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]

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.

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.

[pinballwizard79]

Whatev

The expansion of our universe & everything in it (even my Cruis'n World arcade) currently outpaces light speed (relative to what is unknown) so obviouisly there are laws FROM other dimensions that influence ours.

We try to put rules & theories of how it all works or might work but at the end of the day we are here, not there, so its all for nothing.

Do you think CERN can build a working Star Wars controller & actually ship it?

[SuprSprint]

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.

I tend to agree.  The odds of an error in one experiment vs. the odds of a consistent error in all experimental data to date is significant. After all, experimentally measuring and calculating "c" is one of the first experiments done by a freshman physics student. My gut says additional energy or time dilation was not accounted for somewhere.

That said, it is not at all impossible that c is indeed variable but appears constant for our frame of reference. Once upon a time, we thought time was invariant....

[vcoleiro1]

Hopefully this will open the door for time travel so that you may one day travel back in time to your favourite arcade. Once there you will be able to shock and awe everyone with your amazing arcade gaming skills which unknown to them would have been gathered by you in there future.

[Crazy Cooter]

it could also be indicative of space warping so the neutrinos travelled AT the speed of light but travelled less distance than what our frame of reference (and our measuring points to calculate their speed) physically measured.

(think of contour lines and imagine a Doppler effect that the neutrino travels across but we are unable to measure/detect)

[Donkbaca]

What if WE all slowed down! Whoa! Pass the bong!

[pinballwizard79]

I'm starvin

http://www.chebahut.com/menu.html

[Gatt]

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.

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.

Ah,  but we have made assumptions,  a great many of them.  We're assuming that we can see and/or measure everything that affects particles.  We state that "Nothing can move faster than light" because we're assuming we have all of the components of the equation,  and that it's not at all possible that there's anything in existance that could affect our equations that we are not aware of.  

We even have strong indicators that we are missing key pieces of equations,  we created "Dark matter" and "Dark Energy" to try and kludge in something to fit the results we think we should have,  rather than accepting that there's probably stuff we don't know of.  In no small part due to ego that drives us to refuse to admit there can be anything we don't understand.

There's no reason why there cannot be some things we are not aware of that have significant effects.  In fact,  to be honest,  it's *very* highly likely there are.  Because all of our efforts are focused on controlling and contemplating things that fall within our realm of senses,  that we may be akin to blind-cavefish,  lacking a sense to perceive an entire realm of physics,  never gets explored.

I mean,  2,000 years ago an Alchemist would've told you we knew everything there was to know about fire.  The idea of Oxygen,  Carbon Dioxide,  and Hydrogen would've been "Insane" to him.  Strike the stones together,  get fire every time.  It was reproducible.

[Donkbaca]

You would be right, it weren't for the fact that we can mathematically prove these assumptions and use them to predict real world outcomes, like nuclear energy.  Its possible we missed something consistently in the literally millions of applications in this theory. Or it's possible that this ONE expirenent is flawed. It just seems the later is more likely.

As for me I am rooting for the,"we are all slowing down " theory that I posted earlier. Who's on my bandwagon? I say we take that bandwagon to 7-11 for slurpees and doritos, then join up and herbally meditate some more

[HaRuMaN]

[Malenko]

"I pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in spaaaaaaaaaaccceeeeeee.....



cause I'm afraid that we've been cheated here on Earth."

[RayB]

It's incredibly complex but I'm sure the people involved have thought of the obvious things, like rotation of the earth on its own axis and around the sun. Think about it, neutrinos pass through most matter, but the emitter and the receiving sensor are both stationary and moving with the earth. Once the neutrino is "launched", the position of the receiver is not a straight line, but a curve to account for it moving with the planet's axis and its orbit around the sun AND the solar system's movement within the galaxy AND....  That's quite the complex equation so I am in the "there's been a calculation error somewhere" camp.

[Vigo]

Neutrinos, huh? So those hot rodding teenagers from Dimension X in the 80's TMNT cartoon broke the speed of light?

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

Hmm.. So the earth revolves around the sun at 28.9 km/sec, or  28.9 m/ms...

From Phil Plait:

The distance from the detector in Italy to the source in Geneva is about 730 km. The travel time at the speed of light is about 2.43 milliseconds, and the neutrinos appear to have outraced that speed by 60 nanoseconds.

The thing to do is to look at where this claim might have gone awry. First, the timing is interesting. They claim a measuring accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, so 60 ns would be pretty significant. However, my first thought is that light travels about 30 centimeters in 1 ns, so they need to know the distance between the source and the detector to an accuracy of 3 meters. If they are off by 20 meters, then we’re done; that would explain the difference entirely. I suppose this depends on how they measured the distance and the speed of the particles, too.

