# Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

#### Steevo

I'm pretty sure that our perceived universe/dimensions is/are only a part of the real universe, and only a subset of all the physics laws applies. As an analogy, we live in the surface of an sphere and for us the only x, y and z values that can exist are those that make sense within the sphere -> x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2.

But probably we are not even able to grasp the concept of x, y and z cartessian coordinates since we have measured our world in the polar coordinates of radius and angles (theta and phi).

So light speed might very well be the limit in our subset of the universe, kind of like how only certain values of x, y and z are valid within the surface of the sphere (always =< r). Neutrinos may oscilate not only in the dimensions that we can perceive, but also in one that we don't, its then when it travels faster than light.

I think my example fits kinda well, since we talk about and perceive time and 3 dimensions of space (analogues to r, theta and phi in my example) as separate entities altogether even though relativity very clearly estates that spacetime is a continuum.
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.

#### Steevo

yes, thats the definition of universal law of nature.

nothing prohibits other universes to exist with different physics, but this isnt relevant for our science because per definition we can not test anything outside our universe, hence it is not science but religion, philosophy, <random other term>

if you claim the speed of light (in vacuum) is not constant throughout the universe then that contradicts many observations like cosmic microwave background etc.
Red shift?

#### Benetanegia

##### New Member
yes, thats the definition of universal law of nature.

nothing prohibits other universes to exist with different physics, but this isnt relevant for our science because per definition we can not test anything outside our universe, hence it is not science but religion, philosophy, <random other term>

if you claim the speed of light (in vacuum) is not constant throughout the universe then that contradicts many observations like cosmic microwave background etc.
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.

#### Horrux

you can't use entangled particles for ftl information transfer

let me give an example that serves to illustrate the problem (yes i know it's not perfect):
i have 2 magical boxes with a marble inside each. the marble can be black or white. since the boxes are entangled the marbles inside will always be the same color. you take your box and move away. i open my box and see a black marble -> so _i_ know you have a black marble. if you open your box you see a black marble too, but no information was actually transferred. if you open your box before i do, you see either a black or white marble, and know i will get that color when i open my box. but i dont gain any knowledge from that -> no information transferred
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.

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.
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.

#### Drone

I think my example fits kinda well, since we talk about and perceive time and 3 dimensions of space (analogues to r, theta and phi in my example) as separate entities altogether even though relativity very clearly estates that spacetime is a continuum.
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.

T

#### 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.

#### Horrux

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.
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.

#### Frick

##### Fishfaced Nincompoop
This dude from Ars summed it up perfectly:

Maybe it's a metric versus English screw up.

#### W1zzard

Staff member
webcast is up, gogo watch

Yeah but you can change the color of the marble from black to white and vice-versa
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.

#### Wyverex

It says if you were to accelerate a solid object to the speed of light, its mass would become infinite.
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.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Drone

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

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Wyverex

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)
The use of relativistic mass has its supporters and detractors, some quite strong in their opinions
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:

#### r9

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 .

#### W1zzard

Staff member
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 .
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"

#### Drone

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

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

#### W1zzard

Staff member
finished watching the webcast, impressive how much engineering went into this, looking forward to find out where the discrepancy is coming from

#### Benetanegia

##### New Member
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?

#### W1zzard

Staff member
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.

#### Jack Doph

... there is no significant difference in speed between those two.
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?

#### Horrux

or maybe c has changed now. XD

#### Horrux

Not exactly. The mass doesn't change. The momentum https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/3/b/03bd7352b4e2d7a6ae957ea006521095.png changes when approaching light speed. Relativistic momentum is https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/2/d/d2dec44ba56c41a31b4d334b144b51d6.png 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.
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?

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Wyverex

I have a buddy in Croatia, do you play games?
Of course I play games, what do you think why am I on TPU?

#### The_Ish

##### New Member
If true, it would be comparable to finding out the world was not flat or the Earth was not the centre of the galaxy. In short, any theroy that uses the speed of light could not be true.
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?