There's a book called Way Station by Clifford Simak. It clearly states that the speed of light is not an actual limit, it's just hard to exceed under normal circumstances. Since humans haven't experienced the very unnormal circumstances of interstellar travel, we assumed that it was as fast as something could go.
Of course, it's science fiction, so...
I don't think this changes much, though. So now things can go faster than the speed of light. So what? We were wrong with one rule, and it was a conclusion that we really jumped to in the first place. I don't think there was any mathematical evidence that said that nothing in the universe could ever go faster. Just that light was always at that speed, and we haven't observed anything quite as fast as light. It doesn't effect the rest of Relativity.
Because its supposed to take an infinite amount of energy to break the speed of light. The faster you go the more energy you'd need until you need an infinite amount of energy. Breaking the speed of light is supposed to be impossible because its impossible to produce an infinite amount of energy.
Well, there is alot of controversy surrounding the planck energy constant, which, while not infinite, is a very large amount of energy. The problem as I have been made to believe in physics is that as you approach lightpeed time slows toward a stop, your length shrinks toward zero, and your mass increases toward infinity. Since these things are impossible, so is faster than light travel.
Well, no, light is light. But neutrinos like those mentioned in this experiment could have reached Earth earlier than that.
I remember reading once about how we had detected neutrinos out further in space than they would have been able to travel given time and distance from the origin of the big expansion. I suspect that was probably a similar malfunction, and have heard nothing of it in the many years since.
There's a reason why everyone is searching for errors, rather than going "omg breaktrhouhgh!!11!!", and it's because particles travelling faster than the speed of light is absurd.
I totally agree with you, but I wanna point out that science is all about grasping at the absurd.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
venture a little way past them into the impossible. -A.C. Clarke
Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible.
- M.C. Escher
There's a reason why everyone is searching for errors, rather than going "omg breaktrhouhgh!!11!!", and it's because particles travelling faster than the speed of light is absurd.
Im gonna be a **** and nitpick semantics here.
Cherekov Radiation is the effect of particles breaking the speed limit for light in a certain medium (like air). Not technically faster than light travel though.
The key is faster than light travel in a vacuum, which is absurd.
Well, there is alot of controversy surrounding the planck energy constant, which, while not infinite, is a very large amount of energy. The problem as I have been made to believe in physics is that as you approach lightpeed time slows toward a stop, your length shrinks toward zero, and your mass increases toward infinity. Since these things are impossible, so is faster than light travel.
I agree that most discoveries in science start with "huh, that's strange", and obtaining results that can't be explained, but personally, I think that not being able to travel faster than the speed of light isn't something that's going to be proven wrong. I realise that it's just a personal conviction, but if their results turn out to be accurate, physics itself will be turned upside-down. I don't believe that's going to happen.
Yea it would **** up a lot of equations and theories based on the light speed limit but after that dies down and scientists reexamine everything and make new theories based on this knowledge, we could be better off for it, increasing our knowledge.
I agree that most discoveries in science start with "huh, that's strange", and obtaining results that can't be explained, but personally, I think that not being able to travel faster than the speed of light isn't something that's going to be proven wrong. I realize that it's just a personal conviction, but if their results turn out to be accurate, physics itself will be turned upside-down. I don't believe that's going to happen.
Again, I don't think this law is going to directly affect the rest of physics. It's not really mathematically connected to very much, and putting a little asterisk that says "Except for neutrinos" won't mess up all of Relativity.
Besides, if I remember correctly, neutrinos have infinitesimal mass (just like photons). So they really don't need to be bound by rules like these.
Yea it would **** up a lot of equations and theories based on the light speed limit but after that dies down and scientists reexamine everything and make new theories based on this knowledge, we could be better off for it, increasing our knowledge.
And apologizes.
Exactly. If I might use a minecraft example, there were alot of people whining that sprinting is gonna ruin their old parkour maps, but with it brings the potential for even better maps, which we saw in a recent digital diamond.
That part about 'huh that's strange' reminds me of another quote :tongue.gif:
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not "Eureka" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
- ASIMOV
If neutrinos can move faster than the speed of light, it'll **** up the Standard Model quite a bit.
You mean quantum physics? I never really cared for quantum physics myself. Two guys are doing some stuff with liquid silicon or something that can very closely replicate the results of the double slit experiment on a larger scale. Something like the Pilot Wave theory. I saw this on TV, though, so they didn't really explain how.
So yeah, I think quantum physics could be overturned eventually. Not all of it, just the very unsettlingly complicated stuff. Like Einstein, I don't believe that an explanation of nature could be so chaotic and unordered.
Then again, this could just be me being uneducated and smartassy. If so, please point me in the right direction and scold me vigorously.
Who cares.
Science is always changing.
This discovery just helped lead a massive update.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from aroles93 »
Its like going to a police station telling them how you stole a purse and demonstrating it, while arguing the benefits of it. You'd still go to jail because you're an idiot.
