Faster than light [Archive] - thinBasic: Basic Programming Language Community Forum

danbaron

24-09-2011, 06:29

I know nothing about this stuff.

But, I think neutrinos constantly travel through the Earth unimpeded.

In that case, it seems to me that if one was accelerated to faster than light speed, it should still be moving that fast, what would slow it down?

Then, since neutrinos have mass, relativity theory says that the accelerated neutrino has infinite mass.

Therefore, the particle would generate an infinite gravitational field, and every particle in the universe should be pulled towards it by an infinite force.

But, we are still here, so, apparently that is not happening.

(I think the weird thing is that other particles have been accelerated close to (probably at least 99% of) the speed of light, and they have gained mass according to Einstein's equation,

m0 = mass at rest
mk = increased mass
vk = velocity
ck = speed of light

m = m0 / sqrt(1 - (v2 / c2)). [Eq. A]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

You can see, when v equals c, m becomes infinite (as long m0 is greater than 0).

zak

24-09-2011, 06:45

just imagine the web speed using radiation faster than light thrice or infinite. or a cellular phone using faster than light connection. now begins the real magic era.

danbaron

25-09-2011, 05:16

Eq. A, above, is only supposed to apply for v <= c.

But, what answer would it give if a neutrino was moving faster than c?

Say, for instance, v/c = 5/4.

Then, if you substitute into the formula, you get,

m = 4m0 / 3i,

where, i = sqrt(-1).

What physical meaning would that have?

Charles Pegge

25-09-2011, 07:56

Beware of mathematics! It often expresses thing which do not exist in reality, like Pi with millions of digits. It is only a way of describing pattern and relationships.

It is conceivable that we have not succeeded in creating a perfect vacuum in which to measure the maximum speed of light, and our local space within the solar envelope is not really vacuum either. Perhaps it is the elusive Aether that remains after all the atoms have been extracted, and slightly reduces the speed of light giving a false measurement for the absolute C. Then the neutrinos, small enough not to be affected by this medium would give a closer measure of C.

We will have to see if these measurements can be verified. Do neutrinos break the speed limit only when in Italy :)

Charles

kryton9

25-09-2011, 08:21

I never liked having speed limits and the speed of light was one that I didn't care for. Beside some guys in Europe a few years back said they could send something and it was travelling faster than the speed of light and many poo pooed it because the egg heads said nothing could be faster than light. In an infinite universe why do scientists think we need limits, seems counter intuitive if you know what I mean.

danbaron

25-09-2011, 09:37

If I had to bet, I would bet that the neutrinos do not violate Einstein's theory.

I read some of your article - neutrinos can travel faster than light speed in water, 0.75c, but, they should not be able to attain light speed in an absolute vacuum, c.

I absolutely agree that the discrepancy could be because of sending the neutrinos through a false vacuum.

(I am unclear about what the neutrinos were traveling through for the 730 km, it was from one location to another, is that correct?, not through a circular tube? Was it like through the tunnel under the English Channel?)

Anyway, since neutrinos have mass, I still don't see how they could pass through c, without acquiring infinite mass, and, like I said, it seems to me that nothing would be able to slow them down, so, if they exceeded c, there should now be an infinite gravitational field, which there apparently isn't, because, we still exist.

(And, I agree that practically, and probably forever, pi calculated to millions of decimal places has no use (you could probably say the same for arithmetic on giant integers - no matter how fast it can be done - but, of course, how may other things that people devote time and energy to, have no external benefit, only possibly a temporary pleasant internal brain state?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philosophically, I agree with you, Kent.

Who wants to have limits?

But, philosophers do generally believe that some things are impossible, because they violate logic.

Like, is it possible for something to simultaneously exist and not exist (Schrodinger's cat?)?

Is it possible to construct a triangle with four sides?

Is it possible to untie a knot in a closed loop?

Is it possible to travel back in time to before you were born?

My understanding is that the inviolability of the speed of light is akin to the idea that 1 + 1 = 2.

I think that not many people hold out much hope that a civilization a million years ahead of us will find that 1 + 1 is in some circumstances equal to something other than 2.

Etc.

