its almost definitely a miscalculation or they make 4th dimensional short cuts in 3 dimensional space and just teleport around, which would be also a great thing because it would give us a great starting point for teleportation
Amazing how many people are voting this up without looking into the fact that the find has already been invalidated. Even before it was it should have been obvious that there was a reason more than 10 physicists involved in the project wouldn't sign their name to publishing it.
@salviileo I don't like to think of it as a 'speed limit'. As Arthur C. Clark once put it, finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible. I like to keep the door open on what the limit actually is, even if it means assuming this barrier exists until we prove it does not, or a way of outsmarting it. :)
@rich1051414 Yeah that's a very good point. There are other dimensions that we need to explore to the infinite dimensions to come and probably God will be there or not. Thanks :)
@JohnGaltx64 A scientist must always question ideas the state what is possible and what is not. Perhaps the speed of light is truly a speed limit, but that doesn't mean there are not ways around it. Gravity is already known to warp space time, so a limit of speed in a malleable medium isn't much of a limit to me :P I'm simply stating that scientists shouldn't brush off experiments that test this law as pointless wastes of time.
@JohnGaltx64 "To clarify Einstein’s theory, nothing can travel through space faster than light. However, space itself, can do whatever the hell it wants" - Lawrence Krauss.
In other words, given time, we can and will achieve speeds which will seem many times the speed of light, through the use of wormholes, gravitational eddies, bending space, etc. Why entertain such notions? It's called progress.
we can and will achieve speeds which will seem many times the speed of light, through the use of wormholes, gravitational eddies, bending space, etc
***
You have no idea what any of this means mathematically. You just watch a bunch of pop science shows. None of these things are traveling at superluminal speeds. They are different geodesics of spacetime curvature.
From what I understand there was an inconsistency in the equipment. They're trying to find out if that's what caused the faster-than-light readings. That in itself does NOT disprove the possible discovery just yet.
Einstein added to Newton - and we know now that Newton's laws work but only under certain conditions. So this could be the same. Einstein's equations might work under most conditions but there may be a few exceptions - why is the such a shock?
@ShalomYal You're right. With every new discovery we have to update our science. Scientists are extremely conservative and check things over a dozen times to make sure it's right. The speed of light has been an absolute constant for nearly a century. The fact that they might have been wrong freaked them out a little.
It's pretty lucky that when CERN are on the verge of making themselves redundant with evidence mounting for the Higgs particle, a new phenomenon is discovered, which might eventually lead to calls for an even bigger accellerator.
If someone who can feel if his twin brother has just had an accident (for example),,, what about if his twin brother was on Mars and had an accident. Would he know at the same time or would he have to wait for the feelings to get to him travelling at the speed of light from Mars? I think he'd know at the same time,, and that would mean infinite speeds are possible with knowing something like that. It's worth an experiment if we can send someones twin brother (or sister) to Mars.
@JBroMCMXCI ,,I think it's called intuition where you know something by just feeling it. I've had it when I've had a strong feeling that a old friend from a long way away is going to turn up at my door who I haven't seen for years,, and then they've turned up. Strange but non the less true.
@Rob187ok How many times has such a coincidence happened to you? How many times have things happened which you didn't predict with your intuition? How many strange or unlikely things didn't occur in the first place? Have some common sense and rationality, please.
@JBroMCMXCI ,, Far too many times to be a coincidence JBro,, and when I said I felt it I mean I really felt it. If you had a scientific mind you'd be more open to looking for evidenced of intuition,, or at least admit that you're no expert instead of just accusing those who experience it of having no common sense and rationality. That's called being narrow minded and it's foolish to judge a matter before looking into any evidence regarding the subject. That's my oppinion anyway.
Physicist Brian Cox talks to Shaun Keaveny on BBC 6 Music about this baffling find - he says that if it is right, it could require a complete rewriting of our understanding of the laws of the Universe.
I'm no scientist,i possess something that no amount of education will give you,and that is common sense,I wonder if cox has had the common sense to get in touch with the people at SETI,he could save them a fortune if he told them that he thinks there is no one else out in space,i would like to hear their reply,now,michio kaku,stanton friedman they are scientists that know there is other intelligent life out in space,they know we are not unique.PS nobody likes the grammar police it shows weakness
@arobekie Common sense? What good is common sense? Common sense taught us that the world was flat. Common sense taught us that the sun rotated around the earth, and that the stars are just tiny lights stuck to the inside of a black sphere that surrounds us. You keep your common sense, I'm sure his many, many years of education will contribute much more to humanity than your common sense could ever dream of.
@arobekie Go try and tackle a doctorate in quantum physics, equipped with nothing but your common sense. The sheer fucking arrogance in that comment really rubbed me the wrong way. And you have the nerve to call Prof. Brian Cox an arrogant prick. You need to get your priorities straight.
@wolverine005 WOOOOOOO,If cox has a doctorate in quantum physics then i certainly wouldn't waste my time getting one.What good is common sense? obviously you dont have it, otherwise it would have told you not to post those childish pathetic comments,tiny lights,black sphere ,flat earth,result of common sense,ROFLMFAO,well,your a bigger prick than brian cox,and you got that title without having a doctorate in quantum physics.
@arobekie I never mentioned that he had anything to do with quantum physics. Your comprehension skills are fucking sub par. Also, laughing at what I said is a fairly predictable response, seeing as it is quite apparent that you have nothing worth saying, and are just here to attempt to ridicule somebody superior to you. 'Childish pathetic comments' indeed.
@wolverine005 Laughing at what you said was inevitable,trying to blame flat earth etc etc on common sense,i think you will find that those old theories are to do with a lack of understanding and research,jumping to conclusions without having the full facts,a lot like what cox and his counterparts are doing today,i dont suppose you could remember any of these scientists who said that the earth was flat etc etc,i wouldnt be surprised if you couldn't,because who would want to?
@arobekie Lack of understanding, yes, and resorting to common sense. Also the people that claimed this weren't scientists, and I don't see what their names have to do with anything. And that's nothing like what Prof. Cox and his counterparts are doing. You clearly show a lack of understanding for the Scientific Method.
