PDA

View Full Version : FTL - Faster Than Light


Pages : [1] 2

ORAC
22nd Sep 2011, 21:46
Theories come, theories go. Newton, Einstein. I each case, as they say, they "build on the shoulders of giants".

Where's the next gymnast?

Torygraph: Speed of light 'broken' by scientists (http://www.pprune.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16)

It is the most famous scientific equation of them all but last night it emerged Einstein's theory of special relativity may be wrong.

The science world was left in shock when workers at the world's largest physics lab announced they had recorded subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light – a feat that Einstein said was impossible. If the findings are proven to be accurate, they would overturn one of the pillars of the Standard Model of physics, which explains the way the universe and everything within it works.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, proposed in 1905, states that nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. But researchers at the CERN lab near Geneva claim they have recorded neutrinos, a type of tiny particle, travelling faster than the barrier of 186,282 miles (299,792 kilometres) per second. The results have so astounded researchers that American and Japanese scientists have been asked to verify the results before they are confirmed as a discovery.

Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the researchers, said: "We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing. We now want colleagues to check them independently."

A total of 15,000 beams of neutrinos were fired over a period of 3 years from CERN towards Gran Sassoin Italy, 730km (500 miles) away, where they were picked up by giant detectors. Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds – or 60 billionths of a second – less than light beams would have taken. Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of physics.

John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research who was not involved in the experiment, said Einstein's theory underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics". The theory, which helps explain everything from black holes to the Big Bang, "has worked perfectly up to now", he said.

According to the law that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, or E=mc2, firing an object faster than light would require an infinite amount of energy. Proof that something had travelled faster would pose major questions about our understanding of the laws of nature because, for example, something that travels faster than light would in theory arrive before it left.

tony draper
22nd Sep 2011, 22:03
Read that article elsewhere this morning,one shall await developments.
One suspects the Italians had forgotten to wind their clock up.
:rolleyes:

Mr Optimistic
22nd Sep 2011, 22:12
No......forget it....let it go.

Slasher
22nd Sep 2011, 22:17
Um.....if I may throw a spanner into the CERN works -

http://bruceleeeowe.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/geometry-of-space-time.jpg?w=480&h=360

PS that link appears to be wrong - takes me to the PPRuNe
posting area.

tony draper
22nd Sep 2011, 22:21
Damm!!you just beat me to it Mr Slasher.:rolleyes:

Solid Rust Twotter
22nd Sep 2011, 22:23
Could explain the tantrums the Time Stamp Fairy has been throwing lately...

G-CPTN
22nd Sep 2011, 22:25
Maybe they used local time?

(did they ever consider firing particles in the opposite direction?)

Juliet Sierra Papa
22nd Sep 2011, 22:30
If these little Neutrino jobs are moving faster than the speed of light then how do the boffins know where they are and when to measure the speed?
Confused and now more worried about the LHC than before :uhoh:

Slasher
22nd Sep 2011, 22:31
What I'm saying in the above equation is that mass cannot go
faster than the local speed of light. Neutrinos (http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html) have no mass!

G-CPTN
22nd Sep 2011, 22:35
So what mass does light have?

(Is this why it's called light rather than heavy ?)

Juliet Sierra Papa
22nd Sep 2011, 23:06
G-CPTN Light must have some mass otherwise it would not travel faster in a vacuum than it would through some other medium, it would also be difficult/impossible to bend otherwise.
My own thoughts only. :ok:

corsair
22nd Sep 2011, 23:12
Saw that story elsewhere, extraordinary is the only word. If it's true it is the one of the most amazing scientific moments ever.

But I remain a little sceptical, I remember cold fusion.

Rossian
22nd Sep 2011, 23:26
.......that the answer to life, the universe and everything might NOT be 42?
I just felt the earth wobble a bit. oooer!

The Ancient Mariner

ZOOKER
22nd Sep 2011, 23:34
The mass of the Alps coming into play perhaps? Either speeding particles up or slowing clocks down.

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 23:49
I think Einstein was full of sh*t.

For one thing, why NOT go faster than light? All this infinite mass requiring infinite power seems well off. Add acceleration and keep going. What's going to stop you? Space is full of SFA.

Curved space/ Time? Another load of bollocks that is just waiting 'til we actually KNOW something, at which point it will fall over straightaway.

I'd think more of 'scientists' if they'd just say, 'we dont know' more often.

Why?

Because THEY DON'T.

And that, is about all you can be really sure of.

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 00:46
Slasher, keep up;)

Neutrinos have a very small, but nonzero mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass). Neutrino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino)

obviously from a peer review source:p

One of our group is a hard core Astrophysics theorist, a bit "special" you might say, he's a bit excited but not holding his breath at the moment. The results are interesting and they themselves are dubious and not making to many hard claims. Which is why they have put it out there so the physics community can thrash at it and try to find the flaw in the results if there is one.

