• Faster-than-Light Travel is Impossible (Revised 2nd Edition)
    303 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Yahnich;32438910]There is the possibility that due to the neutrino oscillation that occurred shit started going weird. Still, the neutrino even going at the speed of light would imply that it has a zero mass, although neutrino oscillation should prove it has a non-zero mass. My head is full of fuck.[/QUOTE] Assuming these aren't just miscalculations and the media spinning the story, this could potentially mean everything we know is wrong. It's like we've been faced with Cthulhu or something.
[QUOTE=Cone;32438953]Assuming these aren't just miscalculations and the media spinning the story, this could potentially mean everything we know is wrong. It's like we've been faced with Cthulhu or something.[/QUOTE] You just compared quantum physics to a gigantic mythical squid-beast. I respect that.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;32438999]They've been debating on this for months, I doubt it's a mere miscalculation.[/QUOTE] If so, then I guess science is fucked. It really brings to light how much we don't know - and also how much we'll have to re-discover in light of this new information. We thought we knew it all, but now it would seem the sock's on the other foot. Of course, that just means we'll be set back a few months - nothing can stop us at this rate.
I thought several quantum theories predicted faster than light neutrinos or am i horribly wrong?
[QUOTE=Crazy Knife;32438245]Read up: Leonard Susskind: Black hole wars - the information paradox has been solved for a long time. Actually your very own article answers it, it is stored at the planck length[/QUOTE] no
Issue with neutrinos being faster than light: [quote]If neutrinos travel faster than light, then we should’ve detected the neutrinos from Supernova 1987A before we saw the explosion itself. That exploding star was formed when the core of a massive star collapsed, detonating the outer layers. The collapsing core blasted out a furious wave of neutrinos strong enough to be seen here on Earth, over 160,000 light years away. The distance from the detector in Italy to the source in Geneva is about 730 km. The travel time at the speed of light is about 2.43 milliseconds, and the neutrinos appear to have outraced that speed by 60 nanoseconds. If true, that means they were traveling just a scosh faster than light, by about 1 part in 40,000. The neutrinos from SN1987A traveled so far that had they been moving that much faster than light, they would’ve arrived here almost four years before the light did. However, we saw the light from the supernova at roughly the same time as the neutrinos (actually the light did get here later, but it takes a little while for the explosion to eat its way out of the star’s core to its surface, and that delay completely accounts for the lag seen).[/quote] [url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-than-light-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29]source[/url] Reading that, the experiment seems dodgy.
The experiment itself isn't dodgy, it's just that there's evidence to the contrary as well. This is why we have SCIENCE. To reproduce results over and over as accurately as possible to determine the real truth of the matter.
A few hundred years you'd be killed for wichcraft if you had a flashlight. Let's just see where future takes us, eh?
My jizz travels faster than the speed of light. What now science??
[QUOTE=FreeBee;32443234]A few hundred years you'd be killed for wichcraft if you had a flashlight. Let's just see where future takes us, eh?[/QUOTE] We're quite far from the 'eating kidney stones from a pig whilst standing in the moonlight will cure diabetes' style of science.
e=mc2 If something is accelerated to the speed of light, it's mass tends to infinite, wich simply means it's impossible.
[QUOTE=maxolina;32443948]e=mc2 If something is accelerated to the speed of light, it's mass tends to infinite, wich simply means it's impossible.[/QUOTE] Relativistic mass is a concept that was generally discarded quite a few years ago, and also that equation doesn't say anything about how velocity affects things.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32443977]Relativistic mass is a concept that was generally discarded quite a few years ago, and also that equation doesn't say anything about how velocity affects things.[/QUOTE] c stands for the speed of light
[QUOTE=maxolina;32443991]c stands for the speed of light[/QUOTE]So what? It was meant as a constant, the equation does not account for the object's velocity, just the energy used to accelerate it and its mass.
[QUOTE=maxolina;32443991]c stands for the speed of light[/QUOTE] Wooooah really? Is THAT what that stands for? I thought it meant centimeters.
