In post 24, Otolia wrote: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?
In post 24, Otolia wrote:1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".
In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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?
In post 26, Drench wrote:In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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.
In post 27, mykonian wrote:In post 26, Drench wrote:In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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?
In post 24, Otolia wrote: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.
In post 28, Drench wrote:In post 27, mykonian wrote: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.
In post 26, Drench wrote:In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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.
lewarcher82 wrote:In post 26, Drench wrote:In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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 wrote:
From what I gather...they're not 'real' particles, but rather a representation of an instability. Or something.
In post 32, lewarcher82 wrote:In post 26, Drench wrote:
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.
In post 31, mykonian wrote:
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).
In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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?
In post 38, Otolia wrote:In post 31, mykonian wrote:
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.
In post 30, mikeburnfire wrote:I WANT FASTER-THAN-LIGHT INTERGALACTIC SPACE EXPLORATION
SO EVERYBODY SHUT UP AND CELEBRATE
Which is why I stopped taking extra physics at that point. I have a general idea, and that's it.In post 38, Otolia wrote:In post 31, mykonian wrote: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)
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.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.
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).
In post 25, mykonian wrote:In post 24, Otolia wrote: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?
In post 23, Mr. Flay wrote:Yeah, I'd give wormholes about 100 times the odds of FTL neutrinos, and measurement error about 500 times the chance of wormholes. We'vemeasuredthe effects of relativity, and there's no reason to believe anything can violate the infinite mass/energy limit.
In post 47, Thok wrote:In post 23, Mr. Flay wrote:Yeah, I'd give wormholes about 100 times the odds of FTL neutrinos, and measurement error about 500 times the chance of wormholes. We'vemeasuredthe 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.)
In post 48, Yosarian2 wrote: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.