18m, about a block.
What gives you this bright idea? All I am saying is that you are posting crackpot "solutions" to a problem that you clearly don't grasp. make the effort to understand the experiment first.
The speed of light may have been broken.
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
18m, about a block.
What gives you this bright idea? All I am saying is that you are posting crackpot "solutions" to a problem that you clearly don't grasp. make the effort to understand the experiment first.
Yeah, right, city blocks are about 55 feet (18 m) in length.
And yeah, right, having particles with mass/momentum/energy traveling faster than c doesn't violate Relativity.
I see you make no comments about the 1987a data regarding the measured variation from the speed of light for neutrinos, and how that compares to the CERN result.
A combination of both GPS error and timing error, or other systematic error, could be the source of their probable error. Checking with a borehole to allow very precise laser measurement (for both timing and distance) would eliminate all doubt, either way.
Gotta run, back in about 4-6 hours.
now we cannot rule out the possibility that the experiement was tampered with. We'll just have to wait till the same experiment is done again (somewhere in American I assume?)
How about a little diagram of the drilling idea so we can see a cut-away or something. I'm not sure I envision the layout of the experiment or the proposed drill hole (when you get back).
Good, you are learning. Now, try learning the other part, the precision of the distance measuring system is 20cm, about 100 times higher.
Did I say anything to the contrary? You should stop beating the poor strawman.
It doesn't. The CERN effect is many orders of magnitude higher.
The 1987a data has been attributed to the fact that photons are emitted later than the neutrinos. There is no race between neutrinos and photons in the CERN experiment (must be the third time I'm telling you this).
You pretty much covered everything, so where is the value in your post? Yes, it might be a systematic error but it isn't in the GPS and it isn't in the measured distance.
Few ideas but fixed.
At the risk of being a bit redundant, I believe everyone is making too much of the the danger theoretical physics faces should the FTL neutrino data hold up.
As far as relativity is concerned, it would not affect the speed of light, at all. That is a measured value.
Special relativity could require some addition of an exception to the rule, but has proven locally accurate at all other tested scales. Though to some extent the a priori facts SR is based on, could be seen as challenged, the general underlying conceptual model has been well supported by existing experience and would not change.
General relativity would be affected not at all. Besides it is already coming under some strain and need of at least clarification if not some reconstructive modernization, based on galactic orbital velocities and the whole dark matter discussion.
Quantum mechanics would probably require the most attention, but I am sure tweaking the math is not beyond the skills of those directly involved in the field.
As I mentioned earlier, a FTL neutrino.., with mass, would probably be a bigger challenge to our understanding of inertia and through the equivalence principal gravity, at least with respect to our fundamental understanding. Not so much in a complete over haul, as in establishing some limitation(s) of scale. We already have the gravitational conflict involving GR and QM, which at present we just sort of look past or ignore.
If confirmed this could actually open some doors to a better understanding of both inertia and gravity. It would in some respects force the issue. Right now what stand in the path of the FTL limitations on mass, is inertia. If inertia itself were to have a fine structure scale or texture, it would go a long way toward explaining the difficulty GR has modeling gravitation at subatomic scales, explaining how a neutrino could slip through the cracks and exceed the speed of light, and provide new opportunities to develop a working model of quantum gravity. The last of which would be a welcome step toward a truly united theory.
Note: While Einstein's field equations model gravity as a curvature of space resulting from an interaction of matter/mass and space, they do not explain how space and matter/mass interact to accomplish this, just that they do. It would be nice to know how. GR models space as smooth, while QM gives it a texture. If space really has a texture and the smoothness modeled by GR is only an approximation, again doors open between QM and GR, as well as holes in inertia that the neutrino might just slip through...
Disclaimer: This does not represent a prediction. It is mealy looking at the current situation with an eye toward some of the unanswered issues we already have on the books.
I think most of the initial reactions by recognized physicists, that seem concerned is an automatic visceral reaction to something that at first glance appears to challenge their world paradigms. When the dust settles most of that initial reaction will dissipate and if the data holds up there will be flurry of new research proposals, competing for the growing limits in research funding.
As far as relativity is concerned, it would not affect the speed of light, at all. That is a measured value.
Special relativity could require some addition of an exception to the rule, but has proven locally accurate at all other tested scales. Though to some extent the a priori facts SR is based on, could be seen as challenged, the general underlying conceptual model has been well supported by existing experience and would not change.
General relativity would be affected not at all. Besides it is already coming under some strain and need of at least clarification if not some reconstructive modernization, based on galactic orbital velocities and the whole dark matter discussion.
Quantum mechanics would probably require the most attention, but I am sure tweaking the math is not beyond the skills of those directly involved in the field.
As I mentioned earlier, a FTL neutrino.., with mass, would probably be a bigger challenge to our understanding of inertia and through the equivalence principal gravity, at least with respect to our fundamental understanding. Not so much in a complete over haul, as in establishing some limitation(s) of scale. We already have the gravitational conflict involving GR and QM, which at present we just sort of look past or ignore.
If confirmed this could actually open some doors to a better understanding of both inertia and gravity. It would in some respects force the issue. Right now what stand in the path of the FTL limitations on mass, is inertia. If inertia itself were to have a fine structure scale or texture, it would go a long way toward explaining the difficulty GR has modeling gravitation at subatomic scales, explaining how a neutrino could slip through the cracks and exceed the speed of light, and provide new opportunities to develop a working model of quantum gravity. The last of which would be a welcome step toward a truly united theory.
