Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC
#21
Hanabira.Kage Wrote:
Energy-Mass equivalence. E=mc^2.

On-topic: I think this anomaly can be answered using general relativity. Anyone wanna give it a go? o.o
Quote:Massless particles have zero rest mass. Their relativistic mass is simply their relativistic energy, divided by c2, or m(relativistic) = E/c2.[7][8] The energy for photons is E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the photon frequency. This frequency and thus the relativistic energy are frame-dependent.

Luxeraph Wrote:Wiki says your right, but it interacts with gravity, do neutrinos?
Neutrinos are just antielectrons, so I would say yes, they do have mass and thus gravitational interactions. My brain farted. Regardless, neutrino's mass is small but non-zero.

What's interesting is that they travel through matter unaffected.. Would this translate to any medium being the same as vacuum for them?
Reply
#22
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

I'm like...completely mind blown right now. Taking into consideration that this is still speculative, i'm actually concerned. We know so little when it comes right down to it, and to have one of our most basic assumptions possibly inaccurate....just wow.

With that in mind, i'm going to email my physics professor, who also happens to be the head of the physics department at UNCC. ^_^
Reply
#23
Kalovale Wrote:Neutrinos are just antielectrons, so I would say yes, they do have mass and thus gravitational interactions.

Oh I see but they're not antielectrons, those are positrons.
Maybe they have always been faster than light but due to lack of equipment we haven't been able to see them pass by (natural generated ones), I mean I have always thought that there might be supraluminal objects that are invisible to us since light can't reach them (is that possible?).
Reply
#24
Alloy Wrote:If it exists, it has mass. Even energy is mass acording to einstein. So yeah, still screwed, I'm afraid, one way or the other.
Technically, Einstein's theory states that all nothing can exceed the speed of light even at an -atomic- level. Neutrinos are subatomic. Einstein didn't even know subatomic particles existed, or at least he had no proof based on the level of technology when he was alive, but, that doesn't change the fact that the theory would hold up, I'd venture to say.
Reply
#25
Flonne Wrote:Technically, Einstein's theory states that all nothing can exceed the speed of light even at an -atomic- level. Neutrinos are subatomic. Einstein didn't even know subatomic particles existed, or at least he had no proof based on the level of technology when he was alive, but, that doesn't change the fact that the theory would hold up, I'd venture to say.

I thought his theory included all particles? Like, photons for example, they're classified below the atomic level but they still abide by his theory.

and @above talking about massless particles, the formula is actually e^2 = (m^2)(c^2) + (p^2)(c^2), p being the momentum, if my memory holds correctly.
Reply
#26
yah I heard about this an hour ago, and I knew it would already be up on SP lol
Reply
#27
Alloy Wrote:If it exists, it has mass. Even energy is mass acording to einstein. So yeah, still screwed, I'm afraid, one way or the other.
Well, Neutrino's don't HAVE to be matter or energy, they can also be something else. Just keep an open mind to -everything-. Wink

Luxeraph Wrote:Wiki says your right, but it interacts with gravity, do neutrinos?
Neutrino's don't react to anything, no gravity (weak force), no strong force (inside atoms), nothing, unless it collides directly with an atomic particle.

However a neutrino does react to insane gravity on the scale of a super nova gravity explosion (no idea how they tested that one, but apparently it does react to that, however I'm not sure if it's the neutrino that's reacting then, or that it is the fabric of space itself that is being distorted, and thus the neutrino).
Reply
#28
Devil Wrote:Well, Neutrino's don't HAVE to be matter or energy, they can also be something else. Just keep an open mind to -everything-. Wink

You have a point, I'll admit. But until we get to know what it has, it should contain energy to form bigger particles that have. And energy, mass, etc, same theory D:
Reply
#29
0.00000006 Secounds faster than expected.
So It's faster than light.

^(._.<)
...I don't get the deal about it. The max speed limit has been extended. Slightly.
I guess I have a brainfart for now.
Reply
#30
Oh god! John Titor was right!
Reply
#31
Oh god, that's amazing Glitter
Reply
#32
Celan Wrote:0.00000006 Secounds faster than expected.
So It's faster than light.

^(._.<)
...I don't get the deal about it. The max speed limit has been extended. Slightly.
I guess I have a brainfart for now.
No it hasn't.

