CERN discovered that neutrinos can be xtremely faster than light!

[trinibwoy]

The world needs a breakthrough in something, been a while since we had one of those. Something medicine or energy related would be nice.

[Piotrsama]

May i ask where is Sheldon Cooper when we need him???

His declarations after making this incredible breakthrough:

[SIOUX]

The Cliff's Notes of this whole issue is some scientists at CERN said "Holy CRAP! We repeated this experiment and we found something going fractionally faster than the speed of light. But... that would rock the foundation of all modern theoretical and applied physics... so can someone check our math on this???"

That's it.

They're admittedly not making a claim to discovery. They're justly concerned that what they have is an error in calculation or measurement, so they're openly submitting their results for peer review. It's only a big deal if they're findings are accurate.

Well put

[Tao~]

When a collaboration makes a surprising observation such as this and is unable to account for it, the ethics of Science demand that the results be made available to a wider community, to seek scrutiny and to encourage independent experiments.

Thats what it is. An anomaly. Till they CANT EXPLAIN how this is happening, its far-fetched imagination that Einstein (and along with him about 100 years of scientific discoveries) are wrong.

PS: I really dislike the way media puts it. Its just an observation that hasnt been accounted for yet, and the headlines make you feel that there's something big happened while you were asleep

[joshd]

Might be interesting:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisp...?confId=155620

[Stewie007]

Thats what it is. An anomaly. Till they CANT EXPLAIN how this is happening, its far-fetched imagination that Einstein (and along with him about 100 years of scientific discoveries) are wrong.

PS: I really dislike the way media puts it. Its just an observation that hasnt been accounted for yet, and the headlines make you feel that there's something big happened while you were asleep

The media is just drumming up ratings. It gets people to watch.

I just think the potential of the result could be a pretty big deal if it is confirmed. If not, then it goes down in the "Book of Oops."

All they are doing is as I said earlier, and as others have elaborated upon. Confirmation of results.

Personally, I'm pretty open to believing that the S.O.L (hahaha, funny how it abbreviates) is just another speed, but unfortunately I don't have the expertise to test it. hehe

I always like to point to Blazar Jets, though. Problem is they are so far away and confirmation of truth or mathematical foolery is pretty difficult at this point. But the streams do seem to be moving at several times the speed of light.

[Tom128]

Something like that, but I am having a hard time understanding the theory of this.

Perhaps it is the result of change in velocity of the speed of light as the medium changes? Since the speed of light is different between air vs water vs vacuum. Such as when you jump into a pool, you hit the surface of the water at a greater speed than you were moving through the air until drag changes it. When you hit the water you make a splash, perhaps the radiation is light's version of doing that.

I'm a programmer not a physicist so that's just my quick guess

[haschioz]

there is a delay of a couple of tens of nanoseconds when measuring with gps (time the data travels to and fro the satellite)

[Toysoldier]

The speed difference is 2000 Km/t faster than light. So, personally I think it's a new discovery and who knows what that will lead to.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Solus Corvus]

You realize that confirmation is part of the scientific process, right? Scientists do not put their titles on the line without confirmation of some sort. Duplication and consistency in observation is a corner stone of scientific research. If the results cannot be duplicated, then fact cannot be claimed. That doesn't mean that they are skeptic. Its part of the scientific

Of course confirmation is part of the scientific process. And how that usually happens is that one team will collect data, write a paper about it, and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. That's the first step in confirmation, passing peer review. Then other teams will try the same experiment or a similar experiment and publish their own paper in a journal supporting or refuting the earlier findings. Going out and asking other scientists to verify your results before publishing at all is not the normal process and indicates that the scientists aren't even sure enough about the results to publish yet. The quote from the scientist at CERN says as much.

Sure, some scientists are undoubtedly skeptic. However, to say "I don't know why anyone is amazed" seems kinda funny to me. Or just the overall "Hey, big deal" type of vibe I'm getting from around here. Its not so much the skeptic scientist Dr Baden.

It's not just Dr Baden, all of the scientists are treating the results with caution including the ones at CERN. I didn't say it's no big deal - quite the opposite. If it is true it means that 100 years of physics gets to be rewritten. That's a huge deal. It has major implications and applications. All I am saying is that you shouldn't go around claiming that scientists did break the speed of light. They may have, but it would be wise to wait for the other labs to replicate the results before claiming it as fact. Because that's exactly what the scientists that actually took part in the experiment are doing.

