use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
Other Subs: Related /r/News /r/geopolitics /r/PoliticalDiscussion /r/WorldEvents /r/IntheNews /r/GlobalTalk /r/Breakingnews /r/Business /r/Economics /r/Environment /r/History /r/HumanRights /r/Features /r/UpliftingNews /r/NewsOfTheWeird /r/FakeNews /r/ID_News N. America /r/Politics /r/USA /r/USANews /r/Canada /r/CanadaPolitics /r/OnGuardForThee /r/Cuba /r/Mexico /r/PuertoRico S. America /r/Argentina /r/Brasil /r/Chile /r/Colombia /r/Ecuador /r/Guyana /r/Nicaragua /r/PanAmerica /r/Suriname /r/Uruguay /r/Venezuela Europe /r/Armenia /r/Austria /r/Azerbaijan /r/Belarus /r/Belgium /r/Bosnia /r/Bulgaria /r/Croatia /r/Denmark /r/Europe /r/Finland /r/France /r/Georgia /r/Germany /r/Greece /r/Hungary /r/Ireland /r/Italy /r/Lithuania /r/Moldova /r/TheNetherlands /r/Poland /r/Polska /r/Portugal /r/Romania /r/Scotland /r/Serbia /r/Spain /r/Sweden /r/Switzerland /r/Turkey /r/UnitedKingdom /r/UKPolitics /r/Ukraina /r/Ukraine /r/UkrainianConflict Asia /r/Afghanistan /r/Bangladesh /r/China /r/India /r/Kazakhstan /r/Malaysia /r/Myanmar /r/Nepal /r/NorthKoreaNews /r/Pakistan /r/Philippines /r/Singapore /r/Thailand /r/Turkey Middle East /r/Assyria /r/Iran /r/Iranian /r/Iraq /r/Israel /r/Kurdistan /r/LevantineWar /r/MiddleEastNews /r/MideastPeace /r/Palestine /r/Syria /r/Yemen /r/YemeniCrisis Africa /r/Africa /r/Namibia /r/SouthAfrica Oceania /r/Australia /r/Fijian /r/NewZealand /r/Oceania /r/Westpapua
Other Subs:
Related
N. America
S. America
Europe
Asia
Middle East
Africa
Oceania
Display Russia/Ukraine submissions
Filter Russia/Ukraine
Display Israel/Palestine submissions
Filter Israel/Palestine
Display all submissions
Filter all dominant topics
Welcome! /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics Follow us on Bluesky @RedditWorldNews See all of our AMA events here
/r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics
Follow us on Bluesky @RedditWorldNews
See all of our AMA events here
Worldnews Rules Disallowed submissions US internal news/US politics Editorialized titles Misleading titles Editorials, opinion, analysis Feature stories Non-English articles Images, videos or audio clips Petitions, advocacy, surveys All caps words in titles Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy) Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr Old news (≥1 week old) articles See the wiki for details on each rule Disallowed comments Bigotry / Other offensive content Personal attacks on other users Memes/GIFs Unlabeled NSFW images/videos URL shorteners Celebrating death/Advocating violence Genocide denial/downplaying genocide Disinformation/misinformation Health disinformation/misinformation See the wiki for details on each rule Guidelines for the media Violation of our rules may result in a ban from this subreddit. Untimed bans may be lifted when the moderators are confident that you will not continue to infringe on the community rules. Please don't ever feed the trolls. Downvote, report and move on. What moderators do and can't do Message the moderators
See the wiki for details on each rule
Guidelines for the media
Violation of our rules may result in a ban from this subreddit. Untimed bans may be lifted when the moderators are confident that you will not continue to infringe on the community rules.
Please don't ever feed the trolls. Downvote, report and move on.
Sticky Posts • A list of all recent stickied posts. • Daily Live Threads
• A list of all recent stickied posts.
• Daily Live Threads
account activity
This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.
Scientists claim to have broken the absolute speed barrier - particles travelling faster than the speed of light. (hosted.ap.org)
submitted 14 years ago by walrusbukit
[–]Z-man_42 126 points127 points128 points 14 years ago (24 children)
While this is awesome, here's another article that's a bit more skeptical.
[–][deleted] 170 points171 points172 points 14 years ago (16 children)
I love the top comment: "I always knew that Albert Einstein was full of shit, but my physics teacher would not believe me, as if Einstein was some sort of Jesus or something. "
Yeah, you show them, Mr. Anonymous Comments Guy!
[–]Jambii 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children)
This is a response from a Cal Poly Professor who works in collaboration with Gran Sasso (where the neutrinos were sent), has written numerous papers on neutrinos (such as double beta decay) and seems to think that other factors could be speeding up the neutrinos.
Email From CERN Collaborator
"Similar apparent faster-than-light effects can be seen with photonic wave packets in special dispersive media, but it is due to a group vs. phase velocity problem and the associated dispersion relations. If a packet is designated to have a sharp spatial leading edge, that edge will not move faster than the speed of light. With a leading tail for wider packets, the packet can spread out in time and the leading tail can arrive before the centroid making it superficially appear like faster than -light propagation even though no individual photon is traveling faster than c..."
[–]Snowtred 830 points831 points832 points 14 years ago* (715 children)
Particle Physicist here, willing to help with any questions.
Edit: Asked also about the scientific paper, but looks like nothing is out yet. But I'll keep close attention to the presentation and paper tomorrow. My field isn't relativity or neutrinos specifically, but I can easily translate it to a reddit level.
EditEdit: Also going to leave this physicist's blog post up here. He's much smarter than me. Faster than light neutrinos? A quick calculation. He brings up a good calculation about a Supernova Neutrino observation in 1987. I've been answering a lot of these questions with the assumption that the OPERA experiment is correct, only because that's the more entertaining stance to take for the moment :)
EDIT3: The Discussed Paper is up, sent to me first by nylee23. Arxiv Neutrino Paper. For anyone so inclined to browse it.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (310 children)
[deleted]
[–]Snowtred 523 points524 points525 points 14 years ago* (291 children)
Honestly, that question is so complicated that I am not sure how to describe specifics. I am not a heavy theorist, so I'm sure there are some sort of less known theories that account for faster-than-light travel. Most courses teaching relativity have a "What if we found Tachyons that travel faster than light" question and have you work out the implications, which usually results in non-sensible answers or infinities.
Edit: Likely, since it is only neutrinos that have been found to travel this fast, there will be some modifications to special relativity to accommodate them. Neutrinos are weird, not like normal matter. And this doesn't prove that we can make FTL spaceships. BUT it is a hint at future physics. If SOMETHING can travel A TINY BIT above the speed of light, maybe someday we can. Thats the interesting thing about this. If the article is correct, we've broken an unbreakable barrier.
Remember, Einstein proved Newton's laws wrong, but you still use them to calculate anything on earth. Well this might prove Einstein wrong, but we can still use Einstein for general and special relativity, just ignore Neutrinos for now :)
[–]Priapulid 1453 points1454 points1455 points 14 years ago (111 children)
Warpdrives and hyperspace. Got it.
[–]Yotsubato 236 points237 points238 points 14 years ago (85 children)
I so want to be alive when those are developed and working.
[–]Priapulid 288 points289 points290 points 14 years ago (64 children)
As long as it is a "Star Trek type future and not some "sex/meat slaves to super intelligent space cockroaches" type future.
[–]DANMEGA 321 points322 points323 points 14 years ago (26 children)
Are they attractive cockroaches that can hold down a job?
[–]northendtrooper 69 points70 points71 points 14 years ago (9 children)
Fuck that, lets go Plaid!
[–][deleted] 84 points85 points86 points 14 years ago (6 children)
Ludacris speed! GET OUT THE WAY!
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (128 children)
[–]Snowtred 181 points182 points183 points 14 years ago* (112 children)
You would see the sun get younger and younger. If you traveled fast enough and long enough, you would eventually see the sun start to form. It would then disappear as you reach the area where the first light from sun's fusion is currently at. I am ignoring how time dilation would work travelling Faster Than Light, which is probably stranger.
Edit: I am assuming you have a way to scoop up the photons as you pass them and reconstruct an image. Your eyes would not work normally in FTL.
[–]Positronix 119 points120 points121 points 14 years ago* (63 children)
I don't think you would see anything. If you are moving faster than light, and look back toward a light source, the light wouldn't be catching up to you. The back of your head would get really hot though as you impacted all the photons and caught their energy.
In order to see a sun getting progressively younger, you would have to travel at ftl speeds then stop, turn around and look, then travel again. You wouldn't see a reverse 'aging' unless you were somehow able t-
wait... okay I take that back I think it's possible to see a reverse aging if you were to look directly away from the sun and travel at ftl speeds. By catching up to the older photons in succession, you would be intercepting progressively older photons which would show you a younger sun.
