Even the most serious minded attempt to explain curved space and black holes leaves me vaguely puzzled. And I had never understood Einstein’s contention – presuming that he made it – that nothing could move faster than light. Why? It appeared to me more of a theological statement than a measaured fact. Why? Of course, I can see it has ramifications for our observation of the universe, but why should it not be possible? I have wondered about this article of faith from time to time.
Now CERN have apparently measured some sub-atomic particles moving a bit faster than light. How jolly clever of them. I still don’t understand why they should not have been able to do that, and don’t feel anything much has changed now they have. What do we need now to adjust in our understanding of the universe? I just went to the Post Office, and it was still there.
Yes, I know Bonnie Tyler is singing “night”.
I’m guessing not much to the man on the street but must be of big importance for space travel in the future.
The fact that experimental physics can come up with data which knocks a hole in the theory of special relativity is one in the eye for creationists and intelligent duh-sign zealots everywhere. 3 cheers for the scientific method, which trashes their faith-based dumbology every time.
Dont know if this means that faster-than-light travel is possible but it suggests that it may not be impossible.
Cool headed comment from Phil Plait here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-than-light-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/
The faster than light thing does seem bizarre at first, but that is mostly because we view the universe from a human scale both in terms of time and space, and our vocabulary is adapted to match that. It turns out that relativity (which is the best theory we have so far – and the ‘so far’ is important) predicts that nothing can travel faster than light. A reasonable analogy might be flat-earthers discovering that the planet is a sphere (more or less) and wondering why there is nothing north of the north pole. In their old model there was no limit to how far north you could travel, in the new model there *is* a limit. How to explain that? Well, north of the north pole just doesn’t have meaning. The failure is in the implicit assumptions built in to our human scale language and our knowledge of how to apply it.
And of course if – if! – it is true that these neutrinos are travelling faster than light the universe is not going to change and probably most of physics won’t change either. Einstein’s relativity theories were an astonishing revolution (and revelation) in physics, but they did not prove Newton’s theories wrong: they just explained why more and more high-precision observations of extreme situations didn’t agree with Newton’s predictions. In other words, Newton is a good approximation of Einstein’s theories when masses and speeds are restricted to ‘small’, i.e. human scale, values. We shall probably eventually discover that Einstein’s theories (and quantum mechanics) are approximations to some other even more elaborate but probably mathematically elegant theory.
“He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count”.
-Guess what? this is a translation of the Quranic verse (32:5). Muslims knew about travelling objects with extra and super speed since the 6th century. Well done CERN to prove the truth of Islam.
curved spaces, black holes…
I hope you will become a good muslim one day, Craig. Because only those who try to learn the true reasons of creation around us will find the truth in Islam. This happened to Daniel Streich, an extreme former antiIslamic politician and promoter of antiminaret law in Switzerland. When you become a muslim you will become a stranger to some of those who know you. Now, Streich, who was once a trusted military instructor and poltician, is an enemy of the public in Switzerland, because he found the truth in Islam and became a muslim.
A number of possible answers, take your pick:
(a) Most serious answer:
The constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the motion of the observer (so that he can’t add 50 mph to the speed of light waves by flashing a light on a moving train) is axiomatic to the theory of “special relativity”. Experimental evidence for a consequence, time dilation, was found by taking atomic clocks on an aeroplane. Here’s a Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME
The curvature of apace by gravity is an aspect of the throty of “general relativity”. The evidence is seen in light from outer space that is bent by an intervening gravitational field, forming multiple images of the same object. Here’s a youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH_OSqIRV18
(b) Fairly serious answer:
The discrepancy above the speed of light in the recent European experiment was so tiny that the result is disputed, and needs checking.
(c) Less serious answer
The secret of how German scientists during WWII, at least, could get particles to travel faster than the speed of light was revealed in the 1944 film “Tawny Pipit”, where a retired military bloke declares: “The trouble with the Hun is that he doesn’t know the meaning of Play The Game. He never has and he never will.” Breaking the rules ad lib is only to be expected from such iffy characters.
(d) Even less serious answer
What are you talking about? Captain Kirk does it all the time, as soon as he goes into hyperdrive.
Good explanation, Rob. Thanks!
This is no suprise to the heretics at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
who believe that electricity plays a major part in the universe.
“I just went to the Post Office, and it was still there.”
