Jump to content





CERN Speed-of-light experiments give baffling results


32 replies to this topic

#21 Shallots

    Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobiac

  • Members
  • 2,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever my wave distribution function says I'm most likely to be
  • Interests:Mimi

Posted 30 September 2011 - 07:42 AM

View PostTrixbeat, on 27 September 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

Nope. The best way to put it is, if you increase the kinetic energy of an object near light speed, most of it will convert into the object's mass rather than speed, making it impossible to reach the speed of light.
I think I know where you got that information from, but you misunderstood it. There is no conversion; mass and energy are two sides of the same coin (Remember e=mc2, Energy=mass(the speed of light)2. This means that they are interchangeable, although it takes a lot of energy to produce a small amount of mass.)
Because of this, the kinetic energy effectively adds to an object's mass, making it progressively harder to accelerate. This affect can be seen in real-life examples as well: What takes more gas, accelerating from 0-10MPH in a car, or from 90-100? (Although yes, friction plays a part in that case as well)

Anyway, the speed of light is, in theory, the point at which any moving particle has infinite mass due to its kinetic energy, and therefor infinite energy is required to accelerate it to that point.



On-topic: If this is confirmed, it could throw a lot of what we know on its head, but that shouldn't come as a surprise in quantum mechanics. This is why nothing in science is ever to be taken as absolute fact before it has been proven.

nekomimimode said:

It looks hard.

I want it.

#22 LuffyOniiSan

    <3

  • Members
  • 3,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Oh lol everyone can see this now *covers up* D:<

Posted 01 October 2011 - 04:30 AM

View PostShallots, on 30 September 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

This affect can be seen in real-life examples as well: What takes more gas, accelerating from 0-10MPH in a car, or from 90-100? (Although yes, friction plays a part in that case as well)
The change in mass is too tiny to affect the energy used to move the car, it's friction. Try using E=mc2. (the value of c2 is so big it'll change the value of m by just a tiny amount.)
Posted ImagePosted Image

#23 Hiryuu

    Hipster Youmu

  • Members
  • 5,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Benton, AR
  • Interests:DDR, Conversating, Media Whoring. A+ CS Tech.

Posted 01 October 2011 - 05:59 AM

View Postfading sun, on 24 September 2011 - 01:14 AM, said:

This article definitely gives some evidence to question Einstein's previously unquestioned discovery.

Previously unquestioned? Bullshit. It's been questioned since the get-go. That's why it's a theory. Laws, on the other hand, are a completely different can of worms.

If it wasn't, there'd be no point in studying FTL or tachyons or anything that resolves to tachyent speeds. Hitching rides on beams of lights. Going multiples the speed of light. Warp speed. etc. etc. Einstein's theory suggests that anything can't approach the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. It doesn't have any bearing on things that are already travelling the speed of light or faster from many people's standpoints.

Science fiction, at the very least, loves the shit out of it. But many things science fiction tend to have things that could almost certainly happen, regardless of whatever limits we might place on ourselves via theories. They're just ways of understanding the ways of everything in the interim until we know for sure. Einstein's theory of relativity is no different. It's one of those 'we don't know, but here's our best guess' which can be defined until proven either way for an indeterminate amount of time. We just have to have the tools and the know-how to get to that point.
Posted Image
[NGG|YT|BTV]

#24 pegasaurus

    Relax, I'm a shark.

  • Members
  • 3,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, US
  • Interests:Girls can't hold me for too long cause I only pay for an hour.

Posted 01 October 2011 - 08:41 AM

View PostLuffyOniiSan, on 01 October 2011 - 04:30 AM, said:

The change in mass is too tiny to affect the energy used to move the car, it's friction. Try using E=mc2. (the value of c2 is so big it'll change the value of m by just a tiny amount.)

The practical example (while not at all a scaled representation of the effect) actually does explain why the speed of light is (was?) considered to be the absolute maximum speed limit. In theory, the only way to accelerate an object beyond the speed of light is to apply an infinite amount of energy to that mass.

