Science Topic

[Vigor Mortis]

As for me, I am deeply enamored with Cosmology and Astrophysics.So, what do you guys think about the news that a neutrino went faster than light?

[BenLuke]

If it turns out not to be a mistake... Faster then light communication ( if not travel) is possible. Cool.

[Lara White]

I'm still on the edge about the FTL news, but the repeatability is encouraging.My favorite aspect of science is either astrophysics or psychology.

[Eeko]

I really hope FTL is not true, almost all of modern physics would have to be re-invented.

[-Toa Lhikevikk-]

An aerogel is a type of micro-lattice, so yes.

Aerogels aren't metallic, though, are they?Also where did this news about FTL neutrinos come from? I'm very much interested.

[Transcendence]

Psychology has to be my favorite science. It's so, so interesting.

[Taka Nuvia]

I really hope FTL is not true, almost all of modern physics would have to be re-invented.

While this would certainly be kind of...uncomfortable, it would also require re-inventors, in other words, physics might get more important again, and maybe appeal to a larger group of people. At least that's what I think...But somehow I think FTL just originated from some measurement errors we'll see_{(side note: sorry if the way I put things is awkward, I'm really tired and it has been an awful day. ><)}

[Alex Humva]

Being an engineer at heart I love science. Thermodynamics is fun and headache inducing at the same time. It's weird.With all these new discoveries and world breaking events and all science is really going somewhere now. Before we know it will be using fusion reactors to fuel the world and building space elevators.

[Skarloth]

I hope this news of FTL is true, because that means there's no speed limit! :DIt also means easier travel to other worlds and galaxies, which mankind will have to accomplish to survive.FTL =/= Faster Than Light, correct?-Skar

[Ehksidian]

Ah, the space elevator.A somewhat impossible project...but, of course, with carbon nanotubes it may be possible one day.but I doubt it will be used for people... more likely for cargo, large shipments, supplies, etc to colonies on other planets.

[Alex Humva]

Yeah, space elevators are a tricky thing to build, and with carbon nanotubes out of the question -at least, with our current understanding of them-, it'll be a while before we can build one, nor less one that'll bring people into space.As you see, scientists have found out that when exposed to solar radiation, nanotubes just don't hold up too well. They start to come apart and the last thing you need is your tether coming loose.

[Ehksidian]

but, with nanotube out of the question for space elevators, I can easily imagine a new thing:Underwater trains.The trains would use hydro electricity sotred in a battery, and have a turbine on the back to push it forward, and to charge the battery (Essentially creating endless motion, but when it stops, it would need to be recharged, not always haaving power. Similar to a car with the ability to convert movement to energy to move. It stops, it needs to be pushed to get it started. And, of course, more energy consumed then gained, so eventual drain).They would cut down on train pollution, transport goods far faster with little worry of the weather, and could be made into a passanger system if slowed down.Relativly expensive, however.

[Alex Humva]

...Yeeeeeeah, I'm only a teenage high school student but I know enough about thermodynamics and the laws of motion in general to know that isn't going to work.There is no free lunch; moving an object takes energy. Kinetic energy moves the object but has some of it's energy turned into thermal energy, which disperses. Assuming your train idea could draw it's power from a turbine -which causes it's own problems-, it must not only recycle the energy but also overcome water resistance. The resistance will drain the kinetic energy by both just plain transferring the energy and by turning it into heat from friction. Perpetual motion is a universal no-no. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there is no free lunch. Energy cannot just be recycled like that.Using your comparison of a car moving, that energy MUST BE USED to move the car. It can't just be then recycled and used again, because the energy has been expended and been converted to other forms of energy. Some of it remains, but the remaining bits decrease extremely quickly.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Cartographer Alex Humva

[Ghosthands]

but, with nanotube out of the question for space elevators, I can easily imagine a new thing:Underwater trains.The trains would use hydro electricity sotred in a battery, and have a turbine on the back to push it forward, and to charge the battery (Essentially creating endless motion, but when it stops, it would need to be recharged, not always haaving power. Similar to a car with the ability to convert movement to energy to move. It stops, it needs to be pushed to get it started. And, of course, more energy consumed then gained, so eventual drain).They would cut down on train pollution, transport goods far faster with little worry of the weather, and could be made into a passanger system if slowed down.Relativly expensive, however.

Using a turbine on the top to "create endless motion" wouldn't work. That would be a perpetual motion machine, which, according to at least one of Newton's laws of thermodynamics, cannot exist. Energy would be lost due to the water's friction on the train.And since when do you have to push a car to start it? :PEDIT: Curses. Science-ninja'd. Edited November 24, 2011 by Ghosthands

[Alex Humva]

I personally see electromagnetic trains at the way to go. Assuming you have a powerful enough source -and if one lives in, say, Iceland, where there's plenty of geothermal energy to tap into-, you can get going VERY fast with minimal risk to passengers so long as you accelerate slowly.Being about to go 2km/s would be very nice indeed for cross-country or even just intercity transportation. Horrible if it goes off the rails and crashes but fantastic if it's OSHA compliant.

