FTL????

Rubecula

The BBC reports that the LHC at Cern has made some sub-atomic particles travel faster than light. Details are a bit scarce at the moment as the scientists are not posting results until they have made sure they are correct.

If it turns out to be correct though it is said thet the laws of physics as we know them are upended.

This is major news folks.

Link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Cú Giobach

Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out, Nature article about it here, some interesting thoughts in the comments section.

SuprSi

I have to admit that I always found it odd, in a universe that we are such a tiny part of and know so little of, that there could be a rule that categorically states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and that this rule applies to absolutely everything in existence. Considering it's extremely unlikely that we're aware of everything that exists in the universe, is it not a bit of a naive view?

I know plenty of scientists have tried to prove it wrong, without success (unless this test is proven accurate) but just because we can't do it on this planet, doesn't mean it can't happen elsewhere in the universe, or can it?

keane2097

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html

oneillMan999

Always thought it a bit pretentious to think nothin could travel faster than the speed of light..

20 or 30 years from now we will be sayin somethin like... "Remember when we thought nothin could travel faster than light?"

Fact is, we still know very little about how the universe works, although we have been making huge steps in the last few decades.

slade_x

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Always thought it a bit pretentious to think nothin could travel faster than the speed of light..

20 or 30 years from now we will be sayin somethin like... "Remember when we thought nothin could travel faster than light?"

Fact is, we still know very little about how the universe works, although we have been making huge steps in the last few decades.

Pretentious? science goes on what can be tested, observed and even predicted from rational observations and testing methodology. Dubbed as the Scientific method, this is what we have to base our knowledge on, before this discovery if this can actually be confirmed this will be the first time the observed speed of light barrier will have been observed to have been broken. To conclude that something can travel faster than the speed of light without absolutely any evidence or method to prove it right is ignorant at best.

That article is in no way a confirmation. Further testing and analysis is needed as the article itself states.

osnola ibax

Hasnt it already be shown through redshifting of galaxies that the universe expands at a rate faster than the speed of light. So I dont think anyone really thought that light was the fastest thing, we just dont know what is causing it. We label it dark energy. Maybe this is a step closer to hypothesising what dark energy is.

AlmightyCushion

osnola ivax wrote: »

Hasnt it already be shown through redshifting of galaxies that the universe expands at a rate faster than the speed of light. So I dont think anyone really thought that light was the fastest thing, we just dont know what is causing it. We label it dark energy. Maybe this is a step closer to hypothesising what dark energy is.

If two objects (in this case galaxies I guess) move away from each other and both are travelling at 9/10s the speed of light then wouldn't that mean the universe would be expanding faster than the speed of light without the speed of light being broken. Or have I got it arseways?

osnola ibax

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If two objects (in this case galaxies I guess) move away from each other and both are travelling at 9/10s the speed of light then wouldn't that mean the universe would be expanding faster than the speed of light without the speed of light being broken. Or have I got it arseways?

Might as well be honest here, my knowledge comes from pop science books. But isnt it the expansion thats causing the galaxies to move away from the observer, in this case the astronomer on earth, rather than both the milky way and A.N. Other galaxy moving in opposite directions. Off topic anyway but basically I dont know the impact of this discovery on the laws of physics but there seems to be a lot of disgruntled Einsteinians on the web.

I though that special relativity was tested beyond doubt at this stage.

AlmightyCushion

osnola ivax wrote: »

Might as well be honest here, my knowledge comes from pop science books. But isnt it the expansion thats causing the galaxies to move away from the observer, in this case the astronomer on earth, rather than both the milky way and A.N. Other galaxy moving in opposite directions. Off topic anyway but basically I dont know the impact of this discovery on the laws of physics but there seems to be a lot of disgruntled Einsteinians on the web.

I though that special relativity was tested beyond doubt at this stage.

Same as yourself, I'm working off stuff I read here and elsewhere and a bit off guess work thrown in for good measure so I could be miles off.

osnola ibax

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Same as yourself, I'm working off stuff I read here and elsewhere and a bit off guess work thrown in for good measure so I could be miles off.

