Topic: Particles faster than light measured.

[Anti_Photon]

And by legit scientists too!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/22/technology-particles-light-speed.html

Of course this will need to be reproduced and confirmed. But assuming this does turn out to be true, what do you think this means? We'll need to edit our theories of course. But what kind of advances and new technologies do you think this could lead to?

[hothot]

Probably would only advance theoretical physics and new tech would be years and years behind since it is obviously difficult to obtain these results. Be very helpful in the search for the grand unified theory though i imagine.

[Copyleft]

Interesting, albeit preliminary. I'm glad to see that the CERN team is requesting indpendent verification before they even claim to have discovered anything.

[Skeptress]

I'll hold out my joy for replication.

[Schwarzwald]

It would also invalidate a majority of all modern physics that have been done since relativity, since most modern physics is only acceptable if it conforms to relativity.

Generations of work could potentially become invalidated overnight.

[Skulker]

I think we wait and see what happens. These guys are handling it the right way and are being cautious.
My gut and Occam's razor tell me they will find a simpler explaination for what they have seen.

[drwfishesman]

I'm calling BS on this right now!!! 

[gs]

aren't neutrinos those ridiculously hard to measure particles scientists try and find in the large globes of heavy water deep under the surface of the earth??

Were they able to detect when and where one of them hit because they fired a BEAM of the particles?

[Halloran]

[Mormegil]

Aren't tachyons suppose to go faster than light, if they exist?

[amysrevenge]

I'll hold out my joy for replication.

Ditto.  Someone on Twitter said it succinctly, paraphasing that it is much much more likely to be a systematic experimental error than FTL particles.

(Of course "much much more likely" makes no absolute statements such as "impossible" either, which is just as wishy-washy as I like my science to be.)

[Unlimited]

They have been doing this for years, and have accumulated a substantial data set. Could they just be lying? Maybe.

Things with mass cannot reach the speed of light because thats the limit on how fast things can go. When you near light speed, your mass increases exponentially, so that if you were trying to actually go the speed of light with something as massive as say, a sheet of paper, it would take more energy then there is in the universe to do it. Right?

Well maybe neutrinos are the particles that are actually without mass. Light may have like .00001% the mass of any other particle, yet still have mass, and therefore subject to the exponential increase in the energy it takes to propel the particle. Accounting for the "slowness" of light when compared to neutrinos.

Probably not, but if so, I called it.

[Dr.PastaMaker]

I was actually quite baffled when I first read this. Wow. So much to rethink

[Chew]

This same team claimed the same thing a few years ago. I am skeptical.

Well, I'm always skeptical, but you know what I mean.

[Unlimited]

The only line I don't like, and wish the would have elaborated on is:

He cautioned that the neutrino researchers would have to explain why similar results weren't detected before

.