(September 23, 2011 at 5:52 am)Tiberius Wrote: The website says 16:00 CEST.

Thanks

---

(September 23, 2011 at 6:15 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Well none of this is a problem for quantum mechanics, they may have to devise a whole new branch of science to accommodate faster-than-light particles though.

One possible explanation is that neutrinos would interact with quantum fluctuations less than photons, hence have a slightly larger speed.

Quote:Can anyone see the potential benefits of using neutrinos as a new form of communication? I mean, were we to fire them through the planet could it revolutionise Internet access?

The problem is that neutrinos don't interact very much with matter. To detect them you need to build a giant tank of some liquid for neutrinos to interact with. Nearly all of your neutrinos will pass right through it, but every once in a while, one neutrino will undergo an interaction through the weak force with one of the atoms in your detector. So in terms of practicality, neutrinos are not useful for communication system.

Why is it so confusing that something can exceed the speed of light, especially if it's sub-atomic? Can someone explain that to a guy who doesn't know much about physics? I've always thought that there was no reason to think that some kind of matter could not possibly exceed the speed of light. Is this not evidence that something can?

(September 23, 2011 at 7:00 am)Napoleon Wrote: Why is it so confusing that something can exceed the speed of light, especially if it's sub-atomic? Can someone explain that to a guy who doesn't know much about physics? I've always thought that there was no reason to think that some kind of matter could not possibly exceed the speed of light. Is this not evidence that something can?

One of the fundamental concept in physics is Lorentz invariance. What this means is that if I apply the Lorentz transformations to an equation that I think is valid in one frame of reference, the equation would not changed under this transformation in another frame of reference.

Now, in the Lorentz transformation, we get this factor ( 1 - (v/c)2)½. Should the speed of a particle be greater than the speed of light ( v > c), then that factor becomes an imaginary number! This brings humongus headache to the theory. One way out is to postulate that the particle has an imaginary mass (tachyons) since this factor often multiplies the mass of the particle, and the product of two imaginary number is a real number. In the real world, masses are real quantity, not imaginary, so particles with a mass must travel at a speed less than the speed of light, and only massless particles can travel at the speed c.

In this case, that doesn't work, as neutrinos have a real mass and shouldn't be traveling at a speed greater than c. That's why the findings, if confirmed, would be disturbing, to say the least.

interesting article about the implications of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034414

(September 23, 2011 at 11:07 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: interesting article about the implications of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034414

The whole thing about extra dimensions is over-hyped. I'm sure there is an explanation a lot more mundane, which wouldn't make front-page news.

Some postulations I've heard is that it either is a locally strong gravitational field (don't know how that'd work out) or a systematic error.

(September 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Some postulations I've heard is that it either is a locally strong gravitational field (don't know how that'd work out) or a systematic error.

Assuming it's the former, how would that make any particle exceed the speed of light, especially particles which have mass?

(September 23, 2011 at 9:05 am)little_monkey Wrote: In this case, that doesn't work, as neutrinos have a real mass and shouldn't be traveling at a speed greater than c. That's why the findings, if confirmed, would be disturbing, to say the least.

So, unless someone has fucked up their readings, doesn't it show that the original equation is wrong?

(September 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Assuming it's the former, how would that make any particle exceed the speed of light, especially particles which have mass?

The clocks would be off, giving a misleading result where something would appear to move faster because time itself is progressing faster.

My bet is 'fuck up'.

If not though it'll be interesting.