[QUOTE=woolio1;32436412]It's certainly possible.[/QUOTE] The movie Contact is a great example. [QUOTE=Yahnich;32438910]There is the possibility that due to the neutrino oscillation that occurred shit started going weird. Still, the neutrino even going at the speed of light would imply that it has a zero mass, although neutrino oscillation should prove it has a non-zero mass. My head is full of fuck.[/QUOTE] From the ground up, could a version of the uncertainty principle be applied to neutrinos? Hypothetically speaking, if a neutrino had a non-zero mass then shouldn't it's information on momentum be be allowed to change along with position? As a mass approaches the speed of light, the energy required for it goes to infinity. But in Neutrino oscillations as it changes quantum phases it's probability of position changes. Since the speed of light is constant in a vacuum would neutrino oscillations allow for "acceleration changes(leading to momentum changes) affect position changes"? Allowing the neutrino to "modify" its position, not velocity. That should allow the neutrino to have mass will still attaining a high "velocity"(I should say displacement) from its source. By changing between a "walk, jog, sprint" instead of a photon's never changing "jog", since photons cannot be affected by anything else except gravity and matter. I may have been mind-fucked while writing this post...Please check me and my logic here..
[QUOTE=ayaki;32443371]We're quite far from the 'eating kidney stones from a pig whilst standing in the moonlight will cure diabetes' style of science.[/QUOTE] Of course, nothing will ever contradict our current view of physics. Science has constantly changed throughout it's history and it's highly unlikely that the current view is 100% accurate. In fact assuming that faster-than-light travel is impossible based on previous knowledge will only prevent further progress being made. And I'm not even going to get into the problems with causality.
Crazy stuff, hope it stands up to inspection!
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32442510]no[/QUOTE] Yes? I don't know really to what you're saying no to - the planck length or the paradox. A hypothetical - take a box, put a star that will collapse into a black hole in it, close the box. let t go to infinity and have the black hole evaporate inside the box. The information inside the box couldn't have disappeared.
ITT people try to act like they're experts in physics.
[QUOTE=Crazy Knife;32451804]Yes? I don't know really to what you're saying no to - the planck length or the paradox. A hypothetical - take a box, put a star that will collapse into a black hole in it, close the box. let t go to infinity and have the black hole evaporate inside the box. The information inside the box couldn't have disappeared.[/QUOTE] No, the paradox hasn't been solved. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] Also no to the planck length. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound[/url]
I wonder what would happen if you took acid and read this thread... :pwn:
[QUOTE=maxolina;32443991]c stands for the speed of light[/QUOTE] The forumula you posted was for rest mass. The formula for a mass at velocity v is actually [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?E=\frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}[/img] All you posted was what you heard from another guy on the internet who was citing another guy from the internet who was citing ...(replicated this a few times)... about science.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32451932]No, the paradox hasn't been solved. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] Also no to the planck length. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound[/url][/QUOTE] Meant the planck length squared - area, from your own link : "It happens that the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy of three-dimensional black holes exactly saturates the bound s=a/4 where A is the two-dimensional area of the black hole's event horizon in units of the Planck area, . The bound is closely associated with black hole thermodynamics, the holographic principle and the covariant entropy bound of quantum gravity, and can be derived from a conjectured strong form of the latter " It was solved around the 80s [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity[/url]
My point is I haven't seen anything to suggest this is the canonical resolution to the paradox. That black hole complementarity article, for instance, refers to it as being conjectural.
[QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity[/url][/QUOTE] Yep. Those are words. In English. I recognize a few of those. I look forward to taking some more advanced math+science classes and being able to understand what the fuck is going on here. I get the general gist, but that is some advanced stuff. Also, what would this experiment affect if it was true? Its not like we going to figure FTL right after that. I mean, the way I see it, the discovery of the FTL drive is a staircase. We have taken a few tentative steps up, but no major progress. If this is true, it gives us a nice big leap up, simply because we know [I]something[/I] can go faster than the speed of light.
[quote="Faster-than-Light Travel is Impossible (Revised 2nd Edition) (nERVEcenter)"]~"Particles cannot travel faster than light."[/quote] ↨ ??? [quote="Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling results at LHC (KillerTele)"]~"Particles traveled faster than light."[/quote]
Weeping Jesus on the cross, people. [highlight]The next person who posts in here to point out the recent CERN neutrino findings is getting banned.[/highlight]
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;32517791]↨ ~Particles cannot travel faster than light.[/QUOTE] that's funny, i thought photons were particles
[QUOTE=flamehead5;32452521]I wonder what would happen if you took acid and read this thread... :pwn:[/QUOTE] From personal experience I would say you wouldnt read it but be more interested in the fact that the text is moving around then get bored with being on a computer and do something else
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.