So the earth moved somewhere around around 70.2 meters in the period of time it took for the particles to travel the 730km. I'm guessing for that much movement, the neutrinos must have the velocity in that direction added to by the movement of the earth, wouldn't it miss the detector, otherwise?

[Mikezilla]

Neutrinos, huh? So those hot rodding teenagers from Dimension X in the 80's TMNT cartoon broke the speed of light?

HAHAHA I was waiting for someone to mention this! I was going to have to do it myself, if good ol Vigo didnt do it before me! Good job! 

[Sir Headless VII]

Sounds like a bunch of unicorn farts or something to me.

Shame to see educated people waste so much time studying things that will do absolutely nothing to improve our situation in the real world.

It's true science has never produced anything useful.

[Vigo]

HAHAHA I was waiting for someone to mention this! I was going to have to do it myself, if good ol Vigo didnt do it before me! Good job! 

You can count on me for that 80's reference, especially the TMNT references. 

[SuprSprint]

@Gatt - I'm not sure you could be more wrong.  True science is not only aware of variables beyond their control, it actively seeks to isolate and understand them. Take this experiment for example. The scientists involved are challenging the validity of a constant that has remained unassailed for over 100 years. They have published their findings are are actively soliciting scrutiny.

Regarding dark matter, that's not a kludge, it's a placeholder for an unknown/unobservable quantity (i.e. "dark").  It is not an attempt to ignore the unknown, but to acknowledge, quantify, and speculate what it it and how it affects the known.

For that matter, the entire LHC project exists solely for the purpose of probing for the unknown.

As for science not producing anything useful, I would suggest you open up the computer you are typing on and look at the CPU chip for awhile. Without science, semiconductors don't exist.

Once the neutrino is "launched", the position of the receiver is not a straight line, but a curve to account for it moving with the planet's axis and its orbit around the sun AND the solar system's movement within the galaxy AND....

Not unlike the electron beam in your CRT, the neutrino beam is guided to the target by man-made magnetic field. The effect of external forces is accounted for, but for all practical purposes the movement is one dimensional.



 

[Samstag]

</obligatory xkcd>

[SuprSprint]

Dark matter exists only because scientists all took the bait on "big bang" and didn't want to admit they were wrong as soon as the red shift data came back.

They were calling it "ether" 100 years ago.  Just as nonsensical.

Clearly you have the answers, so why don't you share your explanation with us? Perhaps you could even provide us with the word you use for these unknown quantities, so the rest of us will no longer sound "nonsensical".

That is unless you just wanted to thread crap...

[ark_ader]

Dark matter exists only because scientists all took the bait on "big bang" and didn't want to admit they were wrong as soon as the red shift data came back.

They were calling it "ether" 100 years ago.  Just as nonsensical.

Clearly you have the answers, so why don't you share your explanation with us? Perhaps you could even provide us with the word you use for these unknown quantities, so the rest of us will no longer sound "nonsensical". That is unless you just wanted to thread crap.

 

[Vigo]

I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.

[scofthe7seas]

Clearly you have the answers, so why don't you share your explanation with us? Perhaps you could even provide us with the word you use for these unknown quantities, so the rest of us will no longer sound "nonsensical".

That is unless you just wanted to thread crap...

He's not saying he has the answers, he's just saying that they don't have the answers yet. And I agree. So many scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact. It annoys the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of me when someone uses scientific theory to "prove" a point.

[SuprSprint]

I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.

Sorry, but your reply shows a marked lack of knowledge of the theories in question, the process, and the scientific method itself. But for reference;

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

So many scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact. It annoys the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of me when someone uses scientific theory to "prove" a point.

Like the Theory of Gravity, quantum mechanics, etc...

[Donkbaca]

I don't remember no dark matter being talked about in the good book!

[SuprSprint]

I don't remember no dark matter being talked about in the good book!

True. But it didn't mention color TV and microwave ovens either and I'm pretty sure they exist...

[Dervacumen]

Sounds to me like another example of the whole of science not being a perfect representation of actuality.  I mean, as a whole we're trying to make sense of the world around us and we construct these theories, test them and move on based on the result of the results.  Science isn't right or wrong, but it's undoubtedly the best thing we have going.  It just isn't perfect.  Philosophically speaking, you can never prove anything in science to be right anyway, only wrong.  And maybe this experiment proved the famous equation wrong.  Maybe there's another variable in there that holds the value zero in almost all instances.  Except this one.  But I'm kinda with Donk on this.  I think we had a crossover of different planes of existence at the exact moment the speed was attained.