:idea: :?:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning quantum entanglement and the violation of c,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

to me (with my almost perfect ignorance), the most likely explanation is that the entangled particles are actually just one particle.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement):?:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, will we ever have a better understanding of sub-atomic particles than those given by mathematical equations and metaphors?

I doubt it.

It seems to me that either there is some smallest particle from which everything is constructed, or, there is an infinite chain of smaller and smaller particles.

I think that either case defies human understanding.

If there is a smallest particle, then, what is it constructed from?

And, how could there possibly be an infinite sequence of smaller and smaller particles?

Some things, I think we are incapable of ever understanding.

(Or, why do we exist? Can we prove that we do? Can you prove that anyone else exists besides you?)

:cry:

danbaron

26-09-2011, 00:38

For light (in a vacuum), 730 km (we don't know the exact distance) should take,

730,000 / 299,792,548 = 0.002435017 s

But, the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds sooner.

elapsed time for neutrinos = 0.002434957 s

So, the speed of the neutrinos was approximately,

2435017 / 2434957 * c = 1.000024641 c.

730,000 * 0.000024641 = 17.98 m.

So, if I'm correct, for 730 km, the neutrinos supposedly were already approximately 18 meters past the finish line, when a light beam would have arrived.

It's strange to me, the neutrinos were just slightly faster than a light beam, approximately 1 part in 40,583.

Why were their speeds so close to each other?

It makes me wonder if something is wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html)
How do the neutrinos decide whether or not they will take the shortcut through the extra dimension? (The difference is so small, that it doesn't seem worth it.)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20961-fasterthanlight-neutrino-claim-bolstered.html

Is the speed of light through rock, exactly equal to c? (It seems to me it should be 0.)

How do they know the two clocks are exactly synchronized, do they communicate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(And, no one says it anywhere, but, they must be implying, that if the neutrinos did exceed c, then, Einstein's equation for the mass increase, is in this case, "out the window".)

Charles Pegge

26-09-2011, 07:27

I agree with your result Dan, my estimate was miscalculated. 18 metres is even more impressive given the precision of their measurement is reported to be 0.2 metres.

the speed of light through a medium is inversely proportional to its refractive index.

Thus going through water the speed of light is C/1.33 and through diamond: C/2.417

Charles

danbaron

26-09-2011, 20:52

It seems to me that calculating the refractive index for the rock on the straight line path between the two points would be crucial.

(And, how could you do that, other than statistically? You couldn't time a light beam, correct? What would be the margin of error in the calculation?)

But, it isn't mentioned anywhere.

My interpretation is that they are implying that the velocity of light through the rock is c.

From what you said previously, neutrinos can beat light, when the light is moving slower than c.

They seem to leave so much out that there is no way we can determine what is going on.

Dan

ErosOlmi

26-09-2011, 21:57

To me they just increased the accuracy of the calculations and doing that they introduced and experimental error :D

Charles Pegge

26-09-2011, 22:32

Light is much like an acoustic wave, where the speed of propagation varies with the density of the medium. Cherenkov radiation is the equivalent of a sonic boom as the neutrinos break through the local light barrier.

Gravitational force is an interesting one. If there was any significant propagation delay in the forces of mutual attraction between sun and earth, our orbit would become unstable in a few years and we would be in serious trouble. And I think this gravity-geometry thing in general relativity is just too weird to be real.

My armchair physics :)

Charles

Speed of gravity Controversy:

general

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

observational measurement?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed.html

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-speed-of-gravity.html

danbaron

27-09-2011, 07:10

I thought gravity propagated at c, but, I guess I was wrong.

The first article (Tom Van Flandern) is really good, but, too much at once.

How about this question for a game show? -
"How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?"

To me, it's not simple what his point is, he seems to be saying that SR is simultaneously correct and incorrect.

And, it seems that at the end, Lorentz conceded that SR beat his LR,

“My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.”

But, according to Van Flandern, Lorentz sold himself short.

Van Flandern does say that the speed of gravity is not infinite, and that if it was infinite, it then would be acausal.

In the second article, we get this,

"In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light."

In that case, why is Earth orbiting the Sun?

