CERN breaks light speed barrier?

  • Thread starter ProjectVRD
  • 159 comments
  • 14,346 views
I know nothing about science, apart from what my curiosity leads me to read, and it leads me to read, among other things, threads like this.

And I have a question that maybe more knowledgeable guys can answer. To measure the speed of anything (particle or planet) you must have a reference somewhere, right? Like, in this case, we know the distance between point a and point b. We also know that, compared to the particles departing"A" and passing through B", both these locations are "still". By that I mean, they didn't move in relation to each other, their distance is the same always.

So, you measure the speed from "A" to "B" considering both "A" and "B" are stationary locations.

Now, considering the Universe we know, according to the most plausible scientific theory is in continuous expansion after a primordial explosion, am I correct in saying that two particles traveling at the speed of light in opposite directions are exceeding the speed of light if you measure the speed of their separation in realtion to each other? And also that the same can happen with particles on a collision course, both traveling at the speed of light? If you don't have any reference point to measure their speed anyway, and these two particles are your only references, then it would be correct to say that they will collide at approximately the speed of light x2 ?
 
Hun200kmh
I know nothing about science, apart from what my curiosity leads me to read, and it leads me to read, among other things, threads like this.

And I have a question that maybe more knowledgeable guys can answer. To measure the speed of anything (particle or planet) you must have a reference somewhere, right? Like, in this case, we know the distance between point a and point b. We also know that, compared to the particles departing"A" and passing through B", both these locations are "still". By that I mean, they didn't move in relation to each other, their distance is the same always.

So, you measure the speed from "A" to "B" considering both "A" and "B" are stationary locations.

Now, considering the Universe we know, according to the most plausible scientific theory is in continuous expansion after a primordial explosion, am I correct in saying that two particles traveling at the speed of light in opposite directions are exceeding the speed of light if you measure the speed of their separation in realtion to each other? And also that the same can happen with particles on a collision course, both traveling at the speed of light? If you don't have any reference point to measure their speed anyway, and these two particles are your only references, then it would be correct to say that they will collide at approximately the speed of light x2 ?
Click to expand...

Before Famine really explains it and he mentioned this before:
the theory around this is Special relativity.
Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.
This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers. On the other hand, it introduces the space-time interval, which is invariant.

So the theory on the speed of light is valid for "inertial observers".
For example out of this theory: Composition of velocities – velocities (and speeds) do not simply 'add', for example if a rocket is moving at 2⁄3 the speed of light relative to an observer, and the rocket fires a missile at 2⁄3 of the speed of light relative to the rocket, the missile does not exceed the speed of light relative to the observer. (In this example, the observer would see the missile travel with a speed of 12⁄13 the speed of light.)
 
Vince_Fiero
So the theory on the speed of light is valid for "inertial observers".
For example out of this theory: Composition of velocities – velocities (and speeds) do not simply 'add', for example if a rocket is moving at 2⁄3 the speed of light relative to an observer, and the rocket fires a missile at 2⁄3 of the speed of light relative to the rocket, the missile does not exceed the speed of light relative to the observer. (In this example, the observer would see the missile travel with a speed of 12⁄13 the speed of light.)
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I'll just have to accept a humble "I don't get it and probably never will" autolabel.

Using your example and translating it to values easy to understand, let's assume the speed of light is 120 mph.

A car is coming my way at 2/3 of that speed. That's 80 mph.

The car fires a projectile towards me. Speed of the projectile relative to the car that fired it is also 80 mph. Meaning, one hour after being fired, the car will be 80 mph closer to me. And the projectile? If it advanced 80 miles more than the car in that same hour than it is aproaching my position at a speed of 160 mph. And that's more than the speed of light, if my stationary position is the reference.

Now you can say, NOTHING will exceed the speed of light, therefore if the car was traveling near that limit, or at that limit, the projectile would never leave the gun, or would only depart it very slowly and always under the absolute limit. And I'm ok with that, what I still don't understand is how do we measure the (relative to each other) speed of two particles fired at approximately the speed of light, both headed for the exact same location in Italy (or passing there), but coming from "opposite senders".
 
Thats not how it works actually.
When then projectile is on the vehicle its moving the same speed. When it is fired the speed will then be relative to the world and not the vehicle, so if the missle flies at only 80 mph it will merely fly a few feet in front of the vehicle moving 80 as well.

