32 replies to this topic

[Shallots]

Trixbeat, 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=mc^2, 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.

[LuffyOniiSan]

Shallots, 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.)

[Hiryuu]

fading 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.

[pegasaurus]

LuffyOniiSan, 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.

Shallots, 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.

[andrena]

pegasaurus, 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.

[pegasaurus]

andrena, 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.

[Trixbeat]

pegasaurus, 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:
Future mechanics: ??????

[dragonkid11]

Trixbeat, on 03 October 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

Case in point:
Classical mechanics: F=ma
Quantum mechanics:
Future mechanics: ??????

I think the scientists should put square root of trolling level of god into the equation

[rockpad]

......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

[LuffyOniiSan]

Bump.

Update: http://bigthink.com/ideas/40927

[pegasaurus]

LuffyOniiSan, on 12 November 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

Bump.

Update: http://bigthink.com/ideas/40927

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.

[peregrin]

pegasaurus, 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.

[pegasaurus]

peregrin, 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.