Particle faster than speed of light:O

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/

Well, it's kind of wrong in that Einstein didn't say it wasn't possible for a particle to be faster than light, but simply that it would go back in time. So do you think this particle went back in time?

About time , lol ...

I was told that anything that travels faster then the speed of light would dissipate into energy, I guess that's not right then is it?

fatman123 wrote:I was told that anything that travels faster then the speed of light would dissipate into energy, I guess that's not right then is it?

True but we don't really fully understand what "pure energy" is, so may if reverts to it's og state once it slows down again... or something close to it...

This changes a lot now.

The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

Sensationalist media.

First, they make a broad claim about Einstein's theory without really understanding it.

Anyway, if this is found to be true, then they first need to repeat it, then they need to study it, and only then can Eninstein's theory be super-ceded. Which is the same treatment Einstein's theory got back then.

Eventhough, this does not change much for the practical world, as Newton's laws are still useful for us now despite being obsolete for higher speeds and such.

Hell, we use Greek and Muslim laws that are obsolete theoretically but work practically. This is huge for science, but nothing else, until they find ways to make use of it somehow.

Here's for time travel (I want to travel back in time and kick myself in the head for choosing politics/law over medicine)

the whole world believed that the earth was flat for thousands of years. Obviously scientific "facts" can turn out to be wrong sometimes

Here's for time travel (I want to travel back in time and kick myself in the head for choosing politics/law over medicine)

i feel ya bro, id like to go back in time and pick a different major as well, but unfortunately, travelling back in time is physically impossible

zizzle wrote:the whole world believed that the earth was flat for thousands of years. Obviously scientific "facts" can turn out to be wrong sometimes

Here's for time travel (I want to travel back in time and kick myself in the head for choosing politics/law over medicine)

i feel ya bro, id like to go back in time and pick a different major as well, but unfortunately, travelling back in time is physically impossible

I actually would like to travel back in time and kick myself in the head just to see how my past self would react

Lord Spencer wrote:

zizzle wrote:the whole world believed that the earth was flat for thousands of years. Obviously scientific "facts" can turn out to be wrong sometimes

Here's for time travel (I want to travel back in time and kick myself in the head for choosing politics/law over medicine)

i feel ya bro, id like to go back in time and pick a different major as well, but unfortunately, travelling back in time is physically impossible

I actually would like to travel back in time and kick myself in the head just to see how my past self would react

given the nature of his degree he's persuing, he'll probably try to negotiate a peacfull solution where you publically apologize, which you wont do coz you're the older one, and he'll end up screwing his present self so the future him, you, would suffer.

zizzle wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

zizzle wrote:the whole world believed that the earth was flat for thousands of years. Obviously scientific "facts" can turn out to be wrong sometimes

Here's for time travel (I want to travel back in time and kick myself in the head for choosing politics/law over medicine)

i feel ya bro, id like to go back in time and pick a different major as well, but unfortunately, travelling back in time is physically impossible

I actually would like to travel back in time and kick myself in the head just to see how my past self would react

given the nature of his degree he's persuing, he'll probably try to negotiate a peacfull solution where you publically apologize, which you wont do coz you're the older one, and he'll end up screwing his present self so the future him, you, would suffer.

You have no idea how this explains my family very well. My uncle really wanted to go to medicine as he liked the idea of being a doctor, and he got accepted into medical school. But because everyone wanted him to go to medicine, he sayed screw everybody, you don't control my life, and went somewhere else

I bet he wants a good kick in the head right now.

If you were able to time travel and kick your self in the head you would have been kicked in the head already

ZOMG Everythings we know today about physics and more will be changed by this... Exceptional.

I'd like to see them do this again, before accusing Einstein's theory of being at risk.

Lord Spencer wrote:
First, they make a broad claim about Einstein's theory without really understanding it.

You have no idea how bold you are with this claim do you?

Anyway it's not 100% confirmed. They have asked other laboratories to do more independent experiments to confirm it.

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

I just read on yahoo.de fascinatig!!!

teague wrote:

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

true, they didnt give any proofs concerning m-theory.

teague, what do you think about nuclear fusion? two hydrogen molecules fuse to helium. from start, 4 protons and 4 electrons fuse, yet afterwards you get 2 neutrons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. the funny part, overall helium weighs less than 2 hydrogen molecules, it means matter was transformed into energy. Im interested to know whether people experimented to make mass out of energy, like reversing this process which is very common in stars of universe. if you could reverse, universe would have potentially unbelievable amount of matter which isnt even detected..........

