Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Speed of Light Exceeded? - LHC Announcement

PunkJay

By PunkJay
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

JulianO

JulianO

Posted
Posted

So, we know neutrinos exist and we can detect them - same goes for photons as we can `see` them and our rules of physics are built around theories that refer to the `speed of light`.. But how do we know there are not other particles out there that completely trounce these rules and move many many times faster than the speed of light? Maybe we are not advanced enough (and maybe we never will be) to build detectors that can detect these particles existence, let alone try to measure their speed.

So if you can't see it, can't touch it, it has no observable properties and no observable effects... well its a bit of a philosophical question then. Its like there might be fairies at the bottom of my garden, but I can't see them, or their presence or their effects - so I might as well say they're not there!

I am really trying to grasp the concepts of relativity and its associated theories, but maybe I am just too open minded to accept that the speed of light is the be all and end of all of the maximum speed `something` can travel.

The speed to light is fixed in both Maxwells equations (which is what partly prompted Einstein to do his work), and fundamental to relativity. Relativity says that there is a speed limit in the universe, and it happens that light travels at that speed limit. The c^2 in E=mc^2 happens to be the speed of light, but thats almost incidental, the c^2 is the universal speed limit fixed in the fabric of the universe, which light happens to travel at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply
neil phillips

neil phillips

Posted
Posted
It is not arrogant! Science can only use the parameters of existing theory to gain further knowledge and try and break those parameters.

Some people seem to think there is a big book of science the scientist delve into every now and again, there is not, science for the most part is working blind of what is ahead.

I can not stand this Daily Mail mentality that believes that scientist presume to know it all, of course they do not, but the staring point in science for each new generation is what the generations that went before have left.

Well i think we might have to politely agree to dissagree on that. Too many times ive seen ideas thrown out with the bathwater, on ideas that were held as concrete at the time.

Only to see those ideas lost by the way side. The most we can often say is current understanding would suggest this or that.

But sadly ive seen a lot of people try to defend a particular scientific idea, on the basis of currect theorys, which is fine if they belive those theorys to be unquestionable. Which does often happen as ive seen it, time and time again.

But my point which for some reason doesnt appear popular, is to think like that. Which has been, and will not doubt again, be proved just plain wrong.

Some may choose to defend that kind of assumption making, as progression of science or whatever.

But to me it smacks of arrogance, each to hes own. I actually do think that a mistake will likely be found too. As it just doesnt fit that well with past and current thinking. However if correct, then this really will require a explanation thats going to turn physics on its head. Exciting times

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ender Of Days

Ender Of Days

Posted
Posted

I hope this is true,but I remember the Pulsar Planet with its orbit exactly the same as our own,turned out they hadn't removed the earths orbit from their equations and there was no Planet,but at the time .. :rolleyes:

And yeah .. Cold Fusion ;):)

Seriously though,how accurate would they have measured the detectors position's to get the time of travel as small as they have done ?

I bet they didn't use my old gps unit :glasses2:

JJ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamespels

jamespels

Posted
Posted
I hope this is true,but I remember the Pulsar Planet with its orbit exactly the same as our own,turned out they hadn't removed the earths orbit from their equations and there was no Planet,but at the time .. :glasses2:

Too good an opportunity for a plug to miss - sorry :rolleyes:

Professor Andrew Lyne lead the team that made the Pulsar Planet discovery (and received great peer acclaim for the way he and his team handled the realisation of their mistake); he is still very active in the Manchester University pulsar research team. He is talking about his work on pulsars at PSP2011 on Sunday - hope to see you there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
661-pete

661-pete

Posted
Posted

I wonder whether .... :glasses2:

... we could get round this paradox by asserting that the velocity of light - in all the formulae of Special Relativity that use it - should in fact be the velocity of the neutrinos rather than the velocity of the photons?

For example, in the familiar formula:

m = m0/√(1 - v²/c²)

the 'c' should be the neutrino velocity? Or would that mean that photons would need to have a rest mass, throwing the whole of electromagnetic theory into chaos?

