Speed of light broken?

[Web moderator]

CERN in Switzerland released in the last few days that they broke the speed of light with a neutrino particle. The particle was apparently 60 nanoseconds faster than light over the 467 mile test.

So...if this is true, there goes relativity, most of Newton's Laws and countless other parts of physics.

Do a Google and you'll find more...

"So...if this is true, there goes relativity, most of Newton's Laws and countless other parts of physics."
Which to me is but another example of the evolution of humankind's continuing process of adapting to new knowledge. I believe it to be supreme arrogance that we believe that we have a complete understanding of most things. Thank goodness (for the most part) that we continue to question and quest.truenorth

CERN in Switzerland released in the last few days that they broke the speed of light with a neutrino particle. The particle was apparently 60 nanoseconds faster than light over the 467 mile test.

So...if this is true, there goes relativity, most of Newton's Laws and countless other parts of physics.

Do a Google and you'll find more...

Neutrino's have zero mass, which means their mass doesn't increase the closer to the speed of light they go. the "impossibility" of a normal, massed object reaching the speed of light is based on the fact that the closer to the speed of light they go, the greater their mass becomes, asymptotically, so the thought is that it would require infinite energy to reach the speed of light. With a zero-mass object, though, that premise doesn't hold true.

Newton's laws were replaced by Einsteins, in a manner of speaking.

That is, Newtons laws still hold true in simpler circumstances and it's easier to work with those formulae to approximate physical phenomena; as with any theory, there is usually an abberation, and Newton himself acknowledged that his formula's essentially break when dealing with large mass objects. That was the case for Mercury's changing perihelion, which Newtonian physics couldn't predict.

Einsteins theories were a refinement; they were, to simplify, to Newtons formulae as The Cosine Law is to Pythagoras; that is, the Pythagorean theorem is really just a specific subset of the Cosine Law that applies only to right triangles, whereas the Cosine Law applies to all triangles. This is possible because part of the Cosine Law becomes 0 when a right-triangle is involved, and thus redundant.

In a similar fashion, new scientific theories are built upon the older, finding those bits and bobs that don't work out. I don't think this case has really done that though, being that nuetrino's have no mass, they are themselves a special case with regard to the formula which make a heavy use of object mass.

CERN in Switzerland released in the last few days that they broke the speed of light with a neutrino particle.

They didn't say that. They plan to... "investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results."

This is the group of physicists, together, stating that they don’t know how they came to a result that shows neutrinos apparently exceeding the speed of light. They are not drawing any conclusions and are simply providing the finding and the methods used to obtain the finding. They are trying to find where there could be errors in their measurements. They do not claim that the neutrinos are actually exceeding the speed of light, only that the measurements to date show something unexpected. They are reaching out to the high-energy physics community to improve the experiment and data analysis. They are not looking to fundamentally change physics but to ensure that they are producing sound data. We may find that nothing comes of this. We may find that there is an effect known in physics that accounts for the difference. We may find that neutrinos are capable of moving slightly faster than the speed of light. It is simply too early to make definitive, wide-reaching conclusions.

By the way, the plural of neutrino is neutrinos. No apostrophe.

What many are overlooking, however, is that acceleration may not be necessary. According to Amir D. Aczel, a researcher at the Center for the Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, the possibility exists that neutrinos are in fact part of the hypothetical group of particles called tachyons, which travel at speeds faster than that of light. If this is so, then it would carry with it its own set of ground-shaking implications - such as the conceptualization of mass and even the possibility of time travel - but would leave the Special Theory of Relativity intact.

http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/222081/20110929/faster-than-light-neutrinos-would-not-necessarily-prove-einstein-wrong-cern-theory-e-mc2-special-the.htm

Wouldn't it be easier to just conceptualize that mass is energy, just in a different form? That there is only one universal force at work in the universe and the many "different" forces we see are merely different manifestations of this singular force?

There's a theory for you. Ready to be proven or disproven. The fact that we as a species are not only willing to change our understanding, but also to actively pursue it, speaks volumes.