I-no wrote:I just read on yahoo.de fascinatig!!!

teague wrote:

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

true, they didnt give any proofs concerning m-theory.

teague, what do you about nuclear fusion? two hydrogen molecules fuse to helium. from start, 4 protons and 4 electrons fuse, yet afterwards you get 2 neutrons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. the funny part, overall helium weighs less than 2 hydrogen molecules, it means matter was transformed into energy. Im interested to know whether people experimented to make mass out of energy, like reversing this process which is very common in stars of universe. if you could reverse, universe would have poetentially unbelievable amout of mass which isnt even detected..........

People ARE interested in converting mass into energy. That's why governments are funding fusion energy research.

Regarding M-theory, fancy mathematical proof exists but not experimental proof.

teague wrote:

I-no wrote:I just read on yahoo.de fascinatig!!!

teague wrote:

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

true, they didnt give any proofs concerning m-theory.

teague, what do you about nuclear fusion? two hydrogen molecules fuse to helium. from start, 4 protons and 4 electrons fuse, yet afterwards you get 2 neutrons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. the funny part, overall helium weighs less than 2 hydrogen molecules, it means matter was transformed into energy. Im interested to know whether people experimented to make mass out of energy, like reversing this process which is very common in stars of universe. if you could reverse, universe would have poetentially unbelievable amout of mass which isnt even detected..........

People ARE interested in converting mass into energy. That's why governments are funding fusion energy research.

Regarding M-theory, fancy mathematical proof exists but not experimental proof.

I kno what people are interested in but if a scientist manages to create matter out of energy, imagine the aftereffects! nuclear fusion is proven already but not the other way around.
could you give me a link to the proof of m-theory?

Scientific theories only stand until they are disproved. Einstein's theories of relativity have been proven many times, but that does not mean it encompasses everything, is consistent for all conditions, or even correct. The Big Bang Theory is a great example of this. There are many facts and proofs to support this idea, but there are also facts and proofs to disprove this. Even though it has been proved, it is not the correct theory. All scientists know this. While they are trying to create a better explanation of the origin of the universe (through M-theory), they are still using this theory, as that is the best we have right now.

So far, M-theory hasn't been proven to be incorrect. There are many criticisms of it (such as the lack of experimental evidence of prediction abilities), but it still stands, as there have been no proofs to disprove it. And as long as that is the situation, it will be the most promising theory for the GUT.

I-no wrote:

teague wrote:

I-no wrote:I just read on yahoo.de fascinatig!!!

teague wrote:

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

true, they didnt give any proofs concerning m-theory.

teague, what do you about nuclear fusion? two hydrogen molecules fuse to helium. from start, 4 protons and 4 electrons fuse, yet afterwards you get 2 neutrons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. the funny part, overall helium weighs less than 2 hydrogen molecules, it means matter was transformed into energy. Im interested to know whether people experimented to make mass out of energy, like reversing this process which is very common in stars of universe. if you could reverse, universe would have poetentially unbelievable amout of mass which isnt even detected..........

People ARE interested in converting mass into energy. That's why governments are funding fusion energy research.

Regarding M-theory, fancy mathematical proof exists but not experimental proof.

I kno what people are interested in but if a scientist manages to create matter out of energy, imagine the aftereffects! nuclear fusion is proven already but not the other way around.
could you give me a link to the proof of m-theory?

I think there is a confusion here.

Fusion energy is the product of converting mass into energy. In fact, experiments of "mass into energy conversion" have been around for a long time since the first Tokamak reactor that was built in the 50's.

For the prove of M-theory you'll have to obviously search for Ed Witten's paper. Try arxiv.org.


Some quote: ...

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html

"The key concept behind the release of energy in fusion (and fission) reactions is binding energy. Binding energy is the energy that is lost when a nucleus is created from protons and neutrons. If you added up the total mass of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) that compose an atom, you would notice that this sum is less than the actual mass of the atom. This missing mass, called the mass defect, is a measure of the atom's binding energy."