If they can't agree, then how are we supposed to know?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as trying to understand these ideas in detail, I think it depends on motivation, and motivation depends on the likelihood of some form of gratification. For some, just being able to understand something difficult is sufficient reward, but, I think, not for most. I bet we would be amazed at how much we could learn about gravity, if we were going to be tested on it in a month, and the results would determine whether we would be shot. (That's at least partly why we learn things at the university, right? - we don't have a choice.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is from the Van Flandern article, and (believe it or not), I thought the same thing before:

"The rubber sheet analogy is represented as a way of visualizing why bodies attract one another. However, in that regard, it is highly defective. A target body sitting on the side of an indentation would stay in place, with no tendency to roll downhill, unless there were already a force such as gravity underneath the rubber sheet pulling everything downhill."

In other words, the only reason there is a, "downhill", is because a force is acting in the "downward" direction, i.e., gravity. The rubber-sheet model tries to transform a force problem into a geometry problem, but, it still requires the force to produce the observed motion. Or, in other other words, in the middle of deep space you could put a sphere at any location on a curved surface, and it would stay there. And, in deep space if you tried to roll a ball around the inside of a bowl, it would go up the side, out, and it would keep going.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)

Aurel

27-09-2011, 21:15

Well very interesting topic...
I have my own theory how this things work...beep
Yes gravity is the biggest mystery because gravitation force depends on mass of any object,right?
If mass is bigger then gravitation force is stronger ,right?
And i don't see any connection between speed of light and gravity?
So if exist particle which have speed faster then light that means that subspace exist to
(my theory)....
beep

kryton9

27-09-2011, 22:39

Basically Star Trek Physics was correct!

danbaron

28-09-2011, 06:37

I can guess how Einstein came up with the idea that gravity curves space.

Newton's law of gravity:

f = gm1m2/r2

f 7= attractive force between two objects
g 7= universal constant
m1 = mass of first object
m2 = mass of second object
r 7= distance between the center of masses of the two objects

So, Einstein knew there are gravitational forces between objects with mass.

At that time (of Einstein), somehow, they also knew that light has no mass.

And, from telescopic observations, they knew the path of a light ray doesn't go in a straight line past a star, but instead, curves somewhat around the star as it passes it, and then continues on in a new straight line direction.

So, Einstein was faced with the question, if gravity only acts on objects with mass, how can it change the direction of a light ray, which has no mass?

And, it seems he came up with the idea that, gravity does not actually produce forces, but instead curves space.

That could explain why light rays were bent, they were following the direction of the local space, which was curved.

(If you think about it, what other explanation could he have come up with?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can think of another problem with the rubber-sheet model of gravity.

According to the model, the local space around an object, say, a star, is curved by the star's gravity.

But, think about a spaceship traveling in a straight line, with some velocity, v, and not under propulsion (coasting), so that it will pass within one million miles of the Sun.

As it comes close to the Sun, its path will be curved.

But, the amount it is curved is dependent on v.

If v is very small, the spaceship will spiral into the Sun.

If v is very big, its path will be only slightly deflected by the Sun.

So, if gravity is actually the curvature of space, does the curvature depend on how fast the spaceship approaches the Sun?

It doesn't make any sense, does it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did Einstein come up with his cosmological constant?

If I'm correct, at that time, he (and everyone else) thought the distances between the galaxies were constant.

But, how could that be if there were attractive gravitational forces between all matter?

In that case, the galaxies should be moving towards each other.

So, in his theory of general relativity he inserted a constant that was repulsive, and counterbalanced the effects of gravity, and, he apologized for it in his paper - he had no scientific justification for inserting it.

I guess he didn't know what else to do.

It didn't occur to him that if space itself was growing, that phenomenon could counterbalance gravity.

Later, he said that his introduction of the cosmological constant, was the worst mistake in his career.

It seems that in his mind he felt that his mistake (I think that today, some physicists believe that it was not a mistake, i.e., there is such a constant.) overshadowed everything else he had done.

I know I have felt the same way, for instance on tests.

Afterward, I realized that I made a stupid error, and, I felt ashamed for a long time (now everyone will realize the idiot that I am).

Charles Pegge

28-09-2011, 07:42

I believe that the bending of light by so-called gravitational lensing is in reality due to refraction from the tenuous atmosphere surrounding stars, and on a larger scale, galaxies.