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saturn4me

saturn4me

Posted
Posted
I wonder whether .... :glasses2:

... we could get round this paradox by asserting that the velocity of light - in all the formulae of Special Relativity that use it - should in fact be the velocity of the neutrinos rather than the velocity of the photons?

For example, in the familiar formula:

m = m0/√(1 - v²/c²)

the 'c' should be the neutrino velocity? Or would that mean that photons would need to have a rest mass, throwing the whole of electromagnetic theory into chaos?

Just a thought.

Thats just what i was thinking;):rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Imp_Perfect

Imp_Perfect

Posted
Posted

Question.

Photons have mass? (I remember seeing those little lightbulb shaped things with little black on one side white on other side squares in that spun in light)

Neutrinos don't have mass? How are they detected then? Surely to be detectable something needs to interact and therefore have mass.

Hope that makes sense, but I am confused about that bit.

Faster than Light? Surely Neutrinos are part and parcel of what light is made up from, if this is so, how can they be faster than themselves? Shouldn't they be said to be faster than visible light?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JB80

JB80

Posted
Posted

I just posyed this in the other thread incase anybody missed it.

"For anyone with a spare 1 hour 53 minutes it's well worth a look. It's the press conference cern held this afternoon, very detailed, informative and confusing. A lot of work has gone in to this announcement and they have covered a lot of bases, if it's an error well they can't come up with a reason why it would be.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486 "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JulianO

JulianO

Posted
Posted

Photons have mass? (I remember seeing those little lightbulb shaped things with little black on one side white on other side squares in that spun in light)

Well they have momentum, but they don't have rest mass, as they are never at rest. Anything with energy has an effective mass as they are interchangeable. Those black and white things don't actually work by mass transfer, but by heating, although the effect your describing can work.

Neutrinos don't have mass? How are they detected then? Surely to be detectable something needs to interact and therefore have mass.

I think the jury is still out - and that they may have a very tiny mass. However as in the case of light, they have energy, so they have a momentum. Things dont need mass to interact, they just need to be able to intereact. This leads onto more complex equations that says what sorts of things can interact.

Faster than Light? Surely Neutrinos are part and parcel of what light is made up from, if this is so, how can they be faster than themselves? Shouldn't they be said to be faster than visible light?

neutrinos aren't light, they're something else. Massless things travel at the speed of light, and its not clear yet if neutrinos are truely massless. Curent theories say that the speed of light is a hard and fast limit. Thats why if this turns out to be true it will upset a lot of things. People see this as a good thing and interesting, but there is a lot to overturn if so, so people are cautious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Imp_Perfect

Imp_Perfect

Posted
Posted
Well they have momentum, but they don't have rest mass, as they are never at rest. Anything with energy has an effective mass as they are interchangeable. Those black and white things don't actually work by mass transfer, but by heating, although the effect your describing can work.

I think the jury is still out - and that they may have a very tiny mass. However as in the case of light, they have energy, so they have a momentum. Things dont need mass to interact, they just need to be able to intereact. This leads onto more complex equations that says what sorts of things can interact.

neutrinos aren't light, they're something else. Massless things travel at the speed of light, and its not clear yet if neutrinos are truely massless. Curent theories say that the speed of light is a hard and fast limit. Thats why if this turns out to be true it will upset a lot of things. People see this as a good thing and interesting, but there is a lot to overturn if so, so people are cautious.

Thank you kindly for explaining that to my somewhat messed up mind. I can't quite grasp no mass but able to transfer energy. I will take your word for it though. And thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JulianO

JulianO

Posted
Posted
Thank you kindly for explaining that to my somewhat messed up mind. I can't quite grasp no mass but able to transfer energy. I will take your word for it though. And thanks again.

E = mc^2

you can swap mass for energy and vice versa.

Given enough energy you can make mass. Or if something is composed purely of energy, it has an equivalent mass.

Actually the above is a simplification for things with rest mass. The real equation is

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

which reduces to the above if the object is not moving.

If the object has no rest mass like the photon, then it reduces to

E = pc

p is momentum, which is more normally mass * velocity

So photons have an effective mass, which you can work out from their energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.