If this is true, it 'unravels' physics because hundreds (maybe thousands) of formulae used in physics wouldn't work any more.
If the formulae don't work, the last century of physics research could all be inaccurate, maybe even completely incorrect.
That's like saying if fire was discovered to not really be what we previously thought it was, then my stove doesn't work anymore. Obviously that's just a silly analogy.
While I understand what you're saying, I think the way you worded it is a bit misleading...
I think what you meant was that a lot of physics is based on this concept, and if it is not true then a lot of 'Theoretical physics' may be completely inaccurate or simply incorrect.
The keyword here is: 'Theoretical physics'... because obviously E=mc2 still works for everything practical that we currently have, even if some neutrinos might not adhere to that equation.
I think the biggest issues we would have is having to re-examine our understanding of the Big Bang theory, Gravitation, String Theory, and all that kind of stuff. Obviously nothing in day-to-day life would be affected for anyone but a handful of scientists around the world.
But if it worked before, why wouldn't it still work now? We didn't CHANGE anything, we simply just learned something new (possibly).
i just happened to be walking in that area when they fired that thing off.
Ha. Ha. Ha. No.
Of course, it's science fiction, so...
I don't think this changes much, though. So now things can go faster than the speed of light. So what? We were wrong with one rule, and it was a conclusion that we really jumped to in the first place. I don't think there was any mathematical evidence that said that nothing in the universe could ever go faster. Just that light was always at that speed, and we haven't observed anything quite as fast as light. It doesn't effect the rest of Relativity.
My DeviantArt
Well, there is alot of controversy surrounding the planck energy constant, which, while not infinite, is a very large amount of energy. The problem as I have been made to believe in physics is that as you approach lightpeed time slows toward a stop, your length shrinks toward zero, and your mass increases toward infinity. Since these things are impossible, so is faster than light travel.
I would bet the same.
I remember reading once about how we had detected neutrinos out further in space than they would have been able to travel given time and distance from the origin of the big expansion. I suspect that was probably a similar malfunction, and have heard nothing of it in the many years since.
Still interesting though...
I totally agree with you, but I wanna point out that science is all about grasping at the absurd.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
venture a little way past them into the impossible. -A.C. Clarke
Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible.
- M.C. Escher
Im gonna be a **** and nitpick semantics here.
Cherekov Radiation is the effect of particles breaking the speed limit for light in a certain medium (like air). Not technically faster than light travel though.
The key is faster than light travel in a vacuum, which is absurd.
I learned something new today. :smile.gif:
Totally New at running servers? Click me!
I wonder if sansavarous is online...
Yea it would **** up a lot of equations and theories based on the light speed limit but after that dies down and scientists reexamine everything and make new theories based on this knowledge, we could be better off for it, increasing our knowledge.
And apologizes.
Totally New at running servers? Click me!
I wonder if sansavarous is online...
Again, I don't think this law is going to directly affect the rest of physics. It's not really mathematically connected to very much, and putting a little asterisk that says "Except for neutrinos" won't mess up all of Relativity.
Besides, if I remember correctly, neutrinos have infinitesimal mass (just like photons). So they really don't need to be bound by rules like these.
My DeviantArt
Exactly. If I might use a minecraft example, there were alot of people whining that sprinting is gonna ruin their old parkour maps, but with it brings the potential for even better maps, which we saw in a recent digital diamond.
That part about 'huh that's strange' reminds me of another quote :tongue.gif:
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not "Eureka" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
- ASIMOV
You mean quantum physics? I never really cared for quantum physics myself. Two guys are doing some stuff with liquid silicon or something that can very closely replicate the results of the double slit experiment on a larger scale. Something like the Pilot Wave theory. I saw this on TV, though, so they didn't really explain how.
So yeah, I think quantum physics could be overturned eventually. Not all of it, just the very unsettlingly complicated stuff. Like Einstein, I don't believe that an explanation of nature could be so chaotic and unordered.
Then again, this could just be me being uneducated and smartassy. If so, please point me in the right direction and scold me vigorously.
My DeviantArt
Science is always changing.
This discovery just helped lead a massive update.
That's like saying if fire was discovered to not really be what we previously thought it was, then my stove doesn't work anymore. Obviously that's just a silly analogy.
While I understand what you're saying, I think the way you worded it is a bit misleading...
I think what you meant was that a lot of physics is based on this concept, and if it is not true then a lot of 'Theoretical physics' may be completely inaccurate or simply incorrect.
The keyword here is: 'Theoretical physics'... because obviously E=mc2 still works for everything practical that we currently have, even if some neutrinos might not adhere to that equation.
I think the biggest issues we would have is having to re-examine our understanding of the Big Bang theory, Gravitation, String Theory, and all that kind of stuff. Obviously nothing in day-to-day life would be affected for anyone but a handful of scientists around the world.
But if it worked before, why wouldn't it still work now? We didn't CHANGE anything, we simply just learned something new (possibly).
This is not the first time this has happened.