Even between galaxies there is a thin atmosphere of mostly Hydrogen, which must have an effect on light passing through it over vast distances. Maybe this is what causes the red-shift and not the Doppler effect. In which case the universe is not expanding in all directions ever faster, and we did not have a big bang in which the whole universe emerged from one singularity.

Charles

danbaron

28-09-2011, 08:33

I don't know anything about refraction or the Doppler effect.

I just looked at refraction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

Refraction is the change in direction of a wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave) due to a change in its speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed). This is most commonly observed when a wave passes from one medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_medium) to another at any angle other than 90° or 0°. Refraction of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light) is the most commonly observed phenomenon, but any type of wave can refract when it interacts with a medium, for example when sound waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_wave) pass from one medium into another or when water waves move into water of a different depth. Refraction is described by Snell's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law), which states that the angle of incidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_incidence) θ1 is related to the angle of refraction θ2 by

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/0/a/20aa1e3d192ecb3164ac4f2095c86cd3.png

7506

I'll play devil's advocate.

For a light beam passing by a star, wouldn't the angle of incidence, theta-1, be equal to 0, in which case there would be no refraction?

It seems that if the universe is not expanding, and the distances between the galaxies are fixed, then, something must be counteracting gravity. Does it seem likely that gravity would be exactly balanced by this other force? And, another question you could ask is, how did the universe come to be in this equilibrium configuration? (I guess this could be possible. If there are two forces, one attractive, and the other repulsive, then, I think there could be a static equilibrium configuration for the universe. But, in that case, I think we are back to the idea of the multiverse, and, we happened to hit the jackpot.)

Charles Pegge

28-09-2011, 11:56

According to the theory of the Electric Universe, the Universe is a giant plasma, shaped by electrostatic and magnetic forces as well as gravity. This explains why the universe does not collapse into a solid lump under the sole influence of gravity, and galaxies take on their distinctive spiral forms which would be impossible to explain by gravity alone.

The universe is obviously far from static as stars are continually born and die.

This is an interesting image of nebula NGC 604, a star nursery in the Galaxy M33.
(The spitzer telescope sees into the infra-red.)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0211/ngc604_hst_c1.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021102.html

Charles

danbaron

28-09-2011, 19:17

I can't argue.

I've heard a little about that theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy

Dan

"The pioneer of studies of the rotation of the Galaxy and the formation of the spiral arms was Bertil Lindblad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertil_Lindblad) in 1925. He realized that the idea of stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape was untenable due to the "winding dilemma". Since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the centre of the galaxy (via a standard solar system type of gravitational model), a radial arm (like a spoke) would quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. The arm would, after a few galactic rotations, become increasingly curved and wind around the galaxy ever tighter. This is called the winding problem. Measurements in the late 1960s showed that the orbital velocity of stars in spiral galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_curve) with respect to their distance from the galactic center is indeed higher than expected from Newtonian dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_dynamics) but still cannot explain the stability of the spiral structure."

danbaron

29-09-2011, 06:36

I have only vague ideas concerning the speed of light and the red shift.

I am ignorant.

I can show my thinking (maybe wrong) with an example.

------------------------------------------------------------------

For visible light, violet has the shortest wavelength, and red has the longest wavelength.

Say there are two spaceships.

Spaceship A is one million miles from Earth, and stationary with respect to Earth.

Spaceship B leaves Earth at c/2, headed towards Spaceship B.

Spaceship B, traveling at c/2, passes next to Spaceship A.

When the two spaceships are adjacent to each other, they simultaneously fire identical light beams towards the same point on Earth.

The two light beams reach Earth simultaneously.

But the light reaching Earth from Spaceship B, is more shifted to the red end of the spectrum, because its wavelengths are longer than those of Spaceship A.

How about if we reverse the scene?

Everything is exactly the same except that Spaceship B begins behind (farther from Earth than) Spaceship A, and headed towards Earth at c/2.

When the two spaceships are adjacent to each other, they simultaneously fire identical light beams towards the same point on Earth.

The two light beams reach Earth simultaneously.

