Warp Speed may be possible

[ParadigmShifter]

E/c²

5chars

EDIT: I was talking about this formula though

 

[kiwitt]

So Neutrinos obviously have energy as they are moving, so E=/=0. My head hurts.

Thankfully we have physicists to work on this.

 

[uppi]

I thought the mass is squared in the equation, meaning negative mass still means light speed is the limit? Isn't that why proposed tachyons would have imaginary/complex mass?

You're right. I am not that familiar with fringe hypotheses. The idea was apparently to have imaginary mass to cancel out the imaginary γ so that you get a real, positive value for E.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

We're both wrong

v > c means the denominator is imaginary, so for E to be positive implies imaginary mass.

What about this from the wiki page on tachyons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

In 1985 it was proposed by Chodos et al. that neutrinos can have a tachyonic nature.[8][9] Today, the possibility of having standard particles moving at superluminal speeds is a natural consequence of unconventional dispersion relations that appear in the Standard-Model Extension,[10][11][12] a realistic description of the possible violation of Lorentz invariance in field theory. In this framework, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies.

 

[bhsup]

Um, in English???

 

[ParadigmShifter]

That's why I asked uppi about it. I don't understand it either

EDIT: But it seems some guy called Chodos and his mate al predicted this in 1985.

 

[uppi]

What about this from the wiki page on tachyons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

In 1985 it was proposed by Chodos et al. that neutrinos can have a tachyonic nature.[8][9] Today, the possibility of having standard particles moving at superluminal speeds is a natural consequence of unconventional dispersion relations that appear in the Standard-Model Extension,[10][11][12] a realistic description of the possible violation of Lorentz invariance in field theory. In this framework, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies.

No idea. Those three papers about this Standard Model extension are all by the same guy (who likes to cite himself), so I don't know how accepted this idea is. You would have to ask a high energy theoretician for that. Those papers did get published in PRD, though, so they can't be too far out.

 

[uppi]

That's why I asked uppi about it. I don't understand it either

EDIT: But it seems some guy called Chodos and his mate al predicted this in 1985.

They didn't really predict it, but said more or less "Maybe neutrinos are tachyons. So far nobody has explained how this would work, but as long as there are no results proving otherwise we can still dream"

 

[ParadigmShifter]

So, Chodos and al win the Nobel Prize if these results are verified?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

My maths is a bit hazy now. If E=MC2 what does M = ?

e = energy
m=mass
c = speed of light in a vacuum

 

[uppi]

So, Chodos and al win the Nobel Prize if these results are verified?

Unlikely. If they had said "We have this theory that predicts neutrinos are tachyons with this mass", they would have a chance. I don't think just raising the possibility is enough.

But if this result is confirmed, there will be a Nobel prize for it. The question is just who would get it, as there are quite a lot of people on the collaboration that measured this. There is already quite some discussion who should get the prize if the Higgs Boson is discovered, as there are thousands of people involved in the search and the potential discovery.

But then I am not on the Nobel prize committee and who knows what they would decide.

 

[emzie]

It rather annoys me to give a Nobel for accidental discoveries, like Anro Penzias and Robert Wilson got for cosmic background radiation.

 

[innonimatu]

No. That would not solve the problem of neutrinos faster than light, because "particles" without mass should travel exactly at the speed of light. And then it would invalidate the theory for neutrino oscillations. So we would gain nothing, but we lose a theory in the process.

Yes, the idea the particles without mass travel exactly at the speed of light is one held by the very definition of speed of light. It arose from the way time and simultaneity is defined in special relativity. In other words, it's an axiom.

But if some massless particles happen to be found consistently traveling faster-than-light, physicians can either:
1) dump relativity (downgrade it to a a special case of some unknown general theory yet to find);
2) dump the postulate that all massless particles by definition travel at the speed of light, and try to reframe the definition of time implicit in the theory of relativity to salvage some of it. I don't know it that could work at all, but it might, a kludge like "dark matter"...

Given the usual resistance to paradigm change, if these observations are confirmed my bet is on 2).

It rather annoys me to give a Nobel for accidental discoveries, like Anro Penzias and Robert Wilson got for cosmic background radiation.

But all discoveries start with some accident, some source of inspiration! People still have to confirm and announce it.