"Science fiction" can rapidly turn into more science than fiction, as seen from the beginning of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century. At the beginning of the 20th century, things like powered flight, space travel, computers, the concept of the assembly line, even motion pictures were all non-existant. The power of the atom was still a mystery to humankind, and electricity was just starting to see widespread use. At the beginning of the 20th century, a face-to-face meeting between a person living in India and a person living in the United States would have taken the better part of a month to accomplish. Now, through VTC it can literally happen within 30 seconds.

If we have come so far, so fast up to this point, what's to say we won't continue to do so. To propose theories, to prove them, find new information, disprove our own theories, then come up with new theories to prove. Our knowledge is evolving, and I won't be satisfied personally until I'm Captain of the Starship Enterprise.

I don't believe it. This is like the cold fusion fad that went around years ago.

At the beginning of the 20th century, things like powered flight, space travel, computers, the concept of the assembly line, even motion pictures were all non-existant.

The first motion picture camera was made in the 19th century with a concept that began in the 1860s.

There is a lot to this experiment they did. Nothing can go the speed of light, they say, but isn't a neutrino something? Or does it qualify as nothing because it has zero mass?

[Web moderator]

Well, technically it doesn't have "zero" mass, it has close to zero mass. There is a big difference.

Well, technically it doesn't have "zero" mass, it has close to zero mass. There is a big difference.

Yeah, I looked that up now. haha

Small, but not zero mass. So it has some mass, however minute, and it may have broken the speed of light. There is no definite answer in this yet. There are several observations they've made that haven't been explained yet.

[Moderator]

I think Einstien is safe for now as many leaders in the science community are already questioning the results and measurement accuracies...

[Web moderator]

I think Einstien is safe for now as many leaders in the science community are already questioning the results and measurement accuracies...

Yeah, for now anyway. As regards accuracies, I think they covered everything in that regard. They factored in the rotation of the earth, they even stopped any traffic which may have been driving above the underground system!

Of course you mean TODAY'S "everything" when you say "I think they covered everything". Tomorrows everything may be quite different and of course next weeks everything might be substantially different again. As we evolve our "knowledge" through investigation and experience today's knowledge is but a step.truenorth

[Moderator]

There are questions on both the distance...and time calculations made...i'd guess those are both kinda critical to the results...

Also, even if it proves to have been the case, it doesn't mean all other physics (or relativity) get thrown out the window. After all, technically, Einsteins theories replaced Newtons, and we still use those (because they are simpler), or how we'll use Pythagoras for right-triangles rather than the Cosine Law. All it means is that there is a "better" theory yet to be conceived, which we were already pretty sure of anyway. Theories are almost never replaced- only refined.

Nothing can go the speed of light

Photons... And Photons have mass, too. They just have zero rest mass. So do neutrinos. It's the "going faster than light" thing that has scientists debating.

[Moderator]

Theories are almost never replaced- only refined.

Good point...

Euclidian Geometry was written before "zero" was a math concept...

There are questions on both the distance...and time calculations made...i'd guess those are both kinda critical to the results...

Yes, and this has been talked about long before this. Without accurate verifiable data, any theory could fit the bad data.

In science, data that contradicts basic laws can not be trusted.
An single object can not be in two places at the same time.
Or, two injects that are in separate locations can not share the same mass.
No object can have zero mass.

The behavior of sub-atomic particles has not been verified. When and if that can be done is not yet known. One might suppose that someday that might be done. But past success in finding answers does not guarantee the possibility of rational anders to the remaining questions in atomic physics. How can one be sure that a question is a valid question?

What is the size of space?
What is the mass of emptiness?
What is the least non-zero quality of anything we measure?
How precisely can time be divided into units? Is the a limit?
What is beyond the edge of the Universe?
What was there before the the Big Bang?

The above questions may not be valid questions. In may not be possible to prove any or all of them invalid. Much, if not all, of our understanding is by observation.
Unless you include dreams.

One writer woke up in the night a wrote a profound idea on his notepad. He went back to sleep and forgot about it. Until later he saw it and read:
"The whole Universe reeks of the smell of kerosene."

[Moderator]

In science, data that contradicts basic laws can not be trusted.
An single object can not be in two places at the same time.
Or, two injects that are in separate locations can not share the same mass.
No object can have zero mass.

This is the only part i believe i can agree on...

Carry on...