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2011, 01:12
Simple schoolboy electron theory had electrons pushing each other through a conductor (ie when one entered it pushed all the others until one fell out the opposite end, so the initial electron hadn't travelled very far).
Imagine a line of billiard balls - if you fire one at the line, the one at the far end will shoot away, leaving the rest where they were (a cannon effect).

Maybe this is what is happening when they fire a neutrino?

Matari
23rd Sep 2011, 02:28
Slasher, did someone hijack your computer? Someone with your username posted a complex scientific formula. I would have thought the Slasher we know would have expressed it much simpler.

For example, big boobs have lots of mass. A big-boobed bird runs slower, allowing you to catch her relatively quickly.

Small boobs have less mass. A small-boobed bird will run faster, consequently it will take more time to catch her.

That is the theory of relativity.:E

Insert photographic evidence if needed.

Arm out the window
23rd Sep 2011, 03:37
something that travels faster than light would in theory arrive before it left.

Not sure about this bit either - light's fast, but it still takes 8 minutes or so to get from the sun to us.

Something going a little bit faster would go the same distance in 7 minutes, perhaps - that's not arriving before it left.

Hydromet
23rd Sep 2011, 03:46
something that travels faster than light would in theory arrive before it left.
Quite so. The hurrier I go the behinder I get.

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 04:06
There is no reason to assume that the neutrinos fired at the target actually got there, but instead, the transition brought the target environment to them. Man has always had trouble with "Limits"; each set being perceived, is then dashed by the "discovery" of new ones.

Find an explanation that is too bizarrre to apply, and it will be less alarming than the reality. Thus far, we have spent all our time on "this side" of what we think is zero, or nothing. We pride ourselves on the taxonomy of particles, when we are clueless about their environment, that which has created them.

It is at times embarrassing. Not that I have a clue......

Load Toad
23rd Sep 2011, 06:36
So these atom bomb things - they don't work now then?

Slasher
23rd Sep 2011, 06:56
Neutrinos have a very small, but nonzero mass.

I have kept up rh - that Wiki you quoted is old 1985 thinking.
I'll give you that muon neuts might have a chance of having
less than zero mass, but I do dispute the findings that this is
a proven absolute.

Matari apart from being a boob-and-ass obsessed airline pilot
into gold stocks, Science has always been, and always will be
my method to distinguish facts from bullshit. As some here
can tell you, I once done a full-on Quantum Physics course at
the Uni of South Dak by remote control, but couldn't get past
the 2nd year - the math was just too boggling. I tore my brain
in two just to successfully get through the 2nd year exams!

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 06:58
So these atom bomb things - they don't work now then?

No they still work, they just don't know how they work.:)

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 07:02
but couldn't get past the 2nd year - the math was just too boggling. I tore my brain
in two just to successfully get through the 2nd year exams!

Bit touchy there Slasher:), know how ya feel, bairly scrapped though quantum at uni myself. I think every time they mentioned Bra's & Kets I kept thinking of other things:E

Slasher
23rd Sep 2011, 07:11
Mate I had no problem at all with the Classic math of the 1st
year (Laplacian operator in spherical polar coordinates etc)
but once I had to stuck into the all those bloody hypothetic
equations during the 2nd half of the 2nd year I knew I had
no frigging hope. :(

Flap 5
23rd Sep 2011, 07:31
Just how many things were considered impossible 200 years ago which are in every day use now? Or even 100 years ago? Flight? Television? Ipads? Travelling faster than the speed of sound?

The speed of light is a law just waiting to be broken.

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 07:33
Mate I had no problem at all with the Classic math of the 1st
year (Laplacian operator in spherical polar coordinates etc)

Yea that early stuff can lull you into a false sense of security,our course was a bit light on though the whole under grad thing. It wasn't until honors and me choosing the hardcore unit in quantum that it really struck me, think I spent the next six months going home and bashing my head against the wall and going "repeat after me idiot idiot idiot" and wondering why I didn't choose one of the nicer units:{.

At the moment I think I have successfully ex-sponged what little stuff I did learn from the knoggen, thereby saving myself long term truama:)

Slasher
23rd Sep 2011, 07:52
Sorry Flap 5 but flight, supersonic travel, going to the Moon
and iPads (incl iPad2) are but ENGINEERING problems, not
problems in trying to change the fundamental unbreakable
Laws of Nature.

However all is not lost - its only the LOCAL speed of Light that
can't be broken. Compressing the space ahead and expanding
the space behind one could lead one to what would classically
be termed as faster than light travel, as observed outside that
traveller's frame of reference (a la USS Enterprise which warps
space, similar as to one walking along a moving travellator at
the airport, and one's speed measured from the reference of a
motionless observer away from the travellator).

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh0C0Xf9joO-OPREY6pIxTzl2XVonQYE8afeqIZgXEbH0YIUGIZA

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 07:56
Quote:
something that travels faster than light would in theory arrive before it left