Einstein Got It Wrong?

[Atreus21]

Fern, it isn't theoretically impossible for a mass to exist that always moves faster than the speed of light. Look up "tachyons." Note: the actual existence of such things has never been proven. However, the point is that the existence of such a thing isn't theoretically impossible. I don't know the physics any better than you do, but this seems to come up every time this issue is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

- wolf

I was thinking about tachyons yesterday when I read about it.

 

[Atreus21]

 

[werepossum]

LOL!

I hope it's replicable. I'd also be interested in knowing the relative energy expended versus measured energy.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...n-the-early-universe-new-theory-says-yes.html

Think this is the one, Hay

 

[Bowfinger]

Fern, it isn't theoretically impossible for a mass to exist that always moves faster than the speed of light. Look up "tachyons." Note: the actual existence of such things has never been proven. However, the point is that the existence of such a thing isn't theoretically impossible. I don't know the physics any better than you do, but this seems to come up every time this issue is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

- wolf

Yes, that's the premise exactly. Einstein concluded it would be impossible to accelerate a mass from (less than c) to (c). This is because as mass approaches infinity, the energy required to accelerate it also approaches infinity. He did not preclude the existence of something already traveling above c, e.g., the hypothetical tachyon.

 

[Fern]

Fern, it isn't theoretically impossible for a mass to exist that always moves faster than the speed of light.

Yes, I believe it is. It is theoretically impossible for a an object with mass to exist that moves at hyper light speed according to Einstein's theory (as I understand it from a laymen's pov).

First, please spend a moment or two dwelling on the concept of "infinity". Whether it be infinite energy or mass.....

In the first place I contend that there is no such thing as "infinite" in our known laws of physics/science. The universe is finite, as such it's 'potential' energy is finite.

If, in accordance with Einstein's theory of relativity, it requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to hyper light speed then you're suggesting an infinite amount of energy was applied to a (infinite) mass to accelerate it to hyper-light speeds at some point in time. An infinite quantity of, well anything, has never been postulated, much less theorized or proven, AFAIK therefore you are suggesting an equally radical occurrence to explain away this possibility. Which is more unlikely, or unproven?

There is already a "god particle', or you suggesting another one? (I joke here, but what you are suggesting opens discussion for any number of incredulous claims. The claim of infinity is mostly in the theological realm as best as I can tell.)

Look up "tachyons." Note: the actual existence of such things has never been proven. However, the point is that the existence of such a thing isn't theoretically impossible. I don't know the physics any better than you do, but this seems to come up every time this issue is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Dig a little deeper. If I understand correctly, a tachyon is theorized to have a negative mass. (A negative square root in the formula). If so, it would be irrelevant here. Also, being only theoretical, as opposed to an observed neutrino, it is of little-to-no use here.

Personally, (and disappointedly) I suspect we may find this phenomenon is attributable to an error in measurement. OTOH.....

Fern

 

[sarsipias1234]

I don't consider the following a threadjack since you saw fit to take cheap shots given the opportunity.

The very power of capitalism comes in its empowerment of individuals over the collective. It leaves people free to choose whether they want to be greedy or not.

Are you saying that governmental economic control is preferable to individual economic freedom in promoting an atmosphere more conducive to scientific inquiry?

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition."

Albert Einstein "Why Socialism?"

 

[zsdersw]

Someone inside that neutrino obviously said...

 

[Paul98]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...n-the-early-universe-new-theory-says-yes.html

Think this is the one, Hay

Really did you think that this news article and the others you posted have anything to do with actual reality? You don't have any understanding of relativity there for can't see the obvious errors in the thinking. Or that it's not really saying what you think it's saying or implying.

News articles mean nothing in science, if you want to convince anyone relativity was wrong. you need peer reviewed papers, and verified results. There are plenty of problems and things that aren't explained in physics.

The speed of light and objects with mass not being able to accelerate faster than it is not one of those things.

 

[Paul98]

Yes, I believe it is. It is theoretically impossible for a an object with mass to exist that moves at hyper light speed according to Einstein's theory.

First, please spend a moment or two dwelling on the concept of "infinity". Whether it be infinite energy or mass.....

In the first place I contend that there is no such thing as "infinite" in our known laws of physics/science. The universe is finite, as such it's 'potential' energy is finite.

If, in accordance with Einstein's theory of relativity, it requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to hyper light speed then you're suggesting an infinite amount of energy was applied to a (infinite) mass to accelerate it to hyper-light speeds at some point in time. An infinite quantity of, well anything, has never been postulated, much less theorized or proven, therefore you are suggesting an equally radical occurrence to explain away this possibility. Which is more unlikely, or unproven?

