CERN breaks the speed of light?

[Ninja Dude]

Fascinating news for anyone who's into science/physics. I am excited to see where this goes http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ults-show-neutrinos-moving-faster-speed-light

 

[Vice]

Found this very interesting; Creationists have been saying that light has traveled faster in the past, based on measurements taken over the decades.

Not sure of the validity of their claims, but this has put an interesting spin on everything. This means that just about every theory of genesis will be under scrutiny, as well as physics itself and all of that.

Look at the comments in the article; these "smart" people probably aren't too good with women because they seem to always want to prove themselves by being right all the time. Hubris? Or is it just me?

 

[Drdeee]

As if they didn't know about time waves. CIA had experience with it during zeta reticuli exchange program http://www.serpo.org/

 

[Alle_Gory]

Creationists have been saying that

Creationists know nothing about science. If you gave them unlimited funding, unlimited equipment and a goal... like build a lightbulb from scratch, they would not be able to do a damn thing.

 

[Gaucho]

Link doesn't work?

 

[joverby]

There's some interesting theories as how this happened. One is due to the neutrinos almost non-existent mass, how it might somehow go through other mass quicker or a shorter path based on that. not sure how to explain it too well.

Or a more boring one, the sensor receiving end was off

But another interesting note. Electrons from old fuel rods when submerged in water go faster than the speed of light. But scientists were saying it didn't violate the Einsteins theory due to the water.

Also, it's theorized that once something goes faster than the speed of light, it goes backwards in time. Which makes sense because the faster you go the slower time goes. See the atomic clock and plane experiment for that one. I would be interested in having people try that again using the new DARPA "plane" that goes MACH 11.

 

[Vice]

Creationists know nothing about science. If you gave them unlimited funding, unlimited equipment and a goal... like build a lightbulb from scratch, they would not be able to do a damn thing.

Either way, the stuff they write can be good mental masturbation material for us nerds

 

[Vice]

Also, it's theorized that once something goes faster than the speed of light, it goes backwards in time. Which makes sense because the faster you go the slower time goes. See the atomic clock and plane experiment for that one. I would be interested in having people try that again using the new DARPA "plane" that goes MACH 11.

My own theory is that if you go faster than light, than you just go faster than light.

Kind of like all the speculation on the sound barrier; people thought all kinds of things would happen.

I figure that exceeding the speed of light would be just like exceeding the sound barrier; the actual "spacecraft" will be somewhere else with a "light echo thing" following it at the speed of light, and when the spacecraft eventually slows down, it will appear as if there are two spacecraft for a moment.

But all the above is just speculation, I don't know anything about physics. Just my intuition. Be nice

 

[Strelok]

As if they didn't know about time waves. CIA had experience with it during zeta reticuli exchange program http://www.serpo.org/

Interesting program, is it like erasmus and socrates programs for visiting alien universities? Can I have a stage on zeta reticuli as well if I keep my mouth shut?
I have a para licence too from my military experience in the 90s.

I'm sure it would improve my chance to get a high paid job, I'll write this in my motivation statement.
/end

About the thread, it reminds me when the french commission in the 19th century was unwilling to invest money on trains cause scientists of the time told
that human would have died passed 30 km/h....the same speed I do on reverse while parking.

 

[Rubato]

My own theory is that if you go faster than light, than you just go faster than light.

Kind of like all the speculation on the sound barrier; people thought all kinds of things would happen.

I figure that exceeding the speed of light would be just like exceeding the sound barrier; the actual "spacecraft" will be somewhere else with a "light echo thing" following it at the speed of light, and when the spacecraft eventually slows down, it will appear as if there are two spacecraft for a moment.

But all the above is just speculation, I don't know anything about physics. Just my intuition. Be nice

I didn't know people had thought there could be a potential harm in breaking the sound barrier.

With that said, breaking the light barrier probably wouldn't do anything to you as much as it would affect your perception of the world around you.

One of the principles of relativity asserts that as the velocity of an object increases, so too does it's mass and it's relative perception of "time" decreases. Gravity produces a similar affect (it's interesting to think that you would experience a few less seconds of life if you lived it exclusively in your basement rather than on your second floor).

The mathematical relationship to all of this is known as the Lorentz factor, given by the equation γ = (1 − [v^2/c^2])^−1/2, where v = velocity in m/s and c = speed of light (~300,000 m/s). If you plot this graph (it is in y=mx+b form) on a Cartesian plain, you'll notice that it produces a asymptote at about 300,000 m/s. Which, conveniently enough is the value of c.