[Vigor Mortis]

I really hope FTL is not true, almost all of modern physics would have to be re-invented.

But that is exactly why science exists: to be made better. Nature doesn't abide by our petty rules; she moves of her own volition and it is up to us to piece together her movements.

[Ehksidian]

What I'm saying is this:A car goes faster down a hill then up. The motion, which is affected by friction and sound of tires hitting the ground, will be affected by gravity, but eventually will stop. The same car is able to convert the energy of motion into more motion, BUT, like you said, the other conversions would occur, tooWhat I'm thinking of is a bike, essentially. Move your feet, the wheels move. Same with the car. You push it down the hill, or push it, it moves. It will be affected by all sorts of other energy, but some energy would be recycled.Moving underwater train would create power, but lose some to movement of the water around it, etc. But, there would still be energy gained.One trip fules the next. The first trip is the only one fuled on fuel.The battery is what's powered, and there's always 2 batteries aboard. One for use, the other for charging.I'm actually surprised I can concieve this, even if it's a screwy idea. Because I'm only in 8th grade.I'd draw it, but I'm no artist.Electromagnetism would work faster.Kinetic motion engines (Which do exist) would only work for non-moving objects (In Tokyo I think, they replaced the sidewalks with kinetic energy collectors. People walked on them, and it fueled the lights on the street) in very populated places.Geothermic and hydroelectric currently seem the most viable clean sorces until they develop solar panels that convert 70% or more of sunlight into energy, instead of 30-40%. Wind energy only works in wind zones.I'm learning about energy right now. So, that's why I'm focusing on this.I may update this with a quick illistration of that train engine...

[Kaleidoscope Tekulo]

I really hope FTL is not true, almost all of modern physics would have to be re-invented.

While this would certainly be kind of...uncomfortable, it would also require re-inventors, in other words, physics might get more important again, and maybe appeal to a larger group of people. At least that's what I think...But somehow I think FTL just originated from some measurement errors we'll see_{(side note: sorry if the way I put things is awkward, I'm really tired and it has been an awful day. ><)}

From what I've heard there was something that was not accounted for (something to do with satellites and their perception of time due to their use of GPS. You know how the faster you move, the more your perception of time changes? I think it had something to do with that, though I'm not entirely sure...)But, we'll see. It's an interesting study and I'd love to hear what comes up from further research.

[Eeko]

What I'm saying is this:A car goes faster down a hill then up. The motion, which is affected by friction and sound of tires hitting the ground, will be affected by gravity, but eventually will stop. The same car is able to convert the energy of motion into more motion, BUT, like you said, the other conversions would occur, tooWhat I'm thinking of is a bike, essentially. Move your feet, the wheels move. Same with the car. You push it down the hill, or push it, it moves. It will be affected by all sorts of other energy, but some energy would be recycled.Moving underwater train would create power, but lose some to movement of the water around it, etc. But, there would still be energy gained.One trip fules the next. The first trip is the only one fuled on fuel.The battery is what's powered, and there's always 2 batteries aboard. One for use, the other for charging.I'm actually surprised I can concieve this, even if it's a screwy idea. Because I'm only in 8th grade.I'd draw it, but I'm no artist.Electromagnetism would work faster.Kinetic motion engines (Which do exist) would only work for non-moving objects (In Tokyo I think, they replaced the sidewalks with kinetic energy collectors. People walked on them, and it fueled the lights on the street) in very populated places.Geothermic and hydroelectric currently seem the most viable clean sorces until they develop solar panels that convert 70% or more of sunlight into energy, instead of 30-40%. Wind energy only works in wind zones.I'm learning about energy right now. So, that's why I'm focusing on this.I may update this with a quick illistration of that train engine...

The problem with that, is that due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, (I think), a system can never experience an internal increase in energy, it cam only remain the same or decrease. So, while it is a very good idea to use the motion of a vehicle to charge it's fuel source, (in fact, many hybrid cars now use this idea), it can never charge the battery enough to power it continuously. It will always output less energy then was put in.

[Ehksidian]

And this is why 8th grade physics need to go more in depth.>,<Anyways, it would be a system of 2 batteries (Hybrid cars engine and battery, similar concept but all electric)One battery uses power, second is charged.But, of course, it owuld have to be charged when it is not moving.Water moves turbines, produces electricity. But not enough, so the object stops at a charging station, or somewhere where the water moves, and anchors down. It charges, and eventually gaines enough power to start up and run.Not exactly very pratical, but less pollutants flooding ocean/atmosphere.Or it'll be an underwater hybrid car idea: Burns little gas, but uses the movement of water to fuel its secondary battery.I'd better shut up now.