Think about this...
Instead of 80 what if the missle went only 40?
Shoot it from a car at 80 and it wouldnt go 120, instead it would fall back into the vehicle at 40 mph as the vehicle went forward at 80.

Atleast thats howI understand relativity in this case.
 
To the person firing that gun, the projectile appears to be traveling at the velocity he fired it at. Time slows down for him so that it appears to be travelling at that rate.

For two particles travelling at the speed of light on a collision course... a stationary observer sees both approaching him at the speed of light. It's false to say that he ever measures twice the speed of light, because he can only measure relative to his own inertial frame.

If you're particle #1 looking at particle #2, you would not see it hitting you at twice light speed. If it's a near miss, you would see any photos it emits passing you at light speed, but shifted to a much higher frequency... (blue-shift... the opposite of redshift, which is observed from objects moving away from us).

The oft-used "drive-by" example is pertinent here. An object can not move away from you fast enough for the sound to not reach you. If the object exceeds the speed of sound, sound from it still reaches you at the speed of sound... but at a lower frequency (lower note). Objects approaching you will have their sound shift up in frequency (higher note), but that sound will still reach you at the speed of light. The one obvious difference, though, is that objects can exceed the speed of sound.

Whatever the actual "speed limit" of the Universe is... the fact that time slows down in an accelerating inertial frame (like, say, Earth's gravity well) as compared to relatively flat space has been proven.
 
Last edited:
ok niky, but what you say is true from a "neutral" observer placed in Italy, watching both particles arrive, one from the North, the other from the south. From his perspective it is true, both particles are within the "Speed of light limit".

But things are different if you take away the observer/detector, Italy, Planet Earth, our galaxy entirely and we are in the absolute void. No references, just two particles in a collision course. Now, you are one of those particles. At what speed are you approaching the other particle? That is my question.

Using the sound example, what you mentioned is, I believe, called the Doppler effect. Sound waves compress and that gives us an higher "pitch" (?). Any motorsports fan knows this from childhood, ever since we were kids we would play with our toys and I'm sure we all made those unmistakable noises "whhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiwhhoooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" :lol: when we simulated them passing by.

Now, you will agree with me that if I am moving towards the sound, its frequency will become (for me) even higher than if I am just stopped. As Vettel would say ... "that's what I'm talking about" ;)
 
Hun200kmh
Now, you are one of those particles. At what speed are you approaching the other particle?
Click to expand...

I think that you would measure your speed as the speed of light, but the other particle would be moving at less than the speed of light from your point of view (You would measure its speed as zero).
 
Hun200kmh
....But things are different if you take away the observer/detector, Italy, Planet Earth, our galaxy entirely and we are in the absolute void. No references, just two particles in a collision course. Now, you are one of those particles. At what speed are you approaching the other particle? That is my question.
....
Click to expand...

I think that the "closure" rate can be faster than the speed of light, but the speed of any particular object with mass can't be faster than the speed of light (at least so far as we currently know).

My example:
Lets say that there is a planet that is one light year from a sun. And lets say there is a second sun which is exactly one light year away in the exact opposite direction.

So light from each sun takes one year to reach the planet in the middle, but light from either sun would take two years to reach the other sun.

So it seems to me that the light from each sun would meet at the mid-point (the planet) after only one year and therefore light that started from each sun (which are two light years apart) would have a "closure" rate of two times light speed, though the light itself from either sun would still only be traveling at light speed. And if you were standing on the planet watching the light come towards you from either sun, in both cases it would be approaching you at light speed.

Does this make any sense? Famine/niky/Vince_Fiero?

Respectfully,
GTsail
 
Hun200kmh
ok niky, but what you say is true from a "neutral" observer placed in Italy, watching both particles arrive, one from the North, the other from the south. From his perspective it is true, both particles are within the "Speed of light limit".

But things are different if you take away the observer/detector, Italy, Planet Earth, our galaxy entirely and we are in the absolute void. No references, just two particles in a collision course. Now, you are one of those particles. At what speed are you approaching the other particle? That is my question.
Click to expand...

The observer in Italy is your absolute reference... doesn't matter. To this observer, who is not moving at light speed, time is moving the fastest.