Yes everyone agrees that it is impossible for a normal object with mass to exceed the speed of light. Lets say you are in a space ship out in space that could accelerate without consuming fuel. You hit the accelerator and on the spaceship the accelerometer reads 1g. Lets say you keep on the accelerator for a month, year, 100 years, a billion years so that your accelerometer continues to read 1g. The amount of energy to keep your accelerometer at 1g is exactly the same at the start of your trip as it is after a million years. If you were to compare your speed when you stop accelerating to your speed when you started your trip you will see that you still aren't moving faster than the speed of light even though on the ship you would have kept your accelerometer at 1g for a million years.

Force isn't applied, just as photons always move the speed of light since they don't have mass. These faster than light objects wouldn't interact in the world like normal matter does, and would most likely never move slower than the speed of light.

 

[peonyu]

Wait and see. Its possible [but doubtful] that it exceeded the speed of light and if so its big news for a lot of reasons. And if it did its only a good thing, perhaps it will motivate them to find a way to get stable faster than C communications going [at the least].

 

[Moonbeam]

Really did you think that this news article and the others you posted have anything to do with actual reality? You don't have any understanding of relativity there for can't see the obvious errors in the thinking. Or that it's not really saying what you think it's saying or implying.

News articles mean nothing in science, if you want to convince anyone relativity was wrong. you need peer reviewed papers, and verified results. There are plenty of problems and things that aren't explained in physics.

The speed of light and objects with mass not being able to accelerate faster than it is not one of those things.

Dear Sir, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I was speaking to my fellow traveler, Hayabusa Rider, who shares my curiosity about things cosmic and also has a non-religious mind not wedded to any form of mental conformity and is open to all kinds of different thinking. But I am well aware of folk like yourself who take comfort in conformity. You would have made an idea proponent of a flat earth. The idea was just so in.

 

[woolfe9999]

Dig a little deeper. If I understand correctly, a tachyon is theorized to have a negative mass. (A negative square root in the formula). If so, it would be irrelevant here. Also, being only theoretical, as opposed to an observed neutrino, it is of little-to-no use here.

Personally, (and disappointedly) I suspect we may find this phenomenon is attributable to an error in measurement. OTOH.....

Fern

Right, college physics coming back to me here. Negative mass means the inverse is true, that a tachyon needs infinite energy to *slow down* to the speed of light. LOL these concepts are very difficult to conceive in non-mathematical terms. They make my head hurt.

 

[Fern]

Same here. I wish some real physics people would show up here who could put this stuff in terms understandable to a layman such as myself. We had some of that in the Japan nuclear reactor thread a while back and I really appreciated it.

Fern

 

[Nemesis 1]

LOL! so something exist outside of time and space , How is this news . It can't be news unless you lack faith

 

[EagleKeeper]

LOL! so something exist outside of time and space , How is this news . It can't be news unless you lack faith

Faith in what though?

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPU_SGOqCM

 

[Paul98]

Dear Sir, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I was speaking to my fellow traveler, Hayabusa Rider, who shares my curiosity about things cosmic and also has a non-religious mind not wedded to any form of mental conformity and is open to all kinds of different thinking. But I am well aware of folk like yourself who take comfort in conformity. You would have made an idea proponent of a flat earth. The idea was just so in.

There is a difference between having knowledge on a subject and being able to see if what someone is saying has any barring in reality. And not knowing anything on a subject and just throwing out random speculation, where if you did have knowledge on the subject you would see where you are wrong.

what are you talking about with this "flat earth" bs? Do you have scientific data that supported flat earth? Do you think I believe what I believe because of a consensus? No I believe it because i have studied it, looked at the tests done, and how the speed of light works and how relativity works. If I have questions I get them answered, and figure out the explanation. If I don't understand a certain part or why something is the way it is I ask so that I understand the reasoning and data behind what I am learning. Continue to ask why not just get the answer but understand it. To a point where why is just an observed phenomenon such as the speed of light is constant to all inertial observers.

If you study and understand something you can see where the weakness are, where more study needs to be done. Plus when reading these articles you can see if it's total nonsense or not.

 

[GoPackGo]

The neutrinos didn't move...the universe moved around them

 

[shira]

News articles mean nothing in science, if you want to convince anyone relativity was wrong. you need peer reviewed papers, and verified results.

Boy, have you come to the wrong place. if you think peer-reviewed papers and verified results will convince a large segment of the ATPN crowd of anything, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[shira]

One of the reasons that the scientific community is so skeptical of faster-than-light speeds for particles with positive rest mass is that the Lorentz factor

1/SQRT(1 - (v**2)/(c**2))

which accurately predicts observed time dilations and moving masses, becomes an imaginary number if v > c.

The Lorentz factor is a direct consequence of one of the most famous (to physicists) postulates in physics: The speed of light is the same for all inertial reference frames. That is, if you are moving at constant speed relative to me, and we both measure (with perfect equipment and 0 experimental error) the speed of the same passing beam of light, we will come up with identical values. This will be true regardless of the velocity of your reference frame relative to mine - whether it's 5 MPH or 99% of the speed of light, it will make no difference.

