Could be the biggest news EVER
- Thread starter Fred Sherman
- Start date
Digital Jedi
Well-known member
So basically, FTL without Warp Drive or space folding? I'm in!
MGSteve
Well-known member
Quite easily as it happens...
Edit, just realised you said measure something at the speed of light, I thought you meant working out the speed of light.
That said, by doing the above, they are measuring photons travelling at the speed of light!
jonsidneyb
Well-known member
I did not read the article but I will jump in without facts but with questions from the peanut gallery.
1. Could that they saw turn out to be something tachyonic<spelling> polluting the results? I don't think that would violate the rule? I might be way out in left field asking this.
2. I know that when I was at Eli Lilly there where sometimes experiments done over and over giving results that seemed impossible and it turned out there was problems with the methods. Not dumb people at all, sometimes flaws in methodology happen.
3. Did the press quote the scientists right. I know for a fact they have messed up things that I have been around. The the scientist claim this happened or did they say the results show this and maybe some members of the team question the results.
4. I thought the speed of light was being dictated by the universe? If this is correct could this mean C is measured on the wrong baseline?
5. Light travels the same speed no matter the energy level correct? Neutrionos have mass but it is very tiny but is more massive that a photon, there goes that amount of energy required to move mass.
6. As the energy in neutrinos changes has velocity been a constant? If it is a constant would we not have observed this difference when looking at incoming neutrinos in the past? How could this result not have gone unseen in the past?
7. How much does this change things? We can still use Newtons work for most things are the results are close enough. GPS needed the work of Albert to work. Does this change anything that can affect us? I think the scale would be too small but then again I don't know what I am talking about.
I am making no claims. Just asking dumb questions.
1. Could that they saw turn out to be something tachyonic<spelling> polluting the results? I don't think that would violate the rule? I might be way out in left field asking this.
2. I know that when I was at Eli Lilly there where sometimes experiments done over and over giving results that seemed impossible and it turned out there was problems with the methods. Not dumb people at all, sometimes flaws in methodology happen.
3. Did the press quote the scientists right. I know for a fact they have messed up things that I have been around. The the scientist claim this happened or did they say the results show this and maybe some members of the team question the results.
4. I thought the speed of light was being dictated by the universe? If this is correct could this mean C is measured on the wrong baseline?
5. Light travels the same speed no matter the energy level correct? Neutrionos have mass but it is very tiny but is more massive that a photon, there goes that amount of energy required to move mass.
6. As the energy in neutrinos changes has velocity been a constant? If it is a constant would we not have observed this difference when looking at incoming neutrinos in the past? How could this result not have gone unseen in the past?
7. How much does this change things? We can still use Newtons work for most things are the results are close enough. GPS needed the work of Albert to work. Does this change anything that can affect us? I think the scale would be too small but then again I don't know what I am talking about.
I am making no claims. Just asking dumb questions.
MGSteve
Well-known member
Well, try reading the article, it does help
Technically lightspeed wasn't broken, what appears to have happened is that the neutrino travelled down a "Einstein Rosenberg bridge" - in laymans terms, a wormhole.
So its not so much that they broke the lightspeed barrier, more that they may have proved the existence of micro wormholes.
Technically lightspeed wasn't broken, what appears to have happened is that the neutrino travelled down a "Einstein Rosenberg bridge" - in laymans terms, a wormhole.
So its not so much that they broke the lightspeed barrier, more that they may have proved the existence of micro wormholes.
jonsidneyb
Well-known member
Well, try reading the article, it does help
Technically lightspeed wasn't broken, what appears to have happened is that the neutrino travelled down a "Einstein Rosenberg bridge" - in laymans terms, a wormhole.
So its not so much that they broke the lightspeed barrier, more that they may have proved the existence of micro wormholes.
I think Albert would have been fine with that.
jonsidneyb
Well-known member
This is not the same thing but follow along. Some something cannot be affected faster than the speed of light but that is not exactly true and it does not involved beating the speed of light.
Lets say you have a 1 light year long pool que. That might be a bit heavy, lets make it a light day long, that will still be pretty long. Now lets take our light day long pool que and hold it one inch from an object. Suddenly poke the object with the pool que, you could have had an influence on something from where you are standing at faster than the speed of light.
You better workout some before trying to lift that light day long stick.
