CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

[The Stig 2.0]

Water itself is made of particles but flows in waves I don't see the fuss

LOL

 

[Archer]

Tachyons are theoretical particles that have not been proven to exist

 

[Naks]

Water itself is made of particles but flows in waves I don't see the fuss

Errr... major difference. Photons are not particles that flow in waves. Photons are both particles and waves. Depending on what you measure/observe.

hence the comment about 'going insane'

 

[The Stig 2.0]

Tachyons are theoretical particles that have not been proven to exist

This may just have been the "proof" they have been waiting for...

 

[Archer]

This may just have been the "proof" they have been waiting for...

No its not, this is very very far removed form tachyons. For one thing, a tachyon can not go slower than the speed of light.

 

[Bobbin]

Errr... major difference. Photons are not particles that flow in waves. Photons are both particles and waves. Depending on what you measure/observe.

hence the comment about 'going insane'

Well you shoot water under high pressure at something it cuts pretty effectively and moves out in a straight line or splits in multiple streams.

But as soon as you allow it to settle it behaves very differently.

Sound waves can also be directed or be allowed to spread equally.

I'm just trolling man I know nothing about quantum mechanics and light.

 

[Elimentals]

OK looks like you wanna go down the rabbit hole.... lets go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer. This treatment focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave–particle duality is one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.

The idea of duality originated in a debate over the nature of light and matter that dates back to the 17th century, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton: light was thought either to consist of waves (Huygens) or of particles (Newton). Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa).[1] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. In fact, according to traditional formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, wave–particle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones; but because of their small wavelengths, the wave properties of macroscopic objects cannot be detected.[2]

But also another thing I was pondering, with current theory we say time stand still or does not exist for light hence they do not age or weaken. For a light particle the moment it leaves a sun 5 billion light years till the moment we see it is an instant. Yet it take 5 billion years to get here. now 2 observations can be true.

If neutrino's move faster than light then A) it travels backwards in time or B) is the new measure for when time stand still so to speak.

If B is true then we know that light age, therefore we can deduct that measure in light distance is inaccurate as it do age and weakens?

 

[murraybiscuit]

If B is true then we know that light age, therefore we can deduct that measure in light distance is inaccurate as it do age and weakens?

i don't really understand. i thought the speed of light was a known constant. if time is described relative to that constant, i don't see how something going faster invalidates that measurement?

 

[Elimentals]

i don't really understand. i thought the speed of light was a known constant. if time is described relative to that constant, i don't see how something going faster invalidates that measurement?

Yeah I just realized the errors in my thinking, thanks for pointing this out as well.

We measure the distance based on the fact how far light would have traveled in a year not by the age of the particles, I was thinking about the fact that we measure the other starts size based on the light strength.

My Bad.

 

[zippy]

Tachyons always spring to mind first whenever someone discusses timetravel but they're still just theoritical as far as I know

Theoretical ? I don't think is much science involved in tachyons, Hollywood scripts, yes.

 

[The Stig 2.0]

No its not, this is very very far removed form tachyons. For one thing, a tachyon can not go slower than the speed of light.

I humbly apologize for my ignorance

 

[Archer]

I humbly apologize for my ignorance

None needed, live and learn!

 

[Devill]

Ok so when will we have the confirmation of these readings?

Will anyone have a guess at the amount of time we will have to wait before they go:"Ooo sorry guys we made a mistake" or "Ok the sky is falling something can move faster than the speed of light"?

 

[bekdik]

Ok so when will we have the confirmation of these readings?

Will anyone have a guess at the amount of time we will have to wait before they go:"Ooo sorry guys we made a mistake" or "Ok the sky is falling something can move faster than the speed of light"?

I think that Livermore are intending to repeat the experiment in the next 6 to 12 months.

 

[ponder]

Ok so when will we have the confirmation of these readings?

Setting something up in my garage this weekend, will let you know by monday

 

[bekdik]

Setting something up in my garage this weekend, will let you know by monday

You using the sun dial and piece of string method?

 

[AirWolf]

Lets go back to primary school physics
speed = distance / time
Clearly the ditance part isnt an issue in this case, its 730km
So all thats left is to measure the time. Is 60 nanoseconds difficult to measure? No, its in fact incredibly easy, even an entry level PC could do it

Incredibly easy, hey? So when will you be verifying the results?

 

[Devill]

I think that Livermore are intending to repeat the experiment in the next 6 to 12 months.

Ah, nice. I really hope we can get this confirmed.

Setting something up in my garage this weekend, will let you know by monday

LOL

 

[Archer]

Incredibly easy, hey? So when will you be verifying the results?

As soon as you loan me a particle accelerator

 

[ponder]

You using the sun dial and piece of string method?

Bit more advanced. Got a magnetron from a a old microwave I'm converting. Got some copper piping I got from a building site I'm gonna run around the garage walls.