Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

The Speed of light might not be the speed limit...

my money is on the rules breaking down and changing above c, just like they do at the quantum level for gravity and other parts of classical physics. E=mc2 doesnt need to change if one can just allow the possiblity that there is something beyond c. theres been the problem of quantum entaglement for decades, this might just tie together.
 
There's some question regarding the validity of the experiment. The researchers used GPS to check the distance. While accurate for many mundane things, the uncertainty of GPS measurement may account for the seemingly FTL speed discrepancies the researchers encountered in their measurements.

While it'll be cool if it is indeed true, I can't help but think of Michelson's speed of light experiments of the 1800's and polywater in the 1960's and 1970's
 
I like this theory

"Alan Kostelecky, an expert in the possibility of faster-than-light processes at Indiana University, put forward an idea in 1985 predicting that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light by interacting with an unknown field that lurks in the vacuum. "With this kind of background, it is not necessarily the case that the limiting speed in nature is the speed of light," he told the Guardian. "It might actually be the speed of neutrinos and light goes more slowly."

Rgds

Ace
 
AlphaGeek said:
There's some question regarding the validity of the experiment. The researchers used GPS to check the distance. While accurate for many mundane things, the uncertainty of GPS measurement may account for the seemingly FTL speed discrepancies the researchers encountered in their measurements.

While it'll be cool if it is indeed true, I can't help but think of Michelson's speed of light experiments of the 1800's and polywater in the 1960's and 1970's
Click to expand...

I was looking at teh CERN webcast, and that was exactly what they were discussing

Rgds

Ace
 
Wisdom said:
Anything travelling at the speed of light is pure energy; it only has a theoretical mass obtained from the mc2 formula.

What I suspect it happened, said neutrinos took a shortcut between the measurement points, shortcut that is not perceivable by humans. Not yet. Wormholes do actually exist?
Click to expand...

So if they do find wormholes. This means they would be able to travel from one of the planet to the other in seconds??
 
bigdaddy trim said:
So if they do find wormholes. This means they would be able to travel from one of the planet to the other in seconds??
Click to expand...

Yes, the premise behind wormholes.

Take a piece of paper, planet a on one side, and planet b at the other end of the paper. Fold it so the planets touch, so from a big distance, it has changed to vitually no distance

Rgds

Ace
 
AlphaGeek said:
LOL Really? Which part?
Click to expand...

The audience were arguing the GPS measurement accuracies...i only saw a couple of minutes. But couldnt hear too well, so not a lot to tell you i am afraid

Rgds

Ace
 
Why all believe that Einstein was right, was not he a human ?
 
dr3w said:
Slight offtopic from that article:

Supernovae are exploding stars that are so bright they can briefly outshine their host galaxies. However, most of their energy actually streams out as neutrinos. Because neutrinos scarcely interact with matter, they should escape an exploding star almost immediately, while photons of light will take about 3 hours to get out.
Click to expand...


Photons are fast and dangerous, but get stuck in traffic jams, explaining the three hour delay.

Oh, wait a minute, that's phaetons. :hammer:
 
Ace Flyster said:
Yep i was reading about that today

Looks like they need to prove the statistical significance. Will probably be in debate for a couple of weeks before concrete significance can be assertained

At least, that was my take on it

Rgds

Ace
Click to expand...


My understanding is that the results were within a significance level that would normally be taken as proof, but that there is still a very big question mark over whether the experimental measurements and other data are valid.
 
Sircus said:
The whole thing about light being the fastest must be bull since darkness is always there first :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Depends on the time of the morning, the lights in the bar and the amount you've drunk. Energy tends to zero under those conditions.
 
Hijacker27 said:
Maybe they just measured the distance wrong, or their clocks are out of synch :D
Click to expand...


That's why they've released their findings. They aren't claiming that they've proved that they've broken the speed of light barrier, but are saying that their results suggest so and probably they've made a mistake somewhere. They've measured and remeasured, checked and tinkered - now they want a public peer assessment to prove then right or wrong .... I think.
 
Pallas Gaudio said:
That's why they've released their findings. They aren't claiming that they've proved that they've broken the speed of light barrier, but are saying that their results suggest so and probably they've made a mistake somewhere. They've measured and remeasured, checked and tinkered - now they want a public peer assessment to prove then right or wrong .... I think.
Click to expand...


