Balpin Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236 The fact that things can travel faster than light has been been shown once, and now proven. Where does this leave Dr Einstien? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Dead and buried quite some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 This just proves the existence of God. He let us mortals get on with it and now he is having a laugh. We thought we had a terminal velocity and then he goes and maxes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236 The fact that things can travel faster than light has been been shown once, and now proven. Where does this leave Dr Einstien? Bizarre isn't it? The forum's physicist's have been pretty sceptical up to now at least. I sneakily hope the standard model is broken, that would amuse me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 One Mr Jim Al-kalili is probably regretting a statement he made when the first experiment posed the existance of faster-than-light neutrinos ""So let me put my money where my mouth is: if the Cern experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 One Mr Jim Al-kalili is probably regretting a statement he made when the first experiment posed the existance of faster-than-light neutrinos ""So let me put my money where my mouth is: if the Cern experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV." I thought you were peeing up the collective forum member's back but... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034414 With tommy sauce ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Bizarre isn't it? The forum's physicist's have been pretty sceptical up to now at least. The people running the experiment are sceptical. They still expect to find some other explanation, than that the speed of limit is not constant regardless of the speed of the observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 The speed of light is probably approximate and since these relate to nth of a second, claims that the speed barrier is broken seems quite a bizarre story in the least. It'll turn out to be some oik desperate to make a name for himself and get his ugly mug in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Bizarre isn't it? The forum's physicist's have been pretty sceptical up to now at least. I sneakily hope the standard model is broken, that would amuse me. The Standard Model is the collection of fundamental particles that provide the fundamental building blocks of matter. This experiment cannot 'break' it; in fact, it can only be altered by addition of other particles or the discovery that some particles which make it up are not fundamental. Einstein postulated that the speed of light cannot be broken in the space/time dimension. We cannot rule out these neutrinos entering another dimension on their journey where the speed of light is significantly higher and then re-entering the space/time dimension at their destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236 The fact that things can travel faster than light has been been shown once, and now proven. Not quite. They got the same result with the same measuring equipment. Maybe the equipment is faulty or wrongly calibrated. One of the theories for the discrepancy put forward by someone at the University of Groningen is that an over-reliance on the GPS system to synchronize the clocks at either end of the experiment has led to some incorrect assumptions about whether they are synchronized or not. The new experiment seems to have done nothing to address this but the following approach could be used to confirm (or refute) this, assuming atomic clocks can be practically transported. 1. Bring two atomic clocks together at the starting site for the neutrinos and synchronize them 2. Transport one of the clocks to the second site. If the route (including velocity) is known any relativistic effects due to relative motion could be accounted for. You'd also need to account for differing gravity along the route and at the destination as this could also effect the tick rate (so probably not a good idea to transport the clock by air!) If done properly this would give you two clocks that actually are synchronized (accounting for the effects above) and it would be possible to eliminate any systematic effects from the use of the GPS system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.