Sci/Tech Faster Than Light Particles Question Einstein's Theory

[tom_mai78101]

European researchers said they clocked an oddball type of subatomic particle called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282 miles per second that has long been considered the cosmic speed limit.

The claim was met with skepticism, with one outside physicist calling it the equivalent of saying you have a flying carpet. In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.

"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 Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, which provided the particle accelerator that sent neutrinos on their breakneck 454-mile trip underground from Geneva to Italy.

Going faster than light is something that is just not supposed to happen according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the one made famous by the equation E equals mc2. But no one is rushing out to rewrite the science books just yet.

It is "a revolutionary discovery if confirmed," said Indiana University theoretical physicist Alan Kostelecky, who has worked on this concept for a quarter of a century.

Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged (Update 3)

One of the very pillars of physics and Einstein's theory of relativity - that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - was rocked Thursday by new findings from one of the world's foremost laboratories.

phys.org

OMG!

 

[BlowingKush]

The particles do not question relativity until they are proven to be faster than light.
Which in itsself would require years and often decades of experimentation and verification.
Until that day comes, lets just say "Scientist unable to measure particles in an experiment." would
be a much more appropiate headline.

The title of this story is fucking stupid, inappropiate, and trys to gain clout for these scientist who have nothing more than
unverified data.

Stories like this make me facepalm and do not deserve spotlight.

 

[Prometheus]

Did you even read the article, BudSMoke?

Imo light speed is a benchmark, not a limitation.

 

[Varine]

Did you even read the article, BudSMoke?

Imo light speed is a benchmark, not a limitation.

And your opinion is based on...? Probably not physics.

 

[Darthfett]

The particles do not question relativity until they are proven to be faster than light.
Which in itsself would require years and often decades of experimentation and verification.
Until that day comes, lets just say "Scientist unable to measure particles in an experiment." would
be a much more appropiate headline.

The title of this story is fucking stupid, inappropiate, and trys to gain clout for these scientist who have nothing more than
unverified data.

Stories like this make me facepalm and do not deserve spotlight.

I think you're going way over the top, as the researches themselves are not proclaiming a discovery, merely seeing results and going carefully over their method. Sure, it probably shouldn't be in the news, but how else would you ever hear about it? One thing to keep in mind when reading any news story, is that the reporter is almost always trying to make something look bigger than it is.

See the source for my reasoning below:

CERN reported that a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds. (A nanosecond is one-billionth of a second.)

Given the enormous implications of the find, the researchers spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there were no flaws in the experiment.

A team at Fermilab had similar faster-than-light results in 2007, but a large margin of error undercut its scientific significance.

In September 2011 CERN released data suggesting that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light. The results released by CERN are currently being scrutinised for errors.

 

[Vellu]

Does this mean that E=mc^2 doesn't apply anymore (if the results are correct)?

 

[Furby]

Does this mean that E=mc^2 doesn't apply anymore (if the results are correct)?

No, please read whole article on the source.

 

[NoobImbaPro]

E=mc^2 says that every thing that runs with the speed of light becomes energy. So if we find something that can't transform into energy, it's very possible to go faster than the speed limit.

 

[Varine]

E=mc^2 says that every thing that runs with the speed of light becomes energy. So if we find something that can't transform into energy, it's very possible to go faster than the speed limit.

It's just an equation to determine the amount of energy an object has based on it's mass.

 

[Sim]

> The particles do not question relativity until they are proven to be faster than light.
> Which in itsself would require years and often decades of experimentation and verification.

Anybody is free to question any theory. Even you. And what do you know about the time it would require? Anybody following a course in Physics knows that any current law of physics is only good as long as no other law refutes it. Nowhere is it mentioned that it should take years, even decades to refute a law of physics. Only the proper experimentation. And this is not Basement experiments we're talking about, but months of data concerning the speed of particles.

>Until that day comes, lets just say "Scientist unable to measure particles in an experiment." would be a much more appropiate headline.