@wolverine005 Their names do have a lot to do with it,get it right and you will be remembered throughout history,get it wrong and you will be forgotten or worse still, remembered for getting it wrong,I dont know what scientific method cox uses to come to the conclusion that we are the only ones,and yet friedman and kaku say that we are not alone,i choose to go along with the latter,we are just a lump of rock orbiting one of the trillions of stars,that does not make us unique.
@arobekie You seem to have missed the point that I was making, but it doesn't matter. I never really commented on your original point, and to be honest I would agree that it is arrogant to assume that we are the only life in the galaxy. But even if Cox did say that, he wasn't positing it as fact, just giving his opinion, meaning he wasn't doing science.
I watched a programme the other night featuring brian cox,he said,if there is life out in space,it will only be microbial,so out of the trillions of planets out there,we are the only ones,who the fuck does he think we are,are we so special and unique,he talked like he was the ultimate authority on life in the universe.he must think that we are the pinnacle of technology and the only ones, and he is a part of it,what a arrogant narrow minded prick.
@OzSweetness The only idiot i can see is cox and you,"blowing what he said out of proportion"young people are influenced by what this guy is saying,and he is making statements that he cant prove,he is making up the minds for people instead of letting people make up their own minds,Guys like cox will be forgotten in the future,or he might be remembered and his statements used as how not to jump to conclusions.
@arobekie Because of the speed of light, stars are in a way in a different time to us. Now, because stars are so far away, it would take ages and ages for them to get to us; if there were any closer, they would have done it by now. So these faraway aliens, even though they may be on their way now, because of the way that space-time works, would be, relative to us, in their microbial state, as would we be to them. There is nothing arrogant about this, only factual.
@HeatherRuthDiane I dont think you fully understand what cox said,he said,if there is life out in space it will only be microbial,in other words,we are the only ones anywhere,full stop,he thinks that we are something special amongst the trillions upon trillions of planets out in space,to me that is an arrogant and ignorant statement from a so called educated man and scientist.
@arobekie Excuse me, are you a scientist? Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but Brian Cox is probably smarter than you therefore if I were you I wouldn't go calling his theories 'ignorant' and 'arrogant'. Nobody knows what is on the trillions of planets in space, and we might never know; but it's OK to have our own theories. So just because Brian's theory is different to yours, you called him a prick? That's low and immature. By the way, learn to use commas.
@xixkieranxix Do you know me dickhead ?was you there dickhead?who the fuck are you to tell me what i understand or dont understand,now fuck off and dont bother me anymore.
According the special relativity (space-time physics), the object, neutrino (which has non-zero mass) in this case, would have infinite mass at the speed of light.
How can something travel faster than time, when if something travels at all, it travels through time therefore having a measurable speed.. Does it not show that we don't understand time all that well?
@1979baldrik time can happen at different rates, for example, the clocks on the GPS satellites have to be adjusted every day because time runs slightly faster due to weaker gravity effecting it. If we were able to fly to a black hole and orbit it, if we travelled for 5 years round it and then came back to earth, 10 years would have passed on earth. Time is relative.
@1979baldrik yes, but measuring it's speed is just dividing (distance)/(time that passed for a stationary observer - us).
So, we can measure it's speed because the amount of time it took for it to travel from one point to the other is positive (it DIDN'T travel back in time). Yes, for the neutrino time was different, but WE can compare it to the speed of light...
@TuahShinguru, Quite right.... if one keeps an essentially Newtonian conception of time and applies it to General Relativity. Given these findings, it looks like we might once more need to rethink exactly what "time" means. As we do so, I think we will need to reconcile our new ideas about (space-)time with the work of Ludwig Bolzmann regarding entropy. At least, that is where I would start.
I'm still not sure why folks are so surprised about this. Sure, Einstein's ideas said that light's the limit, but if one actually took the time to figure what would happen -if- something went faster than light speed, negative time is the most logical conclusion. And surely enough, that's what happened.
so if neutrinos have mass, and they can take a short-cut through another dimension, then why only neutrinos? why not massless photons, or the hydrogen nuclei which they accelerate in the LHC?
He says 'nothing can travel faster than the speed of light'. Just to clarify, this only applies to anything with mass (and neutrinos have mass). Quantum entanglement has been proven with information of spin being transmitted at more than 10,000 times the speed of light ( effectively instantaneously) in twin sub-atomic particles. Einstein called it 'spooky action at a distance'.
So, the neutrinos leave CERN, pop into another dimension, travel FTL to just before Grand Sasso, and then know that its time to pop back into our dimension to hit the Target.
I think the inter-dimensional transit argument will prove to be correct. Perhaps if we attempt to change the probability ratio of a quantum event relative to it's neighbours and ultimately us, (as was also recently done), we're merely creating the illusion of a change. We're inducing causal links with quanta from adjacent dimensions of space/time to compensate for the pressure exerted upon MC squared, which remains a constant. Space/time is bendy, so why can't it be squashy too?
I feel like people are discussing this topic because they truely believe something that isn't supported by anything but mathematics only after values are said to be true in order to calculate "what ifs"... It's good to have an open mind in physics.. but dont leave site of logic.
I believe the reason time is defined as a dimension in physics and mathematics might be getting confused here. Time being multiple dimensions is only theorized to open up possibilities in phisics and mathematics, but is not physically supported.
I believe time is a constant, not just light. The subatomic particles of light have free will in theory, making them unpredictable but physically constant. Time is not a spacial dimension but a temporal dimension in initself in the measurement of physical change, which does not have free will and only moves in one direction, but considered the 4th dimension in physics because a dimension is not restricted to physical objects and used in mathematics in the calculation of theories or theorems.
it isn't and it had had been confirmed empirically. the gps has to take the time dilation into consideration, otherwise it would go out of wack very quickly.
@turboturtle2002 But in the situation where you have speed variations between two objects, then you would need to technically adjust time because of our perception and location of the faster object (ex: GPS). But if its Jan 9 on earth.. It's Jan 9 on a fast moving partical billions of miles away unless we are trying to keep track of it given our relationship to the speed of the partical. If you consider time in that aspect, it wouldn't be a constant by a perception of time.
please check this link for more detailed information regarding the muon neutrinos arXiv.org type this into their search arXiv:1109.4897v2, enjoy your findings.