It's like saying infinity just grew larger. It can't grow larger since infinity is supposed to be the max of everything, otherwise it wouldn't be infinity! Smile

There are only 3 possibilities here:
- They measured it wrong (not really likely, they did this for 3 years long).
- Neutrino's don't have mass, therefore they are not bound by the maximum speed of light
- Neutrino's are so small (lack of mass), that time runs faster around them (the more mass = time = slower, like center of black hole = kerr state = time stops), so that it only LOOKS like they travel faster then light, while in fact it's only our perception that they travel faster, because time runs slower here because of all the mass around us.
Reply
#33
Devil Wrote:- Neutrino's don't have mass, therefore they are not bound by the maximum speed of light

Errrr. Isn't that still being taken into account? E = mc^2 means as particles move faster they lose mass.

I don't see how them not having mass they can still go higher than speed of light maximum.

Devil Wrote:- Neutrino's are so small (lack of mass), that time runs faster around them (the more mass = time = slower, like center of black hole = kerr state = time stops), so that it only LOOKS like they travel faster then light, while in fact it's only our perception that they travel faster, because time runs slower here because of all the mass around us.

But that's relative stuff. That's like how on the moon gravity is 6 times as weak so people look like they're going in slow motion just because they're spending more time in the air while jumping.

Elaborate more on that point because I'm assuming they took that into account, or I don't understand your point.

--------

Asked my Phys recitation teacher what he asked today. He mentioned some pomegranate about cold fusion being done at room temperature a while ago and no one replicating it. And he said the particles could have moved through a dimension/time warp/universe since they were going so fast.

Kind of radical. I think I laughed....I hope not.
Reply
#34
OB3LISK Wrote:Errrr. Isn't that still being taken into account? E = mc^2 means as particles move faster they lose mass.

I don't see how them not having mass they can still go higher than speed of light maximum.
Yes, particles with -mass- are bound to that formula, the faster you go (energy E) equals your mass (M) times the speed of light © square. Now since the speed of light should be fixed, this all can't be happening.

However if you remove the fact that a Neutrino consists of matter or energy, this formula still stands, since a Neutrino would not be E nor M and isn't bound to this formula. Smile


Quote:But that's relative stuff. That's like how on the moon gravity is 6 times as weak so people look like they're going in slow motion just because they're spending more time in the air while jumping.

Elaborate more on that point because I'm assuming they took that into account, or I don't understand your point.

Asked my Phys recitation teacher what he asked today. He mentioned some pomegranate about cold fusion being done at room temperature a while ago and no one replicating it. And he said the particles could have moved through a dimension/time warp/universe since they were going so fast.

Kind of radical. I think I laughed....I hope not.
Well what I meant was, if you take the hypothetical idea that a Neutrino doesn't have mass or energy, that means that it's not influenced the same way by time like matter and energy are. That means that time could pass quicker around or (inside ?!?) a Neutrino, thus making it go faster in "our" reality (dimension) of matter and energy. A Neutrino can time warp only in our eyes, but if you were inside the Neutrino time would pass as fast as normal, and if you would look outside, things around you would seem slowed down.

See it as a reversed black hole. When you're getting closer to a black hole, time slows down, but only to people who are looking at it from a greater distance. While from the inside, everything outside the black hole would speed up like crazy.

Time is in the eye of the beholder Wink
Reply
#35
Did they actually compare it to a ray of light? If they didn't, maybe we've been getting the value of the speed of light wrong all this time. :/
Reply
#36
Erich Wrote:Oh god! John Titor was right!
pomegranate
WE NEED TO GET TO THE 1% VARIANCE OR WHATEVER IT IS AND JUMP WORLD THINGUMS

i need to watch that show again
Reply
#37
I have a random question that could be relevant to this thread ..
When particles travel at the true speed of light, doesn't length contract infinitesimally small? So they would cross infinite distances instantly? Or does time dilate in proportion so they don't actually travel infinitely fast? o_o
Reply
#38
HybridStigmata Wrote:I have a random question that could be relevant to this thread ..
When particles travel at the true speed of light, doesn't length contract infinitesimally small? So they would cross infinite distances instantly? Or does time dilate in proportion so they don't actually travel infinitely fast? o_o

To travel across any distance instantly, your speed would have to be infinite. i.e. you take no time to travel (aka you just made light eat your dust). The length of the moving object shrinks relative to its surroundings as it moves, but the distance travelled doesn't actually shrink (the object itself also becomes heavier, but that's a different matter).
Reply
#39
I remember in an episode of Futurama, the professor was talking to fry and brought up the speed of light. The professor said something along the lines of scientists increased the speed of light.
Reply
#40
Mute Wrote:I remember in an episode of Futurama, the professor was talking to fry and brought up the speed of light. The professor said something along the lines of scientists increased the speed of light.

The ship they use moved at the speed of light until they raised the speed of light (which moves by moving the whole universe around it).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)