Pillar of physics challenged

SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
Because no one reads the Discussions section

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->GENEVA (AP) -- A pillar of physics - that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - appears to be smashed by an oddball subatomic particle that has apparently made a giant end run around Albert Einstein's theories.

Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said Thursday they have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the famous E (equals) mc2 equation - just doesn't happen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_blank">Full Story</a>
«1

Comments

  • PaniggPanigg Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58212Members
    Sciencey Science... me like!
  • AldarisAldaris Join Date: 2002-03-25 Member: 351Members, Constellation
    That's especially weird, as they have mass.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    Tiny, tiny mass. No, tinier than that. Even tinier. Tinier... tinier... okay you're getting there... HAH, kidding. WAY tinier than that.
  • PaniggPanigg Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58212Members
    I've asked a Physics Doctor friend of mine and he's convinced this will turn out false. Not much more to say than that, unless the other labs verify it. Would be pretty weird tho.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    I remain cautiously optimistic until the lab in Chicago can verify but the people at CERN wouldn't have released this information without being damn sure.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    I would have run with the headline 'Switzerland fires enormous particle cannon at Italian science centre.'
  • PaniggPanigg Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58212Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1876383:date=Sep 22 2011, 10:18 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 22 2011, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876383"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would have run with the headline 'Switzerland fires enormous particle cannon at Italian science centre.'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Where is that like button when you need it?
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    As a note, the BBC article kinda paints it a bit differently, it suggests they aren't releasing the data to disprove relativity, they're releasing it because they can't find the error they assume they must have made and want everyone else to take a look and see where they're going wrong.

    The CERN guys aren't assuming they've broken physics, they're asking the other guys what's why their multimeter is reading a million volts all the time.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1876383:date=Sep 22 2011, 04:18 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 22 2011, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876383"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would have run with the headline 'Switzerland fires enormous particle cannon at Italian science centre.'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    If only I was that clever.
  • AlignAlign Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1876390:date=Sep 22 2011, 10:30 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 22 2011, 10:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a note, the BBC article kinda paints it a bit differently, it suggests they aren't releasing the data to disprove relativity, they're releasing it because they can't find the error they assume they must have made and want everyone else to take a look and see where they're going wrong.

    The CERN guys aren't assuming they've broken physics, they're asking the other guys what's why their multimeter is reading a million volts all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484</a> that?
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    I am dumb in the ways of science and I don't intend to change that, but is there a way to explain in layman's terms why light is supposed to be the thing that nothing can move faster than? I don't even understand why light has a fixed speed to begin with so maybe explaining things to me is a lost cause.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1876401:date=Sep 22 2011, 10:56 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Sep 22 2011, 10:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876401"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484</a> that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Yeah that one.
  • AldarisAldaris Join Date: 2002-03-25 Member: 351Members, Constellation
    I think it's something to do with as your speed increases through use of energy, your mass increases as energy = mass. At speeds it becomes noticable, ie towards the speed of light, you need up needing infinite energy to accelerate as you end up with an infinite mass.

    Someone please correct me.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    edited September 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1876403:date=Sep 22 2011, 11:01 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DiscoZombie @ Sep 22 2011, 11:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am dumb in the ways of science and I don't intend to change that, but is there a way to explain in layman's terms why light is supposed to be the thing that nothing can move faster than? I don't even understand why light has a fixed speed to begin with so maybe explaining things to me is a lost cause.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    The speed of light in a vacuum (light moves a lot slower through things like air) is the 'absolute limit' everyone brings up, it's given the letter c for use in calculations, so I'll call it c from now on.

    I don't know enough physics to tell you why exactly it's the upper limit, but I can explain a few things.

    First off, c is not just the speed of light, it's also effectively the speed of information. Even if something could travel faster than the speed of light, we wouldn't be able to tell very easily, because we wouldn't be able to see it travelling faster than light, because we use light to see things. This is true of all forms of detection like radio waves, microwaves, gamma rays, x rays, all of these are forms of electromagnetic radiation, which is also what light is, a form of EM radiation.

    So even if c was not a physical limit, it is in many ways a practical limit. If something travelled faster than light, it'd be very hard to measure.