Lets say you have a 1 light year long pool que. That might be a bit heavy, lets make it a light day long, that will still be pretty long. Now lets take our light day long pool que and hold it one inch from an object. Suddenly poke the object with the pool que, you could have had an influence on something from where you are standing at faster than the speed of light.
You better workout some before trying to lift that light day long stick.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
You're mixing Newtonian physics and Relativistic Physics.Lets say you have a 1 light year long pool que. That might be a bit heavy, lets make it a light day long, that will still be pretty long. Now lets take our light day long pool que and hold it one inch from an object. Suddenly poke the object with the pool que, you could have had an influence on something from where you are standing at faster than the speed of light.
You better workout some before trying to lift that light day long stick.
Car travels north at 45 (MPH/KPH - doesn't matter) towards another car traveling south at 60. The velocity of one, relative to the other is 105. Newtonian physics. The answer is right, but also wrong. However, its not wrong enough that we need to worry about relativistic physics.
Lets change the question slightly. You are in your spaceship (cool), traveling directly towards another spaceship at .45c, while it is traveling towards you at .6c. What is the velocity of that other ship relative to you? 1.05c? Faster than light? No, sir.
The answer is found using the equation:
v = (w + u)/(1 + wu/c^2) = (.65c + .4c)/(1 + .26c^2/c^2) = (1.05/1.26)c = .8333c
Back to the first example...
v = (60 + 45)/(1 + 2700/(670615200^2)) = 105/1.00000000000001 = 104.99999999999999
Like I said, close enough at much lower than light speed.
jmurrayhead
Well-known member
I was watching "Through the Wormhole" on the Science channel the other day and they were talking about the possibility that the speed of light could be variable depending on where it is in the universe.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
Prediction: this doesn't disprove the special theory of relativity.
Jason
Well-known member
It's probably a measurement error, but...
If Einstein's theories don't hold, it'll be along the same lines that Newton's theories didn't hold post-Einstein. They still apply, for all practical purposes, to everyday life situations, and Einstein's theories will still apply to every fringe case seen so far, until this experiment. His theories will just break down in even more fringe situations, which we'll have to begin to understand the nature of now.
We actually already know Einstein is "wrong" in a sense, since GR is incompatible with quantum field theory. But it still works well within its realm of applicability. So even if the experiment does turn out correct, it's not like your GPS is going to suddenly stop functioning.
If Einstein's theories don't hold, it'll be along the same lines that Newton's theories didn't hold post-Einstein. They still apply, for all practical purposes, to everyday life situations, and Einstein's theories will still apply to every fringe case seen so far, until this experiment. His theories will just break down in even more fringe situations, which we'll have to begin to understand the nature of now.
We actually already know Einstein is "wrong" in a sense, since GR is incompatible with quantum field theory. But it still works well within its realm of applicability. So even if the experiment does turn out correct, it's not like your GPS is going to suddenly stop functioning.
EQnoble
Well-known member
...well there was nothing ever saying an area of space couldn't be distorted so that matter contained within it could be accelerated to faster than the speed of light...it was said that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any normal particles through space to that speed.
Aside from that tidbit...this is awesome to hear about and now I actually have stuff that I can look forward to reading in the news. Thanks for the post.
Aside from that tidbit...this is awesome to hear about and now I actually have stuff that I can look forward to reading in the news.
Thanks for the post.
Xarcell
Well-known member
Don't have time to read all the posts, so I don't know if it was covered already. Einstein never said nothing could travel faster than the speed of light or even at the speed of light. He said nothing could accelerate to the speed of light because it's mass would become infinite. So he was not wrong...
Dragapult
Well-known member
Being the moron that I am, what is the difference between something traveling quicker than the speed of light and something accelerating to the speed of light? I know speed and acceleration are not exactly the same thing, but I can't remember the actual differences.
AdamD
Well-known member
Hope not
To allow humanity to spread to other star systems, would be like unleashing a virus apon the universe.
At least while we're stuck here, we're contained.
bambua
Well-known member
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but speed is a measurement of how fast your are going, while acceleration takes into account your mass and change of speed.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, or how fast your velocity changes. In calculus and physics acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
This video explanation of the large hadron collider shows how particles increase in mass as they approach light speed:
Similar threads
