to be even considered accurate. And if so, well, it might have a huge impact on the scientific world.

[Elder Tsofu]

http://xkcd.com/955/

In science one study is no study (if it isn't incredibly large, then it might count as half a study. Perhaps.), come back when you've reproduced it and a couple of independent laboratories have done the same and we can talk. :smallwink:

[The Bushranger]

What? Well I guess I'm weird then, because I never thought of Light being the speed limit as something 'integral' to science as we know it. I mean, maybe this is just the mind of a simpleton, but 'things can always go faster' is what I thought was a base for most science. Some arbitrary limit according to how fast light fills us a room or travels through empty space? And that's science?

Others have probably explained it better than me, but here goes:

The speed of light is a tricky beast. Einstein spelled it out for us though in the famous E=mc2 equasion; energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

Now, for those of us whose heads explode at the mere thought of math, what E=mc2 tells us is that, as an object's speed increases, you have to add more and more energy to it to continue boosting its speed. Quantum mechanics adds that, as you add more and more energy to an object to increase its speed, the objects mass is going to increase as well.

In a very simplifed nutshell, the faster you go, the greater your mass, and the greater your mass, the more energy you'll need to go faster still (painting it red, alas, won't help).

Now as you approach the speed of light, the mass increase changes from "you have to be a really nitpicking scientist to notice" to "geez this thing is getting HEAVY". And it just so happens that, at the speed of light, any object with mass is going to have...infinite mass.

Infinite mass would require infinite energy to accellerate it further.

Ergo, the speed of light is the speed limit to end all speed limits.

Now, as has been mentioned, the equasions actually, theroetically, work the other way on the other side of the lightspeed barrier: once you're past light speed, it's consistent with theory that increasing speeds reduce mass, and energy requirements (add energy, go -slower- - wrap your brain around that without it exploding! :smalleek:).

So, basically, Einstein and Relativity tell us that the universe we know will always be slower than light, and anything that goes faster than light shall always be faster than light, and never the twain shall meet.

Until now...?!

[Heliomance]

For any of those who can actually understand it (I know I'm not one of those), here is the paper written by the scientists at CERN who did the experiment, it just went up on arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

Damn swordsages! Got that from a friend at CERN, thought I was going to be the first one to post it. Grr.

[Phishfood]

What? Well I guess I'm weird then, because I never thought of Light being the speed limit as something 'integral' to science as we know it. I mean, maybe this is just the mind of a simpleton, but 'things can always go faster' is what I thought was a base for most science. Some arbitrary limit according to how fast light fills us a room or travels through empty space? And that's science?

Well, clearly I am not meant as a scientist, because this was something I was under the impression was fact a while ago. Stupid science lectures. Now I'm the guy in the corner muttering math problems that don't use numbers.

100% Agreed.

People used to think that going faster than sound was impossible. We showed them.

People used to think that going faster than 30mph caused brain damage.

People used to think an infection was certain death.

People used to think that the stars were lights in the sky.

We have been wrong SO MANY times in the past, its nothing but pure arrogance to say we are definitively correct now and there is nothing left to discover.

[Heliomance]

100% Agreed.

People used to think that going faster than sound was impossible. We showed them.

People used to think that going faster than 30mph caused brain damage.

People used to think an infection was certain death.

People used to think that the stars were lights in the sky.

We have been wrong SO MANY times in the past, its nothing but pure arrogance to say we are definitively correct now and there is nothing left to discover.

The difference is, they didn't have solid, tested scientific evidence for any of those. No scientist in the world thinks that there's nothing left to discover, but the speed of light being an absolute limit was something that we were pretty damn sure of. The theories have been tested thousands upon thousands of times, and this is the first time that we've had even the slightest hint that they might not be right.

[Shadow of the Sun]

If it gives anyone any comfort, the speed of light isn't that important to the functioning of most of the world.

The laws of thermodynamics, now, if they mess with THOSE...

[shawnhcorey]

If it gives anyone any comfort, the speed of light isn't that important to the functioning of most of the world.

The laws of thermodynamics, now, if they mess with THOSE...

Too late. The second law of thermodynamics is only a local phenomenon. Overall, entropy is decreasing in our universe.

[Luzahn]

Too late. The second law of thermodynamics is only a local phenomenon. Overall, entropy is decreasing in our universe.

Does that mean no heat death? Hooray! :smalltongue:

[shawnhcorey]

Does that mean no heat death? Hooray! :smalltongue:

Yes, we all freeze to death. :smalleek:

[Luzahn]

Yes, we all freeze to death. :smalleek:

Oh. You said entropy was decreasing. Maximum entropy is heat death. Unless I am grossly failing to understand something you are saying. It's possible, I'm tired.

[pendell]

Shawncorey: I am confused by your statement as well. Please explain? how is entropy decreasing?

Coffeeincluded: Thank you for sharing this. And an excellent summary of the report. You may have a future as a writer.

Other than that I agree with Tirian: This is definitely an exciting step forward, but it's so unusual I'll wait until it's been repeated and confirmed by multiple laboratories before agreeing with their conclusions.

In any case, this gets to what I was saying in the "learning from mistakes" thread -- we've been doing science for thousands of years but there's still much to learn. Which is why progress is made by questioning assumptions, not by believing what experts tell us. Not that experts aren't useful and typically know what they're talking about. But they don't speak infallible dogma either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[shawnhcorey]

Oh. You said entropy was decreasing. Maximum entropy is heat death. Unless I am grossly failing to understand something you are saying. It's possible, I'm tired.

If the universe expands faster than entropy increases, then the entropy per unit volume decreases. This is what's happening in our universe. Before the big bang, it was impossible to distinguish one quantum from another and impossible to distinguish one location from another. This is the highest possible entropy. Then the big bang happen and different parts of the universe could be distinguish. The overall entropy for the universe did not decrease but the entropy per unit volume did, which gives us the universe we have today.

And not only is our universe continuing to expand but to also increase the rate of expansion. Which means, eventually, we are going to run out of energy to keep us warm. So, billions and billions of years in the future, we all freeze to death. :smallsmile:

[CoffeeIncluded]

Coffeeincluded: Thank you for sharing this. And an excellent summary of the report. You may have a future as a writer.

Really? Thanks. :smallredface:


In any case, this gets to what I was saying in the "learning from mistakes" thread -- we've been doing science for thousands of years but there's still much to learn. Which is why progress is made by questioning assumptions, not by believing what experts tell us. Not that experts aren't useful and typically know what they're talking about. But they don't speak infallible dogma either.

