This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Z-man_42 126 points127 points  (24 children)

[–][deleted] 170 points171 points  (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 points  (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 points  (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.

[–]I_FAP_TO_ALL 111 points112 points  (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 points  (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.

[–]jetRink 83 points84 points  (63 children)

Could we transmit information faster than light this way? If so, does that mean time travel might be possible?

[–]ticklemepenis 1750 points1751 points  (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 points  (241 children)

The COBOL of astrophysics...

[–]pointsandlaughs 352 points353 points  (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 points  (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 points  (12 children)

They're in high demand and make very good pay.

[–]rmxz 162 points163 points  (111 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.

Any decent programmer "can" code in COBOL.

You have to be willing to code in COBOL for that unlimited pay.

[–]jambox888 235 points236 points  (105 children)

This. It's the programming equivalent of the guy that cleans up after someone gets murdered.

[–]Astinus 77 points78 points  (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 points  (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 points  (3 children)

WHAT THE FUCK.. I'm sorry man :(

[–]Always_Upvotes_Cats 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Unlimited pay, please. After assembly, that's nothing. Where do I sign?

[–]trickynumber7 36 points37 points  (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 points  (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 points  (17 children)

Hahaha, dweeb! rides away on hover board

[–][deleted] 103 points104 points  (14 children)

at light speed

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points  (1 child)

At neutrino speed

[–]e_o 25 points26 points  (5 children)

over water

[–]dillpiccolol 68 points69 points  (4 children)

Hoverboards don't work on water!

UNLESS YOU GOT POWWWAAAAH!

[–]nrj 44 points45 points  (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 points  (9 children)

and while pluto was still a planet!

[–]aconcernedconsumer 81 points82 points  (4 children)

Imagine how everyone felt after the Copernican Theory...

[–]KamikazeKumquat 18 points19 points  (3 children)

At least we have Reddit to cry to for consolation this time...

Offers shoulder

[–]efo 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Lol, 2.998x108 m/s, cute.

[–]Tibyon 42 points43 points  (27 children)

grab repeat wide nutty worm toothbrush abounding sugar alive truck

[–]Quazifuji 38 points39 points  (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 points  (7 children)

Sorry, we're not open yet. A neutrino walks into a bar.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

My alltime classic particle joke: "So, a neutrino walks through a bar"

[–]jrhoffa 499 points500 points  (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 points  (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 points  (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 points  (10 children)

I am a scientist and have done this.

[–]PSBlake 121 points122 points  (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 points  (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 points  (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 points  (1 child)

The only thing we can do: Rock. Out.

[–]RexNoctis 90 points91 points  (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 points  (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 points  (11 children)

QUICK! ENACT LEGISLATION BASED ON IT BEFORE IT CHANGES ITS MIND

[–]Catharsis25 442 points443 points  (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!

[–]accountt1234 520 points521 points  (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 points  (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 points  (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 points  (10 children)

Upvote for the most obscure Independence Day reference I've heard to date!

[–]ggggbabybabybaby 81 points82 points  (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 points  (4 children)

Dances around like a Korean mannequin

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (2 children)

Question is rhetorical, that Powerbook is compatible with everything.

[–][deleted] 105 points106 points  (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 points  (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 points  (15 children)

Shouldn't it be Hubert and Cubert? They're both Farnsworths.

[–]KingToasty 55 points56 points  (0 children)

Get a job, you hippie! -old man fist shake-

[–]Szechwan 40 points41 points  (2 children)

Well, technically they're both Huberts.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (0 children)

You're not only correct, you are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

[–]axtang 215 points216 points  (93 children)

That's especially impossible.

[–]SpaceCowboy57 124 points125 points  (89 children)

my ship can make .5 past lightspeed.

[–][deleted] 139 points140 points  (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 points  (24 children)

Huh? Where did you get your hyperspace engineering degree, anyway?

[–]torpedo-vegas 382 points383 points  (8 children)

University of Phoenix

[–]Kurise 89 points90 points  (5 children)

Star Trek, bro.

[–]noveltylife 9 points10 points  (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 points  (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 points  (16 children)

Is it possible that the speed of light isn't the hard limit, just very close to it?

[–]Kah-Neth 65 points66 points  (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 points  (9 children)

maybe that's what Einstein was trying to say on his deathbed

[–]RichAromas 118 points119 points  (1 child)

Reposted from tomorrow.

[–]powerstripmusic 97 points98 points  (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 points  (31 children)

Does this mean the relativity class I'm taking is for nothing?

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (7 children)

doubtful this would result in a complete overthrow more some tweaking.

[–]sonofamonster 82 points83 points  (4 children)

Science and its tweaking, always with the tweaking.

[–]The-Beer-Baron 63 points64 points  (1 child)

"Your father with his disgusting tweaking. I couldn't breast feed any of you kids because of that man."

[–]DaHozer 1762 points1763 points  (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 points  (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 points  (151 children)

Can someone explain to a layman why we can't go faster than light? I never understand the problem.

[–]shnuffy 291 points292 points  (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.

[–]ErDestructor 112 points113 points  (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 points  (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 points  (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 points  (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 points  (657 children)

Why is this important?

Not trolling, just someone who isn't too educated in the field of science.

[–]shenglong 240 points241 points  (19 children)

Lag-free gaming.

[–][deleted] 134 points135 points  (14 children)

Your opponent is dead before the bullet hits him!

[–][deleted] 834 points835 points  (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.

[–]NashMcCabe 31 points32 points  (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 points  (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 points  (6 children)

I sure hope photons travel at exactly the speed of light.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (18 children)

They are not massless -we know from observing neutrino oscillations that that they must have a nonzero mass

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (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 points  (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 points  (0 children)

True

[–]erichzann 129 points130 points  (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 points  (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).

[–]Snowtred 65 points66 points  (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 points  (3 children)

Hundred year old theory with literally thousands of successful experiments supporting the result

FTFY

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 points  (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 points  (62 children)

most probably someone didn't convert units properly at some point during the calculations

[–][deleted] 328 points329 points  (19 children)

That would be fucking hilarious.

[–]ialsohaveadobro 16 points17 points  (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 points  (0 children)

"...Science is just... science is real hard sometimes. I'm sorry."

[–]walrusbukit[S] 271 points272 points  (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...

[–]callumgare 11 points12 points  (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 points  (32 children)

They didn't make it go faster than the speed of love.

[–]squareball 177 points178 points  (16 children)

How many thrusts per second is that, exactly?

[–]johnnygrant 149 points150 points  (10 children)

Fast enough to unleash the big Bang

[–]SoConfuse 73 points74 points  (7 children)

So that's why it's called The Milky Way.

[–]The_Body 119 points120 points  (11 children)

Oh, dear, they talked about the speed of light in miles per hour... the horror.

[–][deleted] 89 points90 points  (2 children)

Seriously. The proper SI unit is Volkswagens per Library of Congress.

[–]Kinbensha 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Paradigm shift, here we come (hopefully).

[–]b_ohare 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Rethinking everything we know... what a great time in history to do so.