Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

There was also a statement about a "God Particle" not so long ago. Possibly any relation?

The God Particle is the nickname of the Higg's particle, which is supposedly the thing that causes any matter to contain mass, and it is responsible for the Higg's field, which results in gravity.
It is vaguely related. Light is (or is it?) the fastest particle in the world because it has no mass - or rather, no rest mass. This implies that if something would go faster than light, it would have a negative amount of mass, which is obviously nonsense (or is it?).

[Reach]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

I think it's the other way around. The media is jizzing all over the experiment.

edit:
^

You're right, the media does love this type of stuff.


The main article is so completely bereft of information though. I've had to do a lot of reading on the side.

It still doesn't make a lick of sense, so I'll be curious to see what the explanation for this is eventually. It goes beyond my field of expertise though, so I probably shouldn't comment further, other than on this:

The God Particle is the nickname of the Higg's particle, which is supposedly the thing that causes any matter to contain mass, and it is responsible for the Higg's field, which results in gravity.
It is vaguely related. Light is (or is it?) the fastest particle in the world because it has no mass - or rather, no rest mass. This implies that if something would go faster than light, it would have a negative amount of mass, which is obviously nonsense (or is it?).

The two aren't really related.

E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

Is why a particle can't move faster than the speed of light. Any particle of mass m would require an infinite amount of energy to reach c, which is why the entire idea of 'faster than light' doesn't make any sense, and any particle without any mass must move at exactly c.

[TheNoSoMan]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

reach and rubix really do know their physics.

Somehow, they sound really interesting.

[Magic_V2]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

If this doesn't boil down to user error;
Maybe the speed of light is evolving, and neutrinos are just going along with the flow.
Did they already re-check the value of light speed, or just assume it's a constant?

If I were you, reading this post would make me laugh.

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

The two aren't really related.

E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

Is why a particle can't move faster than the speed of light. Any particle of mass m would require an infinite amount of energy to reach c, which is why the entire idea of 'faster than light' doesn't make any sense, and any particle without any mass must move at exactly c.

Obviously. That is why there is this huge fuss about the measurement. E=mc˛ would be proven false if the neutrinos actually did go faster than light (and with that, many other formulas would also no longer be very trustworthy anymore).

It is related to the Higg's particle in the sense that the Higg's particle is responsible for anything to have said mass m in the first place (but no more than that).

[Reach]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

Obviously. That is why there is this huge fuss about the measurement. E=mc˛ would be proven false if the neutrinos actually did go faster than light (and with that, many other formulas would also no longer be very trustworthy anymore).

It is related to the Higg's particle in the sense that the Higg's particle is responsible for anything to have said mass m in the first place (but no more than that).

I'm not quite sure this would be the case.

We didn't throw out Newton's equations when Einstein came around. They still work, just not when talking about certain things.

A single exception to this equation wouldn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, especially when it adequately describes 99.999999999% of everything in the universe.

We would, however, require an additional model to explain what the hell is going on here XD

[A2P]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

Usain Bolt

[vantilburg]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

Faster than lightning

[ELRayford]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

Quantum Computers before 2050?

[dragonmegaXX]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

I dont get how this really is going to change anything that matters...

[hi19hi19]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

I dont get how this really is going to change anything that matters...

It's making a bunch of egghead types shit their collective pants, which is kind of amusing to watch from a distance.


But really? Nothing changes, you're right.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

*takes advantage of this momentary physics anomaly and uses new-found telekinetic powers to take over the world*

[YoshL]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

*takes advantage of this momentary physics anomaly and uses new-found telekinetic powers to take over the world*

too late i got there first

[rushyrulz]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

shit.

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Scientists may have found a particle that goes fast than light.

I'm not quite sure this would be the case.

We didn't throw out Newton's equations when Einstein came around. They still work, just not when talking about certain things.

A single exception to this equation wouldn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, especially when it adequately describes 99.999999999% of everything in the universe.

We would, however, require an additional model to explain what the hell is going on here XD

Hm, yeah, alright, fair enough. :P
E=mc˛ still counts in the ways we have already used it (nuclear fusion for example) so there's no need for it to go. But we'd indeed have to find out new formulas for these special occasions.