This postulate and its consequences have stood the test of time. One consequence of faster-than-light speeds would be a violation of causality.

So it seems very, very unlikely that the reported result will be validated.

 

[Fern]

One of the reasons that the scientific community is so skeptical of faster-than-light speeds for particles with positive rest mass is that the Lorentz factor

1/SQRT(1 - (v**2)/(c**2))

which accurately predicts observed time dilations and moving masses, becomes an imaginary number if v > c.

I'm not familiar with this formula.

But as a layperson, this doesn't strike me as something much different than pointing out how Einstein's formula wouldn't be correct if the neutrino did in fact attain a hyper light speed.

The Lorentz factor is a direct consequence of one of the most famous (to physicists) postulates in physics: The speed of light is the same for all inertial reference frames. That is, if you are moving at constant speed relative to me, and we both measure (with perfect equipment and 0 experimental error) the speed of the same passing beam of light, we will come up with identical values. This will be true regardless of the velocity of your reference frame relative to mine - whether it's 5 MPH or 99% of the speed of light, it will make no difference.

OK. That seems easily understandable. Not sure what it's got to do with this subject though. Are you implying some error in measurement?

This postulate and its consequences have stood the test of time. One consequence of faster-than-light speeds would be a violation of causality.

So it seems very, very unlikely that the reported result will be validated.

Please explain "violation of causality", what it means as regards the zippy neutrino..

TIA

Fern

 

[RedString]

Doesn't traveling close/at the speed of light cause manipulations to time? (relative to the thing going speed of light)

I'm no physicist so it's hard to articulate what I mean - but perhaps the neutrino, relative to itself, isn't exceeding the speed of light.. but because of the effects it has on time (Doesn't achieving speed of light cause time to slow?), it may seem to us to arrive earlier than it should have because of this effect on time, yet at the same time - relative to the neutrino, it never exceeds the speed of light.

This affect on time would allow it to not break Einsteins law, but also allow the experiment to be correct. (though the neutrino did not exceed speed of light, but because of manipulations of time, it really did get there earlier than light would have. So relative to it, it did not travel faster than light - but relative to us, the affects it had on time causes us to see it as going faster than the speed of light.)

Any thoughts on this? Criticism welcome, like I said - I'm no physicist!

 

[Fern]

Doesn't traveling close/at the speed of light cause manipulations to time? (relative to the thing going speed of light)

I'm no physicist so it's hard to articulate what I mean - but perhaps the neutrino, relative to itself, isn't exceeding the speed of light.. but because of the effects it has on time (Doesn't achieving speed of light cause time to slow?), it may seem to us to arrive earlier than it should have because of this effect on time, yet at the same time - relative to the neutrino, it never exceeds the speed of light.

This affect on time would allow it to not break Einsteins law, but also allow the experiment to be correct. (though the neutrino did not exceed speed of light, but because of manipulations of time, it really did get there earlier than light would have. So relative to it, it did not travel faster than light - but relative to us, the affects it had on time causes us to see it as going faster than the speed of light.)

Any thoughts on this? Criticism welcome, like I said - I'm no physicist!

I think I follow you, but I'm arriving at a completely opposite conclusion.

I'll try to explain - The neutrino travels from point "X" to Point "Y". If it does so in .1 amount of time (from our perspective) it is traveling at exactly the speed of light. If it travels that distance in less time (it's perspective, time moves more slowly), it is traveling faster, faster than the speed of light.

So if time slowed from the perspective of the neutrino, yet it still traveled the same distance, speed increased from that perspective. Same distance, less time = faster speed.

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Doesn't traveling close/at the speed of light cause manipulations to time? (relative to the thing going speed of light)

I'm no physicist so it's hard to articulate what I mean - but perhaps the neutrino, relative to itself, isn't exceeding the speed of light.. but because of the effects it has on time (Doesn't achieving speed of light cause time to slow?), it may seem to us to arrive earlier than it should have because of this effect on time, yet at the same time - relative to the neutrino, it never exceeds the speed of light.

This affect on time would allow it to not break Einsteins law, but also allow the experiment to be correct. (though the neutrino did not exceed speed of light, but because of manipulations of time, it really did get there earlier than light would have. So relative to it, it did not travel faster than light - but relative to us, the affects it had on time causes us to see it as going faster than the speed of light.)

Any thoughts on this? Criticism welcome, like I said - I'm no physicist!

As I recall it the neutrino would experience time differently than those things around it traveling at or above the speed of light. Time for it would slow down. I travel through space at alight speed for a yer and significantly more time would pass on earth relative to me. I'd come back far in the future.

For what you say to work it traveling at that speed would have to slow how time is experienced for everything that isn't.

Then again I'm already into the rum so someone correct me if I'm wrong.