[Vigo]

I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.

Sorry, but your reply shows a marked lack of knowledge of the theories in question, the process, and the scientific method itself. But for reference;

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Your unnecessary jabs on me aside, I was really thinking that I might have missed something about dark matter when I read the title of this article you posted, especially considering the source was NASA. Maybe real direct proof of dark matter did exist. The article was over six years olds, and I remember reading about scientist trying to directly prove dark matter this year with no luck.

I then read the article and found it much more presumptive and faulty than the speed of light article. In short, the article is a NASA scientist claiming they proved dark matter because they observe a star cluster collision in space and it didn't collide the way they expected it to. They then turned that into "well, if there was dark matter there, that would probably explain why it acted that way. Zero proof, zero emperical data, just a hypothesis. A great example about how even "top scientists" abuse the scientific method. At least the speed of light article had empirical data backing it, even if that data could be wrong.

Also, I think you don't know the difference between dark matter theory and dark matter itself. Some form of matter that fits into the dark matter category exists. Neutrinos. We know they exist, but they do nothing to prove dark matter theory, that over 80-90 of the matter in the universe is composed of dark matter. The big bang theory was 80-90% off in its calculations, so they filled the mass end of the equation. Neutrinos are far too light in mass to be real candidates of the dark matter that would fill the equation.

[SuprSprint]

Your unnecessary jabs on me aside

I'm sorry you took it that way. It wasn't intended as a jab, but an observation based on some of your comments.

I think you don't know the difference between dark matter theory and dark matter itself.

The Georgia Institute of Technology does not agree with your assessment.

[danny_galaga]

Sounds like a bunch of unicorn farts or something to me.

Shame to see educated people waste so much time studying things that will do absolutely nothing to improve our situation in the real world.

It's true science has never produced anything useful.

Has anyone else read Timescape, by Gregory Benford. Now we can warn the past about heinous wrongs in the present, like Crocs

[SuprSprint]

Sounds to me like another example of the whole of science not being a perfect representation of actuality...

Exactly.  Science itself is the neverending quest for the perfect representation. Even 1000yrs from now, it will not be "complete".

I think we had a crossover of different planes of existence at the exact moment the speed was attained.

You don't even have to get that fancy.  You can change reference frames without changing dimensions.  As such, simple velocity dependent time dilation or spatial warping will satisfy the solution and maintain a constant C.

There's no monetary value in this discovery and millions are still dying from malaria.

Agree and disagree. That there is no value, disagree.  That it is a crying shame that we spend BILLIONS on political footballs, while just a few millions would saves countless lives from malaria, cholera, etc. is an travesty of criminal magnitude.

[Howard_Casto]

There's no monetary value in this discovery

Your point? 


It annoys the hell out of me when people want to put a price on everything.  Most things, the really important things, need to be done regardless of the cost. 

And it's a sad thing because a lot of people in the world today share this rather small, short-sighted view of the world. 

It is the reason our country is so politically divided anymore.

 Half of the country says:  "Man we have some serious social, environmental and economic issues that need tended to.  We should really buckle down and start writing policy to handle these things." 

While the other half says:  "Even though a fool could see that these problems are a reality, we have discovered that fixing these problems would cost a lot of money.  Therefore we will argue that they don't exist... ignoring reality."


Getting back on topic:

We cross over planes of existance daily.  100% of all possible realities are valid, as this is the only way to avoid the "grandfather paradox."  Therefore at the point before action of any maniplulation of our environment, either direct or indirect we are at the threshold of an infinate divergance of timelines.  Each timeline represents the possible actions and a whole mathmatical cascade of piled-on cause and effect realities.  Based on the action that actually occurs (in our reality anyway) we seamlessly pass through into the proper causality branch. 

This happens an infinate amount of times every smallest quantifiable passage of time. 

So in a sense we are all "sliders".  That means that in a sense I am Jerry O'Connell.  So I really need to get on the phone with my lawyer about those missing "My Secret Identity" royalities. 

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

[scofthe7seas]

Like the Theory of Gravity, quantum mechanics, etc...

Did you really just put the theory of Gravity(sic) next to the theory of quantum mechanics?

[SuprSprint]

Did you really just put the theory of Gravity(sic) next to the theory of quantum mechanics?

Yes, and your point is?

[scofthe7seas]

Did you really just put the theory of Gravity(sic) next to the theory of quantum mechanics?

Yes, and your point is?

You really really don't think they are different?

What with one being consistently proven and established, and the other being constantly modified, redefined, refined, and reexamined? No difference there?

Richard Feynman -  "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."