Imoutgoodbye Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Nuetrino, sub-atomic neutrino...do we really have to split atoms here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Forsaken Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 it was sub-atomic neutrino's "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it. " Starwars nerd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindflayer Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Well played Forsaken, well played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindflayer Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I was actually very surprised that Valek beat Pali to this link lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 I was actually very surprised that Valek beat Pali to this link lol Pali was at work... He's been busy lately. Which contributed to the less-than-stellar quality of his first couple posts. I'm still curious about how this would, if replicable, cause a great problem for relativity. Physics isn't my strong suit, but I've always understood the rule as being that things can't accelerate to light speed, not that things can't exist beyond it. If neutrinos simply exist at FTL speeds, rather than accelerating to it, I don't understand the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 Einstein had quite a few theories. Almost, if not all, of these theories would need to be re-written. I'm not sure what type of sub-atomic neutrinos were recorded (I'm barely familiar with neutrinos at all, actually), but Einstein believed NOTHING could move faster than light. Now, something appears to have moved faster than light. However, we probably won't know for sure for another 2-3 years. EDIT: There's another station that's undergoing maintenance that could recreate this. It reopens 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 This is just awesome. Can't wait to see what happens next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 Two things. First, all neutrinos are subatomic particles - to refer to subatomic neutrinos is a bit redundant. Second, as far as I know, relativity has never ruled out the possibility of things existing at superluminal speeds. Hypotheses regarding tachyons have been around for decades without rewriting relativity, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 From Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity: Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source. EDIT: This appears to be a cornerstone of Einstein's theories, especially pertaining to electrodynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 That doesn't really answer my question, Valek. What I'm confused about is that my understanding of the light speed barrier was that it's impossible to accelerate to due to increasing mass, but the possible existence of FTL particles isn't entirely ruled out (they'd cause some problems for our notions of causality, but they wouldn't invalidate the theory as a whole). As I said, theoretical physics isn't my strong suit, so I'm looking for clarification if anyone has any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Forsaken Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 http://xkcd.com/955/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 This article (written by physicist Sean Carroll) presents a view on the subject that strongly reflects my own, though it is better informed than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 *shrug* I wish I had a more empirical answer for you, Pali. But: A) I'm struggling to understand this, so answers I give either will be okay, wrong, or just plain vague. Quantum Physics vs. Physics seems to fall under the Postmodernist vs. Modernist view. AKA, anything challenging the most solid rules of physics is possible, but unlikely, as Carroll is fast to point out. I couldn't finish the article. The whole "We don't know how they did it, but it's not likely" makes me roll my eyes. There IS going to come a point in time where to advance scientifically and technologically we will need to find more. Now, I'm going to go dance myself a Postmodernist jig and wait for 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, according to physicist Victor Stenger writing in the Huffington Post, no, this discovery would not cause problems for relativity if replicated - I seem to have thought right, that relativity fully allows for FTL particles provided that they never slow down to subluminal speeds, and that their existence would be primarily a problem for our notions of causality, not relativity. Stenger also seems to think it likely that this was a fluke, providing an example of neutrinos being detected that did not travel at the speed reported by CERN (a supernova observed in 1987 should have caused neutrinos to arrive in 1983 if CERN's speed is accurate, but they arrived only a few hours before the visible light did - the visible light having been slowed by needing to travel through the star's outer layers). In short - don't get your hopes too high regarding this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 That doesn't really answer my question' date=' Valek. What I'm confused about is that my understanding of the light speed barrier was that it's impossible to accelerate to due to increasing mass, but the possible existence of FTL particles isn't entirely ruled out (they'd cause some problems for our notions of causality, but they wouldn't invalidate the theory as a whole). As I said, theoretical physics isn't my strong suit, so I'm looking for clarification if anyone has any.[/quote'] Neutrino mass is so miniscule that we didnt know non-zero mass neutrinos existed until 1998. They also carry no charge, so they can travel for huge distances through matter. Larger electromagnetic fields have no influence over them (again no charge) only smaller sub-atomic energies, which have a very very short range have any effect. It is very possible that the increasing energy requirements that Einstein's theory revolves around does not work the same with Neutrino's. First we are talking about the smallest amount of mass possible, so thee scaling energy requirements to actually produce the FTL moment would be significantly less with neutrinos than with nearly any other form of sub-atomic particle. Couple that with the significantly reduced (or completly absent) resistance variable that I described above and it becomes possible...on paper..that this particular type of particle posseses just the right properties (mass, electromagnetic immunity) that cause resistance to scale slower than inertia even at the barely comprehensible speed of light. Now we just need someone to figure out the "neutrino field" that allows objects within it to pass through matter or some other crazy sci-fi type breakthrough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Thanks, Kyzarius. I think I just made a little mess of joy in my pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Pali, that example you cited is not a very good one. The amount of energies present within a supernova is not really understood even now. The presence of sub-atomic radiation is VERY possible in such an event, the same radiation that would put the breaks on our FTL neutrinos. There is also what is called the "Solar Neutrino" problem. Even in our own sun something prevents or diffuses almost 2/3 of the expected neutrino radiation. During a super nova we do not know if this problem continues, does the slowing, blocking, or diffusing materials/radiation expand ahead of the neutrinos slowing them? Or are the Neutrinos held to the brakes by the accompanying sub-atomic radiation? To many unknowns to really compare the supernova to the controlled experiement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Well, according to Wikipedia, the solar neutrino problem has been resolved. Also, even if the neutrinos do exist at FTL speeds, they should not be capable of being slowed to light speed - the barrier works both ways. If I'm reading him right, Stenger's pretty much just trying to make two points with his article: 1) we have reasons to expect this to be a fluke, in that it contradicts current understandings and past evidence, which means that this finding badly needs to be replicated before it should be accepted as accurate, and 2) that FTL neutrinos would not be a violation of relativity even if they are found to exist. Also, all radiation consists of subatomic particles, so you're confusing me by referring to subatomic radiation. Is there a specific type of radiation that's known to react with neutrinos and alter their speed? I've yet to find any information regarding such. Your statement regarding supernovas is also one I find confusing... as far as I know, we understand supernovas pretty well at this point, including energy released. Again... elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 specific types... anywas, pali, sorry..since according to you..everything is already discovered, I see no point in continuing to debate it...and I have not the time or the energy to write out everything I know on this forum for you to pick apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 I couldn't find any references to radiation known to affect neutrino speeds, so I asked for more information... How was that picking apart what you said or implying everything's already discovered? A link alone would be fine... I'm curious regarding this, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.