The speed of light may have been broken.

[Dywyddyr]

Reiku was proven correct

Wrong.

This entire thread is about the recent discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light.

Please read what the links actually say.

Reiku is a genius compared to Dywy.

Wrong again.

Dywys famous lines
"Support your position" (when it is common knowledge)

Like when you were wrong about what Schrödinger claimed (and the spelling of his name)?

Still, at least your ad homs make a change from you making incorrect claims about science.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Dywy,

Duh.. Okay. least one of us can read..

By kwhilborn“
This entire thread is about the recent discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light.
”
By Dywy,
Please read what the links actually say.

is supported by,

Neutrinos come in a number of types, and have recently been seen to switch spontaneously from one type to another.

The Cern team prepares a beam of just one type, muon neutrinos, and sends them through the Earth to an underground laboratory at Gran Sasso in Italy to see how many show up as a different type, tau neutrinos.

In the course of doing the experiments, the researchers noticed that the particles showed up 60 billionths of a second earlier than they would have done if they had travelled at the speed of light.

Dywy. Out of curiosity what did you think this thread is about. Please put down your 1973 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and read what has been discovered in the past month. Everyone here can see how wrong you are..

and my strong opinion,

“
Reiku is a genius compared to Dywy.
”
by Dywy,
Wrong again.

is your opinion. You are factually claiming to be as smart as Reiku? Like that could happen.


Reiku predicted this threads facts as suppositions 4 years ago on sciforums.
here, (in a thread entitled "Is the Neutrino a Tachyon?")
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71654


The only threads you (Dywy) have started here that seem mildy amusing are about how to fix your dvd player, and to make fun of other members like John99.
Imagine someone so "crazy" that they satrt a forum thread to just to make fun of someone else. For those doubting I' will link.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106930

and if that wasn't enough you opened another thread to insult the same guy

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106496
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106496

Bit O.C.D. are we? (that means Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)


How long do you want to go on looking like an idiot. Fess up that you are wrong!

 

[rpenner]

Was it posted in another thread or am I missing it in this thread?

It was from areasys' thread http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110089 where I urged him to join this one.

Either way, my question is about the spacetime framework. Does that framework exist as a result of the initial singularity or is that too simple an explanation?

The framework I was talking about is the theoretical framework of relativity + quantum mechanics + particles = relativistic quantum field theory and this encompasses QED (the successor theory to Maxwell's Electromagnetism), Electroweak theory and Quantum Chromodynamics (the successor theory to the "nuclear strong force") which together make up the standard model of particle physics (which includes neutrinos as they are currently understood). If neutrinos are FTL and localizable and move faster at higher energies, then not only would they exist outside of current understandings of relativistic quantum field theory (and therefore outside of any simple modification of the standard model of particle physics) but the 1908 concept of "space-time" possibly would not survive the upheaval required.

"Space-time" is only a good theoretical concept if the symmetry preserved by local Lorentz transformations is dependable, and to date it has been utterly dependable. So far we have just one claim of observation of FTL neutrinos based on a lattice of measurements. Ideally, people will check all the measurements and calculations and attempt replications of similar or better statistical strength. Only then would this claim of observation rise to the level of fact. But if confirmed as fact, then existing theory would be wrong and we might have to wait a long while before a unified theory can replicate all the successes of the current framework and include FTL-signalling neutrinos -- that's the scientific standard of a successor theory.

So since if FTL-signalling neutrinos are assumed as fact, the theoretical framework of space-time which started about 1908 may turn out to be unreliable, its nonsensical to talk about it as a physical thing until you have a successor theory that preserves the concept. And if FTL-signalling neutrinos are assumed to be factually untrue, then it is impossible for the current observation to have any impact on the theoretical framework of physics. As neither assumption has been demonstrated, the scientific thing to do is to pursue truth with research, experiment, observation and education.