This means that an object will become infinitely more massive as its velocity increases closer to c. This presents an interesting problem for the Standard Model (the physics attempt at a unifying theory) because the Lorentz Factor asserts that an object moving at c would be infinitely massive, and it is impossible to move an infinitely massive object as it would require an infinite input of energy. Those who are inclined to play with their calculator may also note that the mass of an object does not appreciably increase until the object begins to travel at speeds above 200,000-250,000 m/s.

It requires an incredible input of energy to accelerate any object to such velocities. Going back to classical kinematic physics equations, recall that w=ma, where w = weight, m = mass, and a = acceleration (g may be substituted for a for specific cases, where g = gravitational acceleration [9.8m/s^2]). Also note that f=ma, where f = force (in newtons). This gives a relationship where w=f=ma.

Using the Lorentz factor and the kinematics equations, it becomes clear that according to these models, it should not only be impossible to accelerate an object as fast as the speed of light, but it should be practically impossible to accelerate an object appreciably close to the speed of light due to the progressively larger inputs of energy required for increased acceleration.


So to make a really long story short. Meeting or exceeding the speed of light so far as physicists have been able to speculate would do nothing to you. But it would do something to your perception of reality. That's why the theory of relativity is called relativity. It asserts that energy, mass, and motion (among other things) influence objects in ways that affect the object only in ways relative to other objects. They produce no affects directly to the object. It's a little bit of a mind twister. So for example, assuming you were able to breach the speed of light somehow, maintaining the speed of light would not alter your perception of time, but it would stop the progress of time for every other stationary object relative to you and slow the progress of time for every slower moving object relative to you. When you returned to rest, you would appear not to have changed at all, while the rest of the world would have aged for however long you maintained your light speed travel. Theoretically, time would begin to reverse proportionately to a person's ability to exceed the speed of light.

All of this being said, I don't really see why this is such a big deal when the Standard Model assumes Neutrinos to be massless particles. The latest physical experiments have shown that the mass of neutrinos may oscillate, having an upper limit of <.3 EV. For reference, 1 ev = 10^-36 kg. That's a freaking small number. An electron's mass is about 9.1 * 10^-31, and since a neutrino is an elementary particle, it shouldn't surprise us that it would have a significantly smaller mass than an electron, by about 5 orders of magnitude. Even so, if the neutrino does have mass, the Lortentz Factor plot still holds that it would have an infinite mass at 3*10^8 m/s, but if it's mass can oscillate, scientists should have already been predicting it can do weird stuff. Take some graduate level math courses and read about quantum physics on a real level. The things that happen sub-atomically are freaky.

One more aside:

There is a lot of bashing of "creationist" thought in the scientific community, and I understand why. But to the informed student of science, (which 99% of creationist proponents are not) there is a very much overlooked evidence of a short Earth age (>12,000 years) found in the theory of general relativity. I will make this discussion much shorter since it's not the topic of this post, but the evidence is found in gravitational time dilation. A nuclear physicist Gerald L. Schroeder (Ph.D from MIT) developed a theory that based on some dense concepts in general relativity and quantum physics that asserts the Earth is younger than 12,000 years old because of gravitational time dilation. He asserts that a big bang of sorts happened at the moment of creation and that all matter arose from a singular universal point. This point was obviously very dense as to contain all matter in the universe, and thus, contained the greatest possible amount of gravity (as gravity is a function of an object's density "warping" space-time). He is an orthodox Jew and believes in a Genesis style creation where all celestial bodies emerged from a single point. Using his mathematical models, he is able to empirically show that it is possible for the Earth to be 6.3 billion years old relative to us, and yet actually only be ~12,000 years old. He is assuming the universe to be a closed system and "God" existing outside of the system. Thus, to God's outside system, the Earth is ~12,000 years old. To those who exist in the closed system of the universe, the Earth is 6.3 billion years old.

I don't feel like typing anymore. I've spent a lot of time studying sciences, math and physics, chem, ect. If anyone would like to discuss this further, let's talk.

 

[Gaucho]

Also, it's theorized that once something goes faster than the speed of light, it goes backwards in time. Which makes sense because the faster you go the slower time goes. See the atomic clock and plane experiment for that one. I would be interested in having people try that again using the new DARPA "plane" that goes MACH 11.