General relativity states that distances get smaller at speeds approaching the speed of light, if the neutrino was travelling at a speed close to the speed of light, distances would shrink in order for the neutrino to observe light travelling at the speed of light. This means that actually the distance that the neutrino's travelled was less than 454 miles. meaning that they are slower than light
Time is rather like a river which is susceptible to flow faster or slower in certain areas due to time dilation and the special relativity ( which may not be completely true anymore). But c'mon don't make stupid shit up. Our country is dumb enough. Jacksawild eat my balls
It was said Cern would get their hands on time-traveling technology and rule the world with it by supposedly time-traveler John Titor in 2001. Now Cern phyicist Brian Cox is saying they have made a discovery which disproves the theory which protects cause and effect,prevents things from going back or forth through time.
If our measurement 'universal speed of light" is only set by our point of view, a material 3 or 4d one governed by matter and If things can take short cuts through the other dimensions (non matter) then those other dimensions could not be set by our physical time restraints and measurements from within matter? Higher the dimension faster the time, faster the speed of light but only in relation to other dimensions.An imagined fixed point of view in moving evolving universes seems limited to me.
Sort of. In our day to day existence, yes, time is in essence a fictional construct. However, Time is what happens when you require light to travel at a specific speed. Time can also be described by the transition of a system from a low entropy state to a high entropy state.
@Daiblix you say "Time is the 4th dimension". That's not quite true - certainly not in the sense that you mean anyway.
Time can be considered a dimension, but it is not a *spacial* dimension in the sense that the known 3 dimensions are spacial. String theory suggests there are 11 dimensions ( ndependent of time) for a stable universe.
When you say "Time is the 4th dimension", it's clear that you are just repeating your knowledge from popular science and nothing more.
@kbdkbd99 Um what? How have you arrived at that conclusion? I just wanted to keep my post short. This is how I understand it: We label the effects of the 4th dimension as time because we are only seeing 1 cross section of it at any 1 time. Much like if you existed in a 2D universe you would only be able to see 1 cross section of 3D objects at a time. Our minds can't comprehend what it would be like to live in a 4 dimensional universe so the present is the only cross section we can see.
@Daiblix Dude, you are confusing time as a spacial dimension. You're making a most basic category error. There may well be a 4th spacial dimension, but it is NOT time. There may be up to 11 spacial dimensions.
You are comparing time as a dimension to the other *spacial* dimensions. You need to re-visit the drawing board, you've been watching too much star trek. All the info you need is out there if you go read.
@007rosin this just goes to show the ignorance of popular science followers, From wiki : "A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension."
@kbdkbd99 In general relativity space and time are equivalent dimensions. Read about going beyond the event horizon of a black hole, where "time" becomes "spacelike" and space "timelike". And other interesting theoretical results. The only distinguishing factor between three of the spacetime dimensions and the other one is a difference in sign of the metric.
@Daiblix We perceive 4 dimensions, as we do perceive time. Like the 2D man perceives the 3D object, but doesn't realise that it's just a 3D object not something else. We don't realise it is just a fourth dimension, kinda thing.
@Daiblix this just goes to show the ignorance of popular science followers, From wiki : "A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension."
@macharius188 Yes, in the same way that a mile is an abstract concept. It is how we measure an actual phenomenon. With distance, we are measuring space. With time we are measuring the sequence of events, from cause to effect. We didn't make it up, cause and effect preceded us by... well... forever.
How the hell Einstein can possibly know anything if he doesn’t know what time is? There is no clear and simple definition of time, mass or matter, so what we can know about anything? The “greatest brain” never even tried to define the time! Therefore all his work is a fairy tell.
also, some might consider time to be a fourth dimension. time seems to be a seperate dimension that affects the other three. we are used to interpreting things spacially, time has an abstract meaning to us. it really just makes the other three dimensions get old... right? think about what 'get old' means... it means alot, eh?
hmm, what this means to me is what i have always known, about myself and all of you, even the ones with degrees and little white labcoats. we do not know everything. seems obvious i know, but you'd be surprised at the extraordinary claims that some people make based on things they read in this or that book... like 'there is no God'. oh really? proof? anyone... they give out prizes for this sort of 'proof'. perhaps neutrinos simply move faster than our tools...
I love how people make sweeping statements saying "...nothing can travel faster than the speed of light...."Nothing we know of can travel faster than the speed of light,but in the past no one thought electromagntism had anything to do with light,people thought there was an ether that represented absolute space, its a new discovery that could change the way we look at physics....the actual experiment needs to be checked,and if so we need to look at how this is represented/changes Einstein's laws.
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity sharing the Earth in cooperation harmony and wisdom for our common needs and well being.The market system of artificial scarcity and the wage slavery of the working class is the historic process of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of our common humanity. A majority democratic movement of no leaders no followers to transcend the CLASS RULE.
what implication does the speed of light being broken, have on the divine matrix...the field..does it support the theory or open up new possibilities?
What does this imply for the holographic universe...Somebody enlighten me on the new discovery, the speed of light being exceeded!
@Typho0n86 Makes you wonder if the lack of mass drives a duality of force allowing it to move at tremendous speeds as it seeks a stable form that allows it to balance out with mass. I know, doesn't make the best sense, but hey math is nothing without the imagination :P
@1MadVirus1 photons are light :S of course they travel at the speed of light :S its like saying; "light is capped at the speed of light". I dont see why things without mass can travel faster than the speed of light. But what doesn't have mass? LOL
A photon doesn't have mass. That's why it can't go slower/faster then the speed of light and is stuck at that speed.
Particles that have negative mass if they exist would always travel faster then the speed of light without being able to go slower then the speed of light.
@JamesCizuz ffs i know E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m^2.c^4 /sigh can you stop stating basic principals. then subistuite the frequency into it... ect then u end up with a mass between; 0 < 1×10−18 eV/c2, so maybe light isnt traveling at the fastest speed possible. lol because it has energy and therefor mass
We know neutrinos have positive mass and while a negative mass particle may exist it has never been detected. By definition as well any particle with negative mass MUST travel faster then the speed of light; it can NEVER go slower. Postive mass particles as they approach the speed of light require infinite energy to achieve or move faster, and the reverse is true for negative mass particles, but as you slow them they require infinite energy as they approach speed of light.
@JamesCizuz I know most of the stuff ur on about you dont have to tell me about basic principals. maybe they have detected a negitive mass particle somehow then, maybe slowed it down just enought to detect with enough energy. Its new and exciting stuff happening right now. <3 it, its nice theorysing about stuff as well
Very unlikely; no negative mass particle was detected for many reasons. That and CERN already recognized the mistakes; repeated the tests and verified no faster than light neutrinos.