Exactly. And I really hope that this helps get people interested in science too. We have far too people interested in science nowadays.

[nerd-7i+42e]

If the universe expands faster than entropy increases, then the entropy per unit volume decreases. This is what's happening in our universe. Before the big bang, it was impossible to distinguish one quantum from another and impossible to distinguish one location from another. This is the highest possible entropy. Then the big bang happen and different parts of the universe could be distinguish. The overall entropy for the universe did not decrease but the entropy per unit volume did, which gives us the universe we have today.

And not only is our universe continuing to expand but to also increase the rate of expansion. Which means, eventually, we are going to run out of energy to keep us warm. So, billions and billions of years in the future, we all freeze to death. :smallsmile:

Ah, so you don't mean entropy is decreasing, you mean entropy per unit volume.

[Tavar]

I mean that they are interpreting the data somewhat, but if they wanted to use this experiment as the basis for their Master's or a PhD, they'd have to go back and figure out something as to why they got the results they did, and then support that with math.

I think they all realize this as well. This speaks less of a paper submitted for recognition/awards, and more for 'holy crap, someone check our work!'

I'd imagine that they're doing other tests, and generally trying to work out what happened.

[Telonius]

How can they even clock something faster than light, if electromagnetic wave, and therefore information in their equipment cannot obviously go faster than light anyway?

Unless everything is wrong, I know, I know... :smalltongue:



My (totally layman's) understanding is that they have time-synchronized detectors at various points along the path. They know how long the track is, so they can figure out how fast the thing was going. The particle arrived at one of those detectors before it was supposed to.

[BaronOfHell]

Too late. The second law of thermodynamics is only a local phenomenon. Overall, entropy is decreasing in our universe.

It's opposite. Entropy always increases globally, not locally. If it was the other way around, a lot of the stuff we see, ranging as broad as the phenomena of gravity, or in general any attraction within space, would be impossible, because it'd be a local system where entropy would increase.

Also, global increase of entropy is not as much a "testet" law, as something completely obvious. Everything we see in the universe could be said as a confirmation of this, but it's really all build upon probability calc.

An easy analogy is throwing a dice. If you throw the dice a billion times, you'll find that there to be approximate equally many of each of the 6 dice numbers. That's the global phenoma. However since you threw the dice a billion times, you'll have had periods where you got the same number again and again and again, etc. Something which in itself is very unlikely, this is the local phenomena. Now imagine the dice and the number of throws gets substituted with the particles that makes up our universe and the space they interact within.

[Obrysii]

How can they even clock something faster than light, if electromagnetic wave, and therefore information in their equipment cannot obviously go faster than light anyway?

Not sure if this has been answered, but how they did it was this:

They basically had two gates. They knew how long it'd take light to go from the launch gate to the end gate, and they measured the neutrinos against that. CERN states their measurement even with uncertainty would be +/- 10 nanoseconds from accurate. The neutrino reached it 60 nanoseconds before light would...

At least that's the article I read.

[druid91]

The difference is, they didn't have solid, tested scientific evidence for any of those. No scientist in the world thinks that there's nothing left to discover, but the speed of light being an absolute limit was something that we were pretty damn sure of. The theories have been tested thousands upon thousands of times, and this is the first time that we've had even the slightest hint that they might not be right.

Ok, the problem with this, is take a modern scientist. Put him in a cave with a peice of chalk, and the same mind as before, but with no memory of prior learning except the basics. Math, language, and so-on.

Now ask them to "prove" that someone can move past the speed of sound.

Now compare that to the modern day, where we have all this knowledge. We have built on what came before, sometimes something crumbles, but we rebuild and move on up.

So arguing that in the old days they didn't have science isn't a good argument, it's pretty close to an ad hominem, though not quite..

Anyway, my point is that as we learn in other ways, as we increase the quality of our equipment, older things just might not stand up to scrutiny like they once did.

Think about it this way, The "earth is flat" theory is a brick wall. Our scrutiny used to be a wooden spear. The wall can easily hold up against such an assault.

Now it's a Cannon. which simply plows right through the wall.

[grimbold]

me and my physics friends are gunna have a long long talk

also
we will be chatting this up on the facebook

[PirateMonk]

Others have probably explained it better than me, but here goes:

The speed of light is a tricky beast. Einstein spelled it out for us though in the famous E=mc2 equasion; energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

Now, for those of us whose heads explode at the mere thought of math, what E=mc2 tells us is that, as an object's speed increases, you have to add more and more energy to it to continue boosting its speed. Quantum mechanics adds that, as you add more and more energy to an object to increase its speed, the objects mass is going to increase as well.

In a very simplifed nutshell, the faster you go, the greater your mass, and the greater your mass, the more energy you'll need to go faster still (painting it red, alas, won't help).

Now as you approach the speed of light, the mass increase changes from "you have to be a really nitpicking scientist to notice" to "geez this thing is getting HEAVY". And it just so happens that, at the speed of light, any object with mass is going to have...infinite mass.

Infinite mass would require infinite energy to accellerate it further.

Ergo, the speed of light is the speed limit to end all speed limits.

Now, as has been mentioned, the equasions actually, theroetically, work the other way on the other side of the lightspeed barrier: once you're past light speed, it's consistent with theory that increasing speeds reduce mass, and energy requirements (add energy, go -slower- - wrap your brain around that without it exploding! :smalleek:).

So, basically, Einstein and Relativity tell us that the universe we know will always be slower than light, and anything that goes faster than light shall always be faster than light, and never the twain shall meet.

Until now...?!

Not quite. E=mc2 is rest energy, the special case for a particle with no speed. The full equation is, I think, E=mc2/√(1-v2/c2) (m is rest mass, c is speed of light, v is speed). For most speeds, this is fairly close to mc2. Close to and less than c, this quickly increases to infinity, requiring increasingly large energy inputs to accelerate. Above the speed of light, the denominator decreases from its limit at i (√(-1)) times infinity close to c to i at v=c√2, and becomes an increasingly small imaginary number from there. Since energy is supposed to be a real number, it is hypothesized that only particles with an imaginary mass (tachyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon)) can exceed c. Since 0 divided by an imaginary number is 0, it seems like massless particles should also be able to go that fast, but I've never heard anything about that.

Any actual physicists are welcome to correct this further.

