RuneVillage.com

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-27T18:53:49-06:00

I certainly don't believe it's enough to prevent light speed travel.

As far as satellites go I imagine in time we'll find a better explanation than time dilation for how all that works out. Couldn't it be just as well to explain that gravity and the earth's magnetic field have some unknown effect to explain these differences? If you want a pure experiment on relativity and time dilation. Get two identical timers into deep space and have one move faster than the other.

But comparing two identical clocks in non-identical situations where gravity, magnetism, and radiation, etc. are all different. I think it's a little high and mighty to think that suddenly we've proven time dilation with just that.

Statistics: Posted by Znath — September 27th, 2011, 6:53 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-27T18:43:04-06:00

It's pretty common for people to think of a complicated phenomenon like time dilation as "magical" or impossible. Just show fire to a caveman and see how they react. However, to brush it off as "wrong" just because it's too complicated for you to fully understand isn't exactly an educated opinion. Time dilation isn't just some science fiction nonsense, it is a real and measurable phenomenon. In fact, if I recall correctly, the effects of time dilation need to be taken into account to keep GPS systems and their satellites communicating properly, otherwise your GPS reading would be imprecise.

Statistics: Posted by Jackstick — September 27th, 2011, 6:43 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-27T18:39:57-06:00

I do understand it. I chose simply to not believe the outcome of the time dilation and light barrier nonsense.

The equation is simple F=MV^2
It's not F=M (V but only if V is lower than...)^2
And gradually as time goes on and science advances, we're finding.. gasp... these barriers aren't as hard as we thought.

You can throw a watch into a rocket and see what happens
but you have to take into account forces on gears, or if it's digital, temperature of the operating components, vibrations (since the crystal vibration measures time), radiation, etc
Any outside force can effect the operation of almost any clock or timing mechanism.

I've never really found a good explanation or scientific proof showing actual experimentation proving time slowing down at high speeds.
But when you eliminate the idea of magic or space-time. Things line up fine.

The best scientists at the end of ww2 thought that the sound barrier was completely impossible to pass.
It was believed that as velocity increased, air resistance did too exponentially.
Therefor at mach1 wind resistance = infinity... sound familiar?

Any time science can't explain something... the answer seems to always be "many"

Statistics: Posted by Znath — September 27th, 2011, 6:39 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-27T13:38:56-06:00

Znath wrote:

Basically this
"Why can't we go faster than light"

Here's how I see it.
KE = 0.5 MV^2

So no... mass doesn't increase. Kinetic energy does.
The problem is the "^2"
So you also have the reverse of it meaning how much energy it would take to get an object to light speed. And I think this is what really freaks scientists out is how many zeros there are.
That's how much fuel/energy/etc you'd need to push it.

It seems a lot easier to say "well.. force reaches infinity" or "time dilation" will simply prevent light speed from being viable.

Time dilation is that idea that if you go beyond light speed, time slows down around you.
This is in some relation to bending time and high velocity...etc etc, it's extremely complicated and in my opinion... wrong.

In what I'd like to call "the physical universe" time dilation doesn't happen. The more energy you put into something.. the faster it goes. It's as simple as that in my opinion.

Here's the problem there though. In a purely physical reactive universe with no space magic or space-time you have to deliver that force. A chemical rocket works by shooting heated gas out the back which effectively bounces off the rocket to push it. So to go light speed, you need something extremely forceful and fast to go faster. Eventually a chemical rocket can't go that speed.

Eventually even an atomic powered rocket won't get any faster. Beyond that, what would start to approach light speed? The holy grail seems to be antimatter by the assumption you can either control the reaction if it's big... or that it doesn't just neutralize and do nothing. The fastest acting forces we know of are gravity, magnetism, and possibly antimatter.

The biggest obstacle is "how do you deliver the energy" even a golfball would take tremendously large amounts of energy to get to light speed even ignoring the mass of the rocket needed it takes a ton of energy probably in the order of 1000000000000000 joules kinds of energy or roughly the force of an atomic bomb focused solely on a golfball to move lightspeed.