A faster than light particle is "possible" or fits into some theories; in fact it's called a tachyon.
Never said it was one particle. It's called a tachyon or set of tachyons for any particle with negative mass. Just like the higgs boson could be a single particle or set of particles.
its almost definitely a miscalculation or they make 4th dimensional short cuts in 3 dimensional space and just teleport around, which would be also a great thing because it would give us a great starting point for teleportation
auchucknorris 2 days ago
They already figured out that this was just a cable problem with the hardware. Quit upvoting this video...
Goose068 2 days ago
Amazing how many people are voting this up without looking into the fact that the find has already been invalidated. Even before it was it should have been obvious that there was a reason more than 10 physicists involved in the project wouldn't sign their name to publishing it.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 3 days ago
Light is still the Speed Limit in our very known Universe. Albert Einstein is still schooling us after his death LOL
salviileo 5 days ago
@salviileo I don't like to think of it as a 'speed limit'. As Arthur C. Clark once put it, finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible. I like to keep the door open on what the limit actually is, even if it means assuming this barrier exists until we prove it does not, or a way of outsmarting it. :)
rich1051414 4 days ago
@rich1051414 Yeah that's a very good point. There are other dimensions that we need to explore to the infinite dimensions to come and probably God will be there or not. Thanks :)
salviileo 4 days ago
@rich1051414:
It's not about keeping an open mind. There is no reason to believe anything is able to travel at superluminal speeds. So why entertain such notions?
JohnGaltx64 4 days ago
@JohnGaltx64 Just like there was no reason to believe the earth was round or at the center of the universe?
ruleofwrist20 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ruleofwrist20:
***
Just like there was no reason to believe the earth was round or at the center of the universe?
***
This is a fallacy of equivocation. These two situations are not comparable in any way.
JohnGaltx64 3 days ago
@JohnGaltx64 A scientist must always question ideas the state what is possible and what is not. Perhaps the speed of light is truly a speed limit, but that doesn't mean there are not ways around it. Gravity is already known to warp space time, so a limit of speed in a malleable medium isn't much of a limit to me :P I'm simply stating that scientists shouldn't brush off experiments that test this law as pointless wastes of time.
rich1051414 4 days ago
@rich1051414:
***
Gravity is already known to warp space time, so a limit of speed in a malleable medium isn't much of a limit to me :P
***
I don't want to be mean, but this statement shows me you aren't ready to have a discussion about this. Good luck, mate.
JohnGaltx64 3 days ago
@JohnGaltx64 "To clarify Einstein’s theory, nothing can travel through space faster than light. However, space itself, can do whatever the hell it wants" - Lawrence Krauss.
In other words, given time, we can and will achieve speeds which will seem many times the speed of light, through the use of wormholes, gravitational eddies, bending space, etc. Why entertain such notions? It's called progress.
Inclousid 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Inclousid:
***
we can and will achieve speeds which will seem many times the speed of light, through the use of wormholes, gravitational eddies, bending space, etc
***
You have no idea what any of this means mathematically. You just watch a bunch of pop science shows. None of these things are traveling at superluminal speeds. They are different geodesics of spacetime curvature.
You're still wrong.
JohnGaltx64 3 days ago
As mundane as it sounds, it seems the problem was simple: they needed to jiggle the cord.
Freerefill 6 days ago
Yep, Einstein was wrong. Get over it.
Esoparagon 1 week ago
@Esoparagon Oh really? Good job Sherlock.
raydredX 5 days ago
@raydredX Cheers brah
Esoparagon 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LATEST NEWS!!! There will be final observations done in MAY 2012 to finally resolve the issue.So apparently they are not sure!
zvolencan77 1 week ago
You should see how fast I clicked on the mute button when I heard justin bieber
razerburst 1 week ago
@razerburst It's Brian Cox, he's a Particle Physicist and he is the business.
NinjaNoobTurtle 1 week ago
From what I understand there was an inconsistency in the equipment. They're trying to find out if that's what caused the faster-than-light readings. That in itself does NOT disprove the possible discovery just yet.
I'm still sceptical, but hopeful :P
Keadin84 1 week ago
faulty cabling defeated this idea. doesn't seem neutrinos are faster than light yet.
Vroom246 1 week ago
whatelse have you discoverd, MUHAMMED IMAM EL MEHDI,
frenkyusuf 1 week ago
Just confirmed.... The whole story was a hoax. Neutrinos are NOT faster than the light and CERN has lied.
Tomislavv2 1 week ago
@Tomislavv2 in your dreams mate. Gran Sasso scientist asked for help since day one to find the error. The media lied. Read properly next time.
Kenshiroit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IT HAS BEEN JUST CONFIRMED THAT NEUTRINOS DO NOT MOVE FASTER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT!!!
zvolencan77 1 week ago
im posting this from the future just to let u know the data was incorrect
noobadoc 1 week ago 18
@noobadoc I see what you did there XD top comment worthy!
CloudysGuitarChannel 2 days ago
I have a man crush on Prof Brian Cox, Very interesting and cool guy to listen to.
Simongtt 2 weeks ago
@Simongtt I love him too....
48acar19 1 week ago
So we can travel in time now?
Penthaligon 2 weeks ago
@Penthaligon you do. But only forward.
FlashJack85 1 week ago
Either way he's right: Einstein's theory is still valid in the four dimensions.
bygota 2 weeks ago
Maybe the neutrino's mutated?
jwmulvay1 2 weeks ago 10
the keyword in this is "IF" it's right. It hasn't been proven right yet.
sniped101 2 weeks ago
Einstein added to Newton - and we know now that Newton's laws work but only under certain conditions. So this could be the same. Einstein's equations might work under most conditions but there may be a few exceptions - why is the such a shock?
ShalomYal 2 weeks ago
@ShalomYal You're right. With every new discovery we have to update our science. Scientists are extremely conservative and check things over a dozen times to make sure it's right. The speed of light has been an absolute constant for nearly a century. The fact that they might have been wrong freaked them out a little.
spacecowboy5000 2 weeks ago
@ShalomYal Well, wouldn't you consider Einstein's revision of Newton's laws quite a discovery?