LOL, its bloody easy to get muddled up with this stuff. For months I was telling everyone the joke: an electron walks into a bar and says, im only passing through. It is of course a neutrino that passes through. Love the strangeness of physics though, its a great escape from the mundane. Whats that you say, the wall isnt really solid

rccaulfield

osnola ivax wrote: »

Hasnt it already be shown through redshifting of galaxies that the universe expands at a rate faster than the speed of light. So I dont think anyone really thought that light was the fastest thing, we just dont know what is causing it. We label it dark energy. Maybe this is a step closer to hypothesising what dark energy is.

It's been shown that the further something away is the faster it is moving away because the expansion at say 1 billion kms is x and at 2 billion kilometres its 2x at 3 its 3x. Soon the expansion gets ftl but only cos your adding the expansions together(i.e. its not expanding ftl in any one place). The light from the most distant galaxies we currently see will soon not get here because of the distance and the expansion. Heard someone say that one day beings we will think their own galaxy is the only one cos the light from other galaxies will never get to them where they've evolved-amazing.

osnola ibax

rccaulfield wrote: »

It's been shown that the further something away is the faster it is moving away because the expansion at say 1 billion kms is x and at 2 billion kilometres its 2x at 3 its 3x. Soon the expansion gets ftl but only cos your adding the expansions together(i.e. its not expanding ftl in any one place). The light from the most distant galaxies we currently see will soon not get here because of the distance and the expansion. Heard someone say that one day beings we will think their own galaxy is the only one cos the light from other galaxies will never get to them where they've evolved-amazing.

Yes, just read the physics forum thread on this subject. Expansion faster than the speed of light happened in the micro seconds after the big bang, so that ties in with what you said. Anyway, they go on to say that the theory of relativity is only valid for things with mass, whereas the expansion is an expansion of space time, which is currently universally accepted and does not interfere with Einsteins theories. They is a large opinion out there that this result is wrong. I would love to know the implications of it being correct though.

AugustusMinimus

Osnola.

The fact of the matter is that the further away from each other, two galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from each other.

Picture and accordian expanding. The two ends move away faster from each other in comparison to 2 points closer to the middle.

General relativity states that any particles with mass should not be able to go faster than the speed of light. In fact, it states that no particle with mass should be able to reach the speed of light.

On the flip side, particles without mass (such as the photon) travel at the speed of light in a vacuum at all times.


The expansion of the Universe is generally thought to be the expansion of the time dimension through 4 dimensional space. There is nothing in general relativity which states that a dimension itself can't expand faster than the speed of light.

stoneill

How do you detect the neutrinos you want to detect?
The are pretty much everywhere, billions upon trillions of them passing trough every part of space at any given time. So when your big huge detector flashes a detection, how do you know that's the one you want?

AugustusMinimus

stoneill wrote: »

How do you detect the neutrinos you want to detect?
The are pretty much everywhere, billions upon trillions of them passing trough every part of space at any given time. So when your big huge detector flashes a detection, how do you know that's the one you want?

Intensity of the neutrinos I'd imagine.

The same difference of a laser beam vs daylight.

Super Freak

and the barman says "I'm sorry, we don't serve particles that will not obey the laws of physics".
A neutrino walks into a bar.

maninasia

Maybe the neutrinos are jumping a little through space and therefore appear to us to be travelling at slightly faster than light speed. The practical effect is the same.

Some posters have stated correctly that we actually understand very little about the universe.

1. Dark energy?
2. Dark matter?
3. Are the constants the same throughout the universe?
4. Do the constants vary over time?
5. How gravity fits with the other field theories?
6. Is the universe infinite or is there a boundary somewhere?
7. Does the multiverse exist?

dbran

Hi

I found this interesting blog regarding this

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/are_we_fooling_ourselves_with.php

Still think the smart money is on another Pioneer Anomoly that turns out to be a problem with the instruments etc.

Regards

dbran

maninasia

The conservative money says that it is a systemic error, not the smart money. The smart money would say that the tests need to be repeated with other set-ups.

We also need to look at neutrinos at different energy levels.

rccaulfield

I'm subscribed to this on youtube, i believe he's spot on on the ftl subject here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM4Ol4aEcng