News Stories

[killer3000ad]

Scientists upend Einstein's theory of relativity in Swiss experiment

ONE of the absolute pillars of science - that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - appears to have been upended by a subatomic particle in an experiment in Switzerland.

Scientists at the world's largest physics lab outside Geneva said today they have clocked neutrinos travelling faster than light.

That's something that according to Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the famous E=mc^2 equation - just doesn't happen.

"The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real,'' said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organisation for Nuclear Research.

Gillies said the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

[Vexx]

The results sound interesting but I think I'll wait for the validation/verification/replication. The media seems to have jumped on leaks and the scientists felt compelled to rush their findings before THEY really had a chance to do their crosschecking.

Plus I have yet to find an actual *science* article describing what they've found, its all been like Joe Reporter Who Majored In PoliSci Waves His Arms.

[zarqu]

There's a lot of buzz about this, certainly. I don't know enough physics to start explaining this to anyone, but from what I've read so far, this is massive if true. Finding out that gravity pushes and not pulls would be analogous.

So treat this with the utmost skepticism.

Here's an article on BadAstronomy about the subject. The author has looked at their paper in arxiv, and the reasoning looks solid to him.

BadAstronomy

The paper on arxiv

[ganbaru]

Oracle seeks $1.16 billion from Google in Android case
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78L72I20110922

As sparks fly, Pakistan warns U.S.: "You will lose an ally"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78L2MC20110923

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by zarqu

There's a lot of buzz about this, certainly. I don't know enough physics to start explaining this to anyone, but from what I've read so far, this is massive if true. Finding out that gravity pushes and not pulls would be analogous.

So treat this with the utmost skepticism.

Here's an article on BadAstronomy about the subject. The author has looked at their paper in arxiv, and the reasoning looks solid to him.

BadAstronomy

The paper on arxiv

*I* read the arxiv paper just now, and on first skim it looks like they've set up a reasonable experiment and got surprising results. However, they themselves admit they need to go over the experiment setup with a fine-toothed comb to see if they missed something and then see if they can replicate it consistently. Devils lurk in the details (like the GPS aligning they used).

Originally Posted by from initial published paper

We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.

I should point out that FTL events happen *all the time* in the quantum realm. If the results are repeatable, the researches may have stumbled across something interesting with respect to neutrinos.

[killer3000ad]

Palestinian prez formally requests statehood

[Zakoo]

Well they are searching for their "errors" since marsh I believe, now they ask international help. It's really rare honestly, people where all hyped where I study about that.

Spoiler for the conclusion ... in short:

Well I barely understand what's written here, physics aren't my field but it seems ... possible. Well let's take it slowly, it's not really a such major change right now, the same newton physic is still applicable on certain field, Einstein's one will always be on infinite small.

[Reckoner]

Assuming this is true then, would it be theoretically possible then to travel at light speed since it's no longer the fastest? I'm a bit rusty on my physics.

[Jinto]

Einstein's theory could not explain certain quantum effects, so why shouldn't there be yet another exception for his model/theory.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Assuming this is true then, would it be theoretically possible then to travel at light speed since it's no longer the fastest? I'm a bit rusty on my physics.

Well i'm note sure but as far as I learnt, what is possible for little particles in quantum physic isn't necessarly possible for human, as showed the legendary cat of schrodinger.

My answer would be no if by travel you mean, us, humans as in SF books. but my knowledge isn't wide here.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Einstein's theory could not explain certain quantum effects, so why shouldn't there be yet another exception for his model/theory.

Yup. Einstein's theory was a big shove forward in science but no theory is perfect and history is full of theories that worked until someone poked hard enough to uncover something that threw a wrench in things. There's been a number of scientists who have questioned how much of his theory should be considered so seriously in light of more recent advances in science.

I'm still reminded of an acquaintance of mine that got absolutely furious with me because he couldn't use Relativity to debunk my claim that the speed of light isn't as fast as the speed of dark. To this day I question the quality of his physics major.

[Ithekro]

Wouldn't the "speed of darK" equal the speed of light, as for it to be dark, the light has to leave, and it can only leave at the speed of light. You can only have an absence of light at the speed it takes for light to be removed.