"Let's just say" includes you and only you. "Let's just say" that I am quite glad you aren't part of the scientific community, because that would be quite tiresome.

What do you know about this subject any more than the scientists do? At the least, they have 3, 4, or even a dozen more years of study into science than you do. And yes, the CERN particle accelerator is a genuine science installation, even though it's outside the awesome United States of America.

> The title of this story is fucking stupid, inappropiate, and trys to gain clout for these scientist who have nothing more than unverified data.

Data that is, indeed, yet to be proven. But that doesn't make the article stupid, as opposed to your post, which looks to me like nothing more than blind and unreasonable flaming toward a subject escaping the grasp of your knowledge.

 

[Bartuc08]

The particles do not question relativity until they are proven to be faster than light.
Which in itsself would require years and often decades of experimentation and verification.
Until that day comes, lets just say "Scientist unable to measure particles in an experiment." would
be a much more appropiate headline.

The title of this story is fucking stupid, inappropiate, and trys to gain clout for these scientist who have nothing more than
unverified data.

Stories like this make me facepalm and do not deserve spotlight.

Posts like these make me facepalm...

If you read the article, the words that come after the headline, you'd see that they mention quite a few times that there is still a lot of testing in order. It seems that the reason they brought this to light was for publicity, they're looking for other scientist to verify their findings. The title of this story (imo) is not "fucking stupid", it did exactly what it was intended to do, draw readers in. Also, before making blatant claims that some one is stupid you might want to learn to spell, or at least invest in a spell checker.

Does this mean that E=mc^2 doesn't apply anymore (if the results are correct)?

E=mc^2 is Energy = Mass x Speed of light (squared). The findings, if proven to be true, would not change the speed of light, it would just prove that something can travel faster then what we long considered to be the galactic speed limit. Quoted from the article... "Even if these results are confirmed, they won't change at all the way we live or the way the world works. After all, these particles have presumably been speed demons for billions of years. But the finding will fundamentally alter our understanding of how the universe operates, physicists said."

 

[phyrex1an]

If you read the article, the words that come after the headline, you'd see that they mention quite a few times that there is still a lot of testing in order.

When there is nothing in the article nor nothing that the scientists said that matches the headline to the article then I think it's justified to criticize the headline. Which is the only thing budsmoke does. The headline is wrong, misleading and is causing people who don't know better to draw the wrong conclusions from the content of the article.

 

[Bartuc08]

When there is nothing in the article nor nothing that the scientists said that matches the headline to the article then I think it's justified to criticize the headline. Which is the only thing budsmoke does. The headline is wrong, misleading and is causing people who don't know better to draw the wrong conclusions from the content of the article.

"Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged "

This is the actual title, when Tom posted it on here he changed it to something he felt fitting.

 

[Renendaru]

I feel this is relevant.

 

[UndeadDragon]

"Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged "

This is the actual title, when Tom posted it on here he changed it to something he felt fitting.

Bartuc makes a good point. You could argue at the original title of the article, however Tom's article title only says that the scientists question the laws of physics, it never says that "Scientists Prove Without a Doubt that Einstein is Wrong". Questioning theories and law is commonplace and healthy.

 

[tom_mai78101]

...So, in other words, I should not change the title to something different than the original article, even though the title isn't claiming the theory is wrong or right?

 

[UndeadDragon]

...So, in other words, I should not change the title to something different than the original article, even though the title isn't claiming the theory is wrong or right?

I was saying that it is good that you changed the title, because the original, as you said is not questioning - it is stating it as a fact.

 

[xPass]

It'd be pretty cool if that's tested true.

 

[UndeadDragon]

Just a quote I found on BBC News:

"In the meantime, the group says it is being very cautious about its claims."

I don't think the scientists themselves are really claiming anything; it's probably very much hyped by the article.

BBC News Article

 

[BlowingKush]

The title says that the particles question Einstiens theory, and this simply isnt true. The fact that the article says this is not proven is irrelevant.