Even assuming you have enough fuel to do so, it takes more and exponentially more energy to go a tiny bit faster. Meaning that even if we got to 90% light speed 91% would probably take double the energy... kind of like leveling on RS. And containing the force of several nuclear bombs exploding would be very hard.

TLDR? Why is this article important?
Because even though tachyons and super-lightspeed particles have existed before
Humans caused it this time! Before it's all natural reactions and low mass particles like electrons.
This means you CAN move mass beyond light speed with force alone.

This could potentially lead to highspeed rocket engines much like the ion-rockets where low mass particles + extremely high velocity = high velocity rocket with low fuel use.

I.. just.. disagree with a lot of this post

First of all, time dilation doesn't happen when you exceed light speed, it happens all the time (clocks run slower when moving)

Also you seem to just take a lot of the science and theories which you don't understand and say "That doesn't make sense to me, so I don't believe it"

I can't blame you for not understanding it (I sure don't understand it) but there are a great number of people who do, and who can back it up and have proven a lot of those theories

lightspeed (which is a bit of a misnomer, it is the speed at which light travels, but when referring to it as the fastest something can go you could just say the speed of a massless particle, light merely has that speed because it is a massless particle) is the fastest speed achievable (or thought to be) because it has no mass

The famous E= mc^2 only works for a body at rest (v = 0), there is a hidden variable in there with a value of 1 when v equals 0, so it is omitted

I recommend you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightspeed ... in_physics

I found it to be quite easy to understand, even though I don't know the underlying (verified) physics and found it made sense

Although I suppose it is that very verification which is being disputed by this discovery, so who knows

Statistics: Posted by Jeroen — September 27th, 2011, 1:38 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-27T11:59:45-06:00

Statistics: Posted by Znath — September 27th, 2011, 11:59 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T17:45:07-06:00

Jackstick wrote:

Kikori wrote:

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Eadwulf wrote:

Normal person: HOLY CRAP, WARP DRIVE CAN HAPPEN!

Scientist: Tachyons are real. Now what?

Well no, because they aren't tachyons, they were neutrinos...

And that makes a difference?
When this happens with full-fledged atoms (let alone molecules), we'll have more than a broken theory. For now, we just know the speed of light has been broken by an inconsequentially low-mass substance.

Yes. A tachyon is defined as a particle that can move faster than the speed of light, but never slower than the speed of light. It also has a ton of other fancy properties (all hypothetical) which probably make it very different from a neutrino.

Actually this theoretical property of tachyons may be refuted with the validation of these test results; the inability to decelerate is derived entirely from the proposed characteristics that are necessary for a particle to have in order to achieve superluminal velocity, e.g. zero mass. In this case, tachyonic neutrinos have been produced, creating a superluminal particle that has a nonzero mass, and as such, it can be asserted that non-relativistic tachyons exist.

Statistics: Posted by Eadwulf — September 23rd, 2011, 5:45 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T14:34:55-06:00

Aragorn Ix wrote:

speed of light theory

Ahhh, that does make a lot more sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

Statistics: Posted by Blackmage172 — September 23rd, 2011, 2:34 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T14:10:53-06:00

Kikori wrote:

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Eadwulf wrote:

Normal person: HOLY CRAP, WARP DRIVE CAN HAPPEN!

Scientist: Tachyons are real. Now what?

Well no, because they aren't tachyons, they were neutrinos...

Statistics: Posted by Jackstick — September 23rd, 2011, 2:10 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T14:05:28-06:00

I'm with Jeroen, it's kinda cool how they want people to try to disprove them.

But if they aren't.....Man, this is huge.

Statistics: Posted by Riptide — September 23rd, 2011, 2:05 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T13:59:45-06:00

Blackmage172 wrote:

If someone would care to enlighten me, I've never understood why it was assumed nothing could travel faster than light. I understand relativity/special relativity and have taken several chemistry/physics courses in college (getting a minor), but I've still always been curious why it was arbitrarily chosen that light is the fastest and nothing can go faster.