But the light reaching Earth from Spaceship B, is more shifted to the violet end of the spectrum, because its wavelengths are shorter than those of Spaceship A.

Charles Pegge

29-09-2011, 09:17

The red shift (Doppler effect in this context) is not dependent on relativistic effects. It is the same phenomenon that causes the sound of a truck coming towards you on the highway to have a higher frequency than when the truck passes and recedes into the distance. The wave length of the sound is respectively shortened and lengthened by the speed of the truck relative to you.

In terms of light the wavelength is altered by a factor (c+v)/c where v is the relative speed between object and observer. (positive v moving away from observer)

Charles

danbaron

29-09-2011, 11:01

I think they make this stuff more confusing than it needs to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Charles Pegge

29-09-2011, 16:09

Yes they certainly make a meal of it. Anyway, relativistic speeds cause the ship's time to slow down as seen by the observer, therefore the ship's lights appear to shift to the red, prior to any Doppler effect. The wavelength increases by the Lorenz factor: 1/sqr(1-(v^2/c^2))

On the subject of refraction, here is an elegant demo. Refraction also occurs in acoustics and even the ocean waves when there is a change of depth.

Charles

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Snells_law_wavefronts.gif

danbaron

29-09-2011, 22:40

I think, the refraction demo is also used to induce a hypnotic state.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who seems to be more of a likeable unassuming admirable guy, than Einstein was?

I can understand people wanting his theories to be wrong, because they place limits on what is possible.

But, it's hard for me to understand them wanting him to be wrong, because of jealousy.

As far as I can determine, he had no interest in stardom (except for the astronomical kind), all (almost) he cared about was understanding the physics of this universe.

He also cared about humanity and fairness, which, now that I think of it, sends me down another track.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

After reading that, it must be obvious to anyone with a brain (more advanced than Einstein's), that Einstein had only a very narrow genius, yes?

What lunatic would ever claim that his brilliance went beyond the boundary of physics?

Obviously, he was an idiot savant, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

If Einstein was so smart, he'd still be alive, right?

He sure won't help us find a reliable source of income with which we can hope for a decent time during this life, one without constant dread about what will happen next, one in which we have some positive control over our own fates, yes?

Who would know better and care more than the great humanitarian geniuses on Wall Street, about how to institute a system which lifts those at the very bottom the highest?

Let none of us forget the wonderful psychological traits of those in the stockbroker profession.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-psychopaths-less-impulsive-and-manipulative-than-stockbrokers/

They are the ones who will lead us safely away from the the catastrophes which are looming - (at least), economic, energy, environmental, military and governmental.

Minimally, they will insure that we all face these difficulties together, on an equal footing - thank God! Hallelujah! Amen!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I should come back to the original topic.

7507

On his 72nd birthday, March 1951

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/28/140839445/is-einstein-wrong

danbaron

30-09-2011, 20:02

If we assume what Einstein said about capitalism is true, then, why is it dominant?

I think, like Einstein said, it is a system in which a small group attains all of the power - especially in government and mass communication.

They (of the small group) have no desire for the system to change.

Their constant mass propaganda drowns out all opposition.

The only way the bulk of the people can indicate their unhappiness and be heard, is by organizing, because, they have almost no voice in government or mass communication.

But, the unhappy people must use all of their time and energy in trying to survive, so, they cannot organize.

The people at the top come to believe that they are better than everyone else, just because, they are at the top.

And, they strengthen the belief by constantly assuring each other, that they are, indeed better.

And, vice versa, the people at the bottom come to believe that they are defective relative to those at the top, or, they too would be at the top.

Over sufficient time, it is human nature to come to believe, you deserve what you are getting, you deserve to be where you are in society.

But, those at the top reveal that deep down, they know the system is unfair, and they remain where they are, by exploiting the unfairness.

They reveal it in working so hard to silence all opposing views - they fear them.

And they reveal it by constantly blanketing the airwaves with messages, saying, "Everyone is happy the way things are now.".

So far, almost every person at the bottom is still brainwashed into believing that he is the only one who is miserable, everyone else is happy.

So, all of these unhappy individuals remain isolated, and continue to suffer in silence.

But, at some point that will change.

First there will be scattered incidents of protest, which will spread.