They brought the news and their findings out, in the hope that the experiment is
independently repeated by teams in the United States and/or Japan. And that is what
most likely will be done now.

Alvaro De Rujula, a theoretical physicist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research outside Geneva
from where the neutron beam was fired, said he blamed the readings on a so-far undetected human error.
If not, and it's a big if, the door would be opened to some wild possibilities.
Click to expand...
 
Ace Flyster said:
e = mc^2

as the speed of light is fixed. Then as you get close to the speed of light your mass increases. Thus to travel at the speed of light you would have infinite mass

If the neutrino which has a tiny mass, can travel faster than the speed of light then, that famous equation is not true
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the deductions you make here from the famous "E = M*C^2" are wrong.

The formula just states that energy is equivalent to mass, C (or C^2) just happens to be a scaling factor (like *10), but this formula does NOT take into account at what speed the mass M is moving, so it doesn't allow any conclusion about "mass increases with speed". The latter is true, but it cannot be derived from this particular formula.


And in general, "faster than light" is nothing new, i.e. see the following:

  • Cherenkov radiation (matter moving faster than light travels through water, C[water] is 75% of C[vacuum]...)
  • Tunnel effect, where particle "tunnel" through mass and leave the mass even before they enter it: speed>C
  • Quantum entanglement where two entangled subatomic particles change certain properties at the same time, no matter the distance, hinting they are connected in a way that makes them at least exchange information faster than light (instantly).
  • And last but not least tachyons - their existance still needs to be proven though, but they are nowhere near "new".


/Edit:

And neutrinos hardly interact with mass, so detecting them is very complicated already, let alone statements about their exact speed...
 
Last edited:
Stave said:
A CERN experiment claims to have caught neutrinos breaking the universe's most fundamental speed limit. The ghostly subatomic particles seem to have zipped faster than light from the particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, to a detector in Italy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Click to expand...

I think this is the answer: "A measurement error in the recent neutrino experiment could also explain the contradiction." from same article.

"But as the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is about as extraordinary as you get." <- I am agree with this
 
QEDead

Einstein was a little less wrong than Newton.

Newtonian Mechanics (Classical Physics) lasted 300 years and facilitates invention up to lasers...or transistors...or something.

Einstein's work is a better approximation, but if c can be squared then it is not so much a limit as more a threshold - like triggering the cops when you get fruity on the gas.
 
wizzszz said:
Sorry, but the deductions you make here from the famous "E = M*C^2" are wrong.

The formula just states that energy is equivalent to mass, C (or C^2) just happens to be a scaling factor (like *10), but this formula does NOT take into account at what speed the mass M is moving, so it doesn't allow any conclusion about "mass increases with speed". The latter is true, but it cannot be derived from this particular formula.


And in general, "faster than light" is nothing new, i.e. see the following:

  • Cherenkov radiation (matter moving faster than light travels through water, C[water] is 75% of C[vacuum]...)
  • Tunnel effect, where particle "tunnel" through mass and leave the mass even before they enter it: speed>C
  • Quantum entanglement where two entangled subatomic particles change certain properties at the same time, no matter the distance, hinting they are connected in a way that makes them at least exchange information faster than light (instantly).
  • And last but not least tachyons - their existance still needs to be proven though, but they are nowhere near "new".


/Edit:

And neutrinos hardly interact with mass, so detecting them is very complicated already, let alone statements about their exact speed...
Click to expand...

Incorrect, it also holds true for momentum. Mass in this equation has two possible meanings. Resting Mass & relativistic mass

"
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. If the body is not stationary relative to the observer then account must be made for relativistic effects where m is given by the relativistic mass and E the relativistic energy of the body. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:
52c7687643df1c12231b39e324850586.png
"

Rgds

Ace

EDIT: i should have talked about the "theory of relativity", but instead i presumed that.
 
Last edited:
Even if it's true then Einsteins theories will still be used a hell of a lot for the forceable future, just as Newtons are still used today.
 
Ace Flyster said:
Incorrect, it also holds true for momentum. Mass in this equation has two possible meanings. Resting Mass & relativistic mass
Click to expand...

FFS Ace, not realizing that what you wrote was incorrect is one thing, labelling my post wrongfully "incorrect" is completely different.