[averagejoe]

If the universe expands faster than entropy increases, then the entropy per unit volume decreases. This is what's happening in our universe. Before the big bang, it was impossible to distinguish one quantum from another and impossible to distinguish one location from another. This is the highest possible entropy. Then the big bang happen and different parts of the universe could be distinguish. The overall entropy for the universe did not decrease but the entropy per unit volume did, which gives us the universe we have today.

And not only is our universe continuing to expand but to also increase the rate of expansion. Which means, eventually, we are going to run out of energy to keep us warm. So, billions and billions of years in the future, we all freeze to death. :smallsmile:

Talking about entropy per unit volume is talking about local entropy phenomenon, not global. The overall entropy in the universe still increases.

I'm not overly familiar with big bang theory, but I have to doubt your assertion that the highest possibly entropy was at the big bang. Entropy is a measure of the possible number of configurations of a system. Having all particles in the universe packed into a small volume seems to cut down on this, a larger volume generally allowing for more configurations (since a greater number of positions are possible). I could be missing something, but that's how the statement strikes me.


Not quite. E=mc2 is rest energy, the special case for a particle with no speed. The full equation is, I think, E=mc2/√(1-v2/c2) (m is rest mass, c is speed of light, v is speed). For most speeds, this is fairly close to mc2. Close to and less than c, this quickly increases to infinity, requiring increasingly large energy inputs to accelerate. Above the speed of light, the denominator decreases from its limit at i (√(-1)) times infinity close to c to i at v=c√2, and becomes an increasingly small imaginary number from there. Since energy is supposed to be a real number, it is hypothesized that only particles with an imaginary mass (tachyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon)) can exceed c. Since 0 divided by an imaginary number is 0, it seems like massless particles should also be able to go that fast, but I've never heard anything about that.

Any actual physicists are welcome to correct this further.

The equation that relates rest mass to energy is:

E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2

where p is the momentum of the particle and m is the rest mass. It's been long enough that I can't really delve into the whys and wherefores with any amount of confidence. However, this also gives us the energy for light (since for light m=0, but light obviously has energy).

E=pc

[Asta Kask]

The thing is this - computers work, GPS works, NMR machines work. We can't be that far off or stuff like this shouldn't work.

[pendell]

I sometimes wonder whether c is not an absolute limit out of convenience for scientists rather than an actual physical limit.

When looking at the world with a theory of relativity, it follows there must be some absolute constant that doesn't vary between frames of reference. Otherwise there's no meaningful way to relate the reference frames to each other.

If we're using c this way, it occurs to me that it's not terribly important that c actually *be* immutable across frames of reference. It can still function as a common reference point even if it isn't actually immutable. Sort of like the way we often treat the earth under our feet as an unchanging reference frame even though it's hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour. Or perhaps like the concept of the imaginary number. It's still a useful construct for talking about the way things relate to each other even if it doesn't actually work that way.

I feel moved to point you to this old book called the mechanics of flight (http://books.google.com/books?id=6-_iGbJHM-8C&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=sound+barrier+drag+infinite&source=bl&ots=uE4mdTVgqW&sig=DxYbuaUQUjfjvSf2idWjKHQSMH8&hl=en&ei=hdF8TruOBOfI0AGW-Z0D&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=sound&f=false) , which mentions that theory once held by aerodynamics researchers that drag would become infinite once the speed of sound was reached, and it was therefore impossible to break the sound barrier.

Likewise the invention of the atomic bomb: At the time of the Los Alamos test there was considerable theoretical doubt as to whether the bomb would actually detonate at all; it wouldn't have been terribly surprising to find out that atomic explosions were impossible. There had also been some earlier concern (disproved at the time of the test) that the chain reaction wouldn't stop and the explosion would ignite the atmosphere, destroying the entire world.

Of course, that's why they threw the switch -- to find out what was and wasn't true. I'm sure it was reassuring at the time that the same scientists who concluded an atomic explosion was impossible had also concluded the test *almost certainly* wouldn't destroy the world.

Well ... very probably, anyway.

Anyways, that's why we do these experiments instead of retreating into medieval scholasticism -- because at the very least some of what we believe is flat wrong, and we're in the process of discovering what it is.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[irenicObserver]

If there was an absolute limit to speed, then there'd be an absolute frame of reference right?
i don't know enough about science.

[Mando Knight]

If there was an absolute limit to speed, then there'd be an absolute frame of reference right?
i don't know enough about science.

Yeah, that's part of the idea behind relativity, but I'm not entirely sure about that...

[grimbold]

I sometimes wonder whether c is not an absolute limit out of convenience for scientists rather than an actual physical limit.

When looking at the world with a theory of relativity, it follows there must be some absolute constant that doesn't vary between frames of reference. Otherwise there's no meaningful way to relate the reference frames to each other.

If we're using c this way, it occurs to me that it's not terribly important that c actually *be* immutable across frames of reference. It can still function as a common reference point even if it isn't actually immutable. Sort of like the way we often treat the earth under our feet as an unchanging reference frame even though it's hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour. Or perhaps like the concept of the imaginary number. It's still a useful construct for talking about the way things relate to each other even if it doesn't actually work that way.

I feel moved to point you to this old book called the mechanics of flight (http://books.google.com/books?id=6-_iGbJHM-8C&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=sound+barrier+drag+infinite&source=bl&ots=uE4mdTVgqW&sig=DxYbuaUQUjfjvSf2idWjKHQSMH8&hl=en&ei=hdF8TruOBOfI0AGW-Z0D&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=sound&f=false) , which mentions that theory once held by aerodynamics researchers that drag would become infinite once the speed of sound was reached, and it was therefore impossible to break the sound barrier.

Likewise the invention of the atomic bomb: At the time of the Los Alamos test there was considerable theoretical doubt as to whether the bomb would actually detonate at all; it wouldn't have been terribly surprising to find out that atomic explosions were impossible. There had also been some earlier concern (disproved at the time of the test) that the chain reaction wouldn't stop and the explosion would ignite the atmosphere, destroying the entire world.

Of course, that's why they threw the switch -- to find out what was and wasn't true. I'm sure it was reassuring at the time that the same scientists who concluded an atomic explosion was impossible had also concluded the test *almost certainly* wouldn't destroy the world.

Well ... very probably, anyway.