View PostShallots, on 30 September 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

On-topic: If this is confirmed, it could throw a lot of what we know on its head, but that shouldn't come as a surprise in quantum mechanics. This is why nothing in science is ever to be taken as absolute fact before it has been proven.

It wouldn't come as a "surprise" per say.
...
Actually, it would come as a surprise. A huge surprise at that. Furthermore, the reason why this discover has the potential to kick modern science in the jewels is because the foundation of essentially all forms of science is the interactions of particles on the sub-molecular level. If it is discovered that these particles in fact have the capacity to travel at speeds faster than the speed of light, then quantum mechanics will obviously need to be completely redone. Additionally, it could alter the ways that other sciences are taught. For example, some of Einsteins paradoxes with Newton's laws of physics may be pardoned. One of them includes certain situations in which viewing a particle moving at the speed of light from another moving frame of reference will give the illusion that the particle is moving beyond the speed of light. If it is discovered that speeds greater than light are possible, then this rule could be overturned and scenarios in which the speed of light is broken may be taught in simpler physics classes.

This may also warrant a reexamination of how particles react with each other on a sub-molecular level, possibly leading to other conclusions regarding the origin of these reactions. And then, that team of Stanford students/professors looking to disprove Einstein's theories will turn out to be the next billionaires of the world.

Posted Image


#25 andrena

    DoujinStyle Member

  • Members
  • 1,150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NC, USA
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 01 October 2011 - 07:41 PM

View Postpegasaurus, on 01 October 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:


The practical example (while not at all a scaled representation of the effect) actually does explain why the speed of light is (was?) considered to be the absolute maximum speed limit. In theory, the only way to accelerate an object beyond the speed of light is to apply an infinite amount of energy to that mass.



It wouldn't come as a "surprise" per say.
...
Actually, it would come as a surprise. A huge surprise at that. Furthermore, the reason why this discover has the potential to kick modern science in the jewels is because the foundation of essentially all forms of science is the interactions of particles on the sub-molecular level. If it is discovered that these particles in fact have the capacity to travel at speeds faster than the speed of light, then quantum mechanics will obviously need to be completely redone. Additionally, it could alter the ways that other sciences are taught. For example, some of Einsteins paradoxes with Newton's laws of physics may be pardoned. One of them includes certain situations in which viewing a particle moving at the speed of light from another moving frame of reference will give the illusion that the particle is moving beyond the speed of light. If it is discovered that speeds greater than light are possible, then this rule could be overturned and scenarios in which the speed of light is broken may be taught in simpler physics classes.

This may also warrant a reexamination of how particles react with each other on a sub-molecular level, possibly leading to other conclusions regarding the origin of these reactions. And then, that team of Stanford students/professors looking to disprove Einstein's theories will turn out to be the next billionaires of the world.

The fact that it was a neutrino speed does significantly limit the scope of this discovery if it's upheld. It may simply reveal that there's a force we didn't know about that effects everything but neutrinos, acting as a "drag." The fact that its only .0001% faster also has implications on our measurement equipment or a small quirk in existing formulas.

#26 pegasaurus

    Relax, I'm a shark.

  • Members
  • 3,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, US
  • Interests:Girls can't hold me for too long cause I only pay for an hour.

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:43 AM

View Postandrena, on 01 October 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:


The fact that it was a neutrino speed does significantly limit the scope of this discovery if it's upheld. It may simply reveal that there's a force we didn't know about that effects everything but neutrinos, acting as a "drag." The fact that its only .0001% faster also has implications on our measurement equipment or a small quirk in existing formulas.

It seems like it's just a small change, but it's actually a real pain in the ass to rewrite science.