RascusDrakonia 2 weeks ago
It's pretty lucky that when CERN are on the verge of making themselves redundant with evidence mounting for the Higgs particle, a new phenomenon is discovered, which might eventually lead to calls for an even bigger accellerator.
theNetworkCH 3 weeks ago
@theNetworkCH CERN was never on the verge of making themselves redundant. Don't be so ignorant.
JBroMCMXCI 2 weeks ago
@JBroMCMXCI That was sort of my point :)
theNetworkCH 2 weeks ago
As the French say, when heading for the woods, "Oubliez offspray."
CACBCCCU 4 weeks ago
If someone who can feel if his twin brother has just had an accident (for example),,, what about if his twin brother was on Mars and had an accident. Would he know at the same time or would he have to wait for the feelings to get to him travelling at the speed of light from Mars? I think he'd know at the same time,, and that would mean infinite speeds are possible with knowing something like that. It's worth an experiment if we can send someones twin brother (or sister) to Mars.
Rob187ok 1 month ago
@Rob187ok Nobody can feel that. Not on planet Earth, not anywhere.
JBroMCMXCI 3 weeks ago
@JBroMCMXCI ,,I think it's called intuition where you know something by just feeling it. I've had it when I've had a strong feeling that a old friend from a long way away is going to turn up at my door who I haven't seen for years,, and then they've turned up. Strange but non the less true.
Rob187ok 2 weeks ago
@Rob187ok How many times has such a coincidence happened to you? How many times have things happened which you didn't predict with your intuition? How many strange or unlikely things didn't occur in the first place? Have some common sense and rationality, please.
JBroMCMXCI 2 weeks ago
@JBroMCMXCI ,, Far too many times to be a coincidence JBro,, and when I said I felt it I mean I really felt it. If you had a scientific mind you'd be more open to looking for evidenced of intuition,, or at least admit that you're no expert instead of just accusing those who experience it of having no common sense and rationality. That's called being narrow minded and it's foolish to judge a matter before looking into any evidence regarding the subject. That's my oppinion anyway.
Rob187ok 2 weeks ago
it isnt confirmed if the neutrinos have the ability to travel faster than light (in some circunstances) yet. On few years we may know.
Kenshiroit 1 month ago
@Kenshiroit You never know, because these results have been replicated with another study. So...
starbobpizza 3 weeks ago
Physicist Brian Cox talks to Shaun Keaveny on BBC 6 Music about this baffling find - he says that if it is right, it could require a complete rewriting of our understanding of the laws of the Universe.
COULD WOULD SHOULD IF WHEN ... BLABLABLA
massdestruction11111 1 month ago
I'm no scientist,i possess something that no amount of education will give you,and that is common sense,I wonder if cox has had the common sense to get in touch with the people at SETI,he could save them a fortune if he told them that he thinks there is no one else out in space,i would like to hear their reply,now,michio kaku,stanton friedman they are scientists that know there is other intelligent life out in space,they know we are not unique.PS nobody likes the grammar police it shows weakness
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie Common sense? What good is common sense? Common sense taught us that the world was flat. Common sense taught us that the sun rotated around the earth, and that the stars are just tiny lights stuck to the inside of a black sphere that surrounds us. You keep your common sense, I'm sure his many, many years of education will contribute much more to humanity than your common sense could ever dream of.
wolverine005 1 month ago
@arobekie Go try and tackle a doctorate in quantum physics, equipped with nothing but your common sense. The sheer fucking arrogance in that comment really rubbed me the wrong way. And you have the nerve to call Prof. Brian Cox an arrogant prick. You need to get your priorities straight.
wolverine005 1 month ago
@wolverine005 WOOOOOOO,If cox has a doctorate in quantum physics then i certainly wouldn't waste my time getting one.What good is common sense? obviously you dont have it, otherwise it would have told you not to post those childish pathetic comments,tiny lights,black sphere ,flat earth,result of common sense,ROFLMFAO,well,your a bigger prick than brian cox,and you got that title without having a doctorate in quantum physics.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie I never mentioned that he had anything to do with quantum physics. Your comprehension skills are fucking sub par. Also, laughing at what I said is a fairly predictable response, seeing as it is quite apparent that you have nothing worth saying, and are just here to attempt to ridicule somebody superior to you. 'Childish pathetic comments' indeed.
wolverine005 1 month ago
@wolverine005 Laughing at what you said was inevitable,trying to blame flat earth etc etc on common sense,i think you will find that those old theories are to do with a lack of understanding and research,jumping to conclusions without having the full facts,a lot like what cox and his counterparts are doing today,i dont suppose you could remember any of these scientists who said that the earth was flat etc etc,i wouldnt be surprised if you couldn't,because who would want to?
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie Lack of understanding, yes, and resorting to common sense. Also the people that claimed this weren't scientists, and I don't see what their names have to do with anything. And that's nothing like what Prof. Cox and his counterparts are doing. You clearly show a lack of understanding for the Scientific Method.
wolverine005 1 month ago
@wolverine005 Their names do have a lot to do with it,get it right and you will be remembered throughout history,get it wrong and you will be forgotten or worse still, remembered for getting it wrong,I dont know what scientific method cox uses to come to the conclusion that we are the only ones,and yet friedman and kaku say that we are not alone,i choose to go along with the latter,we are just a lump of rock orbiting one of the trillions of stars,that does not make us unique.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie You seem to have missed the point that I was making, but it doesn't matter. I never really commented on your original point, and to be honest I would agree that it is arrogant to assume that we are the only life in the galaxy. But even if Cox did say that, he wasn't positing it as fact, just giving his opinion, meaning he wasn't doing science.
wolverine005 1 month ago
@arobekie In fact I'd like to see the clip that you seem to have such a huge problem with.
wolverine005 1 month ago
@wolverine005 Sorry mate i think your trolling now.PEACE.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie Sigh... fair enough.
wolverine005 1 month ago
Comment removed
LetsTalkSense1 1 month ago
@LetsTalkSense1 Nobody wants to see your idiotic comments.
whylie00 1 month ago
Comment removed
arobekie 1 month ago
I watched a programme the other night featuring brian cox,he said,if there is life out in space,it will only be microbial,so out of the trillions of planets out there,we are the only ones,who the fuck does he think we are,are we so special and unique,he talked like he was the ultimate authority on life in the universe.he must think that we are the pinnacle of technology and the only ones, and he is a part of it,what a arrogant narrow minded prick.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie And aren't you an idiot for blowing what he said out of proportion?