Anyways, that's why we do these experiments instead of retreating into medieval scholasticism -- because at the very least some of what we believe is flat wrong, and we're in the process of discovering what it is.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

the problem is that if C were to change/be infinite then a lot of our understanding of how gravity works and how spacetime is curved would be completely changed. In addition not having a set C could completely change how moving around the universe works. If C were to be constantly changing then spacetime is constantly fluctuating a lot more than previously imagined and distances greater than 100 light years or so will start to get really warped and screwed up. (If light is 100 times as fast in one area of space then in another spacetime gets funky) Finally if the speed of light was higher than black holes are a lot stronger than previously imagined :smalleek:

[The Extinguisher]

If there was an absolute limit to speed, then there'd be an absolute frame of reference right?
i don't know enough about science.

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

Relativity works. GPS's are proof, and we've done numerous experiments that proof it (muon decay as they enter the Earth's atmosphere is a good one, muons travelling at high speed decayed less than they should have for how long they were travelling)

At best this is just an error in their measurement.
At worst this means our measurement of c is wrong.

[Tyndmyr]

Holy... (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09/22/world/europe/AP-EU-Breaking-Light-Speed.html?_r=1&hp)

This is almost too fantastic to be real. Not even the scientists who did the experiment believe it. I'm not sold yet either. But if it's true...

It's neutrinos. If neutrinos were faster than light by this amount, then we'd see the neutrino pulse from supernovas much faster than the light from the same supernova.

My money says it's a glitch or mistake.

[pendell]

Yeah, that's part of the idea behind relativity, but I'm not entirely sure about that...

But it doesn't matter if there's an absolute frame of reference, because it isn't possible for an observer to utilize it. From an astronomical perspective, for example, we're still going to be making observations from the relative position of being on earth or at any rate close to it. So we couldn't get a view of our galaxy from an absolute perspective even if it exists.

Since we observers are only going to be able to use relative frames of reference, it follows that there needs to be something constant between those differing frames, or there's no way to relate observations in one frame to those made in another.

If there isn't something constant between the frames, it may still be possible to relate frames of reference by pretending some constant is universal even if it isn't. It still gives us a common coordinate system.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[grimbold]

If there isn't something constant between the frames, it may still be possible to relate frames of reference by pretending some constant is universal even if it isn't. It still gives us a common coordinate system.

while as a general rule this would work for most things on a higher level physics level things would get screwed up and having an advanced understanding of gravity and quantum or even a theory of everything would be nigh on impossible

[averagejoe]

But it doesn't matter if there's an absolute frame of reference, because it isn't possible for an observer to utilize it. From an astronomical perspective, for example, we're still going to be making observations from the relative position of being on earth or at any rate close to it. So we couldn't get a view of our galaxy from an absolute perspective even if it exists.

Since we observers are only going to be able to use relative frames of reference, it follows that there needs to be something constant between those differing frames, or there's no way to relate observations in one frame to those made in another.

If there isn't something constant between the frames, it may still be possible to relate frames of reference by pretending some constant is universal even if it isn't. It still gives us a common coordinate system.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That's the thing, though. It's not that the speed of light is some convenient value we chose so we can relate reference frames - we can relate between reference frames just fine without the speed of light being similar in all reference frames. It is one of the postulates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity) Einstein used when formulating his theory. If it is false that c is invariant across reference frames, the entire theory has to be reformulated, at the very least. Which is very troubling, because the theory has been an extraordinarily accurate predictor far beyond what it was intended for. Time dilation in faster reference frames, for example, is a direct consequence of that idea. The invariance of c isn't convenience, it's foundational.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Just throwing a guess out there, but what if the neutrinos bypassed the speed of light by taking a shortcut through another dimension?

[druid91]

Just throwing a guess out there, but what if the neutrinos bypassed the speed of light by taking a shortcut through another dimension?

Then how would they know when to come out into our dimension in order to trigger the switch?

[Worira]

Then they'd be disqualified from the race.

And Druid91, how is "cavemans was sciencin' awful" even remotely related to an ad hominem? Are you, yourself, a caveman? Because otherwise, it really doesn't apply.

[PirateMonk]

The equation that relates rest mass to energy is:

E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2

where p is the momentum of the particle and m is the rest mass. It's been long enough that I can't really delve into the whys and wherefores with any amount of confidence. However, this also gives us the energy for light (since for light m=0, but light obviously has energy).

E=pc

Is that equation more fundamental? I've always seen the derivation going the other way, but my sources may not be reliable.

[druid91]

Then they'd be disqualified from the race.

And Druid91, how is "cavemans was sciencin' awful" even remotely related to an ad hominem? Are you, yourself, a caveman? Because otherwise, it really doesn't apply.

It's essentially insulting them and expecting that to win the debate Which IIRC is what Ad hominem is, an attack on the person presenting the opposing viewpoint.

Just because we have better tools than them doesn't mean we are infallible.

It just means we are less wrong than them.

Therefore, simply saying that "Ye olde flat earth theory doesn't count because they didn't have awesome science, but we know that it's impossible to break the speed of light, so it has to be a glitch" is like a caveman saying that "triangle wheel theory no count because they no have clever chief, but this new round wheel no possible! Everyone know that only hexagonal wheel work! Must be problem with their measure stick.*"

*Silly caveman accent added for personal amusement.:smallsmile:

[averagejoe]

Is that equation more fundamental? I've always seen the derivation going the other way, but my sources may not be reliable.

I don't know that either is more fundamental. The one involving momentum is more widely applicable (since with the assumptions of E=mc2, p=0 so you can go one way but not the other), but they both kind of say the same thing with different sets of assumptions. As I said, though, it's been awhile for me, and if someone who knows better contradicts me I probably won't argue.

[pendell]

Just throwing a guess out there, but what if the neutrinos bypassed the speed of light by taking a shortcut through another dimension?

You're not the only person to suggest that (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0922/Neutrino-particle-traveling-faster-than-light-Two-ways-it-could-rewrite-physics?google_editors_picks=true).





if other labs can reproduce the effect, physicists envision one of two far-reaching outcomes.

In one, the CERN team's results could bolster quantum theories of gravity – the last of nature's four fundamental forces scientists are trying to fit under the umbrella of quantum physics. Theories of quantum gravity suggest that at sufficiently high energies, particles can appear to travel faster than light because they traverse extra dimensions of space.

The alternative? A pillar of modern physics – Einstein's theory of special relativity, in which the speed of light is a particle's absolute speed limit – could take its first serious hit. Perhaps not flat wrong, but only a piece of a more complete picture.