That's nice, but not buying it until it's totally proven. I want fusion energy so bad, even if it means my country becomes obsolete overnight

teague wrote:

I-no wrote:

teague wrote:

I-no wrote:I just read on yahoo.de fascinatig!!!

teague wrote:

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

true, they didnt give any proofs concerning m-theory.

teague, what do you about nuclear fusion? two hydrogen molecules fuse to helium. from start, 4 protons and 4 electrons fuse, yet afterwards you get 2 neutrons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. the funny part, overall helium weighs less than 2 hydrogen molecules, it means matter was transformed into energy. Im interested to know whether people experimented to make mass out of energy, like reversing this process which is very common in stars of universe. if you could reverse, universe would have poetentially unbelievable amout of mass which isnt even detected..........

People ARE interested in converting mass into energy. That's why governments are funding fusion energy research.

Regarding M-theory, fancy mathematical proof exists but not experimental proof.

I kno what people are interested in but if a scientist manages to create matter out of energy, imagine the aftereffects! nuclear fusion is proven already but not the other way around.
could you give me a link to the proof of m-theory?

I think there is a confusion here.

Fusion energy is the product of converting mass into energy. In fact, experiments of "mass into energy conversion" have been around for a long time since the first Tokamak reactor that was built in the 50's.

For the prove of M-theory you'll have to obviously search for Ed Witten's paper. Try arxiv.org.


Some quote: ...

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html

"The key concept behind the release of energy in fusion (and fission) reactions is binding energy. Binding energy is the energy that is lost when a nucleus is created from protons and neutrons. If you added up the total mass of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) that compose an atom, you would notice that this sum is less than the actual mass of the atom. This missing mass, called the mass defect, is a measure of the atom's binding energy."

no confusion, you didnt understand me. I know, mass-> energy processes exist already. I'm looking for energy-> mass conversion. imagine if someone proves the later, tada! hahahaha

I-no wrote:

teague wrote:

I-no wrote:

teague wrote:

I-no wrote:I just read on yahoo.de fascinatig!!!

teague wrote:

Kevacious wrote:The interesting thing is, E=mc^2 has worked correctly for over a century now. For example, it was used to calculate energy outputs of nuclear bombs to great accuracy.

Personally, I think that this formula applies to MOST forms of matter, not ALL. Just because neutrinos don't obey this law doesn't mean that other forms of matter don't.

The problem now is that E=mc^2 isn't the holy grail in physics anymore. It is now a sub-formula in the GUT. In other words, Einstein's work is being superceded by other theories (aka M-theory). Just like how Newton's work became superceded by Einstein etc.

Anyway, this discovery is truly fascinating. Kudos to the scientists at CERN.

M-theory is just a hypothesis. Nobody has yet found a way (experimentally) to prove that the theory is completely true.

true, they didnt give any proofs concerning m-theory.

teague, what do you about nuclear fusion? two hydrogen molecules fuse to helium. from start, 4 protons and 4 electrons fuse, yet afterwards you get 2 neutrons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. the funny part, overall helium weighs less than 2 hydrogen molecules, it means matter was transformed into energy. Im interested to know whether people experimented to make mass out of energy, like reversing this process which is very common in stars of universe. if you could reverse, universe would have poetentially unbelievable amout of mass which isnt even detected..........

People ARE interested in converting mass into energy. That's why governments are funding fusion energy research.

Regarding M-theory, fancy mathematical proof exists but not experimental proof.

I kno what people are interested in but if a scientist manages to create matter out of energy, imagine the aftereffects! nuclear fusion is proven already but not the other way around.
could you give me a link to the proof of m-theory?

I think there is a confusion here.

Fusion energy is the product of converting mass into energy. In fact, experiments of "mass into energy conversion" have been around for a long time since the first Tokamak reactor that was built in the 50's.

For the prove of M-theory you'll have to obviously search for Ed Witten's paper. Try arxiv.org.


Some quote: ...

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html

"The key concept behind the release of energy in fusion (and fission) reactions is binding energy. Binding energy is the energy that is lost when a nucleus is created from protons and neutrons. If you added up the total mass of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) that compose an atom, you would notice that this sum is less than the actual mass of the atom. This missing mass, called the mass defect, is a measure of the atom's binding energy."

no confusion, you didnt understand me. I know, mass-> energy processes exist already. I'm looking for energy-> mass conversion. imagine if someone proves the later, tada! hahahaha

Energy conversion to mass is the basic theory of the creation of the universe.

Don't get too excited lads, nothing is official yet, the only ones talking about it ATM are Journalists.