So there will be different air pressures etc applied to them? Something decaying at lower rate with less "air" around it is not the same thing and is very believable ie something will decay very slowly (or not at all) in a vacuum.

How could it be done in a vacuum? That would totally ruin the effect of friction from the conveyor belt.

A JOKE FOR FISO INTELLECTUALS.

The Barman says, "I'm sorry, we don't serve Neutrino's here". A Neutrino walks into a Bar.

Retro!

The plane definitely wouldn't take off in a vacuum, as the jet engines wouldn't work.

It was a propeller engined plane







Yes, I know

The most remarkable thing about Einstein's theory to me is that it's lasted so long. I've got no doubt that in the future some refinements will be made to it to explain the behaviour of sub atomic particles.

I also wouldn't be surprised if some sub-atomic particles can move faster than light, although as we observe things using light it's clearly going to be difficult to observe / prove. IMO, if particles that can move faster than light do exist, it wouldn't destroy Einstein's theory, just provide an addendum to modify the theory for quantum effects.

As for travelling faster than light meaning time travel - don't really buy it personally. I think our observation of time and 'time' itself may be proven to differ slightly but any effects would be so infinitesimal over the distances achievable over Earth as to be meaningless. I think that the strict order of causality is probably immutable (second law of thermodynamics and all that) but that our perception and observation of time is probably not, but at only a level which is almost imperceptible.

If it were a rocket fuelled plane then it would take off. Phew - was getting worried then. All's right with the world, the plane still takes off.

if we are made of atoms, and all atoms are subject to the laws of physics then our atoms, along with all other atoms in the universe are simply following a complex chain of causes and effects that is inevitable and was wholly predictable from the start of time. It means we have no free will and our lives are pre-determined.

Just thought I'd throw that into the 6th form philosophical debate

It would take a very big computer to predict the inevitable outcome of everything and I don't think there were even Sinclair ZX81s around at the start of time (or programmer geeks or the required understanding of brain action etc).

Therefore it wasn't predictable, although arguably it was inevitable.....

He screwed up when he said the universe was static. His calculations showed it was expanding so he forced the equations to yield a static universe as he believed it to be static. Maybe he cheated on the speed of light too.

Sadly, or not, quantum physics has shown this not to be the case. Despite Einstein's judgement, God does play dice. At atomic level things are genuinely random (in fact far stranger than that, in many ways, but look up the "Youngs slits" experiment for a taster - a single particle goes through both slits even though they are side by side)

Murf: The Traveller can move forward any amount of time in any period if he can go fast enough. i.e:

- get in the "plane",
- pick what year you want to come back in (say 2250),
- pick how long you want your trip to last in your time (say 1 year),

then there is a speed you can go that will achieve that (maybe 99% speed of light, or something).

If that isn't (forward) time travel I'm not sure what is?

You expect us to google youngs slits?

Surprisingly, Google is all physics references.

I'd forgotten it the principle is used to explain normal wave behaviour though, so you'll need the wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

and look at the section:
Interference of individual particles

The key bit is here:

"the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits at once"

...but it is a bit of a diversion from the whole thread - sorry.

There is going to be a new attempt at the land speed record with the Neutrino Grand National running over a slightly different set of fences:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118

Wouldn't be suprised if the results are different this time. Something mundane. remember the problem with hubble? Americans worked in feet and inches, europe worked in metric.
BTW, 80 papers, not only written and theorised, but published since september on possible answers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sians.html

If particles travel faster than light then surely this opens up the possibility of time travel.
Perhaps Fergie could use it to go back in time to the summer of 2011 and sign Snedjer to boost his poor midfield

oops.

One theory is that they ignored the distance to the satellite that was used to synchronise the clocks at both ends. There by yet again, proving Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Quite ironic if proved correct.

Despite being warned by the Einsteinian Physics Police those naughty neutrinos are continuing to blatantly disrgeard the laws of physics and break the speed limit.

BBC article

I blame their Napoleon complex.

Have consulted with my H2G2, and it's pretty conclusive - "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws."

OOoh look what Jim said after the 1st set of results.

The scientists are right to be extremely cautious about interpreting these findings," said Jim Al-Khalili, a physicist from the University of Surrey, who suggested that a simple error in the measurement is probably the source of all the fuss.

But he has gone further.

"So let me put my money where my mouth is: if the Cern experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV."

Hope its not pay per view.