So after finally reading the news paper, E no longer = MC^2? Doesn't that mean that the worlds theories are going to all be wrong? Most of them are based on that one theory... where does that leave us now?

More likely the discovery is wrong. I had a good article from a physicist on it, should have kept it.

For thoese who haven't seen this news... this is basically what's happened...

- CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) claims neutrinos went faster than the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second)
- A neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light

If you find it please feel free to send it to me. I'd love to have a look

What's cool for me is I was just at CERN touring where they send the neutrinos from, talking to a scientist about the neutrino experiment, about two days before this was announced.

That must have been so cool. I would love to go on a tour around the CERN labs.

Do you mean miles?

Also, a difference of 60x10^-9 could probably be attributed to the fact that the Italian instruments were not calibrated properly or something along those lines.*

*I have no idea how close physicists have been able to get to the exact number of the speed of light so 60 nanomiles could actually be a big difference but I doubt it...

The CERN result is almost certainly a systematic error in their detection system.

However, if it is true, it throws the principle of relativity into question, which is much more basic than E=mc^2. A direct result from the relativity principle is that there is a maximum velocity, and only one possible velocity can be the maximum. This is even true in Newtonian mechanics, where the maximum velocity is infinity. In modern physics, it has been determined that this maximum velocity is c, and I know that this has been found as a result of quantum mechanics as well as on the larger relativistic scale you usually hear about (Einstein). A photon can move at c, and never any other speed. A particle that moves below c, can never reach c or above. And finally, a particle going faster than c, can never reach c or go below. This basic understanding of how physics translates through frames of reference is the basis of all modern physics since the early 1900's.

Thus, if this is a true result and they can produce random neutrinos going faster than c, all of modern physics is called into question, and what we thought we understood about the basic relationship between physics in different frames is certainly wrong to some degree.

That said, I will reiterate my original point, that it is 99.9% likely to be a systematic error, and as someone from my department who works at CERN said, "If you find an error, you fix it. You don't publicize it."




The speed of light is actually a definition, from which the modern meter is calculated (using international standard for time keeping).

To answer your question, though, before the re-definition, it was measured to an accuracy on the scale of 10^(-9).

If you find yourself in the area around Geneva I highly recommend it. Of course you can't go down into the actual LHC since it's sealed off and in operation (they're saying that there might be a time tours are open to down there in a year or two when they open it back up for some reconstruction). In the end you don't see a lot of the actual operations, just a look into the command center for ATLAS and a chance to talk to one of the scientists who leads your tour. But the exhibits are also quite interesting and extensive, so what you see of the operations is icing on the cake. Plan to spend a while at the Universe of Particles exhibit, and also, don't be surprised at some pretty impressive displays about computing history, too, since CERN's particle physics work has also driven a lot of major advances in computing science to make the systems to record, filter, and distribute the massive amounts of data they produce. (The brightest example of course is the very first web server, and Tim Berners-Lee's notes with it; but there's a lot more than that.)

Here's my photo album from my tour of CERN, if you're interested. Of course, most of the best stuff is hard to photograph.

You just reminded me of awesome fieldtrips I used to have.

Well then, there goes my "insignificant difference" argument...

Even if subsequent experiments uphold CERN's findings, it's unlikely to make work based on special relativity suddenly unusable.

Classical mechanics was shown to be incorrect back around 1905 but the discovery of the ultraviolet catastrophy didn't stop classical mechanics being applied in a huge range of applications today.

These findings (if they're not from some sort of error) may lead to restrictions on where special relativity may be applied, and excitingly might lead to some new theory. I doubt they'll invalidate it altogether.

This. Relativity obviously works in at least some set of cases, since its effects are absolutely essential to many things that are either observed or used - see GPS, for example. Like Newtonian mechanics, relativity will still hold in many cases, but there could very well be points at which it breaks down, just as Newtonian physics break down at the very macroscopic level (relativity takes over) and the very, very microscopic level (quantum mechanics takes over). When you move away from these two extremes, the effects of each grow weaker, and so can be approximated. It's plenty possible that we've found the point at which relativity breaks. And either relativity or quantum mechanics breaking at some point is, as I recall, necessary if we want to fully explain physics, since the ways gravity works in each to do not play well with each other; ergo, one or the other is wrong somewhere.

Of course, if it is just some sort of error, then there's nothing to worry about for now.

This is very true. It really changes nothing for anyone not a theoretical physicist, but for us, its a bit like the sun turning purple one day. In terms of numerical calculations, Newtonian gravity still holds even on scales as large as galaxies with very little correction necessary. General relativity has matched every test thought up for it for the last 50 years with very little difficulty to the precision possible in the experiments. So even if it were true, as you say, it wouldn't change how we do calculations.

The probable explanations, in order of likelihood are "CERN's instruments were incorrectly calibrated" "There is a bug in the computers at CERN" "Photons are massive particles with a mass between 0 and 10^-18 eV/c2" and "The theory of relativity is incorrect."

*puts on tin foil hat*

It will be mulled over by the press and eventually be ruled an error, even though its not.

*takes off tin foil hat*

OMG yes I had the tour in July and even without being able to go down and see the actual equipment it was awesome, mostest recommend this! *doubleplusgood*

But meanwhile I am highly anticipating the findings of this. Actually the BEST result this year would be a confirmation that the Higgs was NOT found in the expected energy range and that the spped of light HAD been broken, because that would open the door to so much more awesome Physics...

Remember, Netwtons "Laws" were thought of as such... until Einstein came along and proved otherwise

Ooh turns out Newton was just a good approximation.. well, whoda thought!

The whole fucking point of science... is to have an open mind

Also, German joke...

Bist du klug wie einstein?

Say it out loud