Holy shit, CERN broke the light barrier.

[BRPXQZME]

I agree. Half this thread is abutt killing jokes. Why, if I assed the questionings in here I would be posteriorly crushed that I could have been so humorless as to tokhes obvious tall tails so fundamentally stern.

(iregretnothing.gif)

[Next gen Cowboy]

You might want to, uh, look up how to spell 'annals' before you try to use it in a sentence again, sir. ¬.¬

Don't get annal retentive with me my good man!

In all seriousness there are assumptions I can make, and I do, and that's all they are. The first being that moving something to the speed of light with mass is not possible as long a there's an outside force acting upon it. As something moves faster and faster and apraoches the speed of light it expands, and the energy it takes to push farther towards the speed of light increases (by some number I'm sure is known, but is unknown to me)

The thing is I have no way of knowing if sub-atomic particles react the same, and I still truly believe it's possible. If for no other reason than my statement earlier, I have to know if the universe expands faster than the speed of light!

TL:DR - I'm not qualified to speak on such matter with people who take such things too seriously, I still think it's possible. Either by creating a space in which friction, and/or all other outside influences are negated (sub-space, black holes...) or by speeding something up in space which is not yet created (by being expanded into, assuming space expands father than light)

It's more philosophical to me than scientific. It's still fun though.

[DarkSol]

In all seriousness there are assumptions I can make, and I do, and that's all they are. The first being that moving something to the speed of light with mass is not possible as long a there's an outside force acting upon it. As something moves faster and faster and apraoches the speed of light it expands, and the energy it takes to push farther towards the speed of light increases (by some number I'm sure is known, but is unknown to me)

E=mc²

[Next gen Cowboy]

E=mc²

Lack of tone on the internetz kills my jokes =(

In retrospect I should have said formulae so that's my fault. I was actually on my way here to change that before anyone noticed, alas you're too quick...

[DarkSol]

Lack of tone on the internetz kills my jokes =(

In retrospect I should have said formulae so that's my fault. I was actually on my way here to change that before anyone noticed, alas you're too quick...

*huffs on fingertips*

[Jorpho]

It's more philosophical to me than scientific. It's still fun though.

It's all fun and games until someone decides they need to start shaping public policy. 

[Next gen Cowboy]

If I knew any one-eyed scientist I would counter with that... I don't 

Gawd my humor is either extremely dry, or I've gone over the deep-end.

[DankPanties]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light?newsfeed=true

[Talbain]

So, so far it still appears that they broke the speed of light?  Pretty amazing stuff.

[SargeSmash]

They're still doing tests on other instrumentation, making sure there are no errors.  It's holding up...  so far.

[DankPanties]

Necrorelevant.

[MisterJones]

The explanation makes it sound quite ridiculous. The comments in the new support my statement. I am willing to bet there were actually internal disputes around and came up with such bullshit. I mean, I pull that sily card rather often, i wouldn't be surprised they would too. It is better that publicly expose heated arguments within.

[SargeSmash]

As someone who has to explain anomalous data from experiments from time to time, on stuff that is far simpler than what's being attempted here, I can totally understand the mistake.  Although, personally, I'd have verified and verified again before saying anything.  But I suspect something like this would have been hard to bottle up, even if there were a possibility of it not being true.  And of course the media loves to just run with stories that they don't understand.

[KaioShin]

Although, personally, I'd have verified and verified again before saying anything.

No one said this officially, it was so far only one unconfirmed source. This is BS until I hear an official word on it.

[Talbain]

No one said this officially, it was so far only one unconfirmed source. This is BS until I hear an official word on it.

Yeah, I'm in agreement here.  This seems like a way to not state anything relevant about the subject (such as specifics of how the time could be off, what bearing the cable had on the time, etc.) and still "say" something.

[Nec5]

I broke the light barrier first.

[MisterJones]

Still havent broker the heavy barrier tho.

[I.S.T.]

As someone who has to explain anomalous data from experiments from time to time, on stuff that is far simpler than what's being attempted here, I can totally understand the mistake.  Although, personally, I'd have verified and verified again before saying anything.  But I suspect something like this would have been hard to bottle up, even if there were a possibility of it not being true.  And of course the media loves to just run with stories that they don't understand.

To be fair, they did re-run the experiment more than once before reporting the initial findings.

[Panzer88]

I wonder if some bible-belt tards are already using this for some claim that science is wrong and that god moved the particles.

I assure you, there are just as many new age wackos that'll say it explains how mother nature formed the earth and moved the great hand of evolution

back on topic I'm excited to see science moving forward. Woot for new discoveries that challenge us all to think outside the box and understand the universe we live in better!

[DankPanties]

I was listening to NPR on my drive home from work, and heard something related.  It seems the original scientists who announced the neutrino experiment, and then mentioned the cable issue, have decided to try again.  This time they are going to use multiple measuring devices, aside from just the optical communication.  Not entirely unlike setting up a triple blind test or what have you.  Any way, the calibrations and preparations will take until spring.  But, within the next few months we should get a more definitive answer to put this issue to rest.

I believe that it's possible to exceed the speed of light.  I'm too tired to explain why at the moment.  Maybe later, and somebody with a deeper understanding of subatomic physics can tell me how wrong I am.