If you were more educated about what quantum field theory was, then you would already know what the theory has to say about its own origin. (Pretty much what GR, Maxwell's equations and Euclidean geometry say about their origins.) There's a lot of heavy lifting to do before you can use those terms like a scientist instead of just someone making noise at the sidelines.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Proof!

 

[hardalee]

Someone will probably say “you just don’t get it!”. Well maybe I don’t.

It seems to me that we are not talking about changing meter sticks or speed limits.

The problem here is that electromagnetic radiation will now have one speed, the speed of light c and neutrinos, composite particles with some mass will have another speed, greater than c.

The big thing is why? What is the reason for the difference? How does this apply to our understanding of mass and its acceleration? Where this will lead physics, if correct, may open doors that we did not even know existed. And those doors may lead to a greater understanding of the universe.

This may be a correction similar to that which Einstein made to Newton’s gravity. Newton’s theories still works and Einstein’s may still work, but we may need a refinement to explain the new data.

My guess is it may lead to an better understanding of dark energy which would affect many fields.

 

[Saint]

interesting,
so why is it faster than light?

 

[CptBork]

interesting,
so why is it faster than light?

We know it's faster because it gets pulled over more often by the highway patrol.

 

[hardalee]

OPERA experiment reports anomaly in flight time of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso

Webcast from CERN:

Geneva, 23 September 2011. The OPERA1 experiment, which observes a neutrino beam from CERN2 730 km away at Italy’s INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory, will present new results in a seminar at CERN this afternoon at 16:00 CEST. The seminar will be webcast at http://webcast.cern.ch. Journalists wishing to ask questions may do so via twitter using the hash tag #nuquestions, or via the usual CERN press office channels.

This is 10 AM EST this morning, about 50 minutes from now if my math is correct.

 

[Saint]

is electron having same mass as neutrino?
if yes, then electron may be able to travel faster than light too.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

We know it's faster because it gets pulled over more often by the highway patrol.

The police do not have jurisdiction over the light speed limit, the army does.
It's the responsibility of the Light Infantry.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I think that someone earlier mentioned that the neutrino might have negative mass. Is that possible?

 

[hardalee]

Sorry, I had the day wrong. The webcast was 23 Sep 11.

We can travel back in time or catch it on the cern arcives.

 

[hardalee]

You can find the webcast at:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486

Sorry for my confusion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

@ Dywy,
Duh.. Okay. least one of us can read..
-By kwhilborn“
This entire thread is about the recent discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light.
is supported by

Incorrect.
As evidenced by these statements:

Antonio Ereditato added "words of caution" to his Cern presentation because of the "potentially great impact on physics" of the result.
-snip-
Friday's meeting was designed to begin this process, with hopes that other scientists will find inconsistencies in the measurements and, hopefully, repeat the experiment elsewhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

It is still too early to jump to conclusions. Further scrutiny to the discovery should be undertaken.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-09/26/c_131160447.htm

Kostelecky said that if the result was verified – a big if – it might pave the way to a grand theory that marries gravity with quantum mechanics, a puzzle that has defied physicists for nearly a century.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos

Etc. You are jumping the gun by claiming it has been "proved".

You are factually claiming to be as smart as Reiku? Like that could happen.

Smarter.

The only threads you (Dywy) have started here that seem mildy amusing are about how to fix your dvd player, and to make fun of other members like John99.
Imagine someone so "crazy" that they satrt a forum thread to just to make fun of someone else. For those doubting I' will link.

Just to make fun? I quote from the OP:

I am genuinely interested -

and if that wasn't enough you opened another thread to insult the same guy

I opened a thread to insult him? Did you read the first post?

Start a thread and i will prove it, so not to hijack this thread.

That was John99's request. He asked me to start the thread.

Bit O.C.D. are we? (that means Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)

Um, you mean like tracking down my threads and misinterpreting them?

