Orbital speed depends on the distance from the center of the Earth. Think about it - the moon takes about 4 weeks, geosynchronous orbits take one day; things in a lower orbit take less time.
During the past second, a billion or so neutrinos went through you.Something is fishy here. These guys are firing particles out of the accelerator and they've got a receiving station in Italy? How the he'll is that even safe or legal? Considering how little we know about these things im thinking firing them outside of the containing chambers of a collided is not smart. Physics chime in if im wrong here.
How do they know the one they detected in Italy was generated at CERN?
You know that the pdf confirms what I said, right?
You know that you just repeated what Locut0s said, right?You know that the pdf confirms what I said, right?
Why don't you go back and read the two posts again?You know that you just repeated what Locut0s said, right?
Why don't you go back and read the two posts again?
quite clear indeed
That's something I never fully understood. I get the math works out that way but it doesn't make sense. Say your example is flipped. A ship is coming towards earth at .5c and is 1.5yl out. Earth fires a laser at it and hits it 1 year later. On the ship, the laser is only coming at c instead of 1.5c so they live another 6 months?
Uh, no. Distance and time change -- there is no objective "speed of light" thus no objective "light year."
At 0.5c if they are 1.5LY out to us they are not 1.5LY out to them. (Nor I believe are they travelling at 0.5c)
Can't wait until this experiment is disproven and we can go back to normal.
Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result
The team behind the finding in September that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and found the same result.
If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics.
Critics of the first report had said that the long bunches of neutrinos used could introduce an error into the test.
The new work, posted to the Arxiv repository, used much shorter bunches.
It has been submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics, but has not yet been reviewed by the scientific community.
The experiments have been carried out by the Opera collaboration - short for Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus.
It hinges on sending bunches of neutrinos created at the Cern facility (actually produced as decays within a long bunch of protons produced at Cern) through 730km of rock to a giant detector at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy.
The initial series of experiments, comprising 16,000 separate measurements spread out over three years, found that the neutrinos arrives 60 billionths of a second faster than light would have, travelling unimpeded over the same distance.
The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum forms a cornerstone in physics - first laid out by James Clerk Maxwell and later incorporated into Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.
Initial analysis of the work by the wider scientific community argued that the relatively long bunches of neutrinos could introduce a significant error into the measurement.
Those bunches lasted 10 millionths of a second - 160 times longer than the discrepancy the team initially reported in the neutrinos' travel time.
To address that, scientists at Cern adjusted the way in which the proton beams were produced, resulting in bunches just three billionths of a second long, so the Opera collaboration could repeat the measurements.
'Profound implication'
The first announcement of evidently faster-than-light neutrinos caused a stir world-wide; the Opera collaboration is very aware of its implications if eventually proved correct.
The error in the length of the bunches, however, is just the largest among several potential sources of uncertainty in the measurement that must all now be addressed in turn; these mostly centre on the precise departure and arrival times of the bunches.
"A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication on physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny," said Fernando Ferroni, president of Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics in a statement.
"The experiment Opera, thanks to a specially adapted Cern beam, has made an important test of consistency of its result. The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."
Those measurements may be much longer in coming, as only a few facilities worldwide have the detectors needed to catch the notoriously flighty neutrinos - which interact with matter so rarely as to have earned the nickname "ghost particles".
Next year, teams working on two other experiments at Gran Sasso experiments - Borexino and Icarus - will begin independent cross-checks of Opera's results.
The US Minos experiment and Japan's T2K experiment will also test the observations. It is likely to be several months before they report back.
Sorry for my ignorance, but in the grand scheme of things, what does this mean?
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
Special relativity reveals that c (the speed of light in a vacuum) is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenonnamely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.
UPDATE Bump
Apparently the experiment was repeated with a slight improvement and the same result was achieved.
Neutrinos could travel FTL (faster than light), which goes against Einstein's special theory of relativity.
Translation: everything we know is a lie.
Tesla was very smart and an important figure in history. But people overplay his level of genius and give him legendary status. And no there is no ether, certainly not in the way he thought there way. There are some things in science that you could pretend is an ether but no respectable scientist would call it that.
well zinfamous, he seems to be more validated now a days. These things were never fully expanded upon by him, we don't have the work, but the general concepts are there. He was against relativity and we're starting to show that it was insanely flawed as well. Now we have the Standard Model predicts the Higgs Boson, yet they can't find it anywhere. I think we're going to end up going back and re-writing a lot of what we thought was "law" and revisiting things people have written off before as well.
Locut0s, I'm not saying there aren't parts of Relativity that I guess would be "real" I also know there are other models that compensate for the absences of the Higgs, but these are currently the most accepted and I see them as being flawed. I think Einstein limited himself far to greatly on his humanly sensory organs when he created his theorems and equations. What the hell is the flavor of a quark? Basically its spin, people believed atoms were made up of small energy vortices, quarks don't really sound all that different to me.
I'm just think we've allowed the numbers to hinder us and with new sensors and ways to collect information we're starting to see lots of old theories and thought actually start to play out. Einstein believed space was empty, then a couple days ago people actualized virtual photons in "nothing". No this was energy formed into photons, these were virtual photons actualized through the absorption of energy. That falls far more in line with the "kooky" shit Tesla spewed compared to what has been considered established physical law since Einstein became a household name.