Then, the suffering will begin to communicate with each other and organize, which is their "masters'" worst nightmare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Such,_Such_Were_the_Joys

danbaron

01-10-2011, 05:56

(I realize that most people do not agree with my views about this subject. Probably, it will be better for everyone (including me), if I am wrong.)

To me, capitalism is a pyramid scheme.

And, I think it is a dead end.

I think this century will show that it is a dead end.

Capitalists are usually politically to the right - individual freedom, no responsibility to anyone else.

What I see them doing now, is destroying their own future.

Due to their policies, here in America, the middle class is shrinking, and the bottom class is growing.

History shows that the bottom class turns left politically.

So, it seems to me that the capitalists are unable to restrain their greed so that their economic system will survive.

It reminds me of the serial murderer who scrawls on the bedroom mirror in lipstick, "Stop me before I kill again.".

On the other hand, my guess is that most of them don't care about the future, because they think, by then they will either be too rich to be affected, or dead.

Nice people, huh?

ErosOlmi

15-10-2011, 20:40

Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

LanceGary

15-10-2011, 21:02

Thanks for that!

They say it is not safe to bet against Einstein...

Lance

Charles Pegge

16-10-2011, 00:20

It is fascinating that even though there appears to be no relative movement between one body and another, the fact that they are spinning in an orbital produces relativistic effects.

Charles

danbaron

16-10-2011, 07:10

In Shakespeare's immortal words, this comedic farce turns out to be, "Much Ado About Nothing".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess, c was not violated.

64 - 60 = 4.

Light would beat the neutrinos by 4 nanoseconds.

zak

16-10-2011, 17:43

the calculations by the relativity expert Van Elburg that the total correction is 64 nanoseconds almost exactly what the OPERA team observes that the particles produced at CERN near Geneva arrived at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy some 60 nanoseconds earlier than the speed of light allows. this is a bad news for me, i want a crack in the calm sea like most people wants. or at least a true UFO, something glorious with a cinematic effects.
the only hope is the quantum entanglment which Einstein himself suggested in the famous "The EPR paradox (or Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox he was not happy with it. if a twin of photons emanating from some source and photon 1 go to france and photon 2 go to italy then any change to the state of one photon (such as polarization) will change the other instantaneously (literaly) , this show that the local realism theory is false. there are many true experiments done in europe regarding this quantum entanglment starting in 1976 and until now.

matthew

18-11-2011, 16:59

According to this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236) story on the BBC News Website they've repeated the original experiment & got the same results. :confused:

zak

18-11-2011, 17:59

thank you matthew, this is like breathing more oxygen after a despair. The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum resembles a prison.

danbaron

18-11-2011, 20:43

I think, something is strange.

If I remember correctly, this is Einstein's equation for the mass of an object.

m = m0 / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)

And, I think the equation has been confirmed for particles approaching the speed of light (c).

(I think a related confirmation of the equation, is the experimental observation that, the stronger the gravitational force is upon a clock, the slower it runs.)

According to the equation, when v equals c, the mass (m), should become infinity, unless the rest mass (m0), is zero.

Neutrinos do have a rest mass, I think approximately that of an electron, so, m0>0.

Therefore, according to the equation, if they reached c, each of their masses would become infinite.

In that case, their gravitational fields would also become infinite, and instantly, the entire universe, including us, would be sucked into them.

But, that, apparently, did not happen.

So, it seems to me that either, something is still wrong with the experiment, or, there is something special about neutrinos, which does not apply to other objects/particles.

Additionally, according to the experiment, the neutrinos exceeded c.

In that case, according to the equation, the denominator becomes the square root of a negative number, which, I think, should have no physical meaning.

Anyway, I would be very surprised if Einstein's equation, which has withstood all experimental assaults for over a hundred years, is not usually valid.

Charles Pegge

19-11-2011, 01:39

No mention of relativistic time dilation to explain away the result.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/test-finds-neutrinos-still-faster-light-101319097.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2

danbaron

19-11-2011, 08:11

(Revisions in red.)

(I may be absolutely wrong.)

Here is what I think is going on concerning the continuing saga of the speeding neutrinos.

First of all, the journalists writing about the experiments, know zero about physics.