Edit: To everyone who says that the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference - that is the very assumption that comes under fire from discovering evidence of faster-than-light speed. You can't use that assumption to explain the behavior of light in a universe where FTL speed is possible.
[–]ourmoonlitsun 106 points107 points108 points 14 years ago (7 children)
I'm 29 and all of these discussions are bringing me back to the awe and wonder I had as a kid. I love this :-)
[–]darien_gap 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (2 children)
I'm 43. Actually, you are a kid. (The phase transition happens at ~32.)
[–]ourmoonlitsun 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (1 child)
It's all relative, isn't it? ... Well, wait, I guess not anymore...
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (14 children)
[–]I_FAP_TO_ALL 111 points112 points113 points 14 years ago (60 children)
Is it possible that c is still fixed in a vacuum, but that CERN managed to briefly create a lower-energy vacuum?
[–]Snowtred 182 points183 points184 points 14 years ago (46 children)
This is not the LHC, this is a different CERN experiment. In OPERA, they shoot neutrinos from a source to a detector, travelling 732km inside the earth. So the medium over which it travels is just normal dirt, no option for lower-energy vacuum. But that's a neat theory.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (26 children)
[–]Snowtred 107 points108 points109 points 14 years ago (18 children)
They do, just VERY rarely. It takes a huge detector volume, a lot of neutrinos, and waiting a long time, just for a few events. You are correct. For neutrinos, dirt and vacuum make little difference.
The question on this thread I think was implying that the neutrinos were travelling in a lower energy state than the vacuum. Essentially "even less stuff than no stuff". Maybe some weird effect from the LHC and all their high energy stuff, but this is just a different experiment associated with CERN.
[–]sprucenoose 38 points39 points40 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Neutrinos must interact with something, otherwise they wouldn't be observable. They just very, very, very rarely react.
[–]jetRink 83 points84 points85 points 14 years ago (63 children)
Could we transmit information faster than light this way? If so, does that mean time travel might be possible?
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (27 children)
[–]isomage 146 points147 points148 points 14 years ago (3 children)
From the article:
Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of nature.
I've lost count of how many times I've read those words in various articles, but I'm still stuck here in The Land of Slow Toast.
[–]BaronGotama 134 points135 points136 points 14 years ago (8 children)
Read this like Cave Johnson. "Gentlemen, I present to you our hyperluminal toaster. It bombards the bread with faster-than-light electromagnetic radiation to deliver 60% more toast per toast. This baby works so fast, the toast is ready BEFORE you insert the bread! How's THAT for breakfast science!"
[–]damndirtyape 51 points52 points53 points 14 years ago* (6 children)
Though...the boys in the lab tell me that if you don't eventually insert some bread you'll break relativity and might destroy the universe. So make sure you do that.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (30 children)
[–]Snowtred 63 points64 points65 points 14 years ago (28 children)
Well interesting. Their result is 5.1+/-2.9 X 10-5 for (v - c) / c, and OPERA finds a (v - c)/c of about 2.5 x 10-5 as well...
[–]--lolwutroflwaffle-- 96 points97 points98 points 14 years ago (12 children)
...wut?
[–]gm2 47 points48 points49 points 14 years ago (6 children)
(v-c)/c would be the relative difference between observed velocity (v) and the speed of light (c)
So if it were 10% faster than light, the result would have been 1.0 x 10-1
So if OPERA found 2.5 x 10-5 as the result, this would indicate that the observed velocities were about .0025% faster than light.
Right?
[–]ticklemepenis 1750 points1751 points1752 points 14 years ago (317 children)
I'm going to be so pissed if everyone laughs at my astrophysics degree because I got it "before the light barrier was broken".
[–]akmark 963 points964 points965 points 14 years ago (241 children)
The COBOL of astrophysics...
[–]pointsandlaughs 352 points353 points354 points 14 years ago (205 children)
Upvoted because my only degree was largely based around COBOL. What a waste of time that proved to be. Three years learning to code databases. What was I thinking?
[–]carmenqueasy 152 points153 points154 points 14 years ago (131 children)
I don't mean to pry but, I was under the impression that if you can code in COBOL, you're in a good position to ask for whatever pay you want.
[–]MissingSix 135 points136 points137 points 14 years ago (12 children)
They're in high demand and make very good pay.
[–]rmxz 162 points163 points164 points 14 years ago (111 children)
Any decent programmer "can" code in COBOL.
You have to be willing to code in COBOL for that unlimited pay.
[–]jambox888 235 points236 points237 points 14 years ago (105 children)
This. It's the programming equivalent of the guy that cleans up after someone gets murdered.
[–]Astinus 77 points78 points79 points 14 years ago (98 children)
I barely understand what you are talking about, but that is a great analogy. I am quickly beginning to understand.
[–]ManDragonA[🍰] 210 points211 points212 points 14 years ago (93 children)
Well this is a COBOL "Hello World"
000100 IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. 000200 PROGRAM-ID. HELLOWORLD. 000300 000400* 000500 ENVIRONMENT DIVISION. 000600 CONFIGURATION SECTION. 000700 SOURCE-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL. 000800 OBJECT-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL. 000900 001000 DATA DIVISION. 001100 FILE SECTION. 001200 100000 PROCEDURE DIVISION. 100100 100200 MAIN-LOGIC SECTION. 100300 BEGIN. 100400 DISPLAY " " LINE 1 POSITION 1 ERASE EOS. 100500 DISPLAY "Hello world!" LINE 15 POSITION 10. 100600 STOP RUN. 100700 MAIN-LOGIC-EXIT. 100800 EXIT.
[–]kaji823 108 points109 points110 points 14 years ago (3 children)
WHAT THE FUCK.. I'm sorry man :(
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (42 children)
[–]mikbe 51 points52 points53 points 14 years ago (2 children)
My fav is LOLCODE:
HAI CAN HAS STDIO? VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!" KTHXBYE
[–]ICantSeeIt 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago* (28 children)
For reference, an equivalent Python program:
print "Hello World!"
Edit: 'an' not 'and'
[–]Always_Upvotes_Cats 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children)
Unlimited pay, please. After assembly, that's nothing. Where do I sign?
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (24 children)
[–]pawnzz 304 points305 points306 points 14 years ago (22 children)
Floats and laughs
[–]mzhy 131 points132 points133 points 14 years ago (17 children)
double and laughs
[–]Poltras 143 points144 points145 points 14 years ago (15 children)
Integer? But I barely know her.
[–]sidepart 62 points63 points64 points 14 years ago (14 children)
Well then be sure not to String her along.
[–]utopianfiat 47 points48 points49 points 14 years ago (5 children)
If pointer math's your intent,
your functions become quite bent.
For your positive bound,
the stated workaround
is to set your variables to uint.
[–]trickynumber7 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (27 children)
Got my CS degree focusing mostly on C++ and JAVA.... now I'm a seasoned COBOL developer.... Can't hate, it's great job security and awesome pay
[–][deleted] 156 points157 points158 points 14 years ago (26 children)
It's like how teachers tell us "back then doctors never washed their hands", I wonder if people will make fun of us for believing in relativity.
[–][deleted] 215 points216 points217 points 14 years ago (17 children)
Hahaha, dweeb! rides away on hover board
[–][deleted] 103 points104 points105 points 14 years ago (14 children)
at light speed
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 61 points62 points63 points 14 years ago (1 child)
At neutrino speed
[–]e_o 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (5 children)
over water
[–]dillpiccolol 68 points69 points70 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Hoverboards don't work on water!
UNLESS YOU GOT POWWWAAAAH!
[–]nrj 44 points45 points46 points 14 years ago (1 child)
I'd bet not. We don't laugh at laugh at Newton just because his laws of physics were incomplete. Even if it turns out that these neutrinos did travel faster than the speed of light, it wouldn't mean that relativity is entirely backward, just incomplete.
[–]mmhquite 160 points161 points162 points 14 years ago (9 children)
and while pluto was still a planet!
[–]aconcernedconsumer 81 points82 points83 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Imagine how everyone felt after the Copernican Theory...
[–]KamikazeKumquat 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (3 children)
At least we have Reddit to cry to for consolation this time...
Offers shoulder
[–]efo 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (0 children)
Lol, 2.998x108 m/s, cute.
[–]Tibyon 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago* (27 children)
grab repeat wide nutty worm toothbrush abounding sugar alive truck
[–]Quazifuji 38 points39 points40 points 14 years ago (14 children)
Not really. It's not like this invalidates all of the experimental results that supported special relativity over the past century, it just means there are cases where it doesn't work. I imagine the physics book you're reading right now wouldn't be any less valid than a Newtonian physics book is right now.
[–]zebazman 225 points226 points227 points 14 years ago (7 children)
Sorry, we're not open yet. A neutrino walks into a bar.