Bolding mine. So the extra dimensions are a possibility. Assuming, again, that there isn't experimental error.

You've heard about the difference between a mathematician and a physicist, right?

Ask both of them to disprove or disprove the following theorem: All odd numbers are prime.

Mathematician: 1,3,5,7, .. 9 is not prime, the theorem is false.
Physicist: 1,3,5,6,9 -- experimental error, 11, 13, 15 -- experimental error, 17, 19 .. uh, sure, all odd numbers are prime!

ETA: to be fair, if you asked a computer scientist the question, he would charge you several million dollars to write a computer program which would iterate over all primes, answering the question in a year and $$$$$ that the mathematician answered instantly.

That is, until the next iteration from Windows is released and breaks the code, forcing you to shell out even MORE money for updates.

:smallbiggrin:
ETA:



It is one of the postulates Einstein used when formulating his theory


A postulate, I remind you, is an unproved assumption . Doesn't mean it's wrong. But we are making the assumption for the sake of argument, i.e. convenience. I think you've just proved my point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kallisti]

C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, J.S. Song

...there was a Dr. Song involved in an experiment about particles that travel faster than the speed of light? Why am I not surprised?

[Mando Knight]

A postulate, I remind you, is an unproved assumption . Doesn't mean it's wrong. But we are making the assumption for the sake of argument, i.e. convenience. I think you've just proved my point.

In fact, plenty of engineering calculations are made based on postulates we know are wrong, but are close enough for the operating conditions that since it makes the math easier we generally go along with them anyway. At least, for preliminary design. After that, we stick a bunch of numbers into the computer and see what comes out.

[averagejoe]

A postulate, I remind you, is an unproved assumption . Doesn't mean it's wrong. But we are making the assumption for the sake of argument, i.e. convenience. I think you've just proved my point.

I'm not judging whether it's right or wrong, only outlining that the problem is rather more complicated than you present it, and responding to what seemed to me to be misconceptions about the theory.


When looking at the world with a theory of relativity, it follows there must be some absolute constant that doesn't vary between frames of reference. Otherwise there's no meaningful way to relate the reference frames to each other.

This, for example, is false. In fact it's exactly backward; the theory of relativity follows from the idea that there is a reference-invariant constant. I don't mean to seem like I'm just picking on your mistakes - heck, I've spent years and sleepless nights doing nothing but wrapping my head around this stuff, and I'm still wrong half the time if I don't give myself some sort of refresher. But it's not as simple as you present it.

In science, it's very rarely the case that an idea continues just because it's convenient and people refuse to change; in fact, you become a great scientist by toppling great scientists, and as soon as there's blood in the water everybody congregates for a bite. It's not impossible that it happens - in fact, it almost certainly does - but I would need significant evidence to be convinced that it's the case in this instance.

The thing is that you're essentially giving an abstract philisophical argument against something that has been and continues to have very strong predictive power. Dismissing one of the fundamental assumptions of such a theory as a matter of "convenience," completely misses the point.


I sometimes wonder whether c is not an absolute limit out of convenience for scientists rather than an actual physical limit.

It is neither. I mean, it might be an absolute physical limit, but we have no way of knowing for sure. But we think c is an absolute limit - or at least treat it like that - because we have very good reasons to, not because it's "convenient." I don't deny that you can put things so that "convenient" is the appropriate word to use, but the fundamental idea, that scientists discount the idea of c not being a physical limit, is simply wrong. Theoretical physicists come up with all sorts of crazy things - heck, I could probably conjure up one or two personal anecdotes if I put my mind to it - and there are almost certainly physicists out there who absolutely believe that the speed of light can be surpassed. However, at the same time, there is absolutely no evidence for that being the case, and a lot of, at the very least, indirect evidence that points to it not being the case, and it is because of this that no responsible physicist will publicly say that c is surpassable, even if they do honestly think so. A few guys thinking so isn't sufficient for the purposes of science.

[Liffguard]

It's essentially insulting them and expecting that to win the debate Which IIRC is what Ad hominem is, an attack on the person presenting the opposing viewpoint.

Going slightly off-topic but no, that's not quite what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is not just when you attack the person rather than the argument, but when you use that attack as a basis for drawing a conclusion

"You're stupid, therefore your argument is wrong" is ad hominem.
"You're stupid, and your argument is wrong" is not.

[pendell]

This, for example, is false. In fact it's exactly backward; the theory of relativity follows from the idea that there is a reference-invariant constant. I don't mean to seem like I'm just picking on your mistakes - heck, I've spent years and sleepless nights doing nothing but wrapping my head around this stuff, and I'm still wrong half the time if I don't give myself some sort of refresher. But it's not as simple as you present it.


Fair enough. I'm willing to acknowledge you've studied this in more detail than I do. When I put up an idea here, it's typically not to preach but to put it up on a target range and to see what holes get shot in it, if any. The experience is instructive, and I learn something from it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[grimbold]

In fact, plenty of engineering calculations are made based on postulates we know are wrong, but are close enough for the operating conditions that since it makes the math easier we generally go along with them anyway. At least, for preliminary design. After that, we stick a bunch of numbers into the computer and see what comes out.

However, you must admit that engineering is rarely done at an Atomic or Unvierse Spanning level. Now I personally greatly admire engineers and think that the field is very important. However, constants that are false but close enough work in a science that does not have to be absolutely perfect for everything to work knowing the speed of light affects a lot of our understanding of the FULL universe.

[averagejoe]

Fair enough. I'm willing to acknowledge you've studied this in more detail than I do. When I put up an idea here, it's typically not to preach but to put it up on a target range and to see what holes get shot in it, if any. The experience is instructive, and I learn something from it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Hey, no worries, I'm all about sharing ideas through discourse. I don't really aim to preach either, but there are a lot of common misconceptions about science that float around, and I tend to feel like I should say something when they come up.

[shawnhcorey]

However, you must admit that engineering is rarely done at an Atomic or Unvierse Spanning level. Now I personally greatly admire engineers and think that the field is very important. However, constants that are false but close enough work in a science that does not have to be absolutely perfect for everything to work knowing the speed of light affects a lot of our understanding of the FULL universe.

But quantum mechanics is very important to everyday life. Without it, chemistry wouldn't be possible. Without chemistry, no biology. No biology, no you.

