Neutrinos faster than the speed of light?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Magical Realist, Nov 1, 2013.

  1. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    I don't view traveling faster than the speed of light to be any different than traveling faster than the speed of sound. Scientists use to question traveling faster than the speed of sound too, but it has been achieved and breaking the sound barrier awesome.
    Also, any massless particle can travel at the speed of light. Light is just something visible, that we can view and are aware of without a lot of theoretical research. The universe can expand a lot faster than light can reach us from burnt out stars. I would compare it to someone running on a treadmill. The person on the treadmill may think they are doing something and running a great distance, but have gone absolutely no where, because they have been running stationary in one place for a really long time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    I seriously doubt that. Engineers, perhaps. But not scientists.

    That's not true at all. Einstein proved that was impossible in 1905. It's relatively easy to show that it’s impossible too.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    They did because they thought a plane would disintegrate if it traveled that fast and a lot did. That didn't stop them and that doesn't mean they didn't try to break the sound barrier. The sound barrier is a finite number and so is the speed of light.
    How so? Why is it not possible for any other massless particle to travel at the speed of light?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I'm afraid that you got it backwards, all massless particles travel at the speed of light.
     
  8. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    I already know the reason some people thought it was impossible to build a plane that would go supersonic but those people weren’t scientists. They were engineers. Scientists don’t work on problems like that. Engineers do. Do you have any proof that the people who thought like that were scientists, e.g. a physicist etc.?

    I already know the reason some people thought it was impossible to build a plane that would go supersonic but those people weren’t scientists. They were engineers. Scientists don’t work on problems like that. Engineers do. Do you have any proof that the people who thought like that were scientists, e.g. a physicist etc.?

    Sorry. My apologies. For some odd reason I thought you were referring to particles with mass. It's this damn dyslexia haunting me again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Perhaps it was because you made it a point to say that light (which has no mass) travels at the speed of light that threw me off my game.
     
  9. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    Thats funny. You think engineers aren't scientist. You do realize scientist wouldn't be what they are today if it wasn't for engineers, logicians and mathematicians.

    No it wouldn't. Light speed is a finite number just like sound and it doesn't take an infinite number to achieve that. It just means we aren't capable of traveling that fast.
     
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yes and no. I think there are different levels of confusion while at the same time there are what we could safely call settled matters of science. (Further defined as being subject to review, rare cases of amendment and extremely rare repeal. But confusion is another thing.)

    It's an excellent point, but as hasty a rationale for rejecting No 9's remarks as OPERA's premature release of information. What was egregious, and way worse than the difficulties of properly seating and testing fiber optic connectors, was that they knew there was a positive delay in measurement. That's the clincher that left them not only in violation of SR, but bad enough to bring a lot more than just physics to its knees. We'd all have to start believing in magic again.
     
  11. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    That's correct. You don't know the difference?
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The question isn't whether c is finite but whether division by zero yields a finite result, which is the problem trying to apply the Lorentz factor when v=c.
     
  13. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    That doesn't make any sense. In any case its impossible to accelerate a particle with finite rest mass to the speed of light from a speed v < c. And that derivation proves it. You don't seem able to follow the derivation/arguement. I think that's the problem.
     
  14. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Yes that is correct. A common misconception even among some scientists is that special relativity forbids faster than light particles, this isn't true at all. Special relativity very much can allow these particles, which is why they were invented in the first place. When all the hype of this neutrino came about, some scientists were stating this would be the possible collapse of relativity...

    ..Kaku even said that it was the ''end of physics.''

    I was surprised hearing all these misconceptions.
     
  15. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    Next time you want to build something like the LHC do it without engineers and mathematicians who actually know what they are doing please.
     
  16. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    No it doesn't. Why would you think it does?
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi Username,
    There is actually something fundamentally different about light speed, and there are infinities involved.
    The folks here would be glad to show you something amazing about how this universe works, if you're prepared to learn?
     
  18. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    Sure, I don’t have a problem with learning anything new. Just be specific with terms and thorough with any explanations.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Are you asking what division by zero means, or what produces a zero in the denominator?
     
  20. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    Why do you think division by zero yields infinite results?

    Division by zero doesn't yield a infinite result if that is what you are getting at. Zero is not a mystical magical number with special properties that no one can figure out.
     
  21. TBodillia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    "Sound Barrier" is a term created by the media.

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/sound_barrier.html
    "The term "sound barrier" originates from a comment made in 1935 by the British aerodynamicist William F. Hilton while speaking to a reporter about his high-speed experimental work at the National Physical Laboratory in England. Pointing to a plot of airfoil drag, Hilton said: "the resistance of a wing shoots up like a barrier against high speed as we approach the speed of sound." "

    The sound barrier had been broken by man for centuries. Bullets routinely flew faster than sound and it was learned that a whip crack is a mini-sonic boom. The question was if supersonic controlled flight could be achieved. Supersonic flight is a completely different beast from subsonic flight.

    I went looking for the original press release from OPERA on their alleged FTL neutrionos. They were asking for help since their results seemed to break the laws of physics. No luck, but I did find some articles from the time.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/...eutrinos?intcmp=239&guni=Article:in body link
    "Subir Sarkar, head of particle theory at Oxford University, said: "If this is proved to be true it would be a massive, massive event. It is something nobody was expecting.

    "The constancy of the speed of light essentially underpins our understanding of space and time and causality, which is the fact that cause comes before effect."

    The key point underlying causality is that the laws of physics as we know them dictate that information cannot be communicated faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, added Sarkar.

    "Cause cannot come after effect and that is absolutely fundamental to our construction of the physical universe. If we do not have causality, we are buggered." "

    Tachyons are hypothetical particles that move at FTL speeds. But if they exist, their mass is imaginary (the square root of a negative number).
     
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I was responding to your misconception that, since c is finite, then relative mass must be finite at v=c. That's incorrect. Division by zero produces a mathematical singularity. By way of illustration, notice what happens near v=c:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    Why would velocity = speed of light when its at rest? It would just be a continuum of restless mass would it not?
     

Share This Page