    Secondly, you have the idea of relative time. One of the things we do know about extremely high speeds is that they kinda mess around with time. The general rule is that if you're going very fast in a direction, you're going very slowly in time. It isn't normally noticeable because earth speeds are all very very slow by universal standards, but it is observable in things like atomic clocks. We launched a bunch of atomic clocks into orbit, presumably because that's the kind of thing scientists like to do with their funding, and one of the things we found is that they kinda keep bad time when they're in orbit. Or rather, they keep accurate time, they are just moving at a different speed in time, although I can't remember if it's slower because they're orbiting and thus constantly accelerating, or faster because they are in zero gravity. I think it's faster though because it's the g force that counts.

    That's the other odd thing about it, it's specifically <i>acceleration</i> and not speed, and one of the curious quirks is that if you're in orbit, you're technically constantly accelerating, because acceleration is defined as increasing movement speed <i>in a direction,</i> and your direction is constantly changing if you're moving in a curve, however I think that gravity cancels that out, so you don't experience the effects.

    Anyway, the point is that not only does immense acceleration cause time to move slowly for you, but so does intense gravity, which is why black holes are theorised to have extreme time dilation effects as you get closer to the centre, one of the fun scenarios is that if you fell into one, you could actually end up falling so slowly that you would be very, very slowly torn apart by the tidal forces and differences in gravity, basically your feet would be experiencing 20G, while your head would only be experiencing 5G, and you'd be travelling (from your point of view) very slowly due to dilation and you would basically be stretched to death. Which is kind of metal tbh.

    All that aside, what you basically need to know is that the speed of light is the speed that physicists have figured out as the speed at which time would stop for you if you reached it. Which means that if anything were to go faster than the speed of light, it would actually be going backwards in time. And that would be weird, so we hope nothing can.

    <!--quoteo(post=1876409:date=Sep 22 2011, 11:12 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Sep 22 2011, 11:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it's something to do with as your speed increases through use of energy, your mass increases as energy = mass. At speeds it becomes noticable, ie towards the speed of light, you need up needing infinite energy to accelerate as you end up with an infinite mass.

    Someone please correct me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Oh yes that too. As you acquire more energy, you technically get more massive (heavier, although 'heavy' is a measure of weight, not mass, scientists are picky about that), because E = Mc^2, As c squared is a constant, and can't change, if E changes (energy) then so must M (mass). This means more effort required to accelerate you, up to the point where you are right near the speed of light, at which point you are REALLY damn heavy and you couldn't get enough thrust to keep up your acceleration at anything other than microscopically small levels.
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    Now all we need to do is get a load of soldiers and bombs, load them into a faster than light neutrino, fire them at the nearest life-supporting star system, and <i>bomb the aliens before they bomb us</i>.
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Members
    edited September 2011
    Physicist here. I think it's bollocks, but as always would love it to be true. The explanations so far have been quite adequate in explaining the supposed difficulties with the light-speed barrier, but you can't be a scientist if you're not willing and eager to find everything you've ever trusted about the world was completely and utterly wrong.

    Anyone else think the "theoretical faster than light particle" they mentioned was a tachyon? Because that's even more of a joke (though as always, not an *impossible* one) than neutrinos breaking the speed of light.

    Edit: I notice there's no link to an official article or release.... that might be nothing, but it's poor practice and pretty suspicious in my book. The media has been mucking up experimental findings for centuries.

    Edit 2: I've looked around, and from what I can see, there isn't a single piece of evidence I can find for this. Everything just keeps linking back to the AP article, which "says" people have said these things. I don't know if they conducted an interview or what, but until I see a paper or an official release, I'm not giving this a second thought. It's like reading an article on how '<i>scientists say</i> gravity doesn't actually do anything'.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1876410:date=Sep 23 2011, 12:25 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 23 2011, 12:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]So even if c was not a physical limit, it is in many ways a practical limit. If something travelled faster than light, it'd be very hard to measure.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Experimentally it wouldn't be that hard to measure, assuming either A) you can release the particle that travels faster than light with very specific timing or B) you can manipulate its path to make it curve or reflect back to near its point of origin.
  • SvenpaSvenpa Wait, what? Join Date: 2004-01-03 Member: 25012Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1876410:date=Sep 23 2011, 12:25 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 23 2011, 12:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...basically your feet would be experiencing 20G, while your head would only be experiencing 5G, and you'd be travelling (from your point of view) very slowly due to dilation and you would basically be stretched to death. Which is kind of metal tbh.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <b>GOD DAMIT CHRIS</b> don't remind me of this D:
    <img src="http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/60/74/64867460/photos/Creepy/525px-Amigara.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1876486:date=Sep 23 2011, 09:04 AM:name=Svenpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Svenpa @ Sep 23 2011, 09:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>GOD DAMIT CHRIS</b> don't remind me of this D:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I reminded myself of it so now you have to suffer too.

