The end of modern physics as we know it?

[DGFone]

Something interesting I found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Will we have to redefine everything we know about physics, or is it some kind of analysis/computer data collection error?

Because if this experiment can be reproduced multiple time successfully, it will mean that the entire past century of physics advancement used an assumption that s wrong.

[Woeler]

I think they had some kind of error because if it were possible to travel faster then light we could go faster then our universe expands and so find the border. Also photons of which light consist have no mass meaning they do not need energy to travel or move. however sub-atomic particles (as mentioned in the article) do have a mass, which means they do need some kind of energy to move. Relativity as described by Albert Einstein learns us about this maximum speed. (for the physicists under us please forgive me for this extremely inaccurate explanation of relativity). As an object moves in a vacuum it needs energy to start moving, the faster you want it to move the more energy it needs. also the faster it moves the bigger it's mass seems to get. when an object achieves the speed of light it's mass reaches unlimited, therefore needing an unlimited amount of energy to move at that speed (there is no such amount). the only particles that could move at this speed are particles with no mass, thus photons.

why am i explaining this? no idea I just like being nerdy sometimes XD

Back on the article. I don't believe it's the real deal. I think they had some kind of error. If it were real our whole universe as we know it would be completely different as we think. besides we put man on the moon using the physics we have today, it has already been proven right, I don't think you can disprove it anymore.

[Misiziri]

Oh, DGFone you beat me to it! I just heard this on the news. Sounds fascinating, it wouldn't surprise me if the law was broken however.

[MWIN]

Highly likely a calculation error somewhere, still a very interesting read and it wouldn't have been the first time Physics as we know it would have been thrown into disarray.

"besides we put man on the moon using the physics we have today, it has already been proven right, I don't think you can disprove it anymore."

You do realize scientists are discovering new things all the time? We put man on the moon largely using Newtonian physics, which even at the time was known to have made incorrect assumptions about how the universe works at a very small scale. If the observed reality differs from written physics, physics can be rewritten, thats its point.

[Woeler]

And even if it is right. That does not mean physics is back to the basics. the whole newspapers are full of lies. If relativity is disproven that does not mean that all the theories in physics are wrong because just one theory is wrong. It will certainly NOT be the end of modern physics as we know it, Just the theory of relativity has to be redone. we DO NOT have to redefine all physics, there's barely a link between relativity and soundwaves, or relativity and gravity.

what the newspapers tell you is complete rubbish. those people don't know a bit of what they are talking about. I asked a professor at my school today (he has studied theoretical physics), He has three titles Mr. engineer Doctor Professor (insert name). He knows what he is talking about and he says too that the newspapers have no clue what they are talking about.

[BlitzRogue]

Personally, I'm withholding judgement until it's been put through peer review.

Regardless, even if it does turn out to be correct, it's not going to be "shattering" anything. Relativity will remain intact. E will still equal MC squared. The only adjustment that will need to be made is in respect to these particles; they're the exception, not the new rule.

[Woeler]

Personally, I'm withholding judgement until it's been put through peer review.

Regardless, even if it does turn out to be correct, it's not going to be "shattering" anything. Relativity will remain intact. E will still equal MC squared. The only adjustment that will need to be made is in respect to these particles; they're the exception, not the new rule.

that is not entirely true, Relativity states that how closer an object gets to the speed of light in a vacuum the greater it's mass gets. when reaching the speed of light it has ''infinite'' mass thus needing ''infinite'' energy. that's why light can move that fast because it has no mass. nutrino's (which are the objects tested) do have a mass, and if they were to go faster then the speed of light E=mc2 would be wrong because:
E=energy
m=mass
c= speed of light in a vacuum (aka the maximum speed possible)
however if this were true ''c'' would not be the maximum speed meaning this formula has to be corrected.
It would also prove that time travel is in theory possible.

[BlitzRogue]

however if this were true ''c'' would not be the maximum speed meaning this formula has to be corrected.
It would also prove that time travel is in theory possible.

Yes, the equation would need a quantum adjustment in the "faster-than-light" neutrino frame of reference, but the theory itself would be in no danger.

[Woeler]

however if this were true ''c'' would not be the maximum speed meaning this formula has to be corrected.
It would also prove that time travel is in theory possible.

Yes, the equation would need a quantum adjustment in the "faster-than-light" neutrino frame of reference, but the theory itself would be in no danger.

That's true, I think that the newspapers are making an exaggeration, they don't know sh*t about physics. It really makes me angry that they are feeding the world false info!

[BlitzRogue]

That's true, I think that the newspapers are making an exaggeration, they don't know sh*t about physics. It really makes me angry that they are feeding the world false info!

Yeah, it's all just about getting a good story for them. And obviously, "THEORY OF RELATIVITY MIGHT BE WROOOONG???" sounds more exciting than, "Adjustment may need to be made to equation in the Theory of Relativity."

My only issue is that it's being blown way out of proportions, especially considering the neutrinos have only been calculated as "faster-than-light" once. Like I said, I withhold judgement until this goes through some serious peer review. And if it turns out to be accurate, then I'll let the physicists do what they do best: revise and rework the system until we've got a more precise view of how it all works. :)