I always thought if something went faster than the speed of light, it simply becomes heavier (larger mass). E=MC squared.

 

[Rubato]

Creationists know nothing about science. If you gave them unlimited funding, unlimited equipment and a goal... like build a lightbulb from scratch, they would not be able to do a damn thing.

Read Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. I'm not here to preach, only to assert that there are actually people who believe in creation who also have an intelligent reason why. You don't have to agree with him, but he does provide empirical models that corroborate our current understanding of the physical world with the creation account in the book of Genesis.

Generalizations may be helpful when you're trying to f-close a the hottest blond in a bar, but even in the world of PUA (and certainly in the rest of the world), ascribing only to a certain set of generalizations will vastly limit the amount of truth and reality available to you at a given moment. Not all creationists are like Pat Robertson or George W. Bush

 

[Drdeee]

This ghetto piece of earth in space is once again making advanced discoveries, time for WW3.

 

[n00bPimp]

This ghetto piece of earth in space is once again making advanced discoveries, time for WW3.

That made no sense whatsoever.

I wonder if neutrinos have such thing as negative mass? I guess this means they repel mass. If this was true then I can see how it would travel faster than light, since its trying to repel it.

 

[SamTheHobit]

Creationists know nothing about science. If you gave them unlimited funding, unlimited equipment and a goal... like build a lightbulb from scratch, they would not be able to do a damn thing.

Real mature.

 

[Drdeee]

Anybody remember sliders? It be nice to dive into a hole and exit in universe where your the only man and women use dildos and artificial encemenation to get pregnant. I could father the whole universe!

 

[joverby]

I always thought if something went faster than the speed of light, it simply becomes heavier (larger mass). E=MC squared.

Not sure about that one but electrons from spent fuel rods submerged in water definitely went quicker.

Also, neutrinos have almost NO MASS.

I have heard of a theory that if something goes the speed of light, it becomes light. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense but kind of cool.

But perhaps this effect is similar to the whole going faster = slower perception of time.

In the experiment I was talking about earlier, they had an atomic clock taken up in a plane and one left on the ground, both synched. After a flight(not sure the details) the planes clock was SLIGHTLY behind the one left on the ground(that was stationary).

Or maybe it is just how it interacts with matter like how the electrons submerged in water went quicker? Or if they shot it through the core(did they? not sure?) maybe something to do with the magnetic field could speed it up? Just throwing things out there.

 

[Rubato]

Not sure about that one but electrons from spent fuel rods submerged in water definitely went quicker.

Also, neutrinos have almost NO MASS.

I have heard of a theory that if something goes the speed of light, it becomes light. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense but kind of cool.

But perhaps this effect is similar to the whole going faster = slower perception of time.

In the experiment I was talking about earlier, they had an atomic clock taken up in a plane and one left on the ground, both synched. After a flight(not sure the details) the planes clock was SLIGHTLY behind the one left on the ground(that was stationary).

Or maybe it is just how it interacts with matter like how the electrons submerged in water went quicker? Or if they shot it through the core(did they? not sure?) maybe something to do with the magnetic field could speed it up? Just throwing things out there.

You are correct. I don't know if a particle that reaches light speed actually becomes light, that would violate a lot of chemical laws (namely, the law of definite proportions and the conservation of mass [photons have no mass]). I explained the answers to your questions in my reply a few blocks up. But you're right on the money about the relative time difference between those 2 clocks. It's a really fascinating idea.

And neutrinos probably have a variable mass. Quantum physics is weird stuff. Different experiments have established various upper limits for the subatomic particle's mass, but it's probably somewhere around .3ev. That's like .3 of 10^-36kg which is wickedly small. But it's still mass. And if it's still mass, it should theoretically be impossible to accelerate it to 10^8m/s. However, remember that e=mc^2. This relates mass, light speed, and energy together. A more controversial interpretation of this equation would lead to a reversible chemical rxn as follows:

E -> mc^2, where energy reacts in a weird sort of decomposition reaction to yield an object's mass as it depends on the square of the velocity of light (read my reply above if that doesn't make sense... an object's mass depends on it's velocity relative to the speed of light). Chemical reactions are usually written in a way that asserts their spontaneity in the forward (left to right) direction if they are not said to be in equilibrium. So in this case, this reaction would be spontaneous as written. Rxn spontaneity relies on various physical properties, such as Gibbs free energy (delta G) and entropy (delta S). An rxn will be spontaneous in the forward direction (and exothermic) if the value for delta G is negative (no input of free energy is required) and delta S is positive (2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy increases).