 

[Tach]

I think that someone earlier mentioned that the neutrino might have negative mass. Is that possible?

negative SQUARE mass ($$m^2<0$$)

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Dywy,

Didn't realize this was your thread.. Thought this was the thread that proved Reiku was right 4 years ago, and you were wrong. when he posted this thread about this subject.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71654

which has now been proven (Okay measured. Can't say proven until Dywy agrees. He is the "authority" on the matter apparently.) correct. Neutrinos do move faster than light.

Let me rephrase that. Neutrinos have been measured to go faster than light, and the experimenters had enough confidence in this "measurement" that it has been front page news across the globe. They mistakenly did not wait for Dywy to approve before they did so, so let's hope they are right.

However once they are proven right, then so will Reiku. It will also prove Dywy is a troll.

 

[RJBeery]

So far, I count 5 posters that claim the CERN findings validate their theories:

Wellwisher
Reiku
Motor Daddy
Walter Wagner
Gold Dust

I make no comments on the theories, I just find it interesting that all of the authors seem to have had a speeding neutrino in common.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So far, I count 5 posters that claim the CERN findings validate their theories:

Wellwisher
Reiku
Motor Daddy
Walter Wagner
Gold Dust

I make no comments on the theories, I just find it interesting that all of the authors seem to have had a speeding neutrino in common.

And not one of them has demonstrated competency in physics, basic mathematics ability or published any of their work. Those who've posted attempts at models here have had them demolished by those who didn't sleep through school.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

So far, I count 5 posters that claim the CERN findings validate their theories:

Wellwisher
Reiku
Motor Daddy
Walter Wagner
Gold Dust

I make no comments on the theories, I just find it interesting that all of the authors seem to have had a speeding neutrino in common.

You can't count very well. Count me out, please, as I've not claimed the CERN findings prove anything, and indeed, as per my next post, I believe they are well contradicted by existing physics.

 

[quantum_wave]

It was from areasys' thread http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110089 where I urged him to join this one.

The framework I was talking about is the theoretical framework of relativity + quantum mechanics + particles = relativistic quantum field theory and this encompasses QED (the successor theory to Maxwell's Electromagnetism), Electroweak theory and Quantum Chromodynamics (the successor theory to the "nuclear strong force") which together make up the standard model of particle physics (which includes neutrinos as they are currently understood). If neutrinos are FTL and localizable and move faster at higher energies, then not only would they exist outside of current understandings of relativistic quantum field theory (and therefore outside of any simple modification of the standard model of particle physics) but the 1908 concept of "space-time" possibly would not survive the upheaval required.

"Space-time" is only a good theoretical concept if the symmetry preserved by local Lorentz transformations is dependable, and to date it has been utterly dependable. So far we have just one claim of observation of FTL neutrinos based on a lattice of measurements. Ideally, people will check all the measurements and calculations and attempt replications of similar or better statistical strength. Only then would this claim of observation rise to the level of fact. But if confirmed as fact, then existing theory would be wrong and we might have to wait a long while before a unified theory can replicate all the successes of the current framework and include FTL-signalling neutrinos -- that's the scientific standard of a successor theory.

So since if FTL-signalling neutrinos are assumed as fact, the theoretical framework of space-time which started about 1908 may turn out to be unreliable, its nonsensical to talk about it as a physical thing until you have a successor theory that preserves the concept. And if FTL-signalling neutrinos are assumed to be factually untrue, then it is impossible for the current observation to have any impact on the theoretical framework of physics. As neither assumption has been demonstrated, the scientific thing to do is to pursue truth with research, experiment, observation and education.

Thank you, you have a wealth of knowledge and are a good teacher.

If you were more educated about what quantum field theory was, then you would already know what the theory has to say about its own origin. (Pretty much what GR, Maxwell's equations and Euclidean geometry say about their origins.) There's a lot of heavy lifting to do before you can use those terms like a scientist instead of just someone making noise at the sidelines.

I'm just an old deluded pea brain having fun with a most interesting hobby.