-

As for being one light-speed particle looking at the other, this again:

"If you're particle #1 looking at particle #2, you would not see it hitting you at twice light speed. It would simply hit you at the same time the light hits you, thus moving at light speed. If it's a near miss, you would see any photos it emits passing you at light speed, but shifted to a much higher frequency... (blue-shift... the opposite of redshift, which is observed from objects moving away from us)."

Forgot to add... frequency would redshift as the particle emitter goes the other way. And stupid me, this doesn't really explain it...

Note that I said time slows down in an accelerating/moving inertial frame? When you're moving at light speed, you can't move any faster than that. Time slows down to an absolute crawl. Thus the particle that's coming at you is only coming at you at light speed, even though in the rest frame, it appears that both you and particle #2 are approaching each other at twice the speed of light. (note: nothing is actually moving at twice light speed in any measurable way... no particle crosses any absolute distances at higher than light speed)

I'm not bothered that neutrinos, which are nearly massless and can pass unmolested through ordinary matter more easily than photons, are faster than photons through air (unless they're doing this experiment in a giant vacuum tube?)... It doesn't completely negate Special Relativity... not yet...
 
niky
I'm not bothered that neutrinos, which are nearly massless and can pass unmolested through ordinary matter more easily than photons, are faster than photons through air (unless they're doing this experiment in a giant vacuum tube?)... It doesn't completely negate Special Relativity... not yet...
Click to expand...

If the experiment is indeed correct, then it would mean that the Neutrinos travelling though rock would travel faster than light photos could even if you had a 700km vacuum tube, so yes the Neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Whether the experiment is correct or not is another matter though.
 
We already know neutrinos interact so rarely with matter that they can pass through the entire planet unmolested... That they're a smidge faster doesn't bother me. I don't understand physics enough to be bothered... :lol:
 
timing is extremely hard thing.....Look at your time trial times in GT5, typically you get alot of .666s and .888s and so on and so forth. The timing is off!!

From what I understand these particles are going 500 miles in about 26 one THOUSANDTHS of a second!!! How hard is it to get the timing on that....pretty tough. If their off by even 1/10,000 of a second it scews the results by a million miles an hour! LOL
 
Rich S
timing is extremely hard thing.....Look at your time trial times in GT5, typically you get alot of .666s and .888s and so on and so forth. The timing is off!!

From what I understand these particles are going 500 miles in about 26 one THOUSANDTHS of a second!!! How hard is it to get the timing on that....pretty tough. If their off by even 1/10,000 of a second it scews the results by a million miles an hour! LOL
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse, making a joke or genuinely don't know, but researchers at places like CERN coordinate timing with the dozens of atomic clocks dotted about the planet. Rather than a PS3...

Most of those are accurate to within one second in several million years. Which isn't actually accurate enough for many scientists, and several replacements are in development that are accurate to one second in several billion years...
 
If they had corrected for the motion of the satellite as Einstein's theory of special relativity requires, they would not have measured the neutrinos traveling at a superluminal speed, van Elburg asserts.

Would they be really that dumb at CERN?? I surely hope not!
If they forget such basic things, we could wake up one day to the news that there is a gaping hole in the ground, where CERN used to be. :lol:
 
GTsail290
I think that the "closure" rate can be faster than the speed of light, but the speed of any particular object with mass can't be faster than the speed of light (at least so far as we currently know).

My example:
Lets say that there is a planet that is one light year from a sun. And lets say there is a second sun which is exactly one light year away in the exact opposite direction.

So light from each sun takes one year to reach the planet in the middle, but light from either sun would take two years to reach the other sun.

So it seems to me that the light from each sun would meet at the mid-point (the planet) after only one year and therefore light that started from each sun (which are two light years apart) would have a "closure" rate of two times light speed, though the light itself from either sun would still only be traveling at light speed. And if you were standing on the planet watching the light come towards you from either sun, in both cases it would be approaching you at light speed.

Does this make any sense? Famine/niky/Vince_Fiero?

Respectfully,
GTsail
Click to expand...

Does not seem wrong, standing on the planet you do not see anything moving faster then light.

Where it gets difficult (since we do not have the practice) is when you start moving at the speed of light and the forth dimention (time) starts to change.

When you study relativity (and I only did very shortly a long time ago) you have the example of the twins, one stays on earth the other one goes on a trip traveling at the speed of light. After the trip, the 2 twins meet again and have aged differently. This is since the time traveling at the speed of light has an influence on how you experience time. In a lot of the discussions here people are trying to see things from that situation where you experience time differently, that is not easy!
 
