Pillar of Science debunked???

[Phaethon]

http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-fa...180644818.html

A fundamental pillar of physics — that nothing can go faster than the speed of light — appears to be smashed by an oddball subatomic particle that has apparently made a giant end run around Albert Einstein's theories.

Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said Thursday they have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity — the famous E (equals) mc2 equation — just doesn't happen.

To their credit, they are very skeptical about this... they are asking for others to verifiy it because it would completely change our understanding of physics. Fermi-lab in Chicago has taken on the challenge.

On a side, it sure would have been nice if that accelerator had been built in TX back in the early 90s...

[Taeblewalker]

Unlike Tachyons, which can't go slower than light, neutrinos always have been observed (until recently) to go slower than light. Tachyons are still theoretical.
Cool stuff!

[jschild]

Actually there is zero reason in most theories for tachyons to exist.

This, if true (which it is almost certainly isn't, but wow, if it is!) would shatter physics of the past 100 years. It's not because the "speed" of light is some speed limit, because it is not. C is an actual metric of the universe. Going faster than C is like saying you are going more north than north, it quite literally makes no sense. It isn't that the speed of light is "going" 300,000 km per second. It IS 300,000km in a second. To go faster means either that it is possible to have more than 1 second in 1 second or more than 300,000 km in 300,000km, which doesn't make sense.

The reason to think this is some massive mistake? Literally millions of experiments over the past 100 years, with every one of them saying unequivocally that yes, nothing can exceed this metric. That's why, as Phaeton said, they are asking for help to confirm this instead of screaming "The light barrier is broken! - something every media outlet is saying for them".

All that said, if this is confirmed and replicated (Fermilab can do the experiment) this would be the biggest change in physics since Relativity replaced Newtonian physics.

EDIT: A great article on the issue.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ow-down-folks/

EDIT 2: Why there is so much skepticism is Neutrino's from the 1987 Supernova should have arrived 4 years before the light did, instead of arriving at around the same time.

[Rich10]

While I am skeptical, every now and then scientific theories get overturned. As Taeblewalker said, "Cool stuff!"

[nate the dawg]

This is really fascinating, but I'll not be surprised if it is discovered that there was an error in measurement or instrumentation. As a fan of physics throughout adolescence and the entirety (thus far) of my adult life, I'm eagerly waiting for someone to poke a hole in this one!

It has to be said, though, that nothing is impossible. Perhaps, as was kinda speculated near the end of the blog linked to by jschild, neutrinos we've measured from space are fundamentally different from those created here on Earth in some way (very unlikely). Or maybe it's just another (currently) irreconcilable clash between relativity and quantum mechanics. Who knows?

I need to get back in school, and man needs a unified theory of physics.

[MegaSilver]

Looks like the Transformers were right; E=mc^3.

[jschild]

Good reading here detailing some ideas that could allow what we've been reading about. Good luck actually understanding it - giving me nosebleeds reading it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz...o_oscillations

And if you want some more information, including links to very relevant and interesting reading, complete with headaches, go here....

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/c...neutrino_data/

And here is Brian Cox talking about it, saying that even if it does stand up, it's still not likely to be literally breaking the "speed" limit, but perhaps "taking a shortcut".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852

And a great comic talking about it

[nate the dawg]

Originally Posted by jschild

And here is Brian Cox talking about it, saying that even if it does stand up, it's still not likely to be literally breaking the "speed" limit, but perhaps "taking a shortcut".

This had me thinking the other day, and so I felt the need to refresh my self on the relationship between matter and energy.

I would not be surprised if the unexpected 'breaking of relativity' could be explained within relativity itself. As matter increases velocity (gains kinetic energy), it has an increasingly distorting effect upon the space-time through which it travels. So, if the neutrinos in question were to be infused with (an unspeakable amount of) energy during the bombardment, it is not unreasonable to my mind that they would have a 'warping' effect upon the space around them, allowing them to arrive at a point further than the distance which the particles would travel at assumed velocities.

It's kinda that whole wormhole idea...but I take a bit of liberty with the number of factors (which would have to come down to sheer luck) needed for this sort of accidental result.

I'm confident that this is not what happened, and as a kid who grew up with Einstein as an idol, I'm still sure that this is some sort of instrumentation or measurement error. But it sure is neat to speculate!

[jschild]

Actually, particles do not gain mass as them approach the speed of light. It's hard summerize but I'd recommend checking this out...

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/mass.html

or

http://www.relativisticmass.com/development.html

Regardless, we have had much heavier particles approach the speed of light without any observed "warping" so a particle that is virtually massless should not introduce effects that more massive particles do not.

EDIT: Here's a good summation, though the formula formatting probably will not carry over...

So the story of relativistic mass comes from (over-)simplifying a more important concept relativistic momentum. Momentum is a measure of a particle's motion, and was classically defined as mv. But relativity came along and defined momentum to be (1-(v/c)2 )-1/2 *mv . Now if v<<c, that first big term is about 1, so the old definition is approximately true, so long as your speed is much less than c. Well for whatever reasons (I suspect to do with forces, and I'll go into detail in a moment), someone decided to take (1-(v/c)2 )-1/2 *m and just call that a "relativistic mass." But it's just an unnecessary definition and isn't fundamentally true. in Anyways I suspect it's to do with forces because a force is technically the change in momentum over time. Since classically, momentum was defined as mv, the change in momentum is equal to mass times the change in velocity plus velocity times the change in mass. Well in most problems, the mass doesn't change, so we only need the first term mass times change in velocity, or mass times acceleration. F=ma. My guess is someone thought it'd be easier to change the mass via relativity rather than take on the relativistic momentum (as momentum may be unfamiliar to the casual reader??)

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by jschild

Actually, particles do not gain mass as them approach the speed of light. It's hard summerize but I'd recommend checking this out...

No, them no gain mass, them stay skinny with Borat exercise video for $14.99 plus shipping.



Bannister

[jschild]

Thanks, you very much brightened by day with that!

[nate the dawg]

Originally Posted by jschild

Actually, particles do not gain mass as them approach the speed of light. It's hard summerize but I'd recommend checking this out...

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/mass.html

or

http://www.relativisticmass.com/development.html

Regardless, we have had much heavier particles approach the speed of light without any observed "warping" so a particle that is virtually massless should not introduce effects that more massive particles do not.

Ahh, thank you. This is a bit clearer. Apparently I had followed a false logic (based upon very fuzzy memories). This link in the first article to which you linked cleared things up a bit. So even in blunders we can gain clarity!

That, and it's neat to actually discuss physics with someone willing to do some research in order to gain understanding - not something readily available at home!