Told you it's possible to go faster than the speed of light
Comments
-
My understanding of it is that mass increases exponentially as matter reaches the speed of light, thus preventing that speed being exceeded. What's happened here is that neutrinos have been fired round the collider tool and have arrived back sooner than expected, albeit by only a small number of milliseconds over the 700+km journey.
So either the maximum possible speed [constant] that we know as the speed of light is wrong, or the speed that light travels at isn't the fastest possible speed, ergo the speed of light is not the speed that light travels at, it's the speed that these neutrinos travel at which is just a bit quicker than light (think of DDD as the speed of light cos he's awesome, and me as the neutrino cos I won't be beaten by some savverner right).
Easy. We've just found a new definition for the speed of light - it's the speed of neutrinos.0 -
Keith1983 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:If things can travel faster than light then theoretically time travel should be possible - however I don't think its time to ditch Einsteins just yet - remember what happened to fusion technology
Time travel is not possible, people tend to confuse the term when science has only really got credible theories for looking into the past, not for travelling to and from it.
Note - I said theoretically - at the moment only subatomic particles are involved0 -
As a person approaches the speed of light, time appears to realatively slow down. For example, if a person heads off on a rocket sip for a 1 year travers of space, on his return, although 1 year has past for him, on earth more time will have past, therefore the illusion that he has travelled in time.
Tonight I will travel at the speed of light (well at the speed of my lights) up Maryhill Road, and I will appear to have travelled back in time to a land of neanderthal's (residents of Maryhill) and wandering hordes of hunter gatherer's."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
JonGinge loves the CoxPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Thing is, if carbon frames can't handle water, they definitely can't handle breaking the speed limit of the universe. You'll need a steel frame, I'll be bound.
You might as well chuck Karen in a skip, DDD.- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
In terms of current real-world applications, then assuming this result is correct, there will not be any differences.
Think of it like Newtonian mechanics. For working out most real world problems, Newtonian mechanics is a good enough approximation, even though it's not *entirely* accurate. It breaks down on very small scales (quantum mechanics) and at very high speeds (relativity), but for most human endeavour, Newtonian mechanics is still king.
Our main application of relativity at the moment is GPS. If relativity is proven to not be strictly accurate under all circumstances, as Newtonian mechanics was, that doesn't mean that the GPS satellites are going to suddenly drop from the sky or that your Garmins are going to start failing. Our current understanding of relativity is clearly good enough for the applications which we have for it. IF the result is confirmed, then it opens the door for possible refinements, and maybe technology which was previously thought impossible.
As has been said, the result needs to be repeated elsewhere in the world, using completely different equipment, to try to eliminate any systematic errors. This would be an excellent example of an experiment to attempt in space, where there's the possibility of setting up the experiment over a very long range without much of anything in the way.
As a current physics student, I'm excited. If it's correct, I get to be on the forefront of some of the most massive changes in physics ever. If not, well, no bother.0 -
Personally I think we should be more concerned with the potential reversion of the Earth's magnetic field than the unverified behaviour of subatomic particles0
-
I understand everything travels at the same speed, but different speeds through space and time.
Photons are massless, so they travel through space at the speed of light but don't travel through time.
Something with mass travels through spacetime at the speed of light, but space slower at the speed of light through space and faster through time, hence it experiences time
Something travelling faster than light either has a negative mass, or is travelling backward through time, or doing something else,
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 60731.html
I like the idea that the speed of light is not the fastest thing in the universe, the speed of neutrinos is, but then that means giving photon's a mass we can't detect for some reason, maybe they have mass in a dimension we can't observe?0 -
Time is relative - dependent on speed - the faster you go the slower time passes - in theory the amount of energy required to travel faster than light is greater than all the energy contained in the universe - however as neutrinos have no mass presumably they are an exception0
-
Neutrinos DO have mass, though very tiny. That's the problem. It's already known as a flaw in the standard model, but they seem to be pointing at a flaw in relativity as well.Jay dubbleU wrote:Time is relative - dependent on speed - the faster you go the slower time passes - in theory the amount of energy required to travel faster than light is greater than all the energy contained in the universe - however as neutrinos have no mass presumably they are an exception0 -
I stand corrected - of course it's their electrical neutrality that allows them to pass through objects - nothing to do with mass0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:Remember, Columbus challenged the notion that the World wasn't flat. Up until that point all the World leading smart folk of the time thought he was wrong and they were taught that the World was flat.
Dude,
Columbus !?!!! Extracted from the internetz
the Greeks knew the world was a sphere from around 450 BC by observing the earths shadow on the moon.
Copernicus had even proved it mathematically (even with a close estimate to the size of the earth), and by 1492, the middle of the Renaissance...people even had GLOBES in their homes!
Columbus didn't prove anything! He "discovered " a land that was ALREADY POPULATED....and he thought he was in INDIA...now, I've been lost before...But HALF a planet away is about as lost as you can get!!
The whole idea that Columbus "proved" the world was round is fiction...written in the 1700's by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus. He didn't have many facts...so, to make the story more "dramatic" he literally MADE IT UP!
Irving was by far the most popular writer of his time...his stories (Rip Van Winkle...The Legend of Sleepy Hollow...etc)
are still told today. His stories were so popular that somehow they made their way into history books as "fact" for many years.
I hope this answers your question and puts the whole idea that Columbus was a great person to rest!
Anyhow seeing as all matter is made up of quarks and for every quark there is an anti quark (in theory) does this mean I could meet an anti me?
If so would it be like an evil version like off of that episode of Star Trek.0 -
1. Not all matter is made of quarksweedy1 wrote:Anyhow seeing as all matter is made up of quarks and for every quark there is an anti quark (in theory) does this mean I could meet an anti me?
If so would it be like an evil version like off of that episode of Star Trek.
2. Not every matter particle has an anti-particle twin0 -
KK ima learn all the t1m3.0
