Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC


Recommended Posts

threetonesun

Sub-light-speed travel through hidden dimensions in space seems even better than FTL travel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zeta_immersion

I would bet my left kidney that Major Carter or McKay would have had this solved in 30 minutes (or less).

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonathanVP

By the way, here's the paper they "published" about the findings:

http://static.arxiv....f/1109.4897.pdf

CERN is supposed to release more information today though.

Very interesting read especially the last paragraph of the conclusion: "...possible still unknown systemic effects that could explain the observed anomaly..." They have left no interpretation of their results!! I think this anomoly is due to either mathematical calculation errors or experimental errors, we'll see....

Link to post
Share on other sites
rob.derosa

Very interesting read especially the last paragraph of the conclusion: "...possible still unknown systemic effects that could explain the observed anomaly..." They have left no interpretation of their results!! I think this anomoly is due to either mathematical calculation errors or experimental errors, we'll see....

They say in the paper that it was a deliberate omission not to put any interpretation into the paper....

Link to post
Share on other sites
spy beef

I would bet my left kidney that Major Carter or McKay would have had this solved in 30 minutes (or less).

It would be faster if you just ask the Asgard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM

He's repeating a theory he read elsewhere. Here it is in an article on this topic in today's Guardian:

>

Of course, it's cooler to make it look like your idea than to reference where you got it from ;)

Interesting presumption, save for the fact that I didn't have to read it elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tiagosilva29

5t33.jpg

Never trust a neutrino.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

Massively underrated guy, that Tesla.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bogas04

Massively underrated guy, that Tesla.

most of us dont know that he invented the AC generator , but nVIDIA Tesla technology :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glen

I wonder if this can be related to other quantum experiments in which electrons have been observed to occupy two (or more) locations at any given moment. If that initial observation is true and those properties exist in this experiment, then distance would not be a factor at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
guru

I wonder if this can be related to other quantum experiments in which electrons have been observed to occupy two (or more) locations at any given moment. If that initial observation is true and those properties exist in this experiment, then distance would not be a factor at all.

huh, got a source?

Link to post
Share on other sites
-Himanshu-

The difference is so less that it may very well have been a measurement error.

Link to post
Share on other sites
-Himanshu-

The idea that we may "see" two elections could come from the observer affecting the result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Or it could be explained by this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds

Yeah but EPR paradox violates uncertainity principle, it doesn't mean that a particle exists in 2 places at a time. And even if we consider MWI, the universe will seperate and we can't interact with both particles of the different worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

Yeah but EPR paradox violates uncertainity principle, it doesn't mean that a particle exists in 2 places at a time. And even if we consider MWI, the universe will seperate and we can't interact with both particles of the different worlds.

Well, EPR may explain why it appears that the particles are in 2 places at the same time. For many people, seeing is believing (even if it goes deeper than that).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger

The funny thing about this is that I was just reading an article in Popular Science about how the universe itself will outpace the speed of light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
satukoro

actually things get very crazy at subatomic levels.

And Einstein never believed they can be like that.

But i suppose they are.

Now we are starting to see how it is.

But i have many doubts about this perticular experiment.

Ever read about those experiments where information is transfered faster than light?

I mean the particles dont actually travel in that. They appear at the destination.

What if these particles travelling actually disappeared and reappered a few nanonanonano meters ahead and actually skipped distance like this?

Would these detectors ever find this out? That a particle shifted space? Or it duplicated where the previous just died and the clone reappeared to be a little ahead in space carrying on with the same speed?

This sort of thought process is rather intriguing. However, how would that work, and why? Is the duplicated particle being sent along the same path? Does it have to accelerate to reach the prior particle's speed? There are so many questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

The difference is so less that it may very well have been a measurement error.

Err, not really. If you had been measuring the speed of sound then it would have been minor but in light it's a significant difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
-Himanshu-

Err, not really. If you had been measuring the speed of sound then it would have been minor but in light it's a significant difference.

60 ns difference amounts to a difference of 18m/s in the original 3*10^8 m/s. That's a margin for error.
Link to post
Share on other sites
still1

The funny thing about this is that I was just reading an article in Popular Science about how the universe itself will outpace the speed of light.

there is a difference... universe is expanding so objects are moving in the opposite direction.

If two objects travel in opposite direction with the speed 75% as that of light then they are expanding at 1.5 times the speed of light.

that still will not make an object travel beyond speed of light.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
60 ns difference amounts to a difference of 18m/s in the original 3*10^8 m/s. That's a margin for error.

No it doesn't, read the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.