Dennisch
If they had corrected for the motion of the satellite as Einstein's theory of special relativity requires, they would not have measured the neutrinos traveling at a superluminal speed, van Elburg asserts.

Would they be really that dumb at CERN?? I surely hope not!
If they forget such basic things, we could wake up one day to the news that there is a gaping hole in the ground, where CERN used to be. :lol:
Click to expand...

The timing is pretty tricky..... :sly: I find it hard to believe their measuring time accurate to within a second over a million years. A million years from now the satellite wont exist! But OKAY....I'll take believe it. By using cesium clocks one no doubt gets an accurate measurement of time, but there are other processes along the way when measuring exact time of a particle from point A to point B. A computer has to hit the cesium clock's stop watch button!! :sly:

I WORK AT CERN by the way....and I can tell you most of the timing is done using the Rolex version of the Cesiums.....Expensive but it still takes some time to hit the button.
 
Last edited:
Rich S
The timing is pretty tricky..... :sly: I find it hard to believe their measuring time accurate to within a second over a million years. A million years from now the satellite wont exist! But OKAY....I'll take believe it. By using cesium clocks one no doubt gets an accurate measurement of time, but there are other processes along the way when measuring exact time of a particle from point A to point B. A computer has to hit the cesium clock's stop watch button!! :sly:

I WORK AT CERN by the way....and I can tell you most of the timing is done using the Rolex version of the Cesiums.....Expensive but it still takes some time to hit the button.
Click to expand...

Really? At the hidden, secret LHC back-up facility in Duluth, Minnesota?

The most accurate clocks are accurate to a second within a hundred million years... but of course, since you're using an Atomic Rolex, you should know that.
 
Rich S
The timing is pretty tricky..... :sly: I find it hard to believe their measuring time accurate to within a second over a million years. A million years from now the satellite wont exist! But OKAY....I'll take believe it. By using cesium clocks one no doubt gets an accurate measurement of time, but there are other processes along the way when measuring exact time of a particle from point A to point B. A computer has to hit the cesium clock's stop watch button!! :sly:

I WORK AT CERN by the way....and I can tell you most of the timing is done using the Rolex version of the Cesiums.....Expensive but it still takes some time to hit the button.
Click to expand...

Rich S
Believe it or not.....
Click to expand...

Being the guy who fixes the sandwich machine in the lobby doesn't count as "working at CERN".

So I'm gonna go with "not". If you work at CERN, we should all be a little worried. Especially if you find it hard to believe the accuracy of an atomic clock, the concept of which is based on very well known principals of physics.

Timing is instantaneous in a particle detector. There are no "buttons" to be pressed, metaphorical or otherwise. When a neutrino crosses the finish line, the clock stops.
 
dhandes
CERN breaks light speed barrier?

I didn't see that coming.
Click to expand...

Can you actually see things that go faster then light?

The particles in question are going through you at high speeds at this moment, you do not even feel that, to see them would be a step further.

I think indeed if it proves to be confirmed, it will be irrelevant for most of our daily lives, but it might bring revolutionary theories in the future.
 
Vince_Fiero
Can you actually see things that go faster then light?

The particles in question are going through you at high speeds at this moment, you do not even feel that, to see them would be a step further.

I think indeed if it proves to be confirmed, it will be irrelevant for most of our daily lives, but it might bring revolutionary theories in the future.
Click to expand...

If you cant see it than it isnt there. Whats happend to society, all this fancy scientific talk. :sly:
 

Similar threads

Dotini
UAP and Skinwalker Ranch News and Discussion
9 10 11
Replies
320
Views
36K
Paulzx
P
CnPx
Ideas for improving the penalty system
Replies
21
Views
2K
NikNakTobasco
NikNakTobasco
D
  • Locked
Your expectations for Update 1.44
Replies
3
Views
2K
Dena RACING
D
Tuono_GT
GT7 - Bad Behaviour
Replies
1
Views
875
OJBrit
OJBrit
Chrome_PuPXD
Gr3 Fuel Efficiency Comparison 1.44
Replies
10
Views
6K
Chrome_PuPXD
Chrome_PuPXD

Latest Posts

Back