[grimbold]

But quantum mechanics is very important to everyday life. Without it, chemistry wouldn't be possible. Without chemistry, no biology. No biology, no you.

obviously you are correct
but what i meant was that the average person in most occupatons doesn't have to worry about it because clearly the universe works no matter what the speed of light actually is

[Yora]

"The barkeeper says, we don't serve neutrinos here. A neutrino walks into a bar."

- Neutrino!
- Who is there?
- knock, knock

[Partysan]

"The barkeeper says, we don't serve neutrinos here. A neutrino walks into a bar."

- Neutrino!
- Who is there?
- knock, knock

We just read the same Spiegel online article, didn't we?

[Niezck]

"The barkeeper says, we don't serve neutrinos here. A neutrino walks into a bar."

- Neutrino!
- Who is there?
- knock, knock

I used to tell those jokes using Tachyons...

Also, anybody else thinking of the scientifically-awful line from 2012 "The neutrinos have mutated!"? :smalltongue:

[grimbold]

that joke....
melts my soul...

[averagejoe]

But quantum mechanics is very important to everyday life. Without it, chemistry wouldn't be possible. Without chemistry, no biology. No biology, no you.

The processes QM aspires to describe are important to everyday life. QM is not.

[grimbold]

The processes QM aspires to describe are important to everyday life. QM is not.

averagejoe is on point

[OracleofWuffing]

Hypothetically speaking, if this could lead to time travelling like Alvaro De Rujula suggested (which was probably more of a joke than a suggestion, granted)... Wouldn't we have known that by now?

[Mercenary Pen]

Hypothetically speaking, if this could lead to time travelling like Alvaro De Rujula suggested (which was probably more of a joke than a suggestion, granted)... Wouldn't we have known that by now?

Perhaps not, if it was controllable, there might have been in the future (I hate future past tenses, but they're necessary sometimes) an international ban on traveling into the 18th to 21st centuries (for example), so as to prevent interference with human development- and on a more selfish note to prevent Newton's Laws becoming the Scientific laws of Pythagoras (to name a notable thinker who could probably have gone further with enough of a push to his thinking)

[Frozen_Feet]

A point that has been made but still needs stressing:

Even if our understanding of things is flawed, it won't make things that are already working magically cease to function. It doesn't even prevent us from making new, functioning things based on the flawed theories, as long as the theory was reasonably close to the mark.

[Asta Kask]

Perhaps not, if it was controllable, there might have been in the future (I hate future past tenses, but they're necessary sometimes) an international ban on traveling into the 18th to 21st centuries (for example), so as to prevent interference with human development- and on a more selfish note to prevent Newton's Laws becoming the Scientific laws of Pythagoras (to name a notable thinker who could probably have gone further with enough of a push to his thinking)

Or there might be physical limits. Perhaps time travel is possible, but no further back than when the first machine was built.

[Worira]

A point that has been made but still needs stressing:

Even if our understanding of things is flawed, it won't make things that are already working magically cease to function. It doesn't even prevent us from making new, functioning things based on the flawed theories, as long as the theory was reasonably close to the mark.

This is 100% false. We are going to need to phase out lamps in favour of rickshaws pulling carts full of light that we will sprinkle on our books.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Or there might be physical limits. Perhaps time travel is possible, but no further back than when the first machine was built.

Some people might think "What's the use, then?", but there is a particularly important use for time travel like that, if it can't change the past.

Time-loop logic, which uses time travel, is a way of achieving hyperturing level computers. Which would be VERY useful.

On quantum mechanics: people love to try to apply quantum mechanics to things that run on classical mechanics. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. Quite often, they'll invoke Schroedinger's Cat, which is hilarious, because that thought experiment was meant to show just how ridiculous it is when you try to apply quantum mechanical logic to things that run on classical mechanics.

At the basic level: we know how quantum stuff works on things like electrons, protons, and the like. We have NO IDEA AT ALL how the laws of quantum mechanics function on things like you, me, my computer, my cat, et cetera- this is the reason that Relativity is still taught.

[averagejoe]

Or there might be physical limits. Perhaps time travel is possible, but no further back than when the first machine was built.

Relativity based causality loops have physical limits, but not anything like that. (For starters, "No further back than when the first machine was built," is an extremely subjective concept in relativity, which is actually why causality loops theoretically apply.) Theoretical time machines aren't, "Push a button and go back," sorts of things, it's much more subtle. This (http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html) gives a decent explaination for the theory behind it, though it seems to be more friendly toward people who are already pretty familiar with relativity.

[grimbold]

Some people might think "What's the use, then?", but there is a particularly important use for time travel like that, if it can't change the past.

Time-loop logic, which uses time travel, is a way of achieving hyperturing level computers. Which would be VERY useful.

On quantum mechanics: people love to try to apply quantum mechanics to things that run on classical mechanics. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. Quite often, they'll invoke Schroedinger's Cat, which is hilarious, because that thought experiment was meant to show just how ridiculous it is when you try to apply quantum mechanical logic to things that run on classical mechanics.

At the basic level: we know how quantum stuff works on things like electrons, protons, and the like. We have NO IDEA AT ALL how the laws of quantum mechanics function on things like you, me, my computer, my cat, et cetera- this is the reason that Relativity is still taught.

Shadow is pretty much right

I would like to continue by saying that this whole faster than the speed of light will probably affects the lives of less than 1% of the human population. the only people who will probably be dramatically affected by this for the next 50 years will be physicists who need to figure out the exploitations/perfect the technology

[Ravens_cry]

Shadow is pretty much right

I would like to continue by saying that this whole faster than the speed of light will probably affects the lives of less than 1% of the human population. the only people who will probably be dramatically affected by this for the next 50 years will be physicists who need to figure out the exploitations/perfect the technology
More than likely, but still, the implications if this is real and not experimental error are huge. For the past century, c has basically been one big "You shall not pass!" At most there has been some theoretical shortcuts.
This, if real, could be as potentially revolutionary as Michelson–Morley or the double-slit experiment, showing once again that the world is still full of wonderful surprises.
This would not surprise me, but it would be a joy nonetheless.