[Rahan]

You reminded me of a Pratchett quote :

“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Wouldn't the "speed of darK" equal the speed of light, as for it to be dark, the light has to leave, and it can only leave at the speed of light. You can only have an absence of light at the speed it takes for light to be removed.

Who knows? I did it to screw with him. I was mostly dumbfounded that he so strongly believed what he had learned, that during the conversation he relied on Einstein as if it were some kind of irrefutable scripture. He constantly brought it up, as if there was no possible way that he could be wrong (not that he was or wasn't, but science is about questioning, not accepting).

To answer your question with the same logic I used against him, the problem is that you can't quantify dark. It's like infinity or omnipresent. Yes, we know infinity means "it goes on forever", but it's an intangible concept. A light beam is made up of stuff, just like air is made up of stuff. Those are tangible and can be quantified, even though we used to believe otherwise.

You can see dark, but only in the context of light. You can picture infinity, but only because of finality. You can picture omnipresence, but only because space is a tangible concept. What is nothing? The absence of something. However you can't measure nothing, while you can measure something. This does not mean nothing exists, but only that you have no way of proving or disproving it. At best you can define nothing around something, for instance you can define the lack of something in the area of something. However, you still cannot quantify what the nothing inside that something is.

And upon rereading what I just wrote....

Originally Posted by Rahan

You reminded me of a Pratchett quote :

“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”

Oh that is good. I'll remember that one.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Rahan

You reminded me of a Pratchett quote :

“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”

I love Pratchett, he has some of the best Quotes out there.

'If it continues long enough, even a reign of terror may become a fondly remembered period. People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today.'

Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.

"You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage."

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Solace

To answer your question with the same logic I used against him, the problem is that you can't quantify dark. It's like infinity or omnipresent. Yes, we know infinity means "it goes on forever", but it's an intangible concept. A light beam is made up of stuff, just like air is made up of stuff. Those are tangible and can be quantified, even though we used to believe otherwise.

Does that not mean that "dark" has no speed? Based on your terms, it either exists or it does not. It does not travel.

[Zakoo]

What do you mean by "dark"? Darkness as when there's no visible light?

Because it's impossible to create total darkness, each body (even no-living body) emits heat based on gamma and infrared rays which are light even if they are all of the time invisible to the human's eyes.

If you mean by when there's no visible light, indeed it doesn't have speed, it's here to begin with and only when there are objects that absorb and emit light visible waves, it's "bright".

Well I don't really know how to explain this, i'm not used to talk about physics in english, I prefer talking about anime haha.

[AnimeFan188]

"The FCC has finally officially published long-delayed rules prohibiting cable, DSL and
wireless internet companies from blocking websites and requiring them to disclose how
they slow down or throttle their networks.

The so-called Net Neutrality rules (.pdf), passed along party lines in late December last
year in a 3-2 vote, were published in the Federal Register Friday and will go into effect
on November 20."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...trality-rules/

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GDB

Does that not mean that "dark" has no speed? Based on your terms, it either exists or it does not. It does not travel.

How do you define speed? We measure it in the distance something takes to get from one spot to another spot, right? In that context, we can measure how long it takes light to travel from a source until it arrives.

But dark is different. Dark exists where light does not, and light is limited in source and duration, while dark is not. In the absence of light, can you describe how quickly darkness travels? Does it travel? Can it travel?

We acknowledge that dark exists, but we also define darkness by what it isn't. It's the exact definition you apply to infinity or omnipresence. It has no end, and no beginning. It just is.

Think about it like this: To an observer, if I left and arrived at the same time, did I go somewhere very quickly, or nowhere instantly?

Originally Posted by Zakoo

What do you mean by "dark"? Darkness as when there's no visible light?

Because it's impossible to create total darkness, each body (even no-living body) emits heat based on gamma and infrared rays which are light even if they are all of the time invisible to the human's eyes.

If you mean by when there's no visible light, indeed it doesn't have speed, it's here to begin with and only when there are objects that absorb and emit light visible waves, it's "bright".

Well I don't really know how to explain this, i'm not used to talk about physics in english, I prefer talking about anime haha.

Way too technical. Think of it more like how you'd usually see light and dark as a human, and then roll with how you'd define it without breaking down the spectrum.

[RRW]

should we make thread about this faster than light news.

seem important and discuss worthy