You can see it in their articles - like Charles said, in the current batch of articles, the error proposed in October, due to a relativistic time difference between the GPS in orbit and the clocks on Earth, is not mentioned.

The guys doing the experiments don't know much either. They have equipment, and they know how to operate it. Apparently, their jobs depend on them doing experiments using the equipment they have (you need to justify such expensive equipment, right?). You don't have to know much to do experiments and to report the results.

They also know that experiments which seem to violate Einstein's equations will get a lot of media attention. That is good for their careers, and also for those of their employers. More research money will flow in. And, the experimenters can write papers and get them published in physics journals. That is also good for their careers.

The experimenters are overjoyed because their results seem to violate the speed of light. Otherwise, no one would care at all. The experimenters haven't the vaguest notion about how their results could be possible. Sooner or later, smarter physicists will conclusively show that the experiments are fatally flawed, and, once again the theory of relativity will been experimentally verified. I bet the experimenters are giddy just to be mentioned with the physicists who will ultimately prove them wrong.

In the meantime, the experimenters want to, "ride this wave", as long as they can. It seems their strategy is to continue slightly modifying the experiment, and announcing their latest results, thereby, getting more publicity. In this iteration, they have not addressed the possible relativistic time error, they have instead just made the bursts of neutrinos shorter.

And, I would bet that though they won't admit it, the experimenters don't believe their own results.

Additionally, probably every outside physicist likes to be asked his opinion about these experiments. Physicists are people, they have egos like anyone else. They like to see themselves in print and on TV. Anytime the theory of relativity is challenged, it generates huge publicity, so, it is good for just about every physicist.

You could say, if the experimental results are shown to be wrong, won't that damage the careers of the experimenters? My answer is, overall the entire theater/show will be a net positive for their careers.

Notice that not one mainstream article has mentioned Einstein's equation (the physicists quoted in the articles don't mention it either).

m = m0 / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)

I think this equation has been experimentally verified many times.

To me, the obvious question is, "Since neutrinos have mass, why didn't the masses of the neutrinos that reached the speed of light become infinite, and suck the entire universe into them, due to the infinite gravitational fields they would concomitantly acquire?".

Or, does one require the brain of Einstein to think of such a question?

If Einstein's equation is valid, then, if even one neutrino reached the speed of light, it would become a black hole with an event horizon as big as the universe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thing reminds me of last year's NASA announcement that it had discovered arsenic based life at Mono Lake in California.

That turned out to be a disaster.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/scientist-strange-land

(http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/scientist-strange-land)

matthew

23-02-2012, 15:06

Seriously you couldn't make this up. :P

It has now been reported here (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/faster-than-light-neutrino-result-apparently-a-mistake-due-to-loose-cable.ars) that the results to the experiment were incorrect due to a faulty Optic Fibre Cable.

danbaron

23-02-2012, 21:49

And, for good measure, here's one more nail in this story's coffin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100009/Scientists-did-not-break-speed-of-light-it-was-a-faulty-wire.html

REDEBOLT

24-02-2012, 11:55

In reading these articles, I see that the authors claim that A. Einstein "proved" that the speed of light was constant in a vacuum. I believe that Einstein "assumed" that the speed of light was constant, based upon the results of the Michelson–Morley experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelson-Morley_experiment).

Einstein and special relativityThe constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (http://www.thinbasic.com/wiki/Maxwell's_theory_of_electromagnetism) and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether (http://www.thinbasic.com/wiki/Luminiferous_aether) but not, contrary to widespread belief, by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment. However the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.

Emphasis mine.

Bob

danbaron

24-02-2012, 22:33

I agree.

I think the only true proofs are in mathematics.

And, in mathematics, you begin with one or more fundamental assumptions - axioms.

I think it is impossible to prove anything at all if you start from zero, you must assume one or more tenets are true.

Every statement is proved in terms of one or more of the previous proved statements.

You cannot prove the first statement in a chain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did Einstein come up with the idea that gravity bends space?

My guess.

It was known that gravity acts on particles having mass.

It was known that photons have no mass.

It was observed that the path of light passing near a star was bent from a straight line towards the star.

The conclusion was, the gravity of the star was bending the space around it.