[Eeko]

And this is why 8th grade physics need to go more in depth.>,<Anyways, it would be a system of 2 batteries (Hybrid cars engine and battery, similar concept but all electric)One battery uses power, second is charged.But, of course, it owuld have to be charged when it is not moving.Water moves turbines, produces electricity. But not enough, so the object stops at a charging station, or somewhere where the water moves, and anchors down. It charges, and eventually gaines enough power to start up and run.Not exactly very pratical, but less pollutants flooding ocean/atmosphere.Or it'll be an underwater hybrid car idea: Burns little gas, but uses the movement of water to fuel its secondary battery.I'd better shut up now.

The other thing, is that it'd be less efficient then a train with turbines in the air. The drag force from the water is more than you would get from the extra force on the turbines.

[Space: Ocean of Awe]

There are these cool and relatively new things, flying wind turbines. They gather way more energy than normal windmills, and they come in all shapes and sizes, they're quite cool.@The X: I have been playing around with a similar idea, the problem is it will take more energy to charge the second battery. The train in the water will end up using just as much energy as was produced, to deal with the extra resistance. For something like going downhill and charging could work. Some electric cars will make energy when you brake, but (I have been thinking a lot about this) it takes as much energy as is created for a car driving and charging at the same time. Though apparently you can attach little wind turbines to the roof of your car, they don't interfere too much.Hey anybody know about the new "Earth" that was discovered? Pretty awesome, now we just need to make quantum teleportation (entanglement) possible with giant, 1000 ton objects, over a huge distance...=)

[Alex Humva]

Something I don't get, so please guys, tell me. With the Hubble Space Telescope, our biggest and best space telescope ever, we can barely get a decent picture of Pluto. You know, the planet (or, if you want to climb over schematics, dwarf planet) in our own bloody solar system.How the **** can we figure out whether or not a planet twenty some light years away is Earth-like? Yes, yes, I'm aware of methods like watching black spots on a star and seeing the wobble of a star from the gravity of a planet. But that only gives us the size. Seeing a planet that's about Earth size and calling it an Earth-like planet is just plain absurd; Venus is near our size and viewed from that distance we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, yet it is not a vacation resort.I'm just saying, finding 'Earth-like planets' is pretty tough as it is, and our current methods only allow for us to see the shape and orbit. Sure, the planet may be in that special area of space that'll allow for decent temperatures, and it may be the size of Earth, but it does not mean we need to get our hopes up over colonization of it.

[Eeko]

Something I don't get, so please guys, tell me. With the Hubble Space Telescope, our biggest and best space telescope ever, we can barely get a decent picture of Pluto. You know, the planet (or, if you want to climb over schematics, dwarf planet) in our own bloody solar system.How the **** can we figure out whether or not a planet twenty some light years away is Earth-like? Yes, yes, I'm aware of methods like watching black spots on a star and seeing the wobble of a star from the gravity of a planet. But that only gives us the size. Seeing a planet that's about Earth size and calling it an Earth-like planet is just plain absurd; Venus is near our size and viewed from that distance we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, yet it is not a vacation resort.I'm just saying, finding 'Earth-like planets' is pretty tough as it is, and our current methods only allow for us to see the shape and orbit. Sure, the planet may be in that special area of space that'll allow for decent temperatures, and it may be the size of Earth, but it does not mean we need to get our hopes up over colonization of it.

That's about all we know about the 'Earth-like' planet. Just the size and temperature. We still don't know what it's made of, or what kind of atmosphere it has. The reason people are excited over it, is that out of all the Earth-like planets we've ever seen, this one has the most potential to be survivable.

[Space: Ocean of Awe]

I think it has something to do with the goldilocks zone. That's the distance from the planet to the star where the conditions are just right for a planet to have water in liquid form. Earth is in the goldilocks zone, not too hot or too cold, solar radiation is not lethal at this distance, and water exists as a liquid. The zone is different distances for different stars, depending on their mass, how hot they are and all that.That planet was in the zone, it's not too much bigger than Earth (it's about twice our size), and the star it orbits is quite similar to the Sun. So all those pt together make it a potentially habitable planet.Venus, although it's roughly Earth's size, is not in the goldilocks zone, it's closer therefor it's not habitable. So it's really just the distance from the star and the mass that matters, I suppose the star type...People get excited because it's not much larger than Earth, it's in the zone, orbits a similar star, and possibly has water. It's not every day that you find something like this.=)

[Alex Humva]

@Eeko: Alright then, I guess that's understandable.@Space OoA: Which planet are we talking about here, Kepler-22b or Gliese 581? I'm assuming 581, considering you're saying it's twice the size of the Earth. Yeah, Gliese looks rather promising, though the twenty light year distance puts a crinch in things. Sadly we won't really know if it has water until we go there with a probe; something that will be ever so troublesome considering the twenty light years thing.EDIT: Just realized both Gliese and Kepler are twice the size of Earth xD.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Cartographer Alex Humva

[-Toa Lhikevikk-]

Isn't Gliese 581 supposed to be tidally locked, though?