OzSweetness 1 month ago
@OzSweetness The only idiot i can see is cox and you,"blowing what he said out of proportion"young people are influenced by what this guy is saying,and he is making statements that he cant prove,he is making up the minds for people instead of letting people make up their own minds,Guys like cox will be forgotten in the future,or he might be remembered and his statements used as how not to jump to conclusions.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie Because of the speed of light, stars are in a way in a different time to us. Now, because stars are so far away, it would take ages and ages for them to get to us; if there were any closer, they would have done it by now. So these faraway aliens, even though they may be on their way now, because of the way that space-time works, would be, relative to us, in their microbial state, as would we be to them. There is nothing arrogant about this, only factual.
HeatherRuthDiane 1 month ago
@HeatherRuthDiane I dont think you fully understand what cox said,he said,if there is life out in space it will only be microbial,in other words,we are the only ones anywhere,full stop,he thinks that we are something special amongst the trillions upon trillions of planets out in space,to me that is an arrogant and ignorant statement from a so called educated man and scientist.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie Excuse me, are you a scientist? Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but Brian Cox is probably smarter than you therefore if I were you I wouldn't go calling his theories 'ignorant' and 'arrogant'. Nobody knows what is on the trillions of planets in space, and we might never know; but it's OK to have our own theories. So just because Brian's theory is different to yours, you called him a prick? That's low and immature. By the way, learn to use commas.
whylie00 1 month ago
@arobekie
Everything you said is wrong.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie
I'd rather not waste my time.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny Because you cant!!!!!!!!!!!!
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie
Okay, kid.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@arobekie you probably misunderstood it to him referring to life in our solar system, dickweed.
xixkieranxix 1 month ago
@xixkieranxix Do you know me dickhead ?was you there dickhead?who the fuck are you to tell me what i understand or dont understand,now fuck off and dont bother me anymore.
arobekie 1 month ago
@arobekie k
xixkieranxix 1 month ago
According the special relativity (space-time physics), the object, neutrino (which has non-zero mass) in this case, would have infinite mass at the speed of light.
YouFirstEye 1 month ago
Brian Cox is an alien. he likes to probe botties.
JEKAZOL 1 month ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I'm sure they know more than you haha :P
Jiminiblobster 1 month ago
perhaps data can hitch a lift ;-) or video
avoed1973 1 month ago
physics and neuroscience are the two hottest sciences right now
outlaw87100 1 month ago
@outlaw87100 Many physicists and neuroscientists have brains but no
minds.
mentalphysicalism 1 month ago
How can something travel faster than time, when if something travels at all, it travels through time therefore having a measurable speed.. Does it not show that we don't understand time all that well?
1979baldrik 1 month ago
@1979baldrik time can happen at different rates, for example, the clocks on the GPS satellites have to be adjusted every day because time runs slightly faster due to weaker gravity effecting it. If we were able to fly to a black hole and orbit it, if we travelled for 5 years round it and then came back to earth, 10 years would have passed on earth. Time is relative.
cr125freak 1 month ago
@1979baldrik thats a mind fuck right there. confused me bro lol
921milanista 1 month ago
@1979baldrik yes, but measuring it's speed is just dividing (distance)/(time that passed for a stationary observer - us).
So, we can measure it's speed because the amount of time it took for it to travel from one point to the other is positive (it DIDN'T travel back in time). Yes, for the neutrino time was different, but WE can compare it to the speed of light...
orestisDisturbed 1 month ago
*applies it to the conception of time in General Relativity
CNETZebur 1 month ago
@TuahShinguru, Quite right.... if one keeps an essentially Newtonian conception of time and applies it to General Relativity. Given these findings, it looks like we might once more need to rethink exactly what "time" means. As we do so, I think we will need to reconcile our new ideas about (space-)time with the work of Ludwig Bolzmann regarding entropy. At least, that is where I would start.
CNETZebur 1 month ago
I'm still not sure why folks are so surprised about this. Sure, Einstein's ideas said that light's the limit, but if one actually took the time to figure what would happen -if- something went faster than light speed, negative time is the most logical conclusion. And surely enough, that's what happened.
TuahShinguru 1 month ago
so if neutrinos have mass, and they can take a short-cut through another dimension, then why only neutrinos? why not massless photons, or the hydrogen nuclei which they accelerate in the LHC?
bv90andy 1 month ago
He says 'nothing can travel faster than the speed of light'. Just to clarify, this only applies to anything with mass (and neutrinos have mass). Quantum entanglement has been proven with information of spin being transmitted at more than 10,000 times the speed of light ( effectively instantaneously) in twin sub-atomic particles. Einstein called it 'spooky action at a distance'.
widebody123 1 month ago
So, the neutrinos leave CERN, pop into another dimension, travel FTL to just before Grand Sasso, and then know that its time to pop back into our dimension to hit the Target.
Riiight....
SvenTviking 1 month ago
I think the inter-dimensional transit argument will prove to be correct. Perhaps if we attempt to change the probability ratio of a quantum event relative to it's neighbours and ultimately us, (as was also recently done), we're merely creating the illusion of a change. We're inducing causal links with quanta from adjacent dimensions of space/time to compensate for the pressure exerted upon MC squared, which remains a constant. Space/time is bendy, so why can't it be squashy too?
paralaxloop 1 month ago
I feel like people are discussing this topic because they truely believe something that isn't supported by anything but mathematics only after values are said to be true in order to calculate "what ifs"... It's good to have an open mind in physics.. but dont leave site of logic.
BMLafhameyer 1 month ago
I believe the reason time is defined as a dimension in physics and mathematics might be getting confused here. Time being multiple dimensions is only theorized to open up possibilities in phisics and mathematics, but is not physically supported.
BMLafhameyer 1 month ago
I believe time is a constant, not just light. The subatomic particles of light have free will in theory, making them unpredictable but physically constant. Time is not a spacial dimension but a temporal dimension in initself in the measurement of physical change, which does not have free will and only moves in one direction, but considered the 4th dimension in physics because a dimension is not restricted to physical objects and used in mathematics in the calculation of theories or theorems.