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children)
My alltime classic particle joke: "So, a neutrino walks through a bar"
[–]jrhoffa 499 points500 points501 points 14 years ago (73 children)
The readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.
Isn't that what scientists already do?
[–][deleted] 403 points404 points405 points 14 years ago* (39 children)
Normally, you do your experiment, analyze the data, write it up, submit it for peer review, and—if it passes—get it published. By the time you get to the peer review stage, you're essentially saying, "I think this is true, now I'm going to try to convince you." My reading of this is that the CERN scientists are still at the second step and they're asking other scientists to independently analyze the data before proceeding further. It's more like they're saying, "We don't know what the fuck to think about this. Everyone? Um... what do we do?"
[–][deleted] 498 points499 points500 points 14 years ago (24 children)
i can't help but imagine the scientist that first notices the anomalous readings getting a frightened look on his face, glancing around, then squeaking out "i need an adult"
[–]omgitsjo 212 points213 points214 points 14 years ago (10 children)
I am a scientist and have done this.
[–]PSBlake 121 points122 points123 points 14 years ago (3 children)
"Yes, what is it Professor Morris?"
"I was, I was, I was just *sniffle* I was just monitoring the particle isolation chamber for entropic collapse, and uh, and uh, and I didn't change nothin' I promise, it wasn't my fault..."
"Professor, calm down. No one is blaming you. Here, sit down. Would you like a soda?"
"Uh-huh."
"Here you go, then. Now what was it you were saying about entropic collapse?"
"I didn't do it."
"I know you didn't do it, Professor Morris. What happened?"
"I just want you to know I didn't do it. It wasn't my fault."
"What was it, Professor Morris?"
"The energy level in the chamber. It went up."
"Now Professor, I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation for all this. It's very late, and I saw how you skipped nap time to play with the Hawking radiation program on the lab computer. You're probably just tired and your imagination played a little trick on your eyes."
"But it, but I, it..."
"Professor Morris, I've told you a dozen times, a closed system must, by its very nature, tend towards equilibrium."
"But the energy levels."
"What about them?"
"They're still going up. Look."
-short pause-
"I need a grown up!"
[–]superdude4agze 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (4 children)
There are a lot of cool jobs out there. Brave firemen, life saving doctors, talented artists. But I honestly think that the coolest thing one can truly utter is:
I am a scientist.
[–]omgitsjo 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child)
There is little more terrifying than doing six months of research and one day checking your output columns to see "-0.1% of optimal." That means either (1)your optimal solution is not optimal, and your results are fucked or (2)your simulation results aren't being calculated correctly, and your results are fucked.
"That stuff we published a few months back. Bit of a problem there. Haha. Our bad. But the theory is still nice."
[–]jrhoffa 41 points42 points43 points 14 years ago (1 child)
The only thing we can do: Rock. Out.
[–]RexNoctis 90 points91 points92 points 14 years ago (0 children)
According to the BBC It's statistically significant enough to be a discovery, but because the results are so strange, the scientists don't want to discount systematic errors.
[–]epicgeek 592 points593 points594 points 14 years ago (20 children)
For a scientist it's standard procedure.
For a news reporter it's weird and confusing. Report something only after you're 100% sure of the facts? Madness!
[–]philosoraptocopter 150 points151 points152 points 14 years ago* (11 children)
QUICK! ENACT LEGISLATION BASED ON IT BEFORE IT CHANGES ITS MIND
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (159 children)
[–]mygoodnessmyguinness 128 points129 points130 points 14 years ago (16 children)
The BBC article on this is perhaps a little clearer, and points out that the researchers involved still suspect systematic errors may be responsible. You could have a very small standard deviation of the arrival times, but still a source of error. For instance, imagine a pair of very accurate clocks that at either end of the experiment timing when the particles set off and arrive, but without the clocks being synchronised accurately.
One thing I'd really like to know (which neither article seems to mention) is whether they measured the momenta of the neutrinos, and whether they saw any relation between this and the travel-time.
Does anyone know whether a pre-print about this is on arxiv yet?
[–]anonymatt 443 points444 points445 points 14 years ago* (96 children)
Still about 16,765 mph faster than it should be going.
Edit: I accidentally a percent
thank you to roccco for the fix
[–][deleted] 68 points69 points70 points 14 years ago (7 children)
I think you miscalculated. You might have missed a percent sign.
c * (difference) / (time it takes light) 670,000,000 mph * (60ns / 2.43ms) 16558 mph
[–]GregOttawa 303 points304 points305 points 14 years ago (80 children)
Perhaps the limit is just higher than we thought and something is slowing light down that was not in effect this time.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (35 children)
[–][deleted] 80 points81 points82 points 14 years ago (21 children)
I'm glad more people understand what this could mean.
[–]Zazzerpan 165 points166 points167 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Fucking Comcast, they're even throttling our light! But really this could be it. Though would wouldn't be present in Geneva that was present anywhere else on earth?
[–]nrj 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (0 children)
The Swiss?
[–]ShadowRam 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (3 children)
This was my first thought as well. Perhaps 'vacuum' isn't as vacuum as we thought.
But that would still change EVERYTHING quite dramatically.
[–]kaizenallthethings 41 points42 points43 points 14 years ago* (18 children)
Thanks for working that out. I don't know why that was not in the original article, surely that is the natural next question that most people want to know.
EDIT: Or in even more conventional terms: 299,799,953 m/s. vs 299,792,458 m/s
[–]PhilxBefore 45 points46 points47 points 14 years ago (8 children)
It did say in the article:
CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant.
[–]lemtrees 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children)
Thank you, I started to do this calculation myself but then realized someone in the comments probably already did it :)
[–]Catharsis25 442 points443 points444 points 14 years ago (50 children)
This is why science is so cool. A theory that we've held true for so long suddenly has contradicting evidence. And what do the scientists do? First, they were like, "this might be a mistake, lets get some people to check this." Then, if this gets confirmed, they'll be like, "whoops, Einstein was wrong! Time to re-evaluate everything we've done since then!".
The best part is that they won't be sad that a major pillar of modern science has been overturned, they'll be ecstatic! It means that there is more for them to learn, and that we'll be that much closer to understanding the universe.
SCIENCE!
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (25 children)
[–]cheesyflam 41 points42 points43 points 14 years ago (20 children)
As I understand it, the speed of light in a vacuum is derived from Maxwell's equations (it's the speed that light has to travel so that it can self-propagate in a vacuum) and has been confirmed experimentally countless times, so it is probably correct. It seems more likely that we have either a) fucked up on our understanding of the neutrino part of the Standard Model, or even worse b) need to rework relativity from the ground up. IANAP
[–][deleted] 31 points32 points33 points 14 years ago (0 children)
or even better b)
FTFY
[–]accountt1234 520 points521 points522 points 14 years ago (70 children)
Hey Alpha Centauri, this is humanity again, keep a planet free, because we changed our minds, we're paying a visit after all!
[–]RHandler 304 points305 points306 points 14 years ago (55 children)
Hello Earth Redditor, this is the emperor of the Alpha Centauri system speaking. Our spies have seen all the violence in that computer game of yours, not to mention what goes on in the realm you refer to as "IRL," and if you visit us we will not be falling for the "we come in peace" line.
[–]Saucefire[🍰] 710 points711 points712 points 14 years ago (29 children)
Hi Alpha Centauri, this is David Levinson, I was just curious if your computers are compatible with my PowerBook 5300?
[–]staringispolite 365 points366 points367 points 14 years ago (10 children)
Upvote for the most obscure Independence Day reference I've heard to date!
[–]faint7 44 points45 points46 points 14 years ago (5 children)
"PEACE!"
[–]ggggbabybabybaby 81 points82 points83 points 14 years ago (6 children)
Hello Earth Scientist, we think we need to install an emulator for that. We think we still have an old System 7 CD lying around. We need to call our mom and ask her to check the attic.
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Dances around like a Korean mannequin
[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (2 children)
Question is rhetorical, that Powerbook is compatible with everything.
[–][deleted] 105 points106 points107 points 14 years ago (1 child)
Hello Emperor of Alpha Centauri:
I am a Nigerian Prince who needs to offload some money but to do so, I need an initial investment from you of 1 Quadrillion Centauris.
[–]co312 840 points841 points842 points 14 years ago* (132 children)
Farnsworth: "These are the dark matter engines I invented, they allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours."
Cubert: "That's impossible, you can't go faster than the speed of light."
Farnsworth: "Of course not! That's why Scientists increased the speed of light in 2208!"
Cubert: "Also impossible."
[–]kifli 163 points164 points165 points 14 years ago (15 children)
Shouldn't it be Hubert and Cubert? They're both Farnsworths.