[Mr. Fluffy]

Universal theory has always been a topic of interest to me. Although theology often comes up when universal theory is discussed, so I'll just leave it.In my Physics II class, we're covering refraction, including how mirages and rainbows form. Interesting stuff.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Superbionicle

[Legolover-361]

I'm rather partial to astronomy, logic / philosophy (kind of a science), and whatever sciences include conceptualizing technological ideas for the future (like science fiction authors will often do). Biology is okay. The concept side of physics is cool, but I'm rather averse to the mathematics portion.

Something I don't get, so please guys, tell me. With the Hubble Space Telescope, our biggest and best space telescope ever, we can barely get a decent picture of Pluto. You know, the planet (or, if you want to climb over schematics, dwarf planet) in our own bloody solar system.How the **** can we figure out whether or not a planet twenty some light years away is Earth-like? Yes, yes, I'm aware of methods like watching black spots on a star and seeing the wobble of a star from the gravity of a planet. But that only gives us the size. Seeing a planet that's about Earth size and calling it an Earth-like planet is just plain absurd; Venus is near our size and viewed from that distance we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, yet it is not a vacation resort.I'm just saying, finding 'Earth-like planets' is pretty tough as it is, and our current methods only allow for us to see the shape and orbit. Sure, the planet may be in that special area of space that'll allow for decent temperatures, and it may be the size of Earth, but it does not mean we need to get our hopes up over colonization of it.

That's about all we know about the 'Earth-like' planet. Just the size and temperature. We still don't know what it's made of, or what kind of atmosphere it has. The reason people are excited over it, is that out of all the Earth-like planets we've ever seen, this one has the most potential to be survivable.

I think the key lies in how the planet is detected in the first place.Different materials give off different light when energized; it follows that when given a light spectrum, perhaps from a distant planet, you can check to see whether a material's own spectrum fits into the one you're studying. A star has a recognizable light spectrum from which scientists can ascertain some (if not all) types of materials it contains; when a planet passes in front of the star, even though the difference in light is incredibly miniscule, especially in the case of planets Earth-sized or smaller, there's still a light difference. I don't know if current technology is sophisticated enough to pick out a planet's individual spectrum from a star's overwhelming one, but it is possible to do so as long as you have sensitive detectors. Edited December 12, 2011 by Legolover-361

[Coob]

I don't know if current technology is sophisticated enough to pick out a planet's individual spectrum from a star's overwhelming one

It is. Just that little difference in the spectrum the telescope receives is enough to determine the composition of the planet fairly accurately. It's mindblowing how accurate our methods of measurement are.Another way of determining the composition of a planet is through mathematics alone. Using Kepler's laws, you can calculate the mass of a planet if you know its orbital velocity. And by studying how much of the star's light the planet blocks when passing in front of it, you can determine its size. With mass and size you can calculate the average density of the planet, which tells you if the planet is mainly gaseous, liquid or solid.If it's mainly rocky, like earth, has a atmosphere like we have and is in the habitable zone, you can be pretty sure it's earth-like and possibly life-supporting. Edited December 29, 2011 by Coob

[We Are _G.R.I.D_]