 

[uppi]

But if some massless particles happen to be found consistently traveling faster-than-light, physicians can either:

But neutrinos have mass. So no matter whether they travel faster or slower than light, this has no implication on massless fields.

 

[Arakhor]

Penicillin was an accidental discovery of course. Many of the greatest scientific achievements have been by accident.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, the idea the particles without mass travel exactly at the speed of light is one held by the very definition of speed of light. It arose from the way time and simultaneity is defined in special relativity. In other words, it's an axiom.

But if some massless particles happen to be found consistently traveling faster-than-light, physicians can either:
1) dump relativity (downgrade it to a a special case of some unknown general theory yet to find);
2) dump the postulate that all massless particles by definition travel at the speed of light, and try to reframe the definition of time implicit in the theory of relativity to salvage some of it. I don't know it that could work at all, but it might, a kludge like "dark matter"...

Given the usual resistance to paradigm change, if these observations are confirmed my bet is on 2).

That's not entirely correct. All equations that describe the relation between energy, mass and speed contain this "axiom" and until now have proven to be always correct.

So your option 2 would mean that these equations are still wrong, or rather, special cases of more general equations. Since these equations make the theory of relativity, it would result in (1) nevertheless. Can't get around that (if you want to continue to stick the name "relativity" on the new modified theory or not is an arbitrary decision).

 

[Agent Cooper]

A warp drive doesn't actually make the object go faster than light, does it? It's my understanding that a warp drive compresses space/spacetime in front of the object and expands it again when the object have travelled through it at lightspeed or lower.

 

[innonimatu]

That's not entirely correct. All equations that describe the relation between energy, mass and speed contain this "axiom" and until now have proven to be always correct.

Yes, you're right, the whole theory as it is, and with its current interpretation of physical reality, could not be salvaged, it would have to be modified. But those equations... they would remain valid, but might have to be considered special cases. No problem, a theory always remains good for what it can productively describe - just as there is nothing wrong with using newtonian mechanics where it suffices. And it there's nothing clearly better at all - it'll keep being used for everything, even if we know it's incomplete. And it's good to remember that most of the equations of relativity existed before the theory bundled them into a coherent theory. Lorentz, Poincaré, etc, had worked out much of the mathmatics still in the 19th century, they just couldn't put it all together in a unified theory. Of particular importance were the discussions physicians had then about the nature of time and simultaneity. Some kind soul has transcribed this to wikisource, making available a very good example of that. This remains true:

Il convient de conclure. Nous n’avons pas l’intuition directe de la simultanéité, pas plus que celle de l’égalité de deux durées. Si nous croyons avoir cette intuition, c’est une illusion. Nous y suppléons à l’aide de certaines règles que nous appliquons presque toujours sans nous en rendre compte.

Mais quelle est la nature de ces règles ?
Pas de règle générale, pas de règle rigoureuse ; une multitude de petites règles applicables à chaque cas particulier. Ces règles ne s’imposent pas à nous et on pourrait s’amuser à en inventer d’autres ; cependant on ne saurait s’en écarter sans compliquer beaucoup l’énoncé des lois de la physique, de la mécanique, de l’astronomie.
Nous choisissons donc ces règles, non parce qu’elles sont vraies, mais parce qu’elles sont les plus commodes, et nous pourrions les résumer en disant :
« La simultanéité de deux événements, ou l’ordre de leur succession, l’égalité de deux durées, doivent être définies de telle sorte que l’énoncé des lois naturelles soit aussi simple que possible. En d’autres termes, toutes ces règles, toutes ces définitions ne sont que le fruit d’un opportunisme inconscient. »

 

[uppi]

Penicillin was an accidental discovery of course. Many of the greatest scientific achievements have been by accident.

And I would say that being unexpected is what makes a scientific discovery a great one. Confirming an predicted effect is important, but that does not advance science as much as something totally unexpected. And it is hard to plan measuring something unexpected. So if one does want to honor the greatest discoveries in science, it is unavoidable that there will be winners in experimental physics who were just lucky (and there are plenty of examples for that).

 

[El_Machinae]

I am hating how the popular media is playing this. This really is not the best way of informing people, because there will be too great of a delay in the disconfirming data, and so these 'Einstein was wrong!' might become ingrained in people.