Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

So, what do you think? Are the scientists wrong? Considering this would disprove Einsteins theory, what do you think the results would be? Space technology advancement?

There is still a chance they did some mistake which might've resulted in apparent velocity of neutrinos to exceed that of light. Was it true or not, I have no idea how we could apply this to modern physic?

If certain particles can indeed break the "speed-limit", then only one question is answered, and numerous others are raised from this.

Sweet, One step closer to the creation of the Millenium Falcon.

User infracted for this post: Useless post.

According to this article (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ght/50518790/1), the speed of light was exceeded by 60 nanoseconds and the margin of error was 10 nanoseconds. Not that anyone will be able to explain this, but how much of a difference do those 10 seconds make?

If both the fact that the recorded speed was 60 nanoseconds and the fact that the maximum error was 10 nanoseconds, that still leaves neutrinos to have gone at least 40 nanoseconds faster.


Shadow is not a physical object that could "move" >_> Shadow is what you see when there is a lack of light. If you move a ball past a source of light pointing at a wall, you don't see the shadow moving in the sense of having a velocity itself. The "speed" of shadow can't exceed that of the ball's.. This thing is so obvious you should have figured it out by yourself.


No shit they are about the same. Formerly neutrinos have been known to be subatomic particles which travel near the speed of light. What is much more significant is that in some way they might have broken the speed limit we have thought to be a universal law. Saying "they're about the same" is not a contribution to the discussion.

Vox Moderated Message:

A) 60-10 = 50, not 40, also that's not what statistics implies, it's rather more complex than that since there could be mistakes involved, this result is "statistically significant", meaning it's under 5% probability that this was just random luck. B) The user Ginkey was clearly joking. C) Please do not use crude language in an insulting manor in discussion, doing this again will result in an infraction.

*Gone at least 50 nanoseconds faster, excuse my typo. The strength of my point was only related to that after the possible error there was still plenty of room for that they were right nevertheless.
*Was it joking or not, the statement was in itself so silly I had to disprove it so it wouldn't hang there without a response.
*k mom

Just wondering. Is the speed of shadow faster than speed of light?

Nothing in the universe can travel at the speed of light, they say, forgetful of the shadow's speed. ~Howard Nemerov

Vox Moderated Message:

Nice quote, but this is off topic, do not make off topic posts please.

Einstein's theory of relativity is, like all theories, not immune to revision. If a contrary example comes up, like this event (possibly (after all, they still want independent sources to review to make sure they were correct)), it forces the revision of the theory, or the adoption of another theory.

Not being a physicist, I'll patiently wait until they reach a conclusion on the validity of this finding. If it's a false alarm, oh well, at least science is earning its paycheck. If it's right, fuck I need to retake physics.

The Theory of Relativity cannot be revised. It is made completely on the belief that nothing can travel faster than light. According to the Theory of Relativity, objects travelling faster than the speed of light will go backwards in time.

Vox Moderated Message:

Please provide a citation when making a claim, no matter how obvious you think it is.

And that implies that time always goes forward. We have never established for certain that you can't go back in time, merely we're not capable of it. If I remember some string theory mumbo jumbo I heard a while back, it can be likened that time is like a 4th dimension and, being on the 3rd dimension, we can only progress linearly along the 4th dimension. However, something that exists on the 4th dimension can go backwards and forwards through time, similarly how we can go backwards and forwards within 3 dimensional space. It was posted here a while back, I'll see if I can find the video that explained it.

Vox Moderated Message:

Please do provide a citation when making a claim.

A simpler rebuttal would be, if the theory is made on the belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, that theory is null if an instance is discovered where something does travel faster than the speed of light. In this case, it is possible the theory has been made obsolete.

Just wondering why is this such a huge deal?
Are they planning to use this later on with technology

Like time travel?