Yes – but were the queues relatively fast or relatively slow? Whichever queue you’re in, the other always moves faster. Einstein missed that one.
FFS, it has been reported in the MSM rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals. What is this? All of a sudden we are supposed to believe what journalists write, especially about nuclear physics?
Yes, Jack, I think we share the same genes. When you get to the till in a supermarket, the till roll runs out, or the person in front of you has got an item with a bar-code that won’t scan, or the supervisor has to be called for some other reason.
.
If I recall correctly Einstein was always puzzled why he could not equate his theories with creation and the existence of God. Perhaps Still Wondering has a point. Having said that I’m not really keen on dogged interpretations of scripture, from whatever religion.
Never mind those pesky neutrinos. How about spontaneous combustion in Galway?
.
‘First Irish case’ of death by spontaneous combustion Dr McLoughlin said he had attempted to find an explanation Continue reading the main story
.
A man who burned to death in his home died as a result of spontaneous combustion, an Irish coroner has ruled.
.
It is believed to be the first case of its kind in Ireland.
.
West Galway coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said it was the first time in 25 years of investigating deaths that he had recorded such a verdict.
.
Michael Faherty, 76, died at his home at Clareview Park, Ballybane, Galway on 22 December 2010.
.
Deaths attributed by some to “spontaneous combustion” occur when a living human body is burned without an apparent external source of ignition.
.
/….http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15032614
This is just conjecture but…
Instead of saying ‘the speed of light’ we should be saying ‘the speed of light in a vacuum’. The speed of light is known to be affected by the medium through which it is traveling (air, water, glass etc) It has previously been assumed that by measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, the theoretical maximum speed of light has been measured. Perhaps thats not actually good enough. Maybe there is still something (gravitational or electronic fields say) that would constitute a medium, preventing light from reaching its true maximum velocity. Neutrinos, because they interact so weakly with just about everything are likely to be less affected and thus will be traveling nearer to the real maximum speed of light.
To put it more simply, we thought that we had properly measured the actual maximum speed of light but were probably wrong.
This proves Edward Lear, or was it someone else, was correct when he/they said:
*
There was an old lady called Wright
who could travel much faster than light.
She departed one day
in a relative way
and returned on the previous night.
The physical constant “c”, which is referred to as the “speed of light” or “the speed of light in vacuum” is really fundamental.
There’s a number called the Lorentz factor which is (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2.
If v (the speed that something is travelling at) is greater than c, then v^2/c^2 is greater than one. One minus (something greater than one) is a negative number, and the square root of a negative number is imaginary.
The length of an object is foreshortened by the Lorentz factor (length contraction). What does it mean for something to have an imaginary length?
The mass is multiplied by the Lorentz factor. What does it mean for something to have an imaginary mass?
The assumption has always been that if you get imaginary numbers for normal physical measures then there’s something wrong.
So either the measurement is wrong (most likely: the bit of Italy they’re measuring from is about 2 metres closer to Switzerland than they think it is), or else the whole Lorentz factor calculation is wrong.
If that’s wrong, then we can’t just use Lorentz invariant spacetime, and therefore the whole of Special and General Relativity has a humongous hole in it. Which is going to provoke the reaction “oh bugger”.
The last couple of times a physicist went “oh bugger” were Rutherford’s discovery of the nucleus and Michelson-Morley’s discovery that the ether didn’t exist.
If this one is real, then physicists are going to spend the next 30 years completely rewriting everything they thought they knew about how the universe works.
It means that really, really bendy things are possible. It means there is no limit. It means that we are awake. This is Dr Who and Star Trek rolled into one, man! Take us out of the galaxy, Mr Scott!
I have already posted about this tomorrow.
If this result holds up (unlikely) it is a very big deal. The universe hasn’t changed but our understanding of how it works will need some major revisions. It is from events such as this that those people who continue to claim that “the science is settled” with regard to climate change should learn some humility. If relativity isn’t “settled”, then surely climate science has a few more things to learn.
According to the technical article (arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897) the particles traversed a distance of 730 km, and arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than expected. Timing errors are estimated to be around 15 nanoseconds. So maybe the textbooks need to be rewritten. Or maybe the clocks are off by 50 nanoseconds. Who knows…
There are several books explaining relativity in some depth in non-technical language. “Relativity Visualized” by Epstein is especially good.
Canspeccy: I believe it was one A.H.R. Buller, though evidently inspired by Mr Lear.
