1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by WhiteLotus, Sep 22, 2011.

1. Steevo

Joined:
Nov 4, 2005
Messages:
8,797 (2.53/day)
1,509
Exactly how hey have made electrons disappear into another dimension, their energy/mass state was such they moved to the next dimension, and if in that dimension our universe is folded in on itself the distance would be much shorter, or allows for instantaneous propagation of state the outcome would be allowed.

I believe it has already been decided that at a singularity event where there is no time or laws yet created faster than light speed would have occurred.

2. Steevo

Joined:
Nov 4, 2005
Messages:
8,797 (2.53/day)
1,509
Red shift?

3. BenetanegiaNew Member

Joined:
Sep 11, 2009
Messages:
2,683 (1.30/day)
694
Location:
I'm saying that neutrinos may oscilate between our universe and another one or various others. It's only during the phase in which they are in our universe when they can travel at speed of light, in the other universe they may travel faster.

Following my example of the sphere, imagine that our universe has an r = 5, and thus 5 == "speed of light". This willnecessarily be true in the entire surface of the sphere, our sphere, "our universe" but there are seemingly an infinite ammount of other spheres with different radius, if neutrinos can oscilate between r=5 and r=4, if their linear speed is the same, in r = 4 they will travel faster, their angular speed will be faster. When they bounce back to r= 5 they would have traveled farther (greater angle) than they would on r=5.

4. Horrux

Joined:
Jun 2, 2011
Messages:
737 (0.51/day)
124
Yeah but you can change the color of the marble from black to white and vice-versa. Or, in reality, the spin of an electron from left to right. By doing so, the other electron follows, and data can be transmitted. For real.

Yes, that is most likely what was observed as "discontinuous movement", where a particle "skips" parts of space getting somewhere. Adding the skips to the distance would make the particle APPEAR to move faster than it is actually moving. At least in OUR universe. I agree.

5. Drone

Joined:
Sep 1, 2010
Messages:
3,125 (1.83/day)
2,062
String theory says that there're 10D. Before big bang all ten dimensions were equal but after that when universe started to expand our 3 dimensions have grown while other 7 haven't. Neutrino is just like wimps can be only affected by weak interaction and gravity. Electromagnetic interaction doesn't affect it, hence neutrino can't ever be seen. So I think that's not impossible if neutrino (any kind of it) can exceed the speed of light or even sneak into those inaccessable dimensions.

6. twilythGuest

Doesn't relativity just say you can never travel AT the speed of light? I didn't think there was any prohibition against traveling faster. I think every one assumes that since they figure that the only way to go faster is to accelerate through light speed, but if you can somehow jump to superluminal speeds, that wouldn't be an issue.

7. Horrux

Joined:
Jun 2, 2011
Messages:
737 (0.51/day)
124
It says if you were to accelerate a solid object to the speed of light, its mass would become infinite. Which poses a problem for acceleration, of course. But there is also evidence that the void between atoms and subatomic wave-ticles also has an infinite mass, which renders the whole thing somewhat puzzling.

8. FrickFishfaced Nincompoop

Joined:
Feb 27, 2006
Messages:
11,201 (3.34/day)
2,654
This dude from Ars summed it up perfectly:

Joined:
May 14, 2004
Messages:
15,334 (3.82/day)
12,515
webcast is up, gogo watch

yes, the magical box has a button that changes the color of the marble inside from one to the other as long as it hasn't been opened.

10. Wyverex

Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
Messages:
282 (0.14/day)
80
Location:
Zagreb, Croatia
Not exactly. The mass doesn't change. The momentum changes when approaching light speed. Relativistic momentum is and although it looks like the mass is changing, it really is (only) the momentum.
I know it looks that both is the same thing, but there is a fine difference between the two.

Horrux says thanks.
11. Drone

Joined:
Sep 1, 2010
Messages:
3,125 (1.83/day)
2,062
In special relativity everything changes

Mass increase, length contraction and time dilation.

http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/sreq.html

The most famous is time dilation. So if your vehicle's velocity is ~c and you move inside that vehicle you can't exceed the speed of light because time will slow down. But for (sub)particles it's not impossible. In quantum world everything is different

12. Wyverex

Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
Messages:
282 (0.14/day)
80
Location:
Zagreb, Croatia
From what I was thought, that's just a pop-science simplification.

