Speed barrier broken

[mykonian]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

[Drench]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

No, it doesn't. The hypothetical tachyon can travel FTL, from what I understand.

[mykonian]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

No, it doesn't. The hypothetical tachyon can travel FTL, from what I understand.

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. Just a question I don't expect an answer on, but what makes that the tachyon doesn't carry information?

[Drench]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

No, it doesn't. The hypothetical tachyon can travel FTL, from what I understand.

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. Just a question I don't expect an answer on, but what makes that the tachyon doesn't carry information?

From what I gather (and I warn you, I'm pulling this all from Wikipedia without knowing anything about physics), they're not 'real' particles, but rather a representation of an instability. Or something.

As I said, I know nothing. So.

[mykonian]

Honestly it's not as sexy as it may sounds for you. It won't change physics, at most it will reveal a particular case of a certain theory.

Which is quite sexy, I'd say!

[mikeburnfire]

I WANT FASTER-THAN-LIGHT INTERGALACTIC SPACE EXPLORATION

SO EVERYBODY SHUT UP AND CELEBRATE

[mykonian]

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. Just a question I don't expect an answer on, but what makes that the tachyon doesn't carry information?

From what I gather (and I warn you, I'm pulling this all from Wikipedia without knowing anything about physics), they're not 'real' particles, but rather a representation of an instability. Or something.

As I said, I know nothing. So.

Doesn't matter. Most of the people posting here don't. Few have seen the mathematics behind the special relativity (which are easy and elegant enough to understand and show well enough why "faster then light" gives a lot of trouble). At the point where we both don't have a clue, it shows just who's best with wikipedia and heard something here an there.

For people who want an introduction on the subject this was what introduced me a few years ago. High school maths gets you through it, and it's a pleasant read anyway. Part one is what you need to have understand why lightspeed is a barrier people didn't expect to be broken.

[lewarcher82]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

No, it doesn't. The hypothetical tachyon can travel FTL, from what I understand.

huh, drench, I think you are not getting it completely right. tachyons are not particles, but something closer to a challenge to the model. Indeed, the CERN result can now be spelled as follows: there might be tachyonic neutrinos.

that said, I am no physicist and I gave up my math studies 5 years ago, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

[Drench]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

No, it doesn't. The hypothetical tachyon can travel FTL, from what I understand.

huh, drench, I think you are not getting it completely right. tachyons are not particles, but something closer to a challenge to the model. Indeed, the CERN result can now be spelled as follows: there might be tachyonic neutrinos.

that said, I am no physicist and I gave up my math studies 5 years ago, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

From what I gather...they're not 'real' particles, but rather a representation of an instability. Or something.

i will not allow myself to look like i have failed even though i haven't, because fuck you that's why

[Yosarian2]

huh, drench, I think you are not getting it completely right. tachyons are not particles, but something closer to a challenge to the model. Indeed, the CERN result can now be spelled as follows: there might be tachyonic neutrinos.

No, no no.

A tachyon is a hypothetical particle that can ONLY go faster then light. If it were ever to go slower then light, it would have a negative mass, but of course it can't. Basically it's a particle that's stuck on the other side of the light barrier. A particle with positive rest mass can only go slower then light, a particle with zero rest mass (IE: a photon) can only go at the speed of light (photon has a certain amount of mass/energy, but only because it is in motion at the speed of light), and a particle with negative rest mass can only go faster then light.

It's something that's theoretically possible under Einstein physcis, and that's where the idea comes from in fact, but has never actually been observed.

A neutrino can't be a tachyon, though. Neutrinos have mass.

[lewarcher82]

Ok, thank you!

[Untrod Tripod]

....

INVERSE TACHYON BEAM

[mikeburnfire]

EMPEROR TACHYON

[Otolia]

Doesn't matter. Most of the people posting here don't. Few have seen the mathematics behind the special relativity (which are easy and elegant enough to understand and show well enough why "faster then light" gives a lot of trouble).

Well I am, and I can say special relativity is a piece of cake compare to general relativity and to quantum field theory and associated (what this neutrinos are all about)

The tachyon is a theoritical particule who strictly speaking goes faster than light, its mass at v=0 is stricly complex (mathematically speaking) which physicist don't have an explanation for. Even if it goes strictly speaking faster than light, you can't measure anything because it goes either in the future (time wise) or in the past (time wise) on the relativistic level he goes to the to the outside of the cone of future. It evolves outside of the causality principle.

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

No, there is a lot of things that travels faster than light when you speak about quantum mechanics, like quantum entanglement or phase speed but none of them contains information (or energy).

The real causality principle in special relativity is written like this : "no information or Energy can travel faster than light in a inertial frame of reference at a speed faster than the speed limit of causal information." Cryptic isn't it ? That's the principle that could be broken here.