[Eson]

If you read other sources you will see they have already spent several months on controlling the math and equipment before going to press.

Science is not like religion where you come up with 'facts' and then try to fit the results in. If the theory is wrong you alter it to fit the reality, even if its Einsteins.

Einsteins theory will probably still work in 99.9999% of all cases.

[WangChung]

Something like that, but I am having a hard time understanding the theory of this.

Basically Cherekov light is like a "sonic boom" (photonic boom maybe?) of the particle breaking the "light barrier," that is the speed of light in water, vs the speed of light in a vacuum. That's the easiest way I can explain it.
The value of the speed of light in a medium like water is less than the value of the speed of light in a vacuum. So if the classically referenced speed of light is "c", then the speed necessary for a particle to reach "the speed of light" in water or oil or jell-o is "c - X." Kind of. The actual equation is a lot more complex obviously. :P

Also, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium

[Solus Corvus]

Since my sentiment seems to be completely misunderstood, how about a joke instead. Heard on twitter:

"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar.

[WangChung]

A neutron walks into a bar.

"I'd like a beer" he says. The bartender promptly serves up a beer."How much will that be?" asks the neutron. "For you?" replies the bartender, "no charge".
~~~~~

An electron is pulled over by the police on the highway.
"Son, can you tell me how fast you were going?"
"Sorry, no. But I can tell you exactly where I was."

[Hell Hound]

the relative speed of light in a vacuum is supposed to be the top speed, but if u follow the m theory or super string theory or the multi verse theory then u could travel faster than the observed speed of light by using 4+ dimensional times-pacespace, and since it was a highly charged sub atomic partial we dont really have anything to base behavior on.

also it was in the margin of error to be non FTL

Just to add to this:

once in the 4th you can manipulate time.

[madcho]

i ever believed that einstein was an impostor. He has stollen a lot from other guys, and sayed this incredible thing that will mean nothing in a few years ; E=MC².

Just wait & see, speed of light is not the top speed, and there will never have a top speed, just a human limited only. And i would love to see FTL travell before my death.

[WangChung]

i ever believed that einstein was an impostor. He has stollen a lot from other guys, and sayed this incredible thing that will mean nothing in a few years ; E=MC².

[Citation Needed]

[STEvil]

Einstein did not come up with E=MC². You can google it if you're that far behind the times.

[R101]

And there were those rumors about his wife doing some of the work..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87

[Cooper]

There were several of his close friends assisting him with math and few other bits.
BTW the mass of neutrino is like quadrillion times greater then mass of photon.
Either they made conditions beyond of those covered by relativity theory or there's something off.

[Apokalipse]

"All models are wrong, but some models are useful." - George E.P. Box

At some point, Relativity will be superceeded by a better model. Just as Relativity superceeded Newton's laws.
For all we know, this could be a piece of data we need to do just that.

[WangChung]

Behind the times.... OK.

Calling someone a fraud and an impostor (hyperbole much?), and recognizing that Einstein's theory was a collaboration on several independent theories from guys that couldn't piece it together on their own, are two totally separate things. He articulated and combined the postulates into a single fluent theory.

Whatever though, forgot I was on the internet for a second there.

[Andrew LB]

Einstein did not come up with E=MC². You can google it if you're that far behind the times.

It's obvious that Einstein was not the first to work with mass-energy equivalence equations, but he was without question the first to have correctly deduced the mass–energy equivalence formula E=MC².

But just because countless others had attempted at relating energy with mass, they didn't seal the deal in such a brilliantly simple equation like Einstein did. Such logic would be like saying that no credit goes to Edward Jenner for developing the first-ever vaccine for a disease, smallpox... because inoculation through exposure had been practiced for decades prior to the first vaccine.

[cobra_kai]

Not to mention that Einsteins contributions are hardly limited to mass energy equivalence... have you forgotten what he won the Nobel prize for?

[STEvil]

It's obvious that Einstein was not the first to work with mass-energy equivalence equations, but he was without question the first to have correctly deduced the mass–energy equivalence formula E=MC².

But just because countless others had attempted at relating energy with mass, they didn't seal the deal in such a brilliantly simple equation like Einstein did. Such logic would be like saying that no credit goes to Edward Jenner for developing the first-ever vaccine for a disease, smallpox... because inoculation through exposure had been practiced for decades prior to the first vaccine.

No, Einstein did not write "E=MC²" first.

Yes, he did have a heavy hand in appropriating its use for modern physics.