Now, quantum chemists also assert that chemical rxns are always in some sort of equilibrium state, and this has been proven empirically. This is why no rxn proceeds at 100% efficiency and no rxn percent yield is 100%. For normal values of mass (values with enough mass to be visible, and even less than that), any potential reversibility of this reaction is going to be so minimal that it doesn't matter.

But

What about when the mass of an object is small. Very small. So small that for all practical measures it doesn't exist. Something like 10^-36kg. That's a freakishly small number. The reversibility of this reaction becomes very important in this case, because the quantity of mass is so infinitely small. This is why different experiments have yielded different numbers for the mass of the neutrino and scientists are not looking for it's definite mass, but the upper limit of its mass. This implies that it's mass oscillates... or, mass is reversibly converted to energy.

There are 2 good explanations for why this news story may not invalidate any known theories of physics:

1. The CERN produced conditions during their experiments that favored the conversion of a neutrino's mass to energy. A particle of pure energy travels at the 10^8m/s by definition. If the neutrino didn't travel at light speed under these conditions, that would indicate a serious problem with the Standard Model.

2. There are variables CERN was not aware of or taking in to account that resulted in the neutrino's total conversion in to energy. Essentially they may have "got lucky" and happened to observe the neutrinos when they were pure energy for reasons we are not yet aware of.

If this is all true, there is an incomprehensibly small portion of all matter being inter-converted between mass and energy continuously. It just doesn't matter for practical reasons and is unnoticeable because the inter-converted quantities are freakishly small. And we don't have a scale you can stand on that measures you're weight in the range of 10^-36 kg

 

[Deep Dish]

To quote Phil Plaitt, PhD.,

It’s enormously interesting if it’s right. It’s probably not right. By the latter point I don’t mean to impugn the abilities or honesty of the experimenters, who are by all accounts top-notch people trying to do something very difficult. It’s just a very difficult experiment, and given that the result is so completely contrary to our expectations, it’s much easier at this point to believe there is a hidden glitch than to take it at face value. All that would instantly change, of course, if it were independently verified by another experiment; at that point the gleeful jumping up and down will justifiably commence.

This isn’t one of those annoying “three-sigma” results that sits at the tantalizing boundary of statistical significance. The OPERA folks are claiming a six-sigma deviation from the speed of light. But that doesn’t mean it’s overwhelmingly likely that the result is real; it just means it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that the result is simply a statistical fluctuation. There is another looming source of possible error: a “systematic effect,” i.e. some unknown miscalibration somewhere in the experiment or analysis pipeline. (If you are measuring something incorrectly, it doesn’t matter that you measure it very carefully.) In particular, the mismatch between the expected and observed timing amounts to tens of nanoseconds; but any individual “event” takes the form of a pulse that is spread out over thousands of nanoseconds. Extracting the signal is a matter of using statistics over many such events — a tricky business.

...If this result is true (which is always a possibility), it is much more surprising than the acceleration of the universe, but it’s not as if we don’t already have ways to explain it. The most straightforward idea is to violate Lorentz invariance, a strategy of which I’m quite personally fond (although I’ve never applied the idea to neutrino physics). Lorentz invariance says that everyone measures the speed of light to be the same; if you violate it, it’s easy enough to imagine that someone (like, say, a neutrino) measures something different. Once you buy into that idea, neutrinos are an interesting place to apply the idea, since our constraints on their properties are relatively weak.

http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-neutrinos/

More exotic possibilities as "Graininess in spacetime from quantum gravity might affect the propagation of nearly-massless particles; extra dimensions might provide a shortcut through space," are a "long shot at this time." Never forget the logician's maxim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Creationists are missing a few light bulbs. Whenever science turns on a light bulb, creationists steal it for their own.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Read Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. I'm not here to preach, only to assert that there are actually people who believe in creation who also have an intelligent reason why.

Sure, what do you recommend that I read by Dr. Gerald L. Shroeder?

Real mature.

This coming from a kid who most recently posted crap like this;

hahahahahaha

When a guy was asking for help, in "Think I have an STD..."

And made the "What time does the narwhal bacon?" thread.

You can lecture me on maturity when you have some yourself. In the meantime, I suggest you keep your comments to yourself, SamTheHobit.