Neutrinos aren’t proper particles anyway.
Besides which, there’s no law that says you can’t go faster than c, only that you can’t go AT c, the speed of light, and therefore can’t accelerate past that speed. If you’re already going faster than the speed of light it would be impossible to slow to a speed less than the speed of light.
They also recently discovered that it’s possible for something to be colder than Absolute Zero, which is the absence of all energy: every time a scientist says something it should be assumed to be wrong. Or a non-scientist, for that matter. Such is the way of the Fortean.
If these results prove to be reproducable, what does it say about the safety of these experiments, with this increadibly powerful and expensive equipment?
Humans – is it as well the gods haven’t let you disintegrate yourselves already!
The reason nothing (with mass) can reach the speed of light is that light travels at the same speed relative to you no matter how fast you are going so you can never catch it. Its not anything close to religious, it all falls out from the mathematics which describes the behaviour of light very well.
Of course, this result could be found to be correct and theories will have to be modified – hooray for science! That’s how its meant to work.
Personally I think it unlikely that the result will stand, I’m sure someone will see something in there – possibly even something obvious (how many times have you searched and searched for something only to have it pointed out that its right infront of you?).
We shall see. The science geek in me is quite excited 🙂
OK, to understand why c, the speed of light is a limit, you have to look at it from light’s point of view.
.
As we travel faster, any given journey takes less time. From the point of view of a particle of light, a photon, any journey takes no time at all. So something going faster than a photon would complete its journey in less than no time, ie it would arrive before it had departed, thus travelling into its own past and contradicting causation.
Some observations:
.
1) Vronsky’s comment is best.
.
2) Stranglet, don’t worry about energetic particle accelerators; read this:
.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/
.
3) The apparent excess over the speed of light is 1 part in 40,000. Probably there’s just a small error somewhere that accounts for it.
@Clark
1/ this is almost always the case
2/ is there a physical measurement for novelty?
3/ No Suhayl was correct, this will lead to the warp drive. In 30 years time, we will have world peace and be able to holiday on the moon.
///\c/\\\
Crablet:
.
0) You must be Stranglet.
1) Agreed; case closed.
2) Only statistically.
3) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
.
No, much nastier things than relativity are prevented by the light-speed limit, but the lack of warp-drive doesn’t preclude world peace. I went to a pub on the Moon once, but it had no atmosphere.
.
That Bonnie Tyler song seems strangely reminiscent of Meatloaf’s Bat out of Hell.
I commented as crab taunting humanity, to take more care with these weird apparatus! and posted as stranglet in error.
And on second thoughts Vronsky’s quip here was little, compaired to Richard Gadsden’s explaination involving imaginary things becoming real – with yet a great air of authenticity.
The fourmilab link is good.
Thanks )
I think Rob’s explanation is a fairly good one. Also see http://xkcd.com/955/
@Clark Bonnie Tyler’s “Faster Than the Speed of Night” album was produced by Jim Steinman and the song “Faster Than the Speed of Night” was written by him. The song “Bat out of Hell” was also written by Steinman – indeed Steinman was Meat Loaf’s primary collaborator on the synonymous album. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Steinman
Off topic but Chernobyl is hardly given a mention in the corporate media nowadays, just as Fukushima, yet Huhne still ploughs on with his nuclear gambit.
.
http://www.chernobyl-international.com/cci-charity-work/chernobyl-medical-programme.aspx
.
Twenty-five years after the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl, the aftermath continues to affect more than a million children in and around the contaminated area. There has been a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities since the explosion, a 100 percent increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia and a staggering 2,400 percent increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer. Other disorders, including congenital heart diseases, have also increased significantly.
.
CCI’s Medical Programme helps treat these children, save their lives, ease their pain and sometimes simply make them more comfortable during their final days. We send volunteer doctors and nurses to provide medical treatment and train local medical workers. We fund life-saving operations and purchase much-needed medical equipment. And we coordinate facilities that care for children with special needs—children who would otherwise be abandoned or placed in institutional care.
“So something going faster than a photon would complete its journey in less than no time, ie it would arrive before it had departed, thus travelling into its own past and contradicting causation.” Clark.
.
Precisely. Let’s do it! Be a neutrino, man! This is inherently deeply subversive.
.
Will it prove reproducible and without confounding? Let us wait and see. If so, it would be a very major discovery.