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

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,285 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,176
    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.
     
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  2. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,285 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,176
    Red shift?
     
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  3. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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

    Drone

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,634 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,329
    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. twilyth Guest

    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

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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. :banghead:
     
  8. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,585 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,214
    This dude from Ars summed it up perfectly:

     
  9. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,854 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,559
    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

    Wyverex

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    282 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Not exactly. The mass doesn't change. The momentum [​IMG] changes when approaching light speed. Relativistic momentum is [​IMG] 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

    Drone

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,634 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,329
    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

    Wyverex

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    282 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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 ;) )

    A *better* link, imho:
    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 :D

    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

    r9

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,144 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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 :D.
     
  14. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,854 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,559
    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

    Drone

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,634 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,329

    *shrug* whatever rocks your socks if you ignore relativistic mass variation equation lol
     
  16. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,854 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,559
    finished watching the webcast, impressive how much engineering went into this, looking forward to find out where the discrepancy is coming from
     
  17. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
  18. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,854 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,559
    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

    Jack Doph

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    508 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    or maybe c has changed now. XD
     
  21. Horrux

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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

    Wyverex

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    282 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Of course I play games, what do you think why am I on TPU? :laugh:

    :toast:
     
  23. streetfighter 2

    streetfighter 2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,658 (1.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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_Ish

    The_Ish New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    328 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    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? :confused:
     
  25. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,854 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,559
    obviously i meant the speed of light in a vacuum, sorry for not indicating that
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page