SO.MUCH.NERD-SPEAK.(P.S: I prefix my life with "I could be wrong")But, thats okay, because i skimmed the last page anyway, I think it would be well if everyone involved (since they have listed their are of interest) should indeed list their credentials. now as i expect few to none college graduates, and more "i watched a nova on it" than "i studied at a library for a month" i will not bug you about your credentials.The reason, however, of why i bring credentials up, is that i would indeed like to make a lasting contribution to your questions and efforts. I believe i can do this, but you may not, so i will list my credentials.I say this now, however, i do not keep up with the modern times due to my work in electronics, so by all means, if i say something glaring wrong due to new information, feel free to correct me. I only claim as much being right as what was taught to me, and beyond that i can only make hypotheses as to the nature of anything...1: credentials, a: my father was a mechanic for 20 years and has taught me much about the internal combustion engine. the reason i list this first is because someone was talking about the way a car creates energy for itself, and i will be addressing this topic later. b: i have watched the entire nova series on M theory, and will say many things about it when i get a chance to. That said, this falls under the "rendered irrelevant by recent developments" clause because it was filmed before the CERN supercollider was made, so obviously it could be wrong. c: i have studied on my own electromagnetic theory, gravitic theory, various theories on space travel, by rocket and other means, and various other areas of intellectual curiosity such as psychology, semantics, animal behavior, and counseling.now that my creds are out of the way, let us begin with my area of intrest: Well, particle physics is quite entertaining, but i lack the math for it, i just know the absolute knowledge of the material at hand, and it could be proven wrong by recent development. So my primary field of research and entertainment has been electronic arts, such as circuitry, logical operations, coding lanugage, the worksNow onto topic 1!gravitic theory, as taka nuvia started the discussion with!M theory would like to describe gravitic force as being a weak force in small amount with it being large in large amount, they still do not know what CAUSES gravity, but they have mathematically worked out the reason why it is so weak in small amount: Gravity particles are escaping out of our membrane and into others.Good luck with that lolNow onto the perpetual motion engine of the automobile....The point was raised that an underwater train could generate electricity to power itself by forcing a turbine to turn.... Yeah......No, ROFLThe point was raised that a car does the same thing, but successfully.... YeahhhhhhNo LOLThe alternator in the car is powered by the drive belt off the engine as to create electricity by use of a magnetic generator. Its purpose is to do 2 things;1: Charge the battery2: Fuel the spark plugsIf you notice, the working of an internal combustion engine is electronic sparks controlled by computer igniting gasoline and air under high pressure to turn a piston. The amount of energy created is far and above anything we could possibly use, but its sheer brunt force makes enough horse power to turn the drive train, and, by consequence, the alternator. once you start the car with a charge from the battery, it will run on its own until it runs out of gas, the reason for this is the excess energy from the explosion can be converted into enough electronic energy to run all the electronics in your car, your cell phone charger, and a laptop with no problem.Now onto the topic of FTL.... this is where it gets hairy.....FTL is impossible..... BUT the speed of light has been shown to slow down as it bounces off of objects, so it is entirely possible that light can go FASTER if its not impeded... or at least thats what my logic determines, i could be wrong by the "RIbRD" clause, as i know not the FTL neutrino experiment everyone is talking about.BUT if you were to exit our current 3 dimensional space and into 5 dimensional space, you could go 10 feet in the 5th dimension and have gone 1000 light years in our three, the reason for this is because space is weird, and for demonstration i will provide the illustration of a cone...Take a piece of paper, roll it up into a cone, a point at one end, open at the other, easy, right? Yes very. Now take your writing implement of choice and place 2 dots, one on one side of the cone, and one on the side opposite it.(both, for the record, in case anyone misunderstands my directions, on the OUTSIDE of the paper, not one on the inside and one on the outisde)Now attempt to reach the second dot from the first dot without taking your pencil off the paper.....you make a line around the cone, of course, and it would seem to be the shortest possible distance.... but its not! the shortest possible distance is not around the cone at all, it is THROUGH the cone, and that is how we would achieve FTL drive, by exiting into another space and coming out where we like....Or, as may be equally possible, but i do not know the physics, and will quote the "RIbRD" clause here again...If one were to reduce the inertial mass of an object to zero, one could accelerate it faster than light, because the whole limit of lightspeed is that the more you approach lightspeed, the heavier your object gets, the more energy required to push it, and so on and so forth... But with an object weighing nothing, you cannot multiply it by any number to get any increase at all for the basic principle that nothing is nothing, and any number multiplied by 0 IS 0.So a lightspeed limit would be irrelevant because even a photon has mass, little that it is, and it therefore can only go so fast before it reaches infinite density, hence, lightspeed.Also, perpetual motion machines are impossible, a machine that moves the energy around in a closed loop, however, is entirely possible, and feasible to do.... you just cant get any energy OUT of it, and thats where the problem is...Any other discussions i have forgotten due to my fervor over writing my current ten paragraph essay on M theory, particle physics, and the internal combustion engine, and will gladly address at a later lime lol.I hope i have confused no one, as I cannot make it any simpler without going to basic "things go boom" and no one wants that.(P.S: And i suffix my words with "Or something")

Edited January 21, 2012 by We Are _G.R.I.D_

[Eeko]

Now onto the topic of FTL.... this is where it gets hairy.....FTL is impossible..... BUT the speed of light has been shown to slow down as it bounces off of objects, so it is entirely possible that light can go FASTER if its not impeded... or at least thats what my logic determines, i could be wrong by the "RIbRD" clause, as i know not the FTL neutrino experiment everyone is talking about.BUT if you were to exit our current 3 dimensional space and into 5 dimensional space, you could go 10 feet in the 5th dimension and have gone 1000 light years in our three, the reason for this is because space is weird, and for demonstration i will provide the illustration of a cone...Take a piece of paper, roll it up into a cone, a point at one end, open at the other, easy, right? Yes very. Now take your writing implement of choice and place 2 dots, one on one side of the cone, and one on the side opposite it.(both, for the record, in case anyone misunderstands my directions, on the OUTSIDE of the paper, not one on the inside and one on the outisde)Now attempt to reach the second dot from the first dot without taking your pencil off the paper.....you make a line around the cone, of course, and it would seem to be the shortest possible distance.... but its not! the shortest possible distance is not around the cone at all, it is THROUGH the cone, and that is how we would achieve FTL drive, by exiting into another space and coming out where we like....

Well, on the subject of credentials. I'm a college student pursuing a degree in Physics, focusing in Quantum Optics.The main problem I have with your "cone theory", (which is a viable option for FTL travel), is that it doesn't relate to the recent neutrino experiment.In order for your idea to make sense, the particles would vanish from one place, and then appear suddenly in another. Due to the fact that it made the journey through a higher spatial dimension.But the neutrinos took the straight line path through the earth. No random jumps occurred. Not to mention the incredible amount of energy that would be required to jump an object to a higher spatial dimension, something the neutrinos weren't even close to producing.