When you have p_relativistic = gamma * m * v, it is easy to conclude that p_relativistic = m_relativistic * v, but that's not exactly the proper physics. It should actually be p_rel = gamma * p

I actually had to know all this for my exams (physics major at Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb )

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

EDIT: a quote from University Physics (12th Edition)
Needless to say, ALL of my teachers hated the term

The reason why some/most scientists do not like the term "relativistic mass" is because it just doesn't work (as it should).
For example, the kinetic energy of a particle is NOT K_rel = 1/2 m_rel * v^2

Last edited: Sep 24, 2011
13. r9

Joined:
Jul 28, 2008
Messages:
2,144 (0.87/day)
284
Could it be that the particle was so fast that tempered with the time ? Maybe if the particle was even faster it could arrive even before it was launched. Little scifi .

Joined:
May 14, 2004
Messages:
15,334 (3.82/day)
12,515
if the particle travelled faster than light, then that enables time travel, which enables all sorts of causality violations, which could end up invalidating free will, which is why the scientists say "help us spot our mistake"

15. Drone

Joined:
Sep 1, 2010
Messages:
3,125 (1.83/day)
2,062

*shrug* whatever rocks your socks if you ignore relativistic mass variation equation lol

Joined:
May 14, 2004
Messages:
15,334 (3.82/day)
12,515
finished watching the webcast, impressive how much engineering went into this, looking forward to find out where the discrepancy is coming from

17. BenetanegiaNew Member

Joined:
Sep 11, 2009
Messages:
2,683 (1.30/day)
694
Location:
I just read a comment on another site that's making a lot of sense to me, because how simple and stupid it is: is it c (universal constant) really the speed of light that we have measured? c (in relativity) is the maximum speed at which any non-massive particle travels in vacuum. So it's always been correlated to speed of light, but did we ever measured just that really? I mean yeah, a photon is a non-massive particle, but is vacuum really empty? Now, we know it's not (kinda). Could be virtual particles slowing down light in "vacuum", but since neutrinos interact a lot less they are not being slowed down (as much)? Do we have a way to even know that if we cannot ever create absolute emptiness?

Horrux says thanks.

Joined:
May 14, 2004
Messages:
15,334 (3.82/day)
12,515
very interesting approach.

the problem here again is that the neutrinos and the light from supernova 1987a arrived at the same time, suggesting over ~200k light years there is no significant difference in speed between those two.

19. Jack Doph

Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
Messages:
508 (0.33/day)
109
Location:
Upright down-under (Brisbane, Australia)
Isn't *any* difference a significant one though. I mean, I understand that there may be discrepancies in the instruments, but these are the same instruments used for the measurements, thus the outcomes should be the same?
If there is a flaw somewhere, shouldn't that flaw show up consistently?

20. Horrux

Joined:
Jun 2, 2011
Messages:
737 (0.51/day)
124
or maybe c has changed now. XD

21. Horrux

Joined:
Jun 2, 2011
Messages:
737 (0.51/day)
124
That's actually a lot less counter-intuitive than its mass increasing to the infinite, thanks.

Nice to see a real physicist commenting on this. I have a buddy in Croatia, do you play games?

22. Wyverex

Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
Messages:
282 (0.14/day)
80
Location:
Zagreb, Croatia
Of course I play games, what do you think why am I on TPU?

23. streetfighter 2New Member

Joined:
Jul 26, 2010
Messages:
1,658 (0.95/day)
732
Location:
Philly
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant (AFAWK). The speed of light in a medium can be much slower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

24. The_IshNew Member

Joined:
Jan 3, 2011
Messages:
328 (0.21/day)
43
Location:
Sweden
What about warping space time with gravity, wouldn't that make the objects affected move a great distance way faster than the speed of light ever could? And why would something not be able to go faster than the speed of light? Aluminium does not do 200 mph.. Unless you make a motorcycle of out it first. Did they break the speed of aluminum by making a motorcycle?