Posted Image


#27 Trixbeat

    DoujinStyle Member

  • Members
  • 1,313 posts

Posted 03 October 2011 - 12:23 PM

View Postpegasaurus, on 02 October 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:


It seems like it's just a small change, but it's actually a real pain in the ass to rewrite science.
Case in point:
Classical mechanics: F=ma
Quantum mechanics: Posted Image
Future mechanics: ??????
Obligatory signature goes here.

#28 dragonkid11

    DoujinStyle Member

  • Members
  • 736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:You shall never know this :D

Posted 03 October 2011 - 01:38 PM

View PostTrixbeat, on 03 October 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

Case in point:
Classical mechanics: F=ma
Quantum mechanics: Posted Image
Future mechanics: ??????
I think the scientists should put square root of trolling level of god into the equation

It just awesome :D

#29 rockpad

    文法マスター

  • Club: Awesome Moments
  • 2,020 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:nyan!
  • Interests:boxes a lot of boxes
    Koiro masutāsupāku

Posted 03 October 2011 - 02:44 PM

......al the time i had to answer on my exames nothing is faster then light

and now al the science books about light need to remaked,,,,,
we know just to less from mother earth
Posted Image

#30 LuffyOniiSan

    <3

  • Members
  • 3,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Oh lol everyone can see this now *covers up* D:<

Posted 12 November 2011 - 01:16 PM

Bump.

Update: http://bigthink.com/ideas/40927
Posted ImagePosted Image

#31 pegasaurus

    Relax, I'm a shark.

  • Members
  • 3,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, US
  • Interests:Girls can't hold me for too long cause I only pay for an hour.

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:21 AM

View PostLuffyOniiSan, on 12 November 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:


I'm not sure if the source is that reliable. The guy doesn't present enough evidence or statements for me to believe him. Also his opinion about the calibration? This is based on what? His extensive knowledge of having not been to CERN before?

I feel he's trolling.

Posted Image


#32 peregrin

    Heroic Spirit, Crême Brulée

  • Club: Food Appreciation Society
  • 4,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arbitrary
  • Interests:Survival Strategies

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:46 AM

View Postpegasaurus, on 14 November 2011 - 06:21 AM, said:

I'm not sure if the source is that reliable. The guy doesn't present enough evidence or statements for me to believe him. Also his opinion about the calibration? This is based on what? His extensive knowledge of having not been to CERN before?

I feel he's trolling.

Occam's Razor would go with his being right, though. It's like the arsenic-based life discovery. In the end, it was chalked up to experimental error as one would expect. Groundbreaking discoveries need to be repeated ad infinitum before they can actually be labeled as such.

So I made a tumblr dream log for a friend of mine, but then I realized that all I dream about is nerdy stuff. BUT THAT'S NORMAL FOR DOUJINSTYLE SO YOU SHOULD HAVE A READ



JOIN THE FOOD APPRECIATION SOCIETY TODAY (NOW WITH 20% MORE SNOBBERY)!

In the clubhouse, pass: DinnerWithFriends


#33 pegasaurus

    Relax, I'm a shark.

  • Members
  • 3,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, US
  • Interests:Girls can't hold me for too long cause I only pay for an hour.

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:33 AM

View Postperegrin, on 14 November 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

Occam's Razor would go with his being right, though. It's like the arsenic-based life discovery. In the end, it was chalked up to experimental error as one would expect. Groundbreaking discoveries need to be repeated ad infinitum before they can actually be labeled as such.

To my knowledge, arsenic-based life was actually confirmed on multiple counts.

Also, Occam's Razor is not really the best explanation of this guy's logic because I really feel he's shooting from the hip.

At the moment, the data is being gone through over and over. In fact, there's actually a fairly complex process CERN follows regarding their LHC data. I don't know for sure, but it has something to do with the data being analyzed a certain time period after it is collected in order to ensure the best chance for repeated results. Also, i think there is a separation between the scientists who analyze the results and those who conduct the experiments, that is, a scientist in charge of the specific operations of the LHC does not have access to the collected data as it comes in.

Posted Image






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users