[We Are _G.R.I.D_]

Now onto the topic of FTL.... this is where it gets hairy.....FTL is impossible..... BUT the speed of light has been shown to slow down as it bounces off of objects, so it is entirely possible that light can go FASTER if its not impeded... or at least thats what my logic determines, i could be wrong by the "RIbRD" clause, as i know not the FTL neutrino experiment everyone is talking about.BUT if you were to exit our current 3 dimensional space and into 5 dimensional space, you could go 10 feet in the 5th dimension and have gone 1000 light years in our three, the reason for this is because space is weird, and for demonstration i will provide the illustration of a cone...Take a piece of paper, roll it up into a cone, a point at one end, open at the other, easy, right? Yes very. Now take your writing implement of choice and place 2 dots, one on one side of the cone, and one on the side opposite it.(both, for the record, in case anyone misunderstands my directions, on the OUTSIDE of the paper, not one on the inside and one on the outisde)Now attempt to reach the second dot from the first dot without taking your pencil off the paper.....you make a line around the cone, of course, and it would seem to be the shortest possible distance.... but its not! the shortest possible distance is not around the cone at all, it is THROUGH the cone, and that is how we would achieve FTL drive, by exiting into another space and coming out where we like....

Well, on the subject of credentials. I'm a college student pursuing a degree in Physics, focusing in Quantum Optics.The main problem I have with your "cone theory", (which is a viable option for FTL travel), is that it doesn't relate to the recent neutrino experiment.In order for your idea to make sense, the particles would vanish from one place, and then appear suddenly in another. Due to the fact that it made the journey through a higher spatial dimension.But the neutrinos took the straight line path through the earth. No random jumps occurred. Not to mention the incredible amount of energy that would be required to jump an object to a higher spatial dimension, something the neutrinos weren't even close to producing.

Like i said, i could be wrong, but i also said that the speed of light has been slowing down, and also, you act as if you know for a fact that the neutrino behaved exactly like that, 2 things:1: can you link me the articles involved? i will study it in depth myself.2: if it DID go faster than light, how can you observe it to know that it DID go faster than light? light being the fastest possible measurement, how do you record a car going at 70 miles an hour past you with a camera that takes one frame of recording every five minutes?just point in case and hold neither your argument nor your facts against youPost Script: if gravity can escape our dimension freely as M theory would dictate, then we could easily develop a gravity generator (possibly monopole based) that could suck us into a higher dimension by useage of sailing on gravity Edited January 21, 2012 by We Are _G.R.I.D_

[Eeko]

Now onto the topic of FTL.... this is where it gets hairy.....FTL is impossible..... BUT the speed of light has been shown to slow down as it bounces off of objects, so it is entirely possible that light can go FASTER if its not impeded... or at least thats what my logic determines, i could be wrong by the "RIbRD" clause, as i know not the FTL neutrino experiment everyone is talking about.BUT if you were to exit our current 3 dimensional space and into 5 dimensional space, you could go 10 feet in the 5th dimension and have gone 1000 light years in our three, the reason for this is because space is weird, and for demonstration i will provide the illustration of a cone...Take a piece of paper, roll it up into a cone, a point at one end, open at the other, easy, right? Yes very. Now take your writing implement of choice and place 2 dots, one on one side of the cone, and one on the side opposite it.(both, for the record, in case anyone misunderstands my directions, on the OUTSIDE of the paper, not one on the inside and one on the outisde)Now attempt to reach the second dot from the first dot without taking your pencil off the paper.....you make a line around the cone, of course, and it would seem to be the shortest possible distance.... but its not! the shortest possible distance is not around the cone at all, it is THROUGH the cone, and that is how we would achieve FTL drive, by exiting into another space and coming out where we like....

Well, on the subject of credentials. I'm a college student pursuing a degree in Physics, focusing in Quantum Optics.The main problem I have with your "cone theory", (which is a viable option for FTL travel), is that it doesn't relate to the recent neutrino experiment.In order for your idea to make sense, the particles would vanish from one place, and then appear suddenly in another. Due to the fact that it made the journey through a higher spatial dimension.But the neutrinos took the straight line path through the earth. No random jumps occurred. Not to mention the incredible amount of energy that would be required to jump an object to a higher spatial dimension, something the neutrinos weren't even close to producing.