[grimbold]

if it isn't experimental error then my planned degree suddenly becomes a lot more awesome (astrophysics) also string theory gets screwed up :smalleek:

[Asta Kask]

Verse:
Zephyr in the sky at night I wonder
Do my tears of mourning sink beneath the sun
She's got herself a universe gone quickly
For the call of thunder threatens everyone

Chorus:

And I feel like I just got home
And I feel
And I feel like I just got home
And I feel

Faster than the speeding light she's flying
Trying to remember where it all began
She's got herself a little piece of heaven
Waiting for the time when Earth shall be as one

(chorus)

Quicker than a ray of light
Quicker than a ray of light
Quicker than a ray of light

(verse)

And I feel
Quicker than a ray of light
Then gone for
Someone else shall be there
Through the endless years

She's got herself a universe
She's got herself a universe
She's got herself a universe

And I feel

Quicker than a ray of light she's flying
Quicker than a ray of light I'm flying

[Weezer]

if it isn't experimental error then my planned degree suddenly becomes a lot more awesome (astrophysics) also string theory gets screwed up :smalleek:

I'm totally fine with string theory getting screwed up, maybe then physicists will come up with a theory that actually has experimentally testable precepts. I'm a bit frustrated at all that a theory that is nothing more than some pretty math and has no experimental backing (and doesn't even make predictions that could be tested experimentally ever) has come to dominate physics. It just seems silly.

[Wreckingrocc]

String theory doesn't necessarily dominate physics- it just seems like, to many people, the best explanation we've got (perhaps until a few days ago, anyways). If you can't test it, you can't formulate practical uses for it or use it to figure out other properties of the universe, effectively nullifying any practical reason to preach it. Any predictions for the unknown based on elaborations of string theory's implications would themselves serve to evidence it, though.

Regarding quantum mechanics and relativity, we already have things like quantum entanglement, capable of transmitting quantum information instantaneously over infinite distances. Sure, we can't make anything of it until classical information is similarly sent, but I find it very fascinating that such things may be more than a mathematical coincidence.

While I do think it would be cool to elaborate things like time machines from this, it seems dramatically more likely that either neutrinos don't follow conventional rules (see: electrons back in the frontier days of QM) or that they're not otherwise not adhering to locative time. If they don't follow the C-maximum for whatever reason, and could thus travel backwards through traveling into physical locations which are further back in time, they still wouldn't necessarily be capable of interacting with things in the physical past.

[Tirian]

I'm a bit frustrated at all that a theory that is nothing more than some pretty math and has no experimental backing (and doesn't even make predictions that could be tested experimentally ever) has come to dominate physics. It just seems silly.

It's not dominating anything. It's important to talk about it, because relativity and quantum physics didn't seem any less silly before they started accurately predicting experimental results. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to eat my hat if they keep on improving on these quantum computers that seem to work in practice. :smallyuk:

[Eric Tolle]

The thing for me is, I cant tell yet whether this is something important or typical science reporting, because some vital information has been left out.

That is, it's well established that the key element of relativity is not that it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light; we've already done experiments that send particles faster than the speed of light. What's impossible is to send information faster than the speed of light. Confirmation that a particle has gone FTL had to be sent by conventional methods.

So it could be-actually lets make that overwhelmingly likely- that even if these neutrinos travel FTL, it won't affect Relativity at all. But lets not let that affect the latest round of "we have FTL travel! Einstein is wrnog!!!!1iI" hysteria.

[averagejoe]

Regarding quantum mechanics and relativity, we already have things like quantum entanglement, capable of transmitting quantum information instantaneously over infinite distances. Sure, we can't make anything of it until classical information is similarly sent, but I find it very fascinating that such things may be more than a mathematical coincidence.

QE doesn't really transmit information, all you can tell is what the other guy measured. It's a curiosity, to be sure, and one of the elements that demonstrates that we don't have a complete understanding of the quantum world, but there's nothing that really suggests that you can use it for FTL communication.


It's not dominating anything. It's important to talk about it, because relativity and quantum physics didn't seem any less silly before they started accurately predicting experimental results. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to eat my hat if they keep on improving on these quantum computers that seem to work in practice. :smallyuk:

That's somewhat fallacious. There was resistance to QM and relativity early on because they seemed absurd; there is resistance to string theory now because it's untestable and doesn't really predict anything. There was an experiment done that involved measuring the incoming light from a solar eclipse (testing the idea that gravity would bend light). If the light had been a few degrees off from what they measured, it would have disproved special relativity. Contrast that to the LHC; if they do find some large hadrons, then it might suggest that string theory might be correct - if not, it neither proves nor disproves anything about string theory. It's important to talk about string theory, of course; discussing this sort of thing is what science is all about. However, there are all these people right now trying to discover the Next Big Thing, sinking all this money into a theory that can't be disproved, and that's just bad science.

[Weezer]

The thing for me is, I cant tell yet whether this is something important or typical science reporting, because some vital information has been left out.

That is, it's well established that the key element of relativity is not that it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light; we've already done experiments that send particles faster than the speed of light. What's impossible is to send information faster than the speed of light. Confirmation that a particle has gone FTL had to be sent by conventional methods.

So it could be-actually lets make that overwhelmingly likely- that even if these neutrinos travel FTL, it won't affect Relativity at all. But lets not let that affect the latest round of "we have FTL travel! Einstein is wrnog!!!!1iI" hysteria.

What do you mean something being left out? I linked to the journal article put out by the experimenters that describes in excruciating detail both the experiment run, the results and the different systemic errors that they considered and then how they ruled them out. Not much more detail to be left out.

[Wreckingrocc]

QE doesn't really transmit information, all you can tell is what the other guy measured. It's a curiosity, to be sure, and one of the elements that demonstrates that we don't have a complete understanding of the quantum world, but there's nothing that really suggests that you can use it for FTL communication.Quantum information and classical information are very different things; with quantum information alone, you cannot actually learn anything. With classical information, however, you can interpret quantum information and extract information from it.

Learning what the other guy measured is gathering quantum information, and receiving a classically transmitted message can figure out what, exactly, that means. While you can get the quantum information instantaneously, the light-speed restrictions on the classical information's transmittance render FTL communications through entanglement alone impossible.

[grimbold]

I'm totally fine with string theory getting screwed up, maybe then physicists will come up with a theory that actually has experimentally testable precepts. I'm a bit frustrated at all that a theory that is nothing more than some pretty math and has no experimental backing (and doesn't even make predictions that could be tested experimentally ever) has come to dominate physics. It just seems silly.

but it SOOoooo beautiful Oo

also
countless hours of study will have been wasted :smalleek:

[DragonOfUndeath]

Sorry if this is already a Thread. I can't find a similar one.