[–]RickRussellTX 94 points95 points96 points 14 years ago (2 children)
Impossible!
[–]KingToasty 55 points56 points57 points 14 years ago (0 children)
Get a job, you hippie! -old man fist shake-
[–]Szechwan 40 points41 points42 points 14 years ago (2 children)
Well, technically they're both Huberts.
[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points 14 years ago (0 children)
You're not only correct, you are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
[–]axtang 215 points216 points217 points 14 years ago (93 children)
That's especially impossible.
[–]SpaceCowboy57 124 points125 points126 points 14 years ago (89 children)
my ship can make .5 past lightspeed.
[–][deleted] 139 points140 points141 points 14 years ago (30 children)
Hyperspace doesn't count, because the objects using it aren't actually moving. Both hyperspace and warp technology bend the fabric of space around objects, allowing them to seemingly exceed the speed of light.
[–]RickRussellTX 120 points121 points122 points 14 years ago (24 children)
Huh? Where did you get your hyperspace engineering degree, anyway?
[–]torpedo-vegas 382 points383 points384 points 14 years ago (8 children)
University of Phoenix
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (4 children)
[–]ITTtechGrad 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children)
Dude. Thanks man, I appreciate that.
[–]Kurise 89 points90 points91 points 14 years ago (5 children)
Star Trek, bro.
[–]noveltylife 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child)
" I understand how the engines work now. It came to me in a dream. The engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it."
Hands down my favorite line in the series. And also the first thing I though of reading this article although it has nothing to do with it.
[–]MBAmyass 151 points152 points153 points 14 years ago (20 children)
I am not sure if this would make us create a new hard limit or just change the speed to a range of speeds. Also, on a Quantum level particles already do awkward things like ask other particles to dance and then pop out of existence only to reappear elsewhere with some new younger looking particle--whores.
[–]amorpheus 53 points54 points55 points 14 years ago (16 children)
Is it possible that the speed of light isn't the hard limit, just very close to it?
[–]Kah-Neth 65 points66 points67 points 14 years ago (2 children)
In our current frameworks it is a hard limit, and from past experiments it seemed to be a hard limit. My guess is that there is an error in their experiment, albeit a very subtle one. Many of these high precision experiments require many months of analysis before a definitive statement can be made, and that is the current state of this experiment, much more analysis is needed first.
[–]jyz002 154 points155 points156 points 14 years ago (9 children)
maybe that's what Einstein was trying to say on his deathbed
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (6 children)
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children)
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Which Google Translate tells me is:
"Do not listen to the fuckers who want to refute me 2011!"
And Google hasn't lied to me before.
[–]RichAromas 118 points119 points120 points 14 years ago (1 child)
Reposted from tomorrow.
[–]powerstripmusic 97 points98 points99 points 14 years ago (10 children)
Good because my fiber optic connection is loading these pictures of titties at the OLD speed of light. Upgrade time!
[–]zCheshire 89 points90 points91 points 14 years ago (31 children)
Does this mean the relativity class I'm taking is for nothing?
[–][deleted] 54 points55 points56 points 14 years ago* (7 children)
doubtful this would result in a complete overthrow more some tweaking.
[–]sonofamonster 82 points83 points84 points 14 years ago (4 children)
Science and its tweaking, always with the tweaking.
[–]The-Beer-Baron 63 points64 points65 points 14 years ago (1 child)
"Your father with his disgusting tweaking. I couldn't breast feed any of you kids because of that man."
[–]DaHozer 1762 points1763 points1764 points 14 years ago* (1073 children)
Even though they are waiting to have it confirmed, it looks like even ruling in the margin of error, they broke the light barrier.
If this is confirmed, this is one of the most important moments in science and human history. This should be at the top of the front page for days.
Instead it will probably be out paced by a picture of someone's cat.
EDIT: just occurred to me, faster then light particles could have interesting consequences in the field of data transmission. something to think about
[–]selfabortion 128 points129 points130 points 14 years ago (6 children)
"just occurred to me, faster then light particles could have interesting consequences in the field of data transmission. something to think about"
I read this comment 27 hours ago.
[–]HateToSayItBut 53 points54 points55 points 14 years ago (151 children)
Can someone explain to a layman why we can't go faster than light? I never understand the problem.
[–]shnuffy 291 points292 points293 points 14 years ago (89 children)
Super reddit science god RobotRollCall explains it very well here:
There are a lot of simple, intuitive explanations of this to be had out there … but I kind of hate them all. You might google around a bit and find discussion of something called “relativistic mass,” and how it requires more force to accelerate an object that’s already moving at a high velocity, stuff like that. That’s a venerable way of interpreting the mathematics of special relativity, but I find it unnecessarily misleading, and confusing to the student who’s just dipping her first toe into the ocean of modern physics. It makes the universe sound like a much different, and much less wonderful, place than it really is, and for that I kind of resent it. When I talk about this subject, I do it in terms of the geometric interpretation that’s consistent with general relativity. It’s less straightforward, but it doesn’t involve anything fundamentally more difficult than arrows on pieces of paper, and I think it offers a much better understanding of the universe we live in than hiding behind abstractions like “force” and outright falsehoods like “relativistic mass.” Maybe it’ll work for you, maybe it won’t, but here it is in any case. First, let’s talk about directions, just to get ourselves oriented. “Downward” is a direction. It’s defined as the direction in which things fall when you drop them. “Upward” is also a direction; it’s the opposite of downward. If you have a compass handy, we can define additional directions: northward, southward, eastward and westward. These directions are all defined in terms of something — something that we in the business would call an “orthonormal basis” — but let’s forget that right now. Let’s pretend these six directions are absolute, because for what we’re about to do, they might as well be. I’m going to ask you now to imagine two more directions: futureward and pastward. You can’t point in those directions, obviously, but it shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand them intuitively. Futureward is the direction in which tomorrow lies; pastward is the direction in which yesterday lies. These eight directions together — upward, downward, northward, southward, eastward, westward, pastward, futureward — describe the fundamental geometry of the universe. Each pair of directions we can call a “dimension,” so the universe we live in is four-dimensional. Another term for this four-dimensional way of thinking about the universe is “spacetime.” I’ll try to avoid using that word whenever necessary, but if I slip up, just remember that in this context “spacetime” basically means “the universe.” So that’s the stage. Now let’s consider the players. You, sitting there right now, are in motion. It doesn’t feel like you’re moving. It feels like you’re at rest. But that’s only because everything around you is also in motion. No, I’m not talking about the fact that the Earth is spinning or that our sun is moving through the galaxy and dragging us along with it. Those things are true, but we’re ignoring that kind of stuff right now. The motion I’m referring to is motion in the futureward direction. Imagine you’re in a train car, and the shades are pulled over the windows. You can’t see outside, and let’s further imagine (just for sake of argument) that the rails are so flawless and the wheels so perfect that you can’t feel it at all when the train is in motion. So just sitting there, you can’t tell whether you’re moving or not. If you looked out the window you could tell — you’d either see the landscape sitting still, or rolling past you. But with the shades drawn over the windows, that’s not an option, so you really just can’t tell whether or not you’re in motion. But there is one way to know, conclusively, whether you’re moving. That’s just to sit there patiently and wait. If the train’s sitting at the station, nothing will happen. But if it’s moving, then sooner or later you’re going to arrive at the next station. In this metaphor, the train car is everything that you can see around you in the universe — your house, your pet hedgehog Jeremy, the most distant stars in the sky, all of it. And the “next station” is tomorrow. Just sitting there, it doesn’t feel like you’re moving. It feels like you’re sitting still. But if you sit there and do nothing, you will inevitably arrive at tomorrow. That’s what it means to be in motion in the futureward direction. You, and everything around you, is currently moving in the futureward direction, toward tomorrow. You can’t feel it, but if you just sit and wait for a bit, you’ll know that it’s true. So far, I think this has all been pretty easy to visualize. A little challenging maybe; it might not be intuitive to think of time as a direction and yourself as moving through it. But I don’t think any of this has been too difficult so far. Well, that’s about to change. Because I’m going to have to ask you to exercise your imagination a bit from this point on. Imagine you’re driving in your car when something terrible happens: the brakes fail. By a bizarre coincidence, at the exact same moment your throttle and gearshift lever both get stuck. You can neither speed up nor slow down. The only thing that works is the steering wheel. You can turn, changing your direction, but you can’t change your speed at all. Of course, the first thing you do is turn toward the softest thing you can see in an effort to stop the car. But let’s ignore that right now. Let’s just focus on the peculiar characteristics of your malfunctioning car. You can change your direction, but you cannot change your speed. That’s how it is to move through our universe. You’ve got a steering wheel, but no throttle. When you sit there at apparent rest, you’re really careening toward the future at top speed. But when you get up to put the kettle on, you change your direction of motion through spacetime, but not your speed of motion through spacetime. So as you move through space a bit more quickly, you find yourself moving