Like i said, i could be wrong, but i also said that the speed of light has been slowing down, and also, you act as if you know for a fact that the neutrino behaved exactly like that, 2 things:1: can you link me the articles involved? i will study it in depth myself.2: if it DID go faster than light, how can you observe it to know that it DID go faster than light? light being the fastest possible measurement, how do you record a car going at 70 miles an hour past you with a camera that takes one frame of recording every five minutes?just point in case and hold neither your argument nor your facts against youPost Script: if gravity can escape our dimension freely as M theory would dictate, then we could easily develop a gravity generator (possibly monopole based) that could suck us into a higher dimension by useage of sailing on gravity

I believe most of the articles I read, I can't link to.But most major news outlets wrote on the subject.Anyways, my answer to your your questions:We don't know for certain how the neutrinos behaved. But because they didn't do anything else out of the ordinary, other than arriving 30-60 nanoseconds to soon, assuming they traveled the intended straight line, while staying in this dimension, makes the most sense.The way they measured the speed is a little different from your camera analogy. If that were the case, there would be no way to measure high speed particles.Think of it more like shooting a rocket into a wall.The launch is an easily measurable event. When you pushed the red button is when the launch started.Similarly, the crash is an easily measurable event. Put enough sensors in the wall to tell us when it was destroyed.So, by measuring indirectly, you can obtain very accurate results.Hope that made sense, and also keep in mind that most of this is still hypothetical. The scientists who ran the experiment still don't have a clear idea of what they did.

[We Are _G.R.I.D_]

Now onto the topic of FTL.... this is where it gets hairy.....FTL is impossible..... BUT the speed of light has been shown to slow down as it bounces off of objects, so it is entirely possible that light can go FASTER if its not impeded... or at least thats what my logic determines, i could be wrong by the "RIbRD" clause, as i know not the FTL neutrino experiment everyone is talking about.BUT if you were to exit our current 3 dimensional space and into 5 dimensional space, you could go 10 feet in the 5th dimension and have gone 1000 light years in our three, the reason for this is because space is weird, and for demonstration i will provide the illustration of a cone...Take a piece of paper, roll it up into a cone, a point at one end, open at the other, easy, right? Yes very. Now take your writing implement of choice and place 2 dots, one on one side of the cone, and one on the side opposite it.(both, for the record, in case anyone misunderstands my directions, on the OUTSIDE of the paper, not one on the inside and one on the outisde)Now attempt to reach the second dot from the first dot without taking your pencil off the paper.....you make a line around the cone, of course, and it would seem to be the shortest possible distance.... but its not! the shortest possible distance is not around the cone at all, it is THROUGH the cone, and that is how we would achieve FTL drive, by exiting into another space and coming out where we like....

Well, on the subject of credentials. I'm a college student pursuing a degree in Physics, focusing in Quantum Optics.The main problem I have with your "cone theory", (which is a viable option for FTL travel), is that it doesn't relate to the recent neutrino experiment.In order for your idea to make sense, the particles would vanish from one place, and then appear suddenly in another. Due to the fact that it made the journey through a higher spatial dimension.But the neutrinos took the straight line path through the earth. No random jumps occurred. Not to mention the incredible amount of energy that would be required to jump an object to a higher spatial dimension, something the neutrinos weren't even close to producing.

Like i said, i could be wrong, but i also said that the speed of light has been slowing down, and also, you act as if you know for a fact that the neutrino behaved exactly like that, 2 things:1: can you link me the articles involved? i will study it in depth myself.2: if it DID go faster than light, how can you observe it to know that it DID go faster than light? light being the fastest possible measurement, how do you record a car going at 70 miles an hour past you with a camera that takes one frame of recording every five minutes?just point in case and hold neither your argument nor your facts against youPost Script: if gravity can escape our dimension freely as M theory would dictate, then we could easily develop a gravity generator (possibly monopole based) that could suck us into a higher dimension by useage of sailing on gravity

I believe most of the articles I read, I can't link to.But most major news outlets wrote on the subject.Anyways, my answer to your your questions:We don't know for certain how the neutrinos behaved. But because they didn't do anything else out of the ordinary, other than arriving 30-60 nanoseconds to soon, assuming they traveled the intended straight line, while staying in this dimension, makes the most sense.The way they measured the speed is a little different from your camera analogy. If that were the case, there would be no way to measure high speed particles.Think of it more like shooting a rocket into a wall.The launch is an easily measurable event. When you pushed the red button is when the launch started.Similarly, the crash is an easily measurable event. Put enough sensors in the wall to tell us when it was destroyed.So, by measuring indirectly, you can obtain very accurate results.Hope that made sense, and also keep in mind that most of this is still hypothetical. The scientists who ran the experiment still don't have a clear idea of what they did.

Ah, i see, then here is an obvious answer which they may have thought of, but i will state anyway...The earth is a moving object, it is not only moving around its axis, moving around its sun, and its sun moving around the galaxy, but our galaxy itself is indeed moving in a direction we have yet to understand at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind...it is entirely feasible the neutrinos got there sooner because the earth moved the target closer. Easy is as easy does....The best way to prove this for sure would be to, of course, repeat it at different hours of the day, and from both ends of the earth, as to provide a baseline average of what direction the earth is moving so that you would know whether it got there because the target got moved, or because of FTL transmissionBut there is also the simple explanation that there is something in the core of our earth that is more slippery to neutrinos and so it just had less problems getting here, or some such analogy

[Alex Humva]

"speeds incomprehensible to the human mind..."I believe the Milky Way goes at 552 km/s, off of the CMB rest frame. While large, I can comprehend 552 km/s just fine.I do agree with you though that the Earth/Sun/Galaxy's speed may of resulted in an ealier collision than expected.

