Speed of light broken again as scientists test neutrino result.
- Thread starter zombie goat fetish
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To increase speed you need to increase your energy and since energy and mass are related that means mass increases too (mass-energy equivalence).Thaius said:Okay, but now a new question pops up; why does increasing speed increase your mass? I don't get why that would happen.Quaxar said:
Sorry, I promise I'm not this ignorant in all academic pursuits.
Now, let's look into special relativity for a second. I'm sure you know the famous E=mc² and this is all that we need to explain the speed-of-light cap.
Actually, the above formula only works like this for objects in rest. If you want to look at a moving object it's E=ymc² (y being the Lorentz factor that does not seem to display with its proper sign). A resting object has a speed v=0 which makes y=1. Now if v gets close to lightspeed the Lorentz factor y approaches infinity... thus proving that to accelerate an object with a positive mass would need an infinite amount of energy to accomplish.
I hope that wasn't too complicated or confusing, I tend to get carried away by explaining physics.
Quaxar said:
Wait... So when wave my hand really fast... It gets a tiny amount bigger?
Also, how exactly are energy and mass related?
Matter and energy are actually perfectly interchangeable representations of the same thing, a bit like how photons are both a particle and a wave depending on how you observe them. When you accumulate energy you are also accumulating mass, but the exchange is so small you only notice it at extreme relativistic speeds. The only reason photons can travel at the speed of light is because they have no mass, and therefor cannot become heavier.DaWaffledude said:
The thing I keep thinking about, assuming these findings are correct, is what exactly the neutrino's are 'experiencing'. Relativity predicts that the universe collapses along your axis of acceleration as you approach c, finally flattening into an essentially 2D plane once c is achieved. So is the measurement wrong and that state occurs at a faster speed, or does it somehow shrink beyond that point? That would have to do some pretty wild stuff to it's trajectory, so I'm guessing it's more complicated then that.
Probably. I'm not sure about that example but it would make sense. You're moving it which means more energy which in turn means increased mass. Well, a tiny little bit anyway.DaWaffledude said:
Mass and energy are not related, they are equovalent. The theory is that "mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant"
So... E = m times a conversion factor (c²)
EDIT: Well, that's what I get for being a slow poster today. That guy above me explains it pretty good, read his.
Reverse time travel AND faster-than light speeds?
This serves to reaffirm my suspicion that we as a species have a relatively miniscule understanding of how the universe really works, and the more we find out, the more we'll realize we don't know anything about anything.
This serves to reaffirm my suspicion that we as a species have a relatively miniscule understanding of how the universe really works, and the more we find out, the more we'll realize we don't know anything about anything.
Well...I agree and uh... this is good news.
(Sigh) Science will always be to complicated for me. At least the stuff that requires math.
(Sigh) Science will always be to complicated for me. At least the stuff that requires math.
That is kind of the essence of the process of trying to figure out how a system works. The path to true understanding of something will always be littered with revisions of your theories.Innegativeion said:
As for this news, I just hope that it is all legit. I want something to shake up the scientific world. Can't stand the idea of the world "standing still".
That was actually stupidity on the reviewer's part. They'd accounted for it in the first place, but thought it was too obvious to mention in the original paper. Someone took it as if they didn't explicitly say they'd done it it meant they hadn't.walrusaurus said:
OT: This is really cool, although the back in time thing is a bit hazy. Special relativity is the one that gives that result, which is the field they'd be proving wrong if neutrinos are turning out superluminal.
Just bring back Tevaton and get them to test it with the big neutrino detector in Canada. Then we can all go back to doing what quantum mechanics has been saying for years.
