Particle discovered that is faster than light?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by humblethinker, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. John Toppass

    John Toppass
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    7
    Of course, How do you think the space ships in Star Trek, Star Wars and others went so fast?
     
  3. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is a conjecture, that is supported by research, that the speed of light is subject to entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
    and is actually slowing down. It is possible that the speed of light was perhaps a million or more times faster at the creation.
     
  4. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,466
    Likes Received:
    138
    This is Truly a Sad Day for Me...

    ...I will no longer be able to claim the bragging rights to being the fastest person alive! :smilewinkgrin:
     
  5. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is verified within acceptable errors in measurement it could open new vistas in our perception of creation. We already know God is faster than light, neutrinos....who knew. :) Thanks for sharing. I must say though, I am always ambivalent about news from msnbc.
     
  6. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    The measurement amounts to the neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light by a fraction of 20 parts per million. Since the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second, the neutrinos were evidently travelling at 299,798,454 metres per second.

    The result is so unlikely that even the research team is being cautious with its interpretation. Physicists said they would be sceptical of the finding until other laboratories confirmed the result.

    Antonio Ereditato, coordinator of the Opera collaboration, told the Guardian: "We are very much astonished by this result, but a result is never a discovery until other people confirm it.

    "When you get such a result you want to make sure you made no mistakes, that there are no nasty things going on you didn't think of. We spent months and months doing checks and we have not been able to find any errors.

    "If there is a problem, it must be a tough, nasty effect, because trivial things we are clever enough to rule out."

    The Opera group said it hoped the physics community would scrutinise the result and help uncover any flaws in the measurement, or verify it with their own experiments.

    Subir Sarkar, head of particle theory at Oxford University, said: "If this is proved to be true it would be a massive, massive event. It is something nobody was expecting.

    "The constancy of the speed of light essentially underpins our understanding of space and time and causality, which is the fact that cause comes before effect.

    "Cause cannot come after effect and that is absolutely fundamental to our construction of the physical universe. If we do not have causality, we are buggered."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true

    Keep in mind the source, The Guardian.
     
  7. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,466
    Likes Received:
    138
    FAL to the Rescue, Again....

    ....I don't know about the rest of you, but if it were not for FAL, we'd never know our errors, mistakes, and plain old blunders! :applause:
     
  9. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why? The same story was reported in the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Express, the Mirror, and probably other UK national daily newspapers too. It was also given prominence on the BBC (both TV and radio) and the independent television channels.
     
  10. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    My apologies David, my conservative political leanings coming to the forefront in my comment regarding The Guardian. I am intelligent enough to know that some stories are devoid of political agendas, as all science should be. Please accept my apologies for the quip.
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    No need for the apology, Quantumfaith, but thanks, anyway. I wasn't criticising what you said about the Guardian; I was just puzzled by it. Thanks again.
     
  12. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha! Thanks RighteousDude... The topic did have a '?' at the end of it... Maybe FAL just came to a judgement too soon.

    I wonder if the potential discovery would make any of us uncomfortable if it is confirmed an actual discovery. I'm not sure why it would.
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,229
    Likes Received:
    615
    Actually FAL is wrong. Again.

    The neutrino particle is well known. It wasn't 'discovered' recently. The concept that it might travel faster than light is the potential discovery.
     
  14. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  15. Arbo

    Arbo
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    1
    You misunderstood him. If you had really read what he wrote and had correct understanding...:smilewinkgrin::laugh:
     
    #15 Arbo, Sep 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2011
  16. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. PamelaK

    PamelaK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well maybe I was right several years ago when my chemist husband spent close to an hour trying to explain the Theory of Relativity to me and all I could do when he finished was stare blankly at him and say "It's only a theory!!" :tongue3:
     
  18. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand the feeling, I can only "comprehend" it at a cursory level. However, there is a substantial bit of time and data collected over almost a century, that backs up that E is equal to mc squared, not simply

    E is "approximately" equal to mc squared.

    :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...