Because light (photons) have no mass. Everything else (pretty much anyhow) has at least a certain amount of mass. The speed of light (186,000 miles per second) was based around the fact that it is the ultimate speed because it has zero mass, nothing known to science can have negative mass so that is the ultimate barrier of speed.

This is what someone with more knowledge on the subject than me said:

"The lightspeed barrier is IT. It's the one fundamental thing nobody really contemplates as being breakable.

Theory, skip if bored:
Things require energy to accelerate, proportional to their mass (F=MA). As this energy is applied, they gain kinetic energy (KE = 0.5 MV^2). Energy has mass (I don't get that, never have), and so as things get really fast, their mass increases, and so it requires more force to accelerate them.

Lightspeed is the point at which the mass becomes infinite, therefore the energy required for more acceleration becomes infinite, so you should never be able to break that barrier without deliberately folding spacetime or some similar not-known-to-be-possible trick. Light can only do it because photons don't have mass. Supposedly.

If they've got particles exceeding C, one of three things is the case. Either the above is actually wrong, in which case we have no idea what's going on. OR they're folding space in that lab, which would be unprecedented and really awesome, OR they've miscalculated something. My money's on the latter. "

Statistics: Posted by Aragorn Ix — September 23rd, 2011, 1:59 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T12:54:21-06:00

Statistics: Posted by Blackmage172 — September 23rd, 2011, 12:54 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T11:38:18-06:00

Rayseima wrote:

Time travel is mathematically possible, but now...actually knowing YOU CAN TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT is beyond belief.
But neutrinos have almost no mass, so to actually make time travel a reality you would have to...have no mass.
I'm no physicist, but I think we can all agree:

THIS.
IS.
INSANE.

Words have no mass.

Stein's Gate has opened!

Statistics: Posted by Nateman — September 23rd, 2011, 11:38 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T10:58:17-06:00

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Eadwulf wrote:

Normal person: HOLY CRAP, WARP DRIVE CAN HAPPEN!

Scientist: Tachyons are real. Now what?

Well no, because they aren't tachyons, they were neutrinos...

Statistics: Posted by Kikori — September 23rd, 2011, 10:58 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T08:18:17-06:00

Wow, this is incredible.

But what I want to know is how those little particles achieved that speed? What the heck were they launched from? It says they were "pumped". I am confuse.

Science was always my weakest subject, but discoveries/updates like these are always interesting.

Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — September 23rd, 2011, 8:18 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T07:55:46-06:00

Eadwulf wrote:

Normal person: HOLY CRAP, WARP DRIVE CAN HAPPEN!

Scientist: Tachyons are real. Now what?

Well no, because they aren't tachyons, they were neutrinos...

Statistics: Posted by Aragorn Ix — September 23rd, 2011, 7:55 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T04:26:04-06:00

Normal person: HOLY CRAP, WARP DRIVE CAN HAPPEN!

Scientist: Tachyons are real. Now what?

Statistics: Posted by Eadwulf — September 23rd, 2011, 4:26 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-23T01:48:18-06:00

Znath wrote:

Eat it relativists claiming Einstein as gospel...

I told you so!

It probably won't invalidate most of special relativity anyway, we'd just need some tweaking for circumstances in which faster than light travel is possible

Probably

I mean Einstein proved Newton wrong but we still teach that

Statistics: Posted by Jeroen — September 23rd, 2011, 1:48 am

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-22T23:17:45-06:00

Eat it relativists claiming Einstein as gospel...

I told you so!

Statistics: Posted by Znath — September 22nd, 2011, 11:17 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-22T23:02:54-06:00

Statistics: Posted by Rayseima — September 22nd, 2011, 11:02 pm

Re: CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

2011-09-22T17:29:39-06:00

The most significant part of the article is the calculations were collected 15,000 times and came up the same. Here's hoping they're right because the implications are huge.

Statistics: Posted by Aragorn Ix — September 22nd, 2011, 5:29 pm