Note: While Einstein's field equations model gravity as a curvature of space resulting from an interaction of matter/mass and space, they do not explain how space and matter/mass interact to accomplish this, just that they do. It would be nice to know how. GR models space as smooth, while QM gives it a texture. If space really has a texture and the smoothness modeled by GR is only an approximation, again doors open between QM and GR, as well as holes in inertia that the neutrino might just slip through...
Disclaimer: This does not represent a prediction. It is mealy looking at the current situation with an eye toward some of the unanswered issues we already have on the books.
I think most of the initial reactions by recognized physicists, that seem concerned is an automatic visceral reaction to something that at first glance appears to challenge their world paradigms. When the dust settles most of that initial reaction will dissipate and if the data holds up there will be flurry of new research proposals, competing for the growing limits in research funding.
Tach, this is not a reply to your post. I quoted your post only as reference for my following comment.
The SN 1987A event and the photon vs neutrino time of emission is speculative. While the concept is valid that the neutrinos were emitted first, there is no real way that the time delay between the neutrino emission and photon emission can be measured and determined. The time delay suggested assumes a great deal about the initial conditions of the SN event that remain assumed and/or theoretical, not a matter of fact.
Those explanations were valid based on consensus of opinion at the time. Should the CERN data prove accurate, the timing of the delay between the neutrino and photon emission may require some rethinking also.
This in no way suggests that there was anything like the variation in velocity that the CERN data reports. The fact that the SN 1987A event recorded both e-neutrinos and mu-neutrinos within a 13 second time frame should suggest that the difference in their energy levels did not play a significant role in their travel time-velocity. Even a small difference at that distance should have been detectable.
The SN 1987A event and the photon vs neutrino time of emission is speculative. While the concept is valid that the neutrinos were emitted first, there is no real way that the time delay between the neutrino emission and photon emission can be measured and determined. The time delay suggested assumes a great deal about the initial conditions of the SN event that remain assumed and/or theoretical, not a matter of fact.
Those explanations were valid based on consensus of opinion at the time. Should the CERN data prove accurate, the timing of the delay between the neutrino and photon emission may require some rethinking also.
This in no way suggests that there was anything like the variation in velocity that the CERN data reports. The fact that the SN 1987A event recorded both e-neutrinos and mu-neutrinos within a 13 second time frame should suggest that the difference in their energy levels did not play a significant role in their travel time-velocity. Even a small difference at that distance should have been detectable.
Hehe....Einstein was right. The interpretation is wrong. They did not understand him.
If you're a speed of 0.99 c relative to me, who notifies the time dilation?
You notice the time dilation, but I notice the same thing. So what?
If I assert that time is not uniform but is sinusoidal, how can you go out from this time to check that time is sinusoidal or not?
Now we can speculate about frequency and amplitude of time. Hehe ....
If you're a speed of 0.99 c relative to me, who notifies the time dilation?
You notice the time dilation, but I notice the same thing. So what?
If I assert that time is not uniform but is sinusoidal, how can you go out from this time to check that time is sinusoidal or not?
Now we can speculate about frequency and amplitude of time. Hehe ....
Just where does the CERN neutrino data fit into this?
Are you sure that post was even in the right thread?
So in your opinion the results from CERN not in contradiction with Einstein's SR?
Emil, I know there is a language issue involved, so just go back and take another look at my past posts in this thread. Take your time. Even the last few should give an idea what I think about how SR might be affected.
OnlyMe,
You just aren't careful about what I said.
Why do you think the support Einstein was right does not belong to this thread?
Your initial post (below) was directed more toward time dilation and did not connect that in any way to the CERN neutrino data. It seemed directed more toward a discussion of time in another thread.
I don't think anyone has previously suggested that time dilation was involved in the neutrino data from CERN. The measurements of time and distance were all relative to the rest frame of CERN and the GRAN SASSO neutrino detector.
So contradicts SR but nothing about the time dilatation.
If you did not get it until now, I do not have anything to add.
That sounds good to me.
I got the same reception you just gave, so no. When I brought it up for a test reaction, the very mention of it, was like I had ten eyes. Sometimes the incompetent are able to rise high, when truth becomes relative. They were not competent enough to see the future.
The neutrino theory was just my first try. It did not go anywhere since the experts knew better; ha ha. But I could no longer return to obsolesence, so I developed manyother models.
The best one was my MDT theory which I presented in a number of forums back in 2006. The MDT theory can explain this observation. The current theory is too thin for such a difficult question, which is why there is a circling of the wagons.
I have already developed some of the background, when I explained such things, as why are their quanta in the first place? That is so basic, I assume any average theory can explain it.
Figures.
Translation: no mathematical formalism, no experimental evidence. Just BS.
Smithison has disappeared from the time continuum.
Was he a neutrino?
Was he a neutrino?
Just a point, Science doesn't revolve upon one result alone, for any "Conclusion" to be drawn requires duplication of an experiment to rule out the myriad of odious possibilities that can corrupt results.
Science to an extent is practitionary, in the sense that it's always open to debate or change *if* enough evidence is collected to support such view change. So it's too soon to conclude that concepts of physics need to be rewritten.
Science to an extent is practitionary, in the sense that it's always open to debate or change *if* enough evidence is collected to support such view change. So it's too soon to conclude that concepts of physics need to be rewritten.