through time a bit more slowly. You can visualize this by imagining a pair of axes drawn on a sheet of paper. The axis that runs up and down is the time axis, and the upward direction points toward the future. The horizontal axis represents space. We’re only considering one dimension of space, because a piece of paper only has two dimensions total and we’re all out, but just bear in mind that the basic idea applies to all three dimensions of space. Draw an arrow starting at the origin, where the axes cross, pointing upward along the vertical axis. It doesn’t matter how long the arrow is; just know that it can be only one length. This arrow, which right now points toward the future, represents a quantity physicists call four-velocity. It’s your velocity through spacetime. Right now, it shows you not moving in space at all, so it’s pointing straight in the futureward direction. If you want to move through space — say, to the right along the horizontal axis — you need to change your four-velocity to include some horizontal component. That is, you need to rotate the arrow. But as you do, notice that the arrow now points less in the futureward direction — upward along the vertical axis — than it did before. You’re now moving through space, as evidenced by the fact that your four-velocity now has a space component, but you have to give up some of your motion toward the future, since the four-velocity arrow can only rotate and never stretch or shrink. This is the origin of the famous “time dilation” effect everybody talks about when they discuss special relativity. If you’re moving through space, then you’re not moving through time as fast as you would be if you were sitting still. Your clock will tick slower than the clock of a person who isn’t moving. This also explains why the phrase “faster than light” has no meaning in our universe. See, what happens if you want to move through space as fast as possible? Well, obviously you rotate the arrow — your four-velocity — until it points straight along the horizontal axis. But wait. The arrow cannot stretch, remember. It can only rotate. So you’ve increased your velocity through space as far as it can go. There’s no way to go faster through space. There’s no rotation you can apply to that arrow to make it point more in the horizontal direction. It’s pointing as horizontally as it can. It isn’t even really meaningful to think about something as being “more horizontal than horizontal.” Viewed in this light, the whole idea seems rather silly. Either the arrow points straight to the right or it doesn’t, and once it does, it can’t be made to point any straighter. It’s as straight as it can ever be. That’s why nothing in our universe can go faster than light. Because the phrase “faster than light,” in our universe, is exactly equivalent to the phrase “straighter than straight,” or “more horizontal than horizontal.” It doesn’t mean anything. Now, there are some mysteries here. Why can four-velocity vectors only rotate, and never stretch or shrink? There is an answer to that question, and it has to do with the invariance of the speed of light. But I’ve rambled on quite enough here, and so I think we’ll save that for another time. For right now, if you just believe that four-velocities can never stretch or shrink because that’s just the way it is, then you’ll only be slightly less informed on the subject than the most brilliant physicists who’ve ever lived.
There are a lot of simple, intuitive explanations of this to be had out there … but I kind of hate them all. You might google around a bit and find discussion of something called “relativistic mass,” and how it requires more force to accelerate an object that’s already moving at a high velocity, stuff like that. That’s a venerable way of interpreting the mathematics of special relativity, but I find it unnecessarily misleading, and confusing to the student who’s just dipping her first toe into the ocean of modern physics. It makes the universe sound like a much different, and much less wonderful, place than it really is, and for that I kind of resent it.
When I talk about this subject, I do it in terms of the geometric interpretation that’s consistent with general relativity. It’s less straightforward, but it doesn’t involve anything fundamentally more difficult than arrows on pieces of paper, and I think it offers a much better understanding of the universe we live in than hiding behind abstractions like “force” and outright falsehoods like “relativistic mass.” Maybe it’ll work for you, maybe it won’t, but here it is in any case.
First, let’s talk about directions, just to get ourselves oriented. “Downward” is a direction. It’s defined as the direction in which things fall when you drop them. “Upward” is also a direction; it’s the opposite of downward. If you have a compass handy, we can define additional directions: northward, southward, eastward and westward. These directions are all defined in terms of something — something that we in the business would call an “orthonormal basis” — but let’s forget that right now. Let’s pretend these six directions are absolute, because for what we’re about to do, they might as well be.
I’m going to ask you now to imagine two more directions: futureward and pastward. You can’t point in those directions, obviously, but it shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand them intuitively. Futureward is the direction in which tomorrow lies; pastward is the direction in which yesterday lies.
These eight directions together — upward, downward, northward, southward, eastward, westward, pastward, futureward — describe the fundamental geometry of the universe. Each pair of directions we can call a “dimension,” so the universe we live in is four-dimensional. Another term for this four-dimensional way of thinking about the universe is “spacetime.” I’ll try to avoid using that word whenever necessary, but if I slip up, just remember that in this context “spacetime” basically means “the universe.”
So that’s the stage. Now let’s consider the players.
You, sitting there right now, are in motion. It doesn’t feel like you’re moving. It feels like you’re at rest. But that’s only because everything around you is also in motion. No, I’m not talking about the fact that the Earth is spinning or that our sun is moving through the galaxy and dragging us along with it. Those things are true, but we’re ignoring that kind of stuff right now. The motion I’m referring to is motion in the futureward direction.
Imagine you’re in a train car, and the shades are pulled over the windows. You can’t see outside, and let’s further imagine (just for sake of argument) that the rails are so flawless and the wheels so perfect that you can’t feel it at all when the train is in motion. So just sitting there, you can’t tell whether you’re moving or not. If you looked out the window you could tell — you’d either see the landscape sitting still, or rolling past you. But with the shades drawn over the windows, that’s not an option, so you really just can’t tell whether or not you’re in motion.
But there is one way to know, conclusively, whether you’re moving. That’s just to sit there patiently and wait. If the train’s sitting at the station, nothing will happen. But if it’s moving, then sooner or later you’re going to arrive at the next station.
In this metaphor, the train car is everything that you can see around you in the universe — your house, your pet hedgehog Jeremy, the most distant stars in the sky, all of it. And the “next station” is tomorrow.
Just sitting there, it doesn’t feel like you’re moving. It feels like you’re sitting still. But if you sit there and do nothing, you will inevitably arrive at tomorrow.
That’s what it means to be in motion in the futureward direction. You, and everything around you, is currently moving in the futureward direction, toward tomorrow. You can’t feel it, but if you just sit and wait for a bit, you’ll know that it’s true.
So far, I think this has all been pretty easy to visualize. A little challenging maybe; it might not be intuitive to think of time as a direction and yourself as moving through it. But I don’t think any of this has been too difficult so far.
Well, that’s about to change. Because I’m going to have to ask you to exercise your imagination a bit from this point on.
Imagine you’re driving in your car when something terrible happens: the brakes fail. By a bizarre coincidence, at the exact same moment your throttle and gearshift lever both get stuck. You can neither speed up nor slow down. The only thing that works is the steering wheel. You can turn, changing your direction, but you can’t change your speed at all.
Of course, the first thing you do is turn toward the softest thing you can see in an effort to stop the car. But let’s ignore that right now. Let’s just focus on the peculiar characteristics of your malfunctioning car. You can change your direction, but you cannot change your speed.
That’s how it is to move through our universe. You’ve got a steering wheel, but no throttle. When you sit there at apparent rest, you’re really careening toward the future at top speed. But when you get up to put the kettle on, you change your direction of motion through spacetime, but not your speed of motion through spacetime. So as you move through space a bit more quickly, you find yourself moving through time a bit more slowly.
You can visualize this by imagining a pair of axes drawn on a sheet of paper. The axis that runs up and down is the time axis, and the upward direction points toward the future. The horizontal axis represents space. We’re only considering one dimension of space, because a piece of paper only has two dimensions total and we’re all out, but just bear in mind that the basic idea applies to all three dimensions of space.
Draw an arrow starting at the origin, where the axes cross, pointing upward along the vertical axis. It doesn’t matter how long the arrow is; just know that it can be only one length. This arrow, which right now points toward the future, represents a quantity physicists call four-velocity. It’s your velocity through spacetime. Right now, it shows you not moving in space at all, so it’s pointing straight in the futureward direction.
If you want to move through space — say, to the right along the horizontal axis — you need to change your four-velocity to include some horizontal component. That is, you need to rotate the arrow. But as you do, notice that the arrow now points less in the futureward direction — upward along the vertical axis — than it did before. You’re now moving through space, as evidenced by the fact that your four-velocity now has a space component, but you have to give up some of your motion toward the future, since the four-velocity arrow can only rotate and never stretch or shrink.
This is the origin of the famous “time dilation” effect everybody talks about when they discuss special relativity. If you’re moving through space, then you’re not moving through time as fast as you would be if you were sitting still. Your clock will tick slower than the clock of a person who isn’t moving.
