Einstein was wrong? Subatomic particles move faster than light?

[Bahku]

If you believe this is true, the most impressive part of the story might be the fact that they were able to synchronize two events that occur 450 miles apart to within 10ns. For perspective, light travels over that distance in about a 400th of a second, that margin of error is a 100 millionth of a second. So the discrepancy between when the particle left and when it was measured to leave, the discrepancy between when it arrived at the destination and when that was measured as well as the variation between the clocks at the source and destination combined add up to about 1/250,000 of the amount of time it takes light to travel between those two places.

In terms of measuring the speed of sub-atomic aprticles, and the speeds at which they've been able to actually slow photons down, those are rather large descrepencies.

I think some people may react to these new findings as almost sacrilege to suggest that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is at all fallable, when he himself was one of the first so put forth that it was only theory, confined to the limits of mankind's knowledge at present, and subject to further alteration or even invalidation, as man's understanding of the forces of nature and the universe expand.

No matter how much we pat ourselves on the back (as a species) for our ingenuity and understanding of the universe, the universe will continue to keep us (as a species) humble, by relentlessly demonstrating just how little we really know, and how much more there is to discover.

That. to me, is what makes science and exploration so exciting, and what will keep we humans always striving for more. Very cool stuff, Roy ... thanks for posting.

[wahz]

this has been out there 4 ever in my world but i hang out and work with researchers every day of my life.

here is the thing to think about with physics and sorry to be so simple with the knowledgeable: the visible world acts very much as you would think it would. However, the smallest particles that make up this visible world do not at all act like would seem possible based on your knowledge of the visible physical world and indeed act like mischievous little gremlins with super powers.

[Eja117]

Omg! This changes everything.  I wonder if Star Wars.com has the new episode of Clone Wars

[ACF]

[belgian c fan]

this is just what has happened before and will happen again.

to compare it to Descartes, he said nothing is for sure but doubt and everything starts with doubt. Well that theory is passe. Because there has to be something that can think before it can doubt. just as philosophy goes from one theory to another, so does physics.
so am i surprised? No. do i understand the impact this will have now and in the future? Not even close.

[BballTim]

If you believe this is true, the most impressive part of the story might be the fact that they were able to synchronize two events that occur 450 miles apart to within 10ns. For perspective, light travels over that distance in about a 400th of a second, that margin of error is a 100 millionth of a second. So the discrepancy between when the particle left and when it was measured to leave, the discrepancy between when it arrived at the destination and when that was measured as well as the variation between the clocks at the source and destination combined add up to about 1/250,000 of the amount of time it takes light to travel between those two places.

In terms of measuring the speed of sub-atomic aprticles, and the speeds at which they've been able to actually slow photons down, those are rather large descrepencies.

  According to some of the articles there are only two other places in the world where you could duplicate the experiment, on in Japan (slowed down by earthquake issues, whatever that means) and one in the US which doesn't have equipment anywhere near accurate enough to confirm the test. If it were a large circular track then you're beginning and ending the test with one set of equipment and timing both events (particles leaving and returning) with the same clock. In this case you have two sets of  equipment that aren't physically identical and a need for two clocks hundreds of miles apart to be in almost perfect lockstep. Just synching up the clocks (or timers) to that level and confirming that they're in synch is probably a difficult task.

[18isGREATERthan72]

99% of what we think is true is false.  99% of what we think is impossible, is possible

[18isGREATERthan72]

Can't remember who coined that phrase, but it applies here.

[BballTim]

It has also been proven in labaratory experiments within the last year or so, that "c" is not "c", (meaning light is not constant). They have actually shown, (on very small scales, obviously), that light can be slowed down as well as increased, which also sheds a somewhat dubious light on Einstein's theory.

  It's possible that things can travel slightly faster than the speed of light, I suppose. But to this point, "c" is always "c", which is the speed of light under certain conditions (in a vacuum or in space or however it's measured). But the speed of light isn't always "c", for instance light traveling through water. So while it's possible that particles travel faster than "c", it's also probably possible for a particle to travel faster than light but still not be faster than "c".

[GreenEnvy]

99% of what we think is true is false.  99% of what we think is impossible, is possible

According to you, there is only a 1% chance of that statement being true.

[18isGREATERthan72]

99% of what we think is true is false.  99% of what we think is impossible, is possible

According to you, there is only a 1% chance of that statement being true.

I think I misquoted it... and I remembered where it originated from.  Clarke's Three Laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

This would have to do with the First Law.

[Bahku]

It has also been proven in labaratory experiments within the last year or so, that "c" is not "c", (meaning light is not constant). They have actually shown, (on very small scales, obviously), that light can be slowed down as well as increased, which also sheds a somewhat dubious light on Einstein's theory.

  It's possible that things can travel slightly faster than the speed of light, I suppose. But to this point, "c" is always "c", which is the speed of light under certain conditions (in a vacuum or in space or however it's measured). But the speed of light isn't always "c", for instance light traveling through water. So while it's possible that particles travel faster than "c", it's also probably possible for a particle to travel faster than light but still not be faster than "c".

This is basically what Feynman has been bolstering, which is the initial principle put forth by Einstein, but the recent research done at the Large Hadron Collider which is being referenced above, (in which required infinite energy can not be reproduced, obviously), the measurements are, as relativity, a theory only, but one that has strong indications about the varying speed of light, and this in a vacuum, ("c") ... that's what has some scientists so excited.

It's already widely accepted that light has varying velocity in relation to space/time, but that in itself would not upset Einstein's relativity equation, since it does not alter the variables involved. Setterfield's measurements are certainly eye-opening, though, (to say the least), and he's far from the only scientist to come up with similar findings:

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdata.txt

Either way, it's pretty fascinating stuff, and deserves much more investigation and attention, (which it is undoubtedly receiving).

[wdleehi]

This proves the point of all the physics students in the high school saying, "why do we have to learn this?" not really having to learn it because it wont be useful to them.

Nope.


High School Physics teaches problem solving skills above all else.  Skills that you can use in any career choice. 


On top of that, understanding how every thing that moves works is not a terrible thing to know. 

[wdleehi]

I can't wait to see the next round of equations to "explain how the universe works"


I believe we are up to 11 dimensions in Membrane theory.  (String only had 10 dimensions and 5 different theories) 



This is very cool. 


And the reason that Newtonian Physics still works so well is that you can take quantum physics equations and simplify them down to Newton's equations as long as the object are large enough. 

[indeedproceed]

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