Other Faster than the speed of light?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Cool?

 

Very cool though, especially if they could scale it up to propel an object faster than light..

 

This sounds epic. I could get from school to home in no time.

Aww yea.

 

Scale what up?
Scaling up the LHC would probably require a larger planet to build it on to propel an object. Its huge as it is, and that's just for accelerating things you can't even see,

Also, I'd be willing to bet that its something to do with the structure of the Neutrinos, in as much as they pretty much have no mass.
I doubt much else could do this.

 

sounds wrong though.. probably a calibration mistake

if they exceeded the speed of light- there's the issue with time too

 

Not if the value we have for the speed of light is wrong.

Or if something else that is believed to be fact is wrong.

I mean, what happens if the LHC find that there's no Higgs Boson particle. Might aswell go back to the drawing board then.

 

You just need to harness a quantum tunnel with an FTL factor of 36.7 recurring. Easy really.

 

Next: a Portal Gun!

Neutrinos do have a tiny mass as they go an eensy-weensy bit slower than light. We know that because they experience passage of time. We know that because they change state, and they need time for that to do in.

 

Pic removed.

 

Oh, I wish. Imagine how much fun you could have with those:

 

The SoL has been measured so many times that it's not wrong. End of.

What could be wrong is the idea that nothing can travel faster than it. If there are particles out there which fundamentally ruin the ideas we have about them then the theories will be rewritten, just as they have been before. If there's no Higgs to be found then the theories will quite literally go back to the drawing board.

Theoretical physics really is just maths-based guesstimation backed up by ridiculously expensive projects.

 

I'm half way through Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's E=MC^2, and I'm not sure if I can be bothered to finish it now.

 

No mass? Minus mass?


But seriously, puzzling and confusing couldn't be a better thing because if it was all clear cut we'd have a lot less to do.

 

Damn you Cern. You were meant to give us answers, not more questions

 

No1 rule of having a job don't finish it or you won't have one

 

This made my jaw drop when I first read it. I'd say that it's probably about time for a paradigm shift . To be honest though, it's probably some sort of systematic error.
They're doing a conference later today I think and they're releasing their data to be scrutinised for errors so if people find anything amiss they'll be pretty quick to say so.

 

You were meant to give us answers

 

It depends if they are considering distance between the points as absolute, or whether they are taking into consideration movement of the earth while the Neutrinos are between points.

I'd love this to be true though. Being limited by the speed of light always seemed like a massive dampener on my plans for a teleportation device.

 

I think I still side with Einstein on this one They said that the measured time was fractionally over the time they expected. Could easily be a small mistake with the ruler they were measuring with. Neutrinos have a small mass which has been measured at T2K in Japan although not enough to say conclusively. There have been many experiments to measure the speed of light and it would have been seen already.

 

Why? Not trolling, just interested.

Einstein's theory is the best fit from what we have observed but it does not mean its correct.