What you wrote was (and still is) wrong, E=M*C*C does NOT include the speed of the mass, hence you cannot deduct ANYTHING about relativistic mass from that particular formula - it only describes a resting mass.

E = energy
M = mass
C*C = scaling factor, moreover a constant

So where exactly do you think the speed of M is hidden?


Ace Flyster said:
EDIT: i should have talked about the "theory of relativity", but instead i presumed that.
Click to expand...

You should have, but you didn't - instead you displayed that you did not understand einsteins most simple formula...

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

Now would you please admit that not my post was wrong but yours? Tyvm.
 
wizzszz said:
FFS Ace, not realizing that what you wrote was incorrect is one thing, labelling my post wrongfully "incorrect" is completely different.

What you wrote was (and still is) wrong, E=M*C*C does NOT include the speed of the mass, hence you cannot deduct ANYTHING about relativistic mass from that particular formula - it only describes a resting mass.

E = energy
M = mass
C*C = scaling factor, moreover a constant

So where exactly do you think the speed of M is hidden?




You should have, but you didn't - instead you displayed that you did not understand einsteins most simple formula...

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

Now would you please admit that not my post was wrong but yours? Tyvm.
Click to expand...


I the C not the speed? Energy = Mass x speed x speed?
 
billairboy said:
I the C not the speed? Energy = Mass x speed x speed?
Click to expand...

C is the speed of light, a constant (speed of light in vacuum)

It is NOT the speed of the mass M (which would be variable, ofc...)


C could be replaced by 9*10^16 (roughly), a simple number - there is no "magic" behind C in that equation



Assuming you're not too keen on transforming the units here, so we ignore the m²/s² here, the equation looks like this:


E=M * 3 * 10^16

or

E=M*30,000,000,000,000,000




/Edit:

Apparently it is needed to add this:

E=M*C² describes the EQUIVALENCE of MASS to ENERGY, or in other words, if you CONVERT mass to energy, how much energy will i get from a certain mass.

(that's i.e. where the sun takes all the energy from, read on here: Mass defect)





It does NOT describe the effects of increasing (pseudo-)mass with increasing speed.
 
Last edited:
Fancy a round of Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock?

 
Ace Flyster said:
The audience were arguing the GPS measurement accuracies...
Click to expand...

OK. as long as they were not saying that this discovery is as significant as polywater. LOL
 
One should remember that most "facts" that are out there, are often based on theory. ;)
Nature can quite often play a trick on these "facts". :)
 
Fascinating stuff!

Can't rule out errors at this point, but at the same time it's not as if people haven't been thinking relativity might need some tweaking anyway. Maybe this will point us in the right direction.

Ace Flyster said:
Looks like they need to prove the statistical significance. Will probably be in debate for a couple of weeks before concrete significance can be assertained
Click to expand...

From what I've read their results have sufficient statistical significance to be accepted as a discovery. The question is more whether they have made any errors or not.

Wisdom said:
What I suspect it happened, said neutrinos took a shortcut between the measurement points, shortcut that is not perceivable by humans.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is plausible if there are more spatial dimensions than we perceive. Like if we could only perceive two dimensions we would not appreciate that there is a shorter route from London to Sydney than as the crow flies. Brian Cox gives a short discussion here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852

And the nice thing is if this explanation is right, the neutrinos didn't actually travel faster than c.
 
Last edited:
I've never believed in the speed of light being an absolute barrier.

However, even though they're finally acknowledging that there are some exceptions to the "rule", (btw, this isn't the 1st one, so not sure why it's getting so much press) that doesn't invalidate all the results from following Einstein. 99.99% of available matter still follows the speed limit within all currently known situations, so it's still fine to work with that data, so long as you keep in mind that it's a breakable rule.

All it means is that folks have a few more pieces of the overall puzzle to help them get a better picture of Reality.
 
wizzszz said:
What you wrote was (and still is) wrong, E=M*C*C does NOT include the speed of the mass, hence you cannot deduct ANYTHING about relativistic mass from that particular formula - it only describes a resting mass.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but E = mc^2 applies to a particle at rest in a given frame of reference. For a particle moving with speed v, the formula is E = (mc^2)/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) right? And hence, if we believe Einstein, and like our energies to remain finite, only massless particles can travel at c no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top