According to scientists at the OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) in Gran Sasso Italy they have discovered neutrinos that travel FTL.
They are reported to move 299,798,454 meters/second (light travels at 299,792,458 m/s, a difference of 5,996 m/s)
It reportedly took 60 nanoseconds less than the time light took (+/- 10 nanoseconds).
This could bring FTL travel a few steps closer (as well as Time-Travel) while simultaneously nullifying several Theories.

A new study is being conducted that will try to prove this phenomenon and reduce inaccuracy to within 1 nanosecond.

Many Scientists believe the data is due to undiscovered error.
A discovery can be claimed if the research is proven to greater than 5 standard deviations (less than 1 in a million) and the result is 6 deviations.

[huttj509]

Something that seems to be missed is that it takes a lot for a proven theory to be completely overthrown to the point of uselessness.

Newtonian mechanics are wrong. They are not right. They are missing something. But they still work for a LOT of applications, because in general, we are not really small, and we are not going really fast.

Einsteinian understanding of spacetime, how mass behaves at high speeds, etc...works. With only Newtonian understanding, we would not have landed the probes on mars, the differences had to be taken into account.

IF this turns out to not be error, that's awesome. It's a new area to explore of "why did this happen?" "Why did we not see it before?"

Would it make Einstein wrong? Perhaps, depends on if you take wrong to include "works except for this special case that was unknown". Would it make all of relativity useless? No.

All models are Wrong (compared with absolute Right). Some of them are useful.

[Sipex]

Has this been proven wrong yet?

Not that I want it to be wrong, new discoveries are amazing. Just I've become so jaded by this sort of thing that I'm afraid to believe it could be true.

[Whiffet]

Has this been proven wrong yet?

Not that I want it to be wrong, new discoveries are amazing. Just I've become so jaded by this sort of thing that I'm afraid to believe it could be true.

I imagine it will take a while for evidence either way to be found. I don't know exactly how long, but a while.

[Tirian]

I imagine it will take a while for evidence either way to be found. I don't know exactly how long, but a while.

To a certain degree, there is already evidence, as Fermilab did a very similar experiment a few years back and observed the neutrinos moving slower than light. But yeah, doing it again is going to take some time. We also need to be prepared for the possibility of a no-result, which is finding that neutrinos move slower than light and we never find the source of OPERA's experimental error.

[CoffeeIncluded]

To a certain degree, there is already evidence, as Fermilab did a very similar experiment a few years back and observed the neutrinos moving slower than light. But yeah, doing it again is going to take some time. We also need to be prepared for the possibility of a no-result, which is finding that neutrinos move slower than light and we never find the source of OPERA's experimental error.

I thought they found that the neutrinos moved faster, but it was within the margin of error?

[Tirian]

I thought they found that the neutrinos moved faster, but it was within the margin of error?

/em shakes fist at shoddy scientific reporting

You would appear to be right.

[grimbold]

/em shakes fist at shoddy scientific reporting

You would appear to be right.

this was my reaction

i was so ticked when i found this wasn't actually gunna happen

[Liffguard]

this was my reaction

i was so ticked when i found this wasn't actually gunna happen

No, I think what he meant was that the old Fermilab results were "faster than light but within margin of error." The more recent results were notable specifically for being faster than light even taking margin of error into account.

[Sipex]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this case they specified that the margin of error was taken into account.

[Tyndmyr]

Didn't this already get tossed out?

Something about the results being within the margin of error for the gps error rate combined with gravitational effects, IIRC.

It was a fairly complicated set of results, but basically, it just means the margin of error is larger than expected.

I expect that retesting will eventually conclusively disprove this for the same reason I posted before...because if neutrinos actually moved faster that light, we'd see neutrinos from supernovas YEARS before the light, and this doesn't actually happen.

[Talya]

Bah. Defacto FTL travel was already theoretically possible, through various tricks like bending spacetime (which, or course, is also theoretically possible.) This just shows there may be actual exceptions to the rules, rather than simply workarounds. Don't get me wrong -- such exceptions would have huge rammifications to physics as we know them, but this doesn't suddenly open up the reasonable possibility of FTL travel where previously it didn't exist.

[grimbold]

No, I think what he meant was that the old Fermilab results were "faster than light but within margin of error." The more recent results were notable specifically for being faster than light even taking margin of error into account.

Oo
as spock would say
fascinating

*goes to read up on it*

[Story Time]

How can they even clock something faster than light, if electromagnetic wave, and therefore information in their equipment cannot obviously go faster than light anyway?


Honestly...

Buy two highly accurate clocks.
Calibrate them to be synchronous.
Record time of departure on one.
Record time of arrival on the other.
Repeat.

:smallsmile:



Something that seems to be missed is that it takes a lot for a proven theory to be completely overthrown to the point of uselessness. [...] Einsteinian understanding of spacetime, how mass behaves at high speeds, etc...works. With only Newtonian understanding, we would not have landed the probes on mars, the differences had to be taken into account. [...] IF this turns out to not be error[...]Would it make all of relativity useless? No.

Someone likes to bring their brain to the forum with them! :smallbiggrin:

Scientific laws, and therefore standards, can only be refuted by evidence. They can not be proven through human limitations.

[grimbold]

Honestly...

Buy two highly accurate clocks.
Calibrate them to be synchronous.
Record time of departure on one.
Record time of arrival on the other.
Repeat.


and this is also the answer to my physics homework XD
seriously

[Asta Kask]

Not so fast after all. (http://www.livescience.com/16506-einstein-theory-put-brakes-faster-light-neutrinos.html)

A London-based theoretical physicist contends that tiny differences in the gravitational field may explain the 'too-quick' neutrinos. In other words, the clocks that were supposed to be synchronized weren't.

[Sipex]

Whelp, the responsible thing at this point is to run the test with a light beam X number of times (however many they need for a base) then using the same distance, same locations and same clocks run it again with neutrinos.

edit: Add to this, run the light test BEFORE and AFTER the neutrino tests as well.

[grimbold]

Not so fast after all. (http://www.livescience.com/16506-einstein-theory-put-brakes-faster-light-neutrinos.html)

A London-based theoretical physicist contends that tiny differences in the gravitational field may explain the 'too-quick' neutrinos. In other words, the clocks that were supposed to be synchronized weren't.

i thought about this
and while possible
it seemed a tad unlikely to me because its the CERN here i'm fairly confident in their ability to synchronize clocks.

however he may have a point