[Eeko]

Ah, i see, then here is an obvious answer which they may have thought of, but i will state anyway...The earth is a moving object, it is not only moving around its axis, moving around its sun, and its sun moving around the galaxy, but our galaxy itself is indeed moving in a direction we have yet to understand at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind...it is entirely feasible the neutrinos got there sooner because the earth moved the target closer. Easy is as easy does....The best way to prove this for sure would be to, of course, repeat it at different hours of the day, and from both ends of the earth, as to provide a baseline average of what direction the earth is moving so that you would know whether it got there because the target got moved, or because of FTL transmissionBut there is also the simple explanation that there is something in the core of our earth that is more slippery to neutrinos and so it just had less problems getting here, or some such analogy

However, you're forgetting the fundamental aspect of light.Light speed is not relative, and by extension, the light speed barrier is non-relative.Light is the same speed to you no matter how fast you are traveling, due to it's wave nature. It's frequency changes, but it's actual speed never doesn't.Also, since neutrinos hardly interact with matter, your second explanation is unlikely. Even the equipment at CERN is on;y able to detect about 2-3% of the neutrinos they launch.

[We Are _G.R.I.D_]

Ah, i see, then here is an obvious answer which they may have thought of, but i will state anyway...The earth is a moving object, it is not only moving around its axis, moving around its sun, and its sun moving around the galaxy, but our galaxy itself is indeed moving in a direction we have yet to understand at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind...it is entirely feasible the neutrinos got there sooner because the earth moved the target closer. Easy is as easy does....The best way to prove this for sure would be to, of course, repeat it at different hours of the day, and from both ends of the earth, as to provide a baseline average of what direction the earth is moving so that you would know whether it got there because the target got moved, or because of FTL transmissionBut there is also the simple explanation that there is something in the core of our earth that is more slippery to neutrinos and so it just had less problems getting here, or some such analogy

However, you're forgetting the fundamental aspect of light.Light speed is not relative, and by extension, the light speed barrier is non-relative.Light is the same speed to you no matter how fast you are traveling, due to it's wave nature. It's frequency changes, but it's actual speed never doesn't.Also, since neutrinos hardly interact with matter, your second explanation is unlikely.Even the equipment at CERN is on;y able to detect about 2-3% of the neutrinos they launch.

You are probably right and i am almost certainly wrong, but i do like to make sure i cover all bases before running off into random tangents

"speeds incomprehensible to the human mind..."I believe the Milky Way goes at 552 km/s, off of the CMB rest frame. While large, I can comprehend 552 km/s just fine.I do agree with you though that the Earth/Sun/Galaxy's speed may of resulted in an ealier collision than expected.

1: did not know that2: i was referring to not only the actual speed, but the amount of intrinsic velocity and inertia required to keep an entirely galaxy, not only revolving, but moving together as a cohesive mass,. because as you pointed out, 552 km/s isnt that fast, but the galaxy is quite large :3P.S; Thanks for agreeing with me lol Edited January 21, 2012 by We Are _G.R.I.D_

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Well, if we're going to be listing our credentials, I'm a first-year college student majoring in Marine Science, with some field experience in Paleontology (which is basically a thema non grata here on BZP, oh joy), both practical and theoretical experience in Biology, some background in Trigonometry and Calculus, and a general interest in most fields of science. On the matter of the neutrinos, if they did make some kind of error, it's unlikely to be something we could spot easily, for two reasons - one, they're experienced scientists. They're quite likely to have accounted for all or most of the things suggested in this topic. The second reason is that other scientists would have spotted errors like that fairly quickly once the results were presented.On a more general note, I think it's funny how any subject likely to generate any sort of debate is essentially banned on BZP, considering that my two key fields (paleontology and marine science) are pretty much wrapped up in two rather big, rather interesting debates.

[Legolover-361]

Credentials... well, I've been watching the Science Channel and Discovery Channel since I was younger than ten. Does that count? That and I've read through a basic college-level physics textbook (though as I said in my earlier post in this topic, I didn't take to the math part).I doubt Earth's rotation had anything to do with the neutrino arriving sooner. I'm assuming the neutrino experiment was done in a straight line on or near the Earth's surface; if I'm wrong on that matter, please correct me.The Earth rotates at a near-constant speed, correct? That means everything on the Earth is rotating with it. If you're in an enclosed, windowless train room, and the train was moving at a constant speed of, say, fifty miles per hour, if you dropped a ball, it would fall straight down because it's moving with the rest of the train. If the train were decelerating and you dropped the ball, the ball would move to the front of the train (though of course you can't know if the train is decelerating or accelerating, as both manners of acceleration provide equal effects). The same thing happens with the Earth: We can't feel it moving. So why should neutrinos be exempt from such an effect?If I'm wrong about the experiment, I'd like some clarification.