Main > Everything Else
Faster than light? Someone with a big brain can help?
drawfull:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-by-scientists.html
If this is verified (as I said)...
newmanfamilyvlogs:
I've read a bit of speculation in the past 20 or so minutes regarding this.. One comment that struck me was the suggestion that instead they have come up with a more refined definition for the speed of light. Most other speculation was measurement inaccuracies in the distance traversed, being that 60ns of lightspeed worked out to something like 30cm, which is around 4.15×10^7% of the total distance.
I'll really be interested when a third party transmits information this way.
SavannahLion:
It's probably just proof of Schrödinger's cat. No laws were broken.
Just a thought. Since they were probably measuring at that precise moment, it probaly registered at that precise moment.
Gatt:
It's not impossible that there's some other factor in play there that is yet undiscovered, and Neutrinos would make sense as an object that would demonstrate the presence of the factor.
Neutrinos, have very low mass, and pass through objects with ease, and are electrically neutral. They're pretty different from the particles we know very well, like electrons and protons.
Conceivably, there could be some other factor that falls outside of our range of senses, that functions as a constant on a macroscopic scale in our atmosphere and under our gravity, but has a different value outside of it. We have very little data, if any real data, outside of the realm of our solar system, and precious little data outside of our planet. We've made alot of assumptions that what holds true here, holds true everywhere. There's no reason the actual equation couldn't be E/X = MC^2 where X is some factor we haven't yet recognized.
Don't get me wrong, Einstein was an unparalleled Genius I wouldn't compare to even if he were sleeping, I'm just saying he made his discoveries based on what we know, and there's no reason there couldn't be a factor that has remained constant in our experiments thus far, but is actually capable of varying. Something outside the realm of our senses, and thus far undiscovered because we haven't had direct inference of it's effect yet.
Donkbaca:
--- Quote ---Conceivably, there could be some other factor that falls outside of our range of senses, that functions as a constant on a macroscopic scale in our atmosphere and under our gravity, but has a different value outside of it. We have very little data, if any real data, outside of the realm of our solar system, and precious little data outside of our planet. We've made alot of assumptions that what holds true here, holds true everywhere. There's no reason the actual equation couldn't be E/X = MC^2 where X is some factor we haven't yet recognized.
--- End quote ---
This is wrong. We have not made "assumptions" we have tested theories, there is a distinction in that. The main reason we believe these things to be true is that these theories can be tested in a predictive nature, the whole "if x then y". There is a great reason why E/X = MC^2, its the fact that if E=MC^2 then we shouldn't be able to control and predict things like nuclear reactions. If there were no universal laws, then science wouldn't be worth studying because then everything would be a special case.
Its likely a measuring error, or something to do with the quantum nature of the particles, I doubt its a fundamental flaw in one of the cornerstones of physics, but hey, you never know.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version