"faster than light" nuetron scientist discoverer resigns

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by TheBigPayback, Apr 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Amidst scruttany of findings

    Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Scientist Resigns March 30, 2012 The scientist who headed a European research team that last year measured particles traveling faster than light has resigned, weeks after a rival team cast doubt on the accuracy of those findings. Italy's National Institute of Nuclear Physics said Friday that Antonio Ereditato had stepped down from the leadership of the OPERA experiment, whose measurements on the speed of neutrinos were widely questioned when they were announced in September. In February, the OPERA team acknowledgedthat it had found a flaw in the technical set-up of its experiment that could have affected the measurements. In March, rival team ICARUS clocked neutrino speeds at, but no faster than, light speed. - The Daily Mail
    test
  2. patrown

    patrown student for life

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,177
    I remember when they refuted their claim.

    This is big. :yoda:
    test
  3. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,155
    I figured that there was some sort of inaccuracy in their measurement. c is the hard speed limit of the universe.

    also, scrutiny*
    test
  4. NewLogic

    NewLogic New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Why is science filled with issues like this? Scientist/politicians bicker over global warming and now this?
    test
  5. Brown Jesus

    Brown Jesus Menso is for Dummies

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,254
    Information passes between two objects instantly via gravity. C is a sort of limit, though.
    test
  6. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,155
    I believe gravitational waves travel at c?

    but there is quantum entanglement for instant information relay, however that works.

    c is the hard limit for the movement of anything with mass. the lorentz factor spikes upward near c. if an object travels AT c, it would need infinite acceleration and its personal time would stand still. an object that moved faster than c would go backwards through time.

    there are workarounds, though. foldspace and wormholes could make it possible to jump across the vast parsecs of space.
    test
  7. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    It was a mistake between the earth rotation and the GPS satellite that measured the distance, the correction made it come out exactly how it should have, under the speed of light... but i don't think that means its a universal doped limit...
    think about this, 2 observation points in space that are traveling toward eachother at 50000 MPH, and a beam of light going with one of them, according to modern science, they would somehow both observe the light at the same speed, which is logically wrong since speed is relative to perspective, one would have to observe the light 100000 MPH faster than the other, or else the time space continuum would be destroyed and we'd have 3 Michael. J Foxes
    test
  8. Brown Jesus

    Brown Jesus Menso is for Dummies

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,254
    I was just going to post that c is for massive objects, but it applies to massless photons, too =/

    I'm pretty sure gravity is instantaneous. If the Sun were to somehow cease to exist, all the orbits would change immediately. I have to stress that I'm really speaking from a classical standpoint (as far as physics is concerned), I'm not sure if any modern models of the gravitational force between objects include a variable for time.

    The travel @ c part is true, since Einstein tells us:

    E=mc/(1-(v/c)^2)

    and if v=c, then the denominator is 0 and division by zero is never good, but imaginary numbers happen in real life contexts. i is an angle thing; don't ask me how Euler's Formula applies to energy, though. It is interesting how it might apply to motion:

    [​IMG]

    Again, I only understand the mathematics involved, but, this seems to imply some mechanism for "travelling faster" than light (I think it would be more accurate to say that we would skip through space in relatively large discrete units; a wormhole is probably exactly I'm describing). I would imagine that somehow travel between two distinct points in space could be done like this, especially considering the curvature of space-time.

    [​IMG]

    Note the secant line gets to the intersection points "faster" than travelling around the circle. Depending on the curvature, I suppose it could be possible to "beat" light by a sizable margin: imagine a very thin and long ellipse, I could cut across the minor axis much "faster" than going all the way around. Depending on the relative difference in curvature between two distinct points in space, the "rate" at which we travel would change, and appear to be greater/less than c. If our universe was linear, it would'nt be possible to "beat" c, but our universe is non-Euclidean, so it opens up these speculations.

    I know my math is straight, not sure about my interpretatio of it, though. Any physicists?
    test
  9. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,155
    I don't specialize in math. I'm certain that you can't beat c while traveling through space. However, because space-time is curved and relative, there are possible shortcuts. You still wouldn't travel faster than c through a wormhole, but you would skip past a much larger amount of space in a much shorter amount of time.

    for example, let's say space is like a string. you could travel down its length, or bring the two ends together. either way, you wouldn't be going faster than c. but you could reduce the amount of space you need to cross from one point to another, greatly reducing the amount of time spent in travel.

    also, instantaneous gravitation is used in the newtonian model. the theory of relativity updated this to better describe reality. I believe that gravity's influence extends at a constant speed of c.
    test
  10. Brown Jesus

    Brown Jesus Menso is for Dummies

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,254
    I wasn't clear. We would appear to travel faster than c. Suppose you and I live on the circumference of a circle and we can travel at c. However, I can city across the circle, whereas you can only travel along the edge. If we travel from the same point to the same destination, but I "cut through" it appears I travelled faster than c, since I'm waiting for you when you finally get there. The assumption being d=rt.
    test
  11. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,155
    it's not that you travelled faster than c, it's that you travelled less distance. this example could apply to newtonian space or a relativistic shortcut.

    with d=rt, it would be the same r (speed), with a different t (time spent traveling). you'd use rt to find d.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)