    Drr Drr Drr.
  • palliepallie Join Date: 2009-10-12 Member: 69028Members
    Physics noob here, does this mean they measured the particles they fired before they were fired? =)
  • RichardRahlRichardRahl Join Date: 2011-06-15 Member: 104594Members
    edited September 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1876378:date=Sep 22 2011, 04:58 PM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Sep 22 2011, 04:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've asked a Physics Doctor friend of mine and he's convinced this will turn out false. Not much more to say than that, unless the other labs verify it. Would be pretty weird tho.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Real scientists work to prove theories are right or wrong, not just call it wrong right off the bat, thats what science is <.< experiments not just "omg no someone say it can't do this, therefore it can't."
  • AlignAlign Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
    edited September 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1876581:date=Sep 23 2011, 08:23 PM:name=pallie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pallie @ Sep 23 2011, 08:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Physics noob here, does this mean they measured the particles they fired before they were fired? =)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    No, they just took less time to get from A to B than light would.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    How exactly do you measure something that goes faster then light though, wouldn't it go back in time once it surpassed c or some weird shizzle?
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1876587:date=Sep 23 2011, 02:37 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 23 2011, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How exactly do you measure something that goes faster then light though, wouldn't it go back in time once it surpassed c or some weird shizzle?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    If it were intelligent, it might experience time in an unusual or noncausal fashion (which is one of the reasons the lightspeed barrier is accepted: causality), but I don't think they were equipped to measure how time was occurring to the particle. I can't know this for sure though, because <i>I can't find a single credible piece of sourced information or research that isn't just a quote of that citation-devioid AP article.</i>
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    They put little sticky numbers on the neutrinos so they know which one is which, then time them as they run a lap around the collider. Apparently some of them made it quicker than light could.

    Maybe they were cheating like the old tour de France riders did, like taking a train ride for half the race and such.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    They were probably doping their blood.
  • Evil_bOb1Evil_bOb1 Join Date: 2002-07-13 Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
    edited September 2011
    A friend of mine was involved in this, he posted this link which should interest those of you 'scientists' wanting more information.

    <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897?context=hep-ex" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897?context=hep-ex</a>

    There is no need to freak out when a model is not as exact as it wishes to be, especially a theory dating from 1905 be it from Einstein or not. This info only hurts 'by the book scientists', anyone a bit open minded will get over it.

    Edit: download the pdf for the article.
  • NossahNossah Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8234Members, Constellation
    edited September 2011
    I'm a complete physics noobs so i'm probably totally wrong about this. but a thought occured to me. When you take a flight from europe to america and back there is a 2 hour difference in flight time because of the rotation of the earth. Since this measurement was made over a distance of 750 or so kilometers ON EARTH. Could the rotation of the earth have had an effect on the neutrino's travel time? AFAIK neutrino's are affected by gravity since they have mass. E.g. my thought is the neutrino was traveling at the speed of light, not over it, and the rotation of the earth affected the measurement in such a way that the neutrino seems to be traveling at a higher speed but actually isn't.
  • AlignAlign Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
    edited September 2011
    I'd expect the guys doing these kind of experiments to take such factors into account, if it's applicable.
    <!--quoteo(post=1876594:date=Sep 23 2011, 09:05 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Sep 23 2011, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They put little sticky numbers on the neutrinos so they know which one is which, then time them as they run a lap around the collider. Apparently some of them made it quicker than light could.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I don't think any collider was involved?
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1876615:date=Sep 23 2011, 05:04 PM:name=Nossah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nossah @ Sep 23 2011, 05:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1876615"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you take a flight from europe to america and back there is a 2 hour difference in flight time because of the rotation of the earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The time difference is due to the jet stream, think of the atmosphere as an ocean with currents. (because that is exactly what it is)
Sign In or Register to comment.