Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Might change physics a bit if proven to be correct.

The curvature of the earth will be slightly different underground to at sea level.

There you go, solved it for them.

Wouldn't that explain dark matter, you can't see it because it travels faster than light.

Because the fastest thing that we can perceive is light, then we assume that is the fastest anything can travel..... bullox

Do you honestly believe that?

It would be amazing if this is true but the essence of science is to check, check and check again. And that is why these guys are asking for someone else to check again before they make an assumption.

How did they explain Ruel Fox then?

Of course I do. Science is always constrained by technology and imagination.

I bet 100 years ago people didn't think it would be possible for people to be as fat as they are now. (Or fast, lol. Boult has redefined 100m running by being so tall, and more to the point someone trained him to run 100m, rather than 400m which is what previous accepted beliefs would have had him still doing; just like Lamaitre is showing that it is not not just runners from W Africa that are good at sprinting......)

The speed of lght is 299,792,458 metres per second. It could travel around the earth's equator nearly 8 times in every second.

It would still take 25,000 years to reach the nearest galaxy to earth and 13,000,000,000 years to reach the furthest.

Kind of wrecks a lot of sci-fi stories if nothing can travel faster than light so lets hope they are wrong about it being a speed limit and blah is right

But then again...


If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by the spped of light (c) then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame, and causality would be violated (i.e. you would observe the effect before the cause). Such a violation of causality has never been recorded.

Indeed you could be hit by something before you saw it, which is no different to seeing something before hearing it (ie smoke from a gun starting a race can (sometimes) be seen before hearing the gun, and the sound of a plane seems to follow it....)

Maybe the scientists speedometer was dodgy?

Most likely yes. As with a lot of experiments that utrn up dodgy results, like cold fusion etc., its usually something wrong with the recording, you've not taken this into account, the gating was wrong etc. Its sometihng so obvious and easily overlooked it can be embarrassing.

What happened with the fusion thing?

You need to read the article a bit more, they mention this - they've spent a lot of time on looking for errors, its why they're putting it out there. The phenomenon has been observed elsewhere once before.

hasn't been able to be done much morethan theoretically and someone usually pops up every couple of years claiming to have cracked it and wants investment to put it into production - theres an irish company keeps claiming it I think. Never stands up to scrutiny.

Some italians turn this year, their patent application was turned down because it seemed to "offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories" although they may be getting offended against in other news this week anyway.

So Einstein, the godfather of modern physics, was wrong.

I don't beleive it. Nothing can go faster than light. Something is wrong with the experiment somehow, or something is making them think things are faster when they are not. I want to take a look at the data, see if i can spot mistake. Or better still, i might go to cern. Anyone want to organise a fiso trip to cern?

Why can nothing go faster than light?

Do you want the short answer?

Yep

You better watch out you better beware
Albert said that E equals m c squared

Who says that? There's no proof that nothing can travel faster than light.

Exactamundo.

I have come up with a theory. There is an extra dimension that the nutrinos are travelling through, they are in lamen terms, taking a shortcut through space. Thus special relativity is not violated.

The only issue that I can think of is that you won't see it hitting you, or passing you until after it had gone. Or will you? (It being the thing traveling faster than the speed of light)

If it hit you on the shoulder, then you would see it away from you, as it hit you. However, if you only had one eye, or were using a telescope, then what would you see, as the reflected light from where it was is behind it. I would guess whatever had been there before.

Obviously it has to be visible\detectable, but you get the idea. While never having really thought about it, this can be the only argument against something traveling faster than the speed of light?

If you could throw/emit something faster then the speed of light, would you even see it?

Yes, but not where it was at the time. It would just be traveling away quicker than it was seen to be moving.

(eg after t time it will be SoL+ times t away while it is seen as only SoL times t away)

If by this you mean Black athletes, I think most of the 100/200m World Champions
of the past have mostly been American

That is true for any moving object.

If I throw a ball at C+1 m/s then the light will never be able to get bac to me at just C m/s

Unless you were running at +1m also.

It will get back to you, but not as quickly as it is leaving you, ie it will always look nearer.

After t time: you will see it when it was SoL time t away, when it will actually be further away. (I am assuming a universal supply of light and the sun is not directly behind you, in which case the light will not catch it to reflect back, in which case it will be a proper black (ie no light reflected) object disappearing?)

I'm not even sure if "seeing" in the conventional way is totally appropriate; and probably only serves to confuse matters.....

I think that you will find a far higher percent are of W African descent, as opposed to the longer distance runners, who are from the East and North of Africa - including Mo Farah.

The relevance being that 1 Bolt was considered too tall to be a 100m runner until a stroke of inspiration by the coach, and there may well have been others that have been missed, and 2, the conventional wisdom that 100m runners come from W Africa.....