[animorpherv1]

EMPEROR TACHYON

*thumbsup*

[Xdaamno]

Doesn't matter. Most of the people posting here don't. Few have seen the mathematics behind the special relativity (which are easy and elegant enough to understand and show well enough why "faster then light" gives a lot of trouble).

Well I am, and I can say special relativity is a piece of cake compare to general relativity and to quantum field theory and associated (what this neutrinos are all about)

The tachyon is a theoritical particule who strictly speaking goes faster than light, its mass at v=0 is stricly complex (mathematically speaking) which physicist don't have an explanation for. Even if it goes strictly speaking faster than light, you can't measure anything because it goes either in the future (time wise) or in the past (time wise) on the relativistic level he goes to the to the outside of the cone of future. It evolves outside of the causality principle.

Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.

About this neutrino thing, huh, I don't know. Flay's odds are fine, but I'm hopeful about the wormhole thing. I don't know much about string theory, but if it turns out the neutrino is doing loop-da-loops through some extra dimensions string theory could come into play. But there's surely no way this would turn into a practical large-scale use of wormholes.

[shaft.ed]

I beg to differ, travel time from Paris to Rome could be reduced by at least 10 nanoseconds
think of the commercial value!

[Mr. Flay]

VIVE LE CONCORDE!

[Battousai]

I WANT FASTER-THAN-LIGHT INTERGALACTIC SPACE EXPLORATION

SO EVERYBODY SHUT UP AND CELEBRATE

You can't travel faster than the speed of light, so scientists will have to increase the speed of light.

[mykonian]

Doesn't matter. Most of the people posting here don't. Few have seen the mathematics behind the special relativity (which are easy and elegant enough to understand and show well enough why "faster then light" gives a lot of trouble).

Well I am, and I can say special relativity is a piece of cake compare to general relativity and to quantum field theory and associated (what this neutrinos are all about)

Which is why I stopped taking extra physics at that point. I have a general idea, and that's it.

The tachyon is a theoritical particule who strictly speaking goes faster than light, its mass at v=0 is stricly complex (mathematically speaking) which physicist don't have an explanation for. Even if it goes strictly speaking faster than light, you can't measure anything because it goes either in the future (time wise) or in the past (time wise) on the relativistic level he goes to the to the outside of the cone of future. It evolves outside of the causality principle.

Here you lose me. I might be wrong, but I thought mass was an observable, and that that made it necessary for it to be real.

No, there is a lot of things that travels faster than light when you speak about quantum mechanics, like quantum entanglement or phase speed but none of them contains information (or energy).

Thank you.

[Yosarian2]

You know that something weird is going on when the web version of the New York Times news article about a possible scientific discovery has a hyperlink in it to...xkcd. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/scien ... 1&ref=cern

[Yosarian2]

1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".

You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?

By the way, that is not quite true; there are some things in quantum physcis that happen instantly at great distances ("spooky action at a distance" to quote Einsten), like the collapsing of the wave-form of one particle when a different particle is observed, but they can not be used to carry information.

[Thok]

Yeah, I'd give wormholes about 100 times the odds of FTL neutrinos, and measurement error about 500 times the chance of wormholes. We've

measured

the effects of relativity, and there's no reason to believe anything can violate the infinite mass/energy limit.

I'd give measurement error at least 1000000 times the odds of wormholes.

We've seen stars go supernova that were expected to go supernova. If neutrinos were faster than light or doing wormhole travel, the neutrino burst from a supernova would have beaten the light from a supernova to earth by an easily measurable factor. (Like minutes or hours or days or years.)

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I'd give wormholes about 100 times the odds of FTL neutrinos, and measurement error about 500 times the chance of wormholes. We've

measured

the effects of relativity, and there's no reason to believe anything can violate the infinite mass/energy limit.

I'd give measurement error at least 1000000 times the odds of wormholes.

We've seen stars go supernova that were expected to go supernova. If neutrinos were faster than light or doing wormhole travel, the neutrino burst from a supernova would have beaten the light from a supernova to earth by an easily measurable factor. (Like minutes or hours or days or years.)

Is the claim that all neutrinos travel faster then light, or one specific type does, or the neutrinos created in a certain place were, or what? What was this experiment measuring, exactly? I'm still kind of fuzzy on the details.

[Thok]

Is the claim that all neutrinos travel faster then light, or one specific type does, or the neutrinos created in a certain place were, or what? What was this experiment measuring, exactly? I'm still kind of fuzzy on the details.

The experiment involves neutrino's created at CERN lab detect apparently 732 km away in Italy. I don't know enough about the experiment to know if there was anything special about the neutrinos.

Edit: if I had to guess, the solution involves them not handling the curvature of the earth correctly.