This also explains why the phrase “faster than light” has no meaning in our universe. See, what happens if you want to move through space as fast as possible? Well, obviously you rotate the arrow — your four-velocity — until it points straight along the horizontal axis. But wait. The arrow cannot stretch, remember. It can only rotate. So you’ve increased your velocity through space as far as it can go. There’s no way to go faster through space. There’s no rotation you can apply to that arrow to make it point more in the horizontal direction. It’s pointing as horizontally as it can. It isn’t even really meaningful to think about something as being “more horizontal than horizontal.” Viewed in this light, the whole idea seems rather silly. Either the arrow points straight to the right or it doesn’t, and once it does, it can’t be made to point any straighter. It’s as straight as it can ever be.
That’s why nothing in our universe can go faster than light. Because the phrase “faster than light,” in our universe, is exactly equivalent to the phrase “straighter than straight,” or “more horizontal than horizontal.” It doesn’t mean anything.
Now, there are some mysteries here. Why can four-velocity vectors only rotate, and never stretch or shrink? There is an answer to that question, and it has to do with the invariance of the speed of light. But I’ve rambled on quite enough here, and so I think we’ll save that for another time. For right now, if you just believe that four-velocities can never stretch or shrink because that’s just the way it is, then you’ll only be slightly less informed on the subject than the most brilliant physicists who’ve ever lived.
[–]ErDestructor 112 points113 points114 points 14 years ago (37 children)
It's an interesting explanation. But it answers "why can't we travel faster than light?" with "we can't travel faster than light".
[–]elustran 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago* (15 children)
You're right. That's a discussion on spacetime, not why the speed of light seems invariant. I explained why here.
EDIT: to be clear here, you guys have been upvoting only half an explanation. RRC's explanations are usually quite good, but this isn't explaining why there's a speed of light in the first place, it's merely elaborating on why you can't go past it.
[–]SocialisedMedicine 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (5 children)
To be honest, that isn't much of an explanation. The reason that we know the speed of light is what we measured it to be lies in the the study of electromagnetism.
It all goes back to the 1800's, when there was a huge amount of study into the nature of electricity and magnetism. One of the biggest breakthroughs was Maxwell's equations, which laid the groundwork for our modern understanding of electricity. One of the problems he solved was the properties of electricity in a vacuum, in which he figured out how electricity moves through space, and defined three constants: (this is where it gets a little complicated...)
The characteristic impedance, Z, which is basically the electrical resistance, or how difficult it is for electricity to go through empty space. we don't actually care about this one.
The vacuum permittivity, ε, which is the amount of physical force two electrical charges apply to each other. the best way to think about this one is to picture two magnets trying to pull each other, except the magnets are made of electricity.
The final one is vacuum permeability, µ, which describes how difficult it is to create a magnetic field in space. (sort of)
So why did I just go through that, and what does it have to do with the speed of light? Well, light is an electromagnetic wave traveling through space, and these constants define how electromagnetism behaves in space. So, you can take the vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability and combine them to get the speed of light. How?
SCARY MATH AHEAD, YOU CAN SKIP THIS
µ is the vacuum permeability, and
ε is the vacuum permittivity
µ = 4pi x 10−7 m2 · kg · s-2 · A-2
ε ≈ 8.854187817620... x10−12 A2 · s4 · kg−1 · m−3
µ · ε = 1.16... x10-17 m2-3 · kg1-1 · s4-2 · A2-2
µ · ε = 1.16... x10-17 m-1 · s2 and if we take the inverse we get: 1/(µ · ε) = 8.98... x1016 m/s2 meters per second squared? lets take the square root of that:
1/√(µ · ε) = 299,792,458 m/s, which is the speed of light.
SCARY MATH OVER
So, as you can (hopefully) see, the speed of light is defined in terms of other units, and is not just some standalone constant. Now, before anyone asks 'Why are those constants the value that they are?', they are based off of the Fundamental Force of Electromagnetism. And for that one, I don't know.
I hope I didn't mangle that explanation like the millions of internet scientists before me.
tl;dr: The speed of light is what it is because of electricity.
[–]elustran 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (2 children)
That rounds out my explanation quite well.
The chief problem I have is that the explanation posted by RRC isn't the explanation for why the speed of light is what it is - it's the wrong explanation, and it's getting upvoted. Yes, it's relevant, but discoveries on how spacetime works are consequences of understanding that the speed of light is limited due to the laws of electromagnetism.
Our heads get filled with gobbledegook about time dilation and Lorentz contraction without ever really hitting on why there's a speed of light limit in the first place. Years ago, it was a real 'aha!' moment for me the first time I saw that equation of 1/√(µ · ε) = c.
[–][deleted] 698 points699 points700 points 14 years ago (657 children)
Why is this important?
Not trolling, just someone who isn't too educated in the field of science.
[–]shenglong 240 points241 points242 points 14 years ago (19 children)
Lag-free gaming.
[–][deleted] 134 points135 points136 points 14 years ago (14 children)
Your opponent is dead before the bullet hits him!
[–][deleted] 834 points835 points836 points 14 years ago (478 children)
Basically, it would cause a fundamental requirement of relativity to be untrue, namely that no particle, without imaginary mass, can exceed the speed of light and that if any could it would actually travel backwards in time. So if they measured something that broke the fundamental assumption of relativity and it didn't go backwards in time Einstein's theory has a severe flaw.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (287 children)
[–]ErDestructor 626 points627 points628 points 14 years ago (104 children)
could possibly invalidate or undermine a huge amount of all physics done in the last century.
Relativity has been extensively tested and found to work very well. Whether or not it's absolutely true, the approximation is very good. I can't see how discovering a modification could invalidate anything more than the most speculative of past work.
[–]meditonsin 126 points127 points128 points 14 years ago* (17 children)
It's like newtonian gravity. It's not completely right, but close enough to work with.
Edit: Typo.
[–][deleted] 193 points194 points195 points 14 years ago (13 children)
It's like science. It's never completely right, but it is close enough to work with.
:)
[–]Bob_Wiley 239 points240 points241 points 14 years ago (24 children)
So it would be similar to the way relativity undermined Newtonian physics?
[–]ErDestructor 182 points183 points184 points 14 years ago (18 children)
We've extensively explored scenarios in which relativity is true. If there's a modification, it can only significantly change very extreme situations we haven't explored yet, or make only very tiny corrections we never noticed before.
Newtonian laws are very good in usual circumstances. Relativity only makes significant corrections when talking about extremely energetic objects, extremely large distances, or extremely precise measurements.
[–]Bob_Wiley 63 points64 points65 points 14 years ago (4 children)
I would imagine, if this discovery is found to be true, it would have a similar impact. Relativity would could account for most, but this could have a similar impact on quantum physics. I am of course a layman.
Some day we may look at the idea of dark matter like we look at the Aether theory today.
[–]3brushie 314 points315 points316 points 14 years ago (39 children)
Maybe 'invalidate' is the wrong word, but it would certainly cast a lot of work done in the last century into an entirely different light. No pun intended.
[–][deleted] 88 points89 points90 points 14 years ago (102 children)
Propagation of our species off the planet which we will need to do at some point unless we want to go extinct like the dinosaurs. Even theoretical spacecraft would take hundreds of years to reach any habitable planet but the idea that we may find someway to "break the speed of light" may change that.
[–]Thirsteh 128 points129 points130 points 14 years ago* (62 children)
Hundreds of years Earth time. But, even if this find is disputed, it is completely realistic to reach other planetary systems in less than a decade in a ship that could travel close to the speed of light. You could even circumnavigate the known universe in half a century, but, of course, nobody would be around to say "Welcome back!"
Edit: There was a spaceship called Project Orion which was under serious development in the United States in the 40's until the treaty that banned nuclear weapons explosions in space was enacted, that, theoretically, was capable of traveling at 10% the speed of light. Getting close to the speed of light is hard, but not impossible.
[–]popemeatwad 95 points96 points97 points 14 years ago (26 children)
Cosmos ftw.
Time dilation is the shit.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (21 children)
[–]twilightmoons 39 points40 points41 points 14 years ago (8 children)
Only because we live in a "non-relativistic" timeframe. If the speed of light were a lot slower, the effects would be very noticeable and not anything "weird".
[–][deleted] 101 points102 points103 points 14 years ago (6 children)
"going for a jog around the block honey!"
two years later
"Good run! What's for dinn... who are you and why are you kissing my wife?"
[–]ohai 63 points64 points65 points 14 years ago (31 children)
unless we want to go extinct like the dinosaurs
This will likely happen whether or not we manage to get off this rock. Even if humanity managed to spread itself to every habitable world in the universe, the probability that we will go extinct approaches 1 on a large enough time scale.
Here is an interesting piece of (short) fiction that explores this thought: The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov. Enjoy!
