Scratch

1) Fixed the mistake
2) Where's the other topic?
3) I forgot to mention: A neutrino has a mass of 0, so it doesn't mean Einstein was wrong.

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

by neutrinos.  Apparently they traveled a distance of 500 miles 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light.  That's equivalent to .4 mps or 70 mph faster, which is roughly .00001% faster than the speed of light.

I can't find the article (my bro told me about it), but if anyone does, post it.

Neutrinos ARE light. duh

I LOVE stuff like this. Particle physics is awesome!!!

I would like to explain e=mc^2 here, and try to make some sense of this.
e is energy; m is mass; and c is the speed of light (universal constant), therefore c^2 is acceleration at the speed of light. It is based off f=ma, where force=mass*acceleration. This means that the energy contained in any object is equal to to the force it would have if it travels at the speed of light.
I am Grade 10 so I don't really have much knowledge on the subject but here's my interpretation: matter and energy are basically two formats of the same thing. I know it's kind of weird but hear me out. My theory is that when the universe formed, after the big bang, there was matter and antimatter. At the time, there was really no energy as we know today. There was gravity, subatomic forces, etc, but those are forces, not the electricity, light, heat, etc, energy we know today. When the matter and antimatter collided, that was the formation of all the energy we know. The rule goes that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another". So where did the energy come from when matter and antimatter collided. There is the proof that matter and energy is the same thing. When the matter and antimatter collided, they had to obliterate themself, but there is another rule similar to the first rule: "in a reaction, the reactants and the products have the same mass, since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed". Coincidence? Not really. What happened is that the matter and antimatter was converted into energy. This does not break either of the two rules, as long as you consider the two rules the same rule, just in different terms, since energy and matter is the same. Since they're the same, they can be converted to each other. One way was the collision of matter and antimatter. Another way is to launch it with the acceleration of the speed of light, as e=mc^2 states. What does this have to do with the neutrino thing? Since mass of neutrino=0, it is not matter, so it can run at the speed of light and faster without being converted to energy, since it's neither matter or energy. 

The interesting thing about the fact that neutrinoes can go faster than the speed of light is that it means that we can send information from the future to the past. If we build info "catchers" today, in the future, we can send info back in time and hear the info our future selves sent today    I hope that makes sense

AnimeCreatorArtist wrote:

0_o.....Phisics, we have a problem.

It's spelled "physics".

Kobra

Why was the title changed. I wrote a huge post up there telling how the neutrino going faster than the speed of light doesn't mean Einstein is wrong.

cygene wrote:

Why was the title changed. I wrote a huge post up there telling how the neutrino going faster than the speed of light doesn't mean Einstein is wrong.

I just finished merging the two topics into one.  Your post should still be there - I hope.

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

cygene wrote:

Oh, wait, nevermind. It got joined with the other forum post. But I suggest changing the title to "speed of light broken" because it doesn't mean einstein was wrong.

It hasn't even been proven to be true, yet. It could have been an error in their system.

But "speed of light broken" is still a more appropriate title since einstein is not wrong, even if the speed of light wasn't broken. The news says that CERN had broken the speed of light. CERN would not have a press release unless they were 90% sure and double-checked and triple-checked everything. If they were wrong, they'd have to admit it, which would be hazardous to their reputation (remember when they broke the LHC a few years ago)

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

cygene wrote:

Oh, wait, nevermind. It got joined with the other forum post. But I suggest changing the title to "speed of light broken" because it doesn't mean einstein was wrong.

It hasn't even been proven to be true, yet. It could have been an error in their system.

So, apparently they had, let's see, 15000 errors?

helltank wrote:

All you skeptics, listen up. I'm fortunate enough to be the son of one of the scientists involved in the experiment, and I tell you it's real.

As you know, Einstein's theory stated that lightspeed was an unbreakable constant... because of the mass particle accelerator being at a AHC. Thus the light particles were forced to waver at a constant speed, generating a "Graham's Bell" anomaly that WE ACCEPT AS TRUE!

So the scientists simply ran a atomic scanner over the MPA, and then they ran it and tested the particles that came out, finding them to be over the speed of like because GRAHAM'S BELL WAS NOT PRESENT! Can't you see?

The anomaly was smoothened out as per the sixth rule of gravity, and after they generated a stabilized and sterile testing position, the particle was no longer bound by the AHC warp, and Graham's Bell anomaly simply disappeared, allowing it to travel at its true speed, which is faster than lightspeed.

You're a son of a particle physicist?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Einstein's theory didn't mean that the speed of light was an unbreakable constant. e=mc^2 meant that the amount of energy inside matter was equal to the force if would exhibit if it travelled at an acceleration equal to the speed of light (see my post above). It also means that it would take an infinite amount of energy to get something WITH MASS to run at the speed of light (or at least a very lerge amount of energy). But since neutrinoes don't have mass, this rule is not broken.

Here's the equation for 10 grams:
900000000000 = 10g * 300 000 km/s/s
That's a lot of energy (I don't know the unit, though. Joules  I guess)

Here's the equation for 0 mass:
0 energy = 0 mass * 300 000 km/s/s
So neutrinoes can run at their speed without any energy at all.

Also, can you explain, graham's bell anomaly?