BMLafhameyer 1 month ago
@BMLafhameyer "I believe time is a constant"
it isn't and it had had been confirmed empirically. the gps has to take the time dilation into consideration, otherwise it would go out of wack very quickly.
turboturtle2002 1 month ago
@turboturtle2002 But in the situation where you have speed variations between two objects, then you would need to technically adjust time because of our perception and location of the faster object (ex: GPS). But if its Jan 9 on earth.. It's Jan 9 on a fast moving partical billions of miles away unless we are trying to keep track of it given our relationship to the speed of the partical. If you consider time in that aspect, it wouldn't be a constant by a perception of time.
BMLafhameyer 1 month ago
@BMLafhameyer I guess in a Mathematical stand point, time wouldn't be a constant. Very good.
BMLafhameyer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
please check this link for more detailed information regarding the muon neutrinos arXiv.org type this into their search arXiv:1109.4897v2, enjoy your findings.
Thegamingkid1000 1 month ago
General relativity states that distances get smaller at speeds approaching the speed of light, if the neutrino was travelling at a speed close to the speed of light, distances would shrink in order for the neutrino to observe light travelling at the speed of light. This means that actually the distance that the neutrino's travelled was less than 454 miles. meaning that they are slower than light
1000wilzo 2 months ago
Science is the most "successful" way of thinking in human history ?
MrJuno6 2 months ago
String theory shall prevail!!!!
LecceDiPane 2 months ago
Ok children, if you'd all like to turn to page 23 by 75 to see the fold-out tesseract and proceed to melt your brains . . .
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 months ago
Time is rather like a river which is susceptible to flow faster or slower in certain areas due to time dilation and the special relativity ( which may not be completely true anymore). But c'mon don't make stupid shit up. Our country is dumb enough. Jacksawild eat my balls
hotsauce3n 2 months ago
@jacksawild .... Dude come on how can u relate entropy to time. That s completely unrelated
hotsauce3n 2 months ago
It was said Cern would get their hands on time-traveling technology and rule the world with it by supposedly time-traveler John Titor in 2001. Now Cern phyicist Brian Cox is saying they have made a discovery which disproves the theory which protects cause and effect,prevents things from going back or forth through time.
Watch out.
PaulThePuppetier 2 months ago
It is a very interesting theory. I hope we find the answer to this very strange phenomenon.
UniverseIsAwesome 2 months ago
If our measurement 'universal speed of light" is only set by our point of view, a material 3 or 4d one governed by matter and If things can take short cuts through the other dimensions (non matter) then those other dimensions could not be set by our physical time restraints and measurements from within matter? Higher the dimension faster the time, faster the speed of light but only in relation to other dimensions.An imagined fixed point of view in moving evolving universes seems limited to me.
Honeysucklebommie 2 months ago
Time is an abstract concept. It's made up, we made it up.
macharius188 2 months ago 2
@macharius188
Sort of. In our day to day existence, yes, time is in essence a fictional construct. However, Time is what happens when you require light to travel at a specific speed. Time can also be described by the transition of a system from a low entropy state to a high entropy state.
jasmith101 2 months ago
@macharius188 Time is the 4th dimension.
Daiblix 2 months ago
@Daiblix you say "Time is the 4th dimension". That's not quite true - certainly not in the sense that you mean anyway.
Time can be considered a dimension, but it is not a *spacial* dimension in the sense that the known 3 dimensions are spacial. String theory suggests there are 11 dimensions ( ndependent of time) for a stable universe.
When you say "Time is the 4th dimension", it's clear that you are just repeating your knowledge from popular science and nothing more.
kbdkbd99 2 months ago
@kbdkbd99 Time is spacial.... look up time dilation O.o
Ravus111 2 months ago
@kbdkbd99 Um what? How have you arrived at that conclusion? I just wanted to keep my post short. This is how I understand it: We label the effects of the 4th dimension as time because we are only seeing 1 cross section of it at any 1 time. Much like if you existed in a 2D universe you would only be able to see 1 cross section of 3D objects at a time. Our minds can't comprehend what it would be like to live in a 4 dimensional universe so the present is the only cross section we can see.
Daiblix 2 months ago
@Daiblix Dude, you are confusing time as a spacial dimension. You're making a most basic category error. There may well be a 4th spacial dimension, but it is NOT time. There may be up to 11 spacial dimensions.
You are comparing time as a dimension to the other *spacial* dimensions. You need to re-visit the drawing board, you've been watching too much star trek. All the info you need is out there if you go read.
kbdkbd99 2 months ago
@kbdkbd99 Man I hate Star trek. I got this info from the "imagining the tenth dimension" series on youtube.
Daiblix 2 months ago
@Daiblix ok, sorry for that.
kbdkbd99 2 months ago
@kbdkbd99 AFAIK, he is right. Time as we conceive it is just another dimension of the universe. It is not really time, but a spacial dimension.
007rosin 2 months ago
@007rosin this just goes to show the ignorance of popular science followers, From wiki : "A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension."
TIME IS NOT A SPACIAL DIMENSION.
kbdkbd99 2 months ago
@kbdkbd99 why not?
clearskies2 2 months ago
@kbdkbd99 In general relativity space and time are equivalent dimensions. Read about going beyond the event horizon of a black hole, where "time" becomes "spacelike" and space "timelike". And other interesting theoretical results. The only distinguishing factor between three of the spacetime dimensions and the other one is a difference in sign of the metric.
josephheldenhammer 2 months ago 2
@kbdkbd99 Time is money
TALANISEFRA 1 month ago
@Daiblix We perceive 4 dimensions, as we do perceive time. Like the 2D man perceives the 3D object, but doesn't realise that it's just a 3D object not something else. We don't realise it is just a fourth dimension, kinda thing.
007rosin 2 months ago
@007rosin Yeah I know, that's what I said.
Daiblix 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daiblix this just goes to show the ignorance of popular science followers, From wiki : "A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension."
TIME IS NOT A SPACIAL DIMENSION.
kbdkbd99 2 months ago
@macharius188 Yes, in the same way that a mile is an abstract concept. It is how we measure an actual phenomenon. With distance, we are measuring space. With time we are measuring the sequence of events, from cause to effect. We didn't make it up, cause and effect preceded us by... well... forever.
jacksawild 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How the hell Einstein can possibly know anything if he doesn’t know what time is? There is no clear and simple definition of time, mass or matter, so what we can know about anything? The “greatest brain” never even tried to define the time! Therefore all his work is a fairy tell.
demarmat 2 months ago
Il est aussi brillant que magnifique ;-)
lotus3232 2 months ago
short cut that is what my gut says. They got the time correct but not the path of the neutrinos
takforalt 2 months ago
Comment removed
Typho0n86 2 months ago
im just curious...if light cant escape black hole....cant a black hole's gravity accelerate the speed of a particle above the speed of light???
AzimUhamid 2 months ago
@AzimUhamid The particle would be destroyed when it reached it
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86 but before it reached will it have attained speed faster than light?
AzimUhamid 2 months ago
@AzimUhamid when it hit C it will be destroyed
Typho0n86 2 months ago
Well lets see now, we have Dark Matter, Dark Energy & now this. Do we not live in interesting times!
Bulllseye2012 2 months ago
also, some might consider time to be a fourth dimension. time seems to be a seperate dimension that affects the other three. we are used to interpreting things spacially, time has an abstract meaning to us. it really just makes the other three dimensions get old... right? think about what 'get old' means... it means alot, eh?
cwross1976 2 months ago
hmm, what this means to me is what i have always known, about myself and all of you, even the ones with degrees and little white labcoats. we do not know everything. seems obvious i know, but you'd be surprised at the extraordinary claims that some people make based on things they read in this or that book... like 'there is no God'. oh really? proof? anyone... they give out prizes for this sort of 'proof'. perhaps neutrinos simply move faster than our tools...
cwross1976 2 months ago
I love how people make sweeping statements saying "...nothing can travel faster than the speed of light...."Nothing we know of can travel faster than the speed of light,but in the past no one thought electromagntism had anything to do with light,people thought there was an ether that represented absolute space, its a new discovery that could change the way we look at physics....the actual experiment needs to be checked,and if so we need to look at how this is represented/changes Einstein's laws.
Wicked33 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity sharing the Earth in cooperation harmony and wisdom for our common needs and well being.The market system of artificial scarcity and the wage slavery of the working class is the historic process of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of our common humanity. A majority democratic movement of no leaders no followers to transcend the CLASS RULE.
arzoyan 2 months ago
Light Yagami disliked this.
munchluxe63 2 months ago
Who would dislike this? Perhaps light and the rest of light's family?
jawsboris72 2 months ago
the doctor would disagree........ALONZ-Y!
orealcookie1989 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what implication does the speed of light being broken, have on the divine matrix...the field..does it support the theory or open up new possibilities?
What does this imply for the holographic universe...Somebody enlighten me on the new discovery, the speed of light being exceeded!
awakeFemale 2 months ago
0:28 Nothing with MASS can travel faster than the speed of light :S key word missing MASS
Typho0n86 2 months ago 10
@Typho0n86 Makes you wonder if the lack of mass drives a duality of force allowing it to move at tremendous speeds as it seeks a stable form that allows it to balance out with mass. I know, doesn't make the best sense, but hey math is nothing without the imagination :P
kromeclutch 2 months ago
@kromeclutch Imagination and creativity are some of the best traits for a person to have to make breakthroughs in physics :D
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86
well, that's wonderful, but the particle that did this is "neutrino" which is considered a particle with no mass.
solves your problem?
TheBassMan533 2 months ago
@TheBassMan533 Derp GW. I never knew i had a problem? i was just correcting what he was saying
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86 Neutrinos technically are mass, even if in the most elementary sense.
vintageludwig 2 months ago
@Typho0n86 Yeah, photons do not have mass either and are caped at the speed of light. Nothing should be able to travel faster than that.
1MadVirus1 2 months ago
@1MadVirus1 photons are light :S of course they travel at the speed of light :S its like saying; "light is capped at the speed of light". I dont see why things without mass can travel faster than the speed of light. But what doesn't have mass? LOL
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86
A photon doesn't have mass. That's why it can't go slower/faster then the speed of light and is stuck at that speed.
Particles that have negative mass if they exist would always travel faster then the speed of light without being able to go slower then the speed of light.
JamesCizuz 2 months ago
@JamesCizuz Doesnt a photon have energy? and therefor it would have mass from E=mc^2
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86
E=mc^2 is not the correct formula, it is dumbed down for the masses. The correct formula is E2 = p2c2 + m2c4.
Yes a photon has energy; a photons energy is described by it's wavelength or inversely frequency.
JamesCizuz 2 months ago
Comment removed
Typho0n86 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesCizuz ffs i know E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m^2.c^4 /sigh can you stop stating basic principals. then subistuite the frequency into it... ect then u end up with a mass between; 0 < 1×10−18 eV/c2, so maybe light isnt traveling at the fastest speed possible. lol because it has energy and therefor mass
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86 neutrino's have a mass, it's incredible little but mass nonetheless.
it's also debatable if neutrino's actually do exceed light speed, as there is only little evidence supporting it.
Trisscarro 2 months ago
@Trisscarro My statment still holds then. What if neutrino's had negative mass? this could acount for the expansion of space
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86
We know neutrinos have positive mass and while a negative mass particle may exist it has never been detected. By definition as well any particle with negative mass MUST travel faster then the speed of light; it can NEVER go slower. Postive mass particles as they approach the speed of light require infinite energy to achieve or move faster, and the reverse is true for negative mass particles, but as you slow them they require infinite energy as they approach speed of light.
JamesCizuz 2 months ago
@JamesCizuz I know most of the stuff ur on about you dont have to tell me about basic principals. maybe they have detected a negitive mass particle somehow then, maybe slowed it down just enought to detect with enough energy. Its new and exciting stuff happening right now. <3 it, its nice theorysing about stuff as well
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86
Very unlikely; no negative mass particle was detected for many reasons. That and CERN already recognized the mistakes; repeated the tests and verified no faster than light neutrinos.
A faster than light particle is "possible" or fits into some theories; in fact it's called a tachyon.
JamesCizuz 2 months ago
@JamesCizuz There should be many more particles that travel faster than light, not just one tachyon
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86
Never said it was one particle. It's called a tachyon or set of tachyons for any particle with negative mass. Just like the higgs boson could be a single particle or set of particles.
JamesCizuz 2 months ago