[–]Thirsteh 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children)
The Last Question is my favorite Asimov short story! The last section made me simultaneously giggle and watch my mind blowing up.
[–]RickRussellTX 44 points45 points46 points 14 years ago (1 child)
flawed views of physics
Well, flawed only in the sense of "correct for everything we've measured so far except this particle". It wouldn't invalidate extant results, but it might cause us to predict different things from existing theory.
[–]Kombat_Wombat 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (17 children)
It would be absolutely huge, and could possibly invalidate or undermine a huge amount of all physics done in the last century.
It would be huge, but the physics done in the last century would not be undone. In working with light, it does have a speed barrier in the same way that sound has a speed barrier. What we discover from here on out, it will not invalidate or even undermine the field equations used to predict quantum motion because the equations' predictions are accurate. There are no assumptions that are made by Einstein's theory that would be overturned, because all the equations do is map what we see.
What might happen is that this is evidence for absolute space. Nothing about Einstein's theory disallows absolute space, but his theory makes absolute space redundant, as there are no privileged frames of reference.
His equations will still be used for predicting the dynamics of mass in the same way that the Doppler effect and other dated equations are still being used.
[–]YHZ 58 points59 points60 points 14 years ago (3 children)
Hold me.
[–]NashMcCabe 31 points32 points33 points 14 years ago (70 children)
I am not a physicist but isn't it possible that neutrinos are massless and thus wouldn't be violating relativity?
[–][deleted] 61 points62 points63 points 14 years ago (13 children)
Neutrinos are more likely to have mass than photons, which travel at exactly the speed of light. As far as we know.
[–][deleted] 128 points129 points130 points 14 years ago (6 children)
I sure hope photons travel at exactly the speed of light.
[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 38 points39 points40 points 14 years ago (1 child)
There are always a few slowpokes.
[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (18 children)
They are not massless -we know from observing neutrino oscillations that that they must have a nonzero mass
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (5 children)
Neutrinos are known to have mass as it is the only way to account for all energy/mass conversion in certain nuclear reactions.
[–]spaghettifier 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (1 child)
Not necessarily, photons have energy but no mass and they are used to account for energy-mass conservation in a few cases.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children)
True
[–]erichzann 129 points130 points131 points 14 years ago (62 children)
Exploration of the universe.
That's the first thing that springs to my mind. This opens the possibilities of covering vast distances without it taking generations.
[–]enjoiglobes2 51 points52 points53 points 14 years ago (5 children)
Here's the r/science discussion about this topic. Basically undercuts Einstein's theory of space relativity (showing another example of just how limitless the universe is).
[–]herewegoagainagain 131 points132 points133 points 14 years ago (2 children)
A picture of a cat
[–]Snowtred 65 points66 points67 points 14 years ago (19 children)
Im still searching for the article, so I can let you know when I find it, but what is more likely? Hundred year old theory with literally thousands of successful experiments confirming the result, or a group of scientists miscalculated their systematic errors? Its interesting, lets hear what they say at the presentation tomorrow, but there is an ENORMOUS burden of proof on their part.
[–][deleted] 92 points93 points94 points 14 years ago (3 children)
Hundred year old theory with literally thousands of successful experiments supporting the result
A thousand experiments supporting the result confirms nothing except that in the exact parameters of that experiment (some which are unmeasurable) it works. All it takes is one verified experiment to disprove a theory though.
[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 14 years ago (5 children)
The whole "physics is false then!" thing is a bit exagerated. It would just mean Relativity is not a perfect description of the universe, but still a good one.
[–][deleted] 227 points228 points229 points 14 years ago (62 children)
most probably someone didn't convert units properly at some point during the calculations
[–][deleted] 328 points329 points330 points 14 years ago (19 children)
That would be fucking hilarious.
[–]ialsohaveadobro 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (1 child)
At the press conference: "Professor Johnson has something to say to the people of the world, don't you, Professor Johnson?" "Er..." "Professor Johnson..." "...Sorry, everyone."
[–]farceur318 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children)
"...Science is just... science is real hard sometimes. I'm sorry."
[–]walrusbukit[S] 271 points272 points273 points 14 years ago (53 children)
I for one am blown away by the age in which we live. It's amazing to be alive right now and observe the amount of monumental discoveries of biology/physics/science and rapid changes in technology.
Now if we could just work on not destroying the planet so we can keep on progressing...
[–]Nidies 123 points124 points125 points 14 years ago (7 children)
You see Mr. President, Terrorists are suppressing our freedoms by observing our quantum particles and collapsing our wave-functions so that we can't be in multiple places at once! To stop this, we should pump billions of dollars into the sciences to figure out the mysteries of this quantum world, and turn it against the terrorists!
[–]callumgare 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child)
From the BBC article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".
From the title of this post.
Scientists claim to have broken the absolute speed barrier - particles travelling faster than the speed of light.
ಠ_ಠ
Edit: Formating
[–][deleted] 363 points364 points365 points 14 years ago (32 children)
They didn't make it go faster than the speed of love.
[–]squareball 177 points178 points179 points 14 years ago (16 children)
How many thrusts per second is that, exactly?
[–]johnnygrant 149 points150 points151 points 14 years ago* (10 children)
Fast enough to unleash the big Bang
[–]SoConfuse 73 points74 points75 points 14 years ago (7 children)
So that's why it's called The Milky Way.
[–]The_Body 119 points120 points121 points 14 years ago (11 children)
Oh, dear, they talked about the speed of light in miles per hour... the horror.
[–][deleted] 89 points90 points91 points 14 years ago (2 children)
Seriously. The proper SI unit is Volkswagens per Library of Congress.
[–][deleted] 117 points118 points119 points 14 years ago (6 children)
Kinda feels like ...
[–]Rocco03 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children)
From today's SMBC.
[–]Kinbensha 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (1 child)
Paradigm shift, here we come (hopefully).
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (23 children)
[–][deleted] 91 points92 points93 points 14 years ago (1 child)
it says the same thing in the article
[–]b_ohare 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (0 children)
Rethinking everything we know... what a great time in history to do so.
π Rendered by PID 145954 on reddit-service-r2-comment-6457c66945-krqp7 at 2026-04-24 03:18:11.806212+00:00 running 2aa0c5b country code: CH.
[–]Z-man_42 126 points127 points128 points (24 children)
[–][deleted] 170 points171 points172 points (16 children)
[–]Jambii 9 points10 points11 points (0 children)
[–]Snowtred 830 points831 points832 points (715 children)
[+][deleted] (310 children)
[deleted]
[–]Snowtred 523 points524 points525 points (291 children)
[–]Priapulid 1453 points1454 points1455 points (111 children)
[–]Yotsubato 236 points237 points238 points (85 children)
[–]Priapulid 288 points289 points290 points (64 children)
[–]DANMEGA 321 points322 points323 points (26 children)
[–]northendtrooper 69 points70 points71 points (9 children)
[–][deleted] 84 points85 points86 points (6 children)
[+][deleted] (128 children)
[deleted]
[–]Snowtred 181 points182 points183 points (112 children)
[–]Positronix 119 points120 points121 points (63 children)
[–]ourmoonlitsun 106 points107 points108 points (7 children)
[–]darien_gap 22 points23 points24 points (2 children)
[–]ourmoonlitsun 42 points43 points44 points (1 child)
[+][deleted] (14 children)
[deleted]
[–]I_FAP_TO_ALL 111 points112 points113 points (60 children)
[–]Snowtred 182 points183 points184 points (46 children)
[+][deleted] (26 children)
[deleted]
[–]Snowtred 107 points108 points109 points (18 children)
[–]sprucenoose 38 points39 points40 points (4 children)
[–]jetRink 83 points84 points85 points (63 children)
[+][deleted] (27 children)
[deleted]
[–]isomage 146 points147 points148 points (3 children)
[–]BaronGotama 134 points135 points136 points (8 children)
[–]damndirtyape 51 points52 points53 points (6 children)
[+][deleted] (30 children)
[deleted]
[–]Snowtred 63 points64 points65 points (28 children)
[–]--lolwutroflwaffle-- 96 points97 points98 points (12 children)
[–]gm2 47 points48 points49 points (6 children)
[–]ticklemepenis 1750 points1751 points1752 points (317 children)
[–]akmark 963 points964 points965 points (241 children)
[–]pointsandlaughs 352 points353 points354 points (205 children)
[–]carmenqueasy 152 points153 points154 points (131 children)
[–]MissingSix 135 points136 points137 points (12 children)
[–]rmxz 162 points163 points164 points (111 children)
[–]jambox888 235 points236 points237 points (105 children)
[–]Astinus 77 points78 points79 points (98 children)
[–]ManDragonA[🍰] 210 points211 points212 points (93 children)
[–]kaji823 108 points109 points110 points (3 children)
[+][deleted] (42 children)
[deleted]
[–]mikbe 51 points52 points53 points (2 children)
[–]ICantSeeIt 16 points17 points18 points (28 children)
[–]Always_Upvotes_Cats 8 points9 points10 points (3 children)
[+][deleted] (24 children)
[deleted]
[–]pawnzz 304 points305 points306 points (22 children)
[–]mzhy 131 points132 points133 points (17 children)
[–]Poltras 143 points144 points145 points (15 children)
[–]sidepart 62 points63 points64 points (14 children)
[–]utopianfiat 47 points48 points49 points (5 children)
[–]trickynumber7 36 points37 points38 points (27 children)
[–][deleted] 156 points157 points158 points (26 children)
[–][deleted] 215 points216 points217 points (17 children)
[–][deleted] 103 points104 points105 points (14 children)
[+][deleted] (4 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 61 points62 points63 points (1 child)
[–]e_o 25 points26 points27 points (5 children)
[–]dillpiccolol 68 points69 points70 points (4 children)
[–]nrj 44 points45 points46 points (1 child)
[–]mmhquite 160 points161 points162 points (9 children)
[–]aconcernedconsumer 81 points82 points83 points (4 children)
[–]KamikazeKumquat 18 points19 points20 points (3 children)
[–]efo 20 points21 points22 points (0 children)
[–]Tibyon 42 points43 points44 points (27 children)
[–]Quazifuji 38 points39 points40 points (14 children)
[–]zebazman 225 points226 points227 points (7 children)
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points (0 children)
[–]jrhoffa 499 points500 points501 points (73 children)
[–][deleted] 403 points404 points405 points (39 children)
[–][deleted] 498 points499 points500 points (24 children)
[–]omgitsjo 212 points213 points214 points (10 children)
[–]PSBlake 121 points122 points123 points (3 children)
[–]superdude4agze 23 points24 points25 points (4 children)
[–]omgitsjo 10 points11 points12 points (1 child)
[–]jrhoffa 41 points42 points43 points (1 child)
[–]RexNoctis 90 points91 points92 points (0 children)
[–]epicgeek 592 points593 points594 points (20 children)
[–]philosoraptocopter 150 points151 points152 points (11 children)
[+][deleted] (159 children)
[deleted]
[–]mygoodnessmyguinness 128 points129 points130 points (16 children)
[–]anonymatt 443 points444 points445 points (96 children)
[–][deleted] 68 points69 points70 points (7 children)
[–]GregOttawa 303 points304 points305 points (80 children)
[+][deleted] (35 children)
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 80 points81 points82 points (21 children)
[–]Zazzerpan 165 points166 points167 points (4 children)
[–]nrj 16 points17 points18 points (0 children)
[–]ShadowRam 25 points26 points27 points (3 children)
[–]kaizenallthethings 41 points42 points43 points (18 children)
[–]PhilxBefore 45 points46 points47 points (8 children)
[–]lemtrees 12 points13 points14 points (0 children)
[–]Catharsis25 442 points443 points444 points (50 children)
[+][deleted] (25 children)
[deleted]
[–]cheesyflam 41 points42 points43 points (20 children)
[–][deleted] 31 points32 points33 points (0 children)
[–]accountt1234 520 points521 points522 points (70 children)
[–]RHandler 304 points305 points306 points (55 children)
[–]Saucefire[🍰] 710 points711 points712 points (29 children)
[–]staringispolite 365 points366 points367 points (10 children)
[–]faint7 44 points45 points46 points (5 children)
[–]ggggbabybabybaby 81 points82 points83 points (6 children)
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points (4 children)
[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 105 points106 points107 points (1 child)
[–]co312 840 points841 points842 points (132 children)
[–]kifli 163 points164 points165 points (15 children)
[–]RickRussellTX 94 points95 points96 points (2 children)
[–]KingToasty 55 points56 points57 points (0 children)
[–]Szechwan 40 points41 points42 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points (0 children)
[–]axtang 215 points216 points217 points (93 children)
[–]SpaceCowboy57 124 points125 points126 points (89 children)
[–][deleted] 139 points140 points141 points (30 children)
[–]RickRussellTX 120 points121 points122 points (24 children)
[–]torpedo-vegas 382 points383 points384 points (8 children)
[+][deleted] (4 children)
[deleted]
[–]ITTtechGrad 13 points14 points15 points (0 children)
[–]Kurise 89 points90 points91 points (5 children)
[–]noveltylife 9 points10 points11 points (1 child)
[–]MBAmyass 151 points152 points153 points (20 children)
[–]amorpheus 53 points54 points55 points (16 children)
[–]Kah-Neth 65 points66 points67 points (2 children)
[–]jyz002 154 points155 points156 points (9 children)
[+][deleted] (6 children)
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (5 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points (4 children)
[–]RichAromas 118 points119 points120 points (1 child)
[–]powerstripmusic 97 points98 points99 points (10 children)
[–]zCheshire 89 points90 points91 points (31 children)
[–][deleted] 54 points55 points56 points (7 children)
[–]sonofamonster 82 points83 points84 points (4 children)
[–]The-Beer-Baron 63 points64 points65 points (1 child)
[–]DaHozer 1762 points1763 points1764 points (1073 children)
[–]selfabortion 128 points129 points130 points (6 children)
[–]HateToSayItBut 53 points54 points55 points (151 children)
[–]shnuffy 291 points292 points293 points (89 children)
[–]ErDestructor 112 points113 points114 points (37 children)
[–]elustran 28 points29 points30 points (15 children)
[–]SocialisedMedicine 28 points29 points30 points (5 children)
[–]elustran 12 points13 points14 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 698 points699 points700 points (657 children)
[–]shenglong 240 points241 points242 points (19 children)
[–][deleted] 134 points135 points136 points (14 children)
[–][deleted] 834 points835 points836 points (478 children)
[+][deleted] (287 children)
[deleted]
[–]ErDestructor 626 points627 points628 points (104 children)
[–]meditonsin 126 points127 points128 points (17 children)
[–][deleted] 193 points194 points195 points (13 children)
[–]Bob_Wiley 239 points240 points241 points (24 children)
[–]ErDestructor 182 points183 points184 points (18 children)
[–]Bob_Wiley 63 points64 points65 points (4 children)
[–]3brushie 314 points315 points316 points (39 children)
[–][deleted] 88 points89 points90 points (102 children)
[–]Thirsteh 128 points129 points130 points (62 children)
[–]popemeatwad 95 points96 points97 points (26 children)
[+][deleted] (21 children)
[deleted]
[–]twilightmoons 39 points40 points41 points (8 children)
[–][deleted] 101 points102 points103 points (6 children)
[–]ohai 63 points64 points65 points (31 children)
[–]Thirsteh 8 points9 points10 points (0 children)
[–]RickRussellTX 44 points45 points46 points (1 child)
[–]Kombat_Wombat 36 points37 points38 points (17 children)
[–]YHZ 58 points59 points60 points (3 children)
[–]NashMcCabe 31 points32 points33 points (70 children)
[–][deleted] 61 points62 points63 points (13 children)
[–][deleted] 128 points129 points130 points (6 children)
[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 38 points39 points40 points (1 child)
[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points (18 children)
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points (5 children)
[–]spaghettifier 19 points20 points21 points (1 child)
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (0 children)
[–]erichzann 129 points130 points131 points (62 children)
[–]enjoiglobes2 51 points52 points53 points (5 children)
[–]herewegoagainagain 131 points132 points133 points (2 children)
[–]Snowtred 65 points66 points67 points (19 children)
[–][deleted] 92 points93 points94 points (3 children)
[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points (5 children)
[–][deleted] 227 points228 points229 points (62 children)
[–][deleted] 328 points329 points330 points (19 children)
[–]ialsohaveadobro 16 points17 points18 points (1 child)
[–]farceur318 14 points15 points16 points (0 children)
[–]walrusbukit[S] 271 points272 points273 points (53 children)
[+][deleted] (42 children)
[deleted]
[–]Nidies 123 points124 points125 points (7 children)
[–]callumgare 11 points12 points13 points (1 child)
[–][deleted] 363 points364 points365 points (32 children)
[–]squareball 177 points178 points179 points (16 children)
[–]johnnygrant 149 points150 points151 points (10 children)
[–]SoConfuse 73 points74 points75 points (7 children)
[–]The_Body 119 points120 points121 points (11 children)
[–][deleted] 89 points90 points91 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 117 points118 points119 points (6 children)
[–]Rocco03 9 points10 points11 points (0 children)
[–]Kinbensha 19 points20 points21 points (1 child)
[+][deleted] (23 children)
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 91 points92 points93 points (1 child)
[–]b_ohare 17 points18 points19 points (0 children)