Did CERN just break physics?

ProjectVRD · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:31

If true, stupid machine! I will have resit physics all over again! :mad:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html

BunnyKillBot · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:33

Afaik, it is very possible for something to travel at beyond the speed of light, it just cant accelerate to, match and exceed it. If it starts out that way, all is fine

joeyjojo · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:34

Awesome!!!

Einstein postulated in Special Relativity that the speed of light should be a universal constant which cannot be exceeded. If these neutrinos were going faster then that's a next step in Physics...

RomanNose · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:35

Did you just create the third thread on this?

checjb · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:36

Amazing. If confirmed that will be staggering.

Johnnytoxic · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:36

60 billionths of a second faster than light

I would triple check that stopwatch

Hell my speedo is out by a couple of mph. It's the measuring device thats at fault

StriderX · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:38

Already a thread, did you just break your eyes :eek:

ProjectVRD · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:40

chaosdestro0 said:
Did you just create the third thread on this?

No, the others just got here faster than mine because I haven't cracked it yet

Bloomfield · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:41

Johnnytoxic said:
I would triple check that stopwatch

Hell my speedo is about by a couple of mph out. It's the measuring device thats at fault

Well, I'm glad that's settled then.

And is there really a need for another thread?

Judgeneo · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:42

Johnnytoxic said:
I would triple check that stopwatch

Hell my speedo is about by a couple of mph out. It's the measuring device thats at fault

error measured at 10 billionth of a second.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:43

Johnnytoxic said:
I would triple check that stopwatch

Hell my speedo is about by a couple of mph out. It's the measuring device thats at fault

They've been checking it for three years, now they want others to check it.

d_brennen · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:43

StriderX said:
Already a thread, did you just break your eyes

Nah, physics is broke so threads are popping up from past, present and future.

Seriously, anyone like to tell me the margin of error on these experiments?

Yamahahahahaha · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:46

d_brennen said:
Seriously, anyone like to tell me the margin of error on these experiments?

Yeah, I bet CERN are really sloppy about that kind of thing. I mean, it's not like they do this stuff all the time is it?

Bloomfield · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:46

d_brennen said:
Nah, physics is broke so threads are popping up from past, present and future.

Seriously, anyone like to tell me the margin of error on these experiments?

10 nanoseconds.

ProjectVRD · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:48

d_brennen said:
Nah, physics is broke so threads are popping up from past, present and future.

I beat you to the punch, or did I? There is no way of telling anymore!

Macro · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:49

If history has taught us anything it's that the "scientific absolutes" we cling to are rarely absolute...

I have no doubt that in 200 years time people will look at the theory of general relativity with a condescending nod and wonder how anyone ever believed that was definitive and immutable.

NinetyOne · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:50

Just read about this on reddit, if it's true dayum this is an exciting time to be alive

ProjectVRD · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:54

If true it means we can reach our nearest star 3 days.... earlier.... oh. Back to work tomorrow then? Darn it!

StriderX · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:57

ProjectVRD said:
If true it means we can reach our nearest star 3 days.... earlier.... oh. Back to work tomorrow then? Darn it!

No, it simply means that our previous understanding was wrong.

ProjectVRD · 22 Sep 2011 at 22:58

StriderX said:
No, it simply means that our previous understanding was wrong.

lol

I should have put a /sarc in there