CERN: Particle Faster than Light

Fussiler1 · Sep 23, 2011

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-0923-speed-of-light-20110923,0,497738.story

Booyah. In yoo face Albert.

Let's wait until it's confirmed by other scientists, though. It also might just be an error.

If this is true, what would the implications be for modern physics?

Miss_Foxy · Sep 23, 2011

But from what I heard, something that's moving faster than the speed of light would... Go back into time. :O

Super-Sheep · Sep 23, 2011

Miss_Foxy said:
But from what I heard, something that's moving faster than the speed of light would... Go back into time. :O

I know that I know nothing about the physics but if something moves faster than the light shouldnt it go unseen as the light cant catch it?

The Reborn Devil · Sep 23, 2011

Super-Sheep said:
I know that I know nothing about the physics but if something moves faster than the light shouldnt it go unseen as the light cant catch it?

Light can still hit the object and then bounce off. For example if the object moves towards the light source. However, it cannot be seen if the object moves away from the light source, as the light won't be able to hit the back part of the object and then bounce back to your eyes.

Steel_Stallion · Sep 23, 2011

Super-Sheep said:
I know that I know nothing about the physics but if something moves faster than the light shouldnt it go unseen as the light cant catch it?

We can't essentially "see" a neutrino regardless, its beam is detected with massive instruments.

Also, I doubt this will pan out into anything mildly significant for two reasons;

1. Einstein has been tested again and again, he has always been right.

2. Relativity and the theories surrounding the speed of light were thought experiments, not measurements. They were later proved with practical experiments.

My point being that without a foundation behind "why" neutrinos are supposedly travelling faster than the speed of light, the measurements we're getting might as well be scribbles. AFAIK it wasn't a dedicated experiment with the purpose of actually finding out if neutrinos can travel faster than light, so there's no real back drop to it.

It'll probably turn out to be some measurement or reading error.

Magtheridon96 · Sep 23, 2011

Einstein is still right.
We just have to use the term: "Speed of Neutrinos" now

Either that, or the speed of light changes sinusoidally with an average being the constant that we all know as 300000000 m/s

edit
OR the detector had lag :ogre_hurrhurr:

(lolnoobs)

Zarathustra · Sep 28, 2011

Steel_Stallion said:
My point being that without a foundation behind "why" neutrinos are supposedly travelling faster than the speed of light, the measurements we're getting might as well be scribbles.

There is a bit of physics outside of the standard model that predicts the violation of Lorentz invariance under certain circumstances.

This is not a case of "bad data". At least not yet. Right now, it's a case of weird data. I'm sure people are busy trying to reproduce the result. Time will tell.

Magtheridon96 · Sep 28, 2011

Right now, assuming that the data is correct:

Code:

mass relativistic = mass constant / SquareRoot(1 - (v^2/c^2))

is wrong.

MGCǂSpectre · Sep 28, 2011

We know the basic things in physics. We still don't know all about gravity and many other things. Nothing surprising that is one of the things yet to be discovered or rather, revealed in case some of the technology is on top secret level hah.

Jaret · Sep 29, 2011

Oh, i have heard of this a week or so ago. All I can say is, in my opinion, this still is just a hypothesis. Until it is furthermore proven in more cases, I'd not consider it as a 100% true fact. But, from what We've seen so far, it's more than reliable for further study.

Elite Slayer · Oct 4, 2011

As mentioned prior, theoretically, and according to the theory of relativity, a particle faster than light would be travelling backwards in the stream of time. Particle and theoretical physicists have put the theory of relativity to the test many times, and it has always checked out as correct. I believe a careful examination of the data collected and the scientific instruments should be in order - there's no way you can declare this a new, consolidated find on a first try.

The Reborn Devil · Oct 4, 2011

I wouldn't call it first try when they worked on this for 3 years and did the same test over and over thousands of times.

Elite Slayer · Oct 4, 2011

You know what I mean - this is considered revolutionary, because it is the first series of endeavours to consolidate this. It has yet to be confirmed by the scientific community, showing there is still a margin for error.

BlackArmsShadow · Oct 9, 2011

Ftl is real!

MGCǂSpectre · Oct 11, 2011

BlackArmsShadow said:
Ftl is real!

Indeed, their Dungeon Master II: The Legend Of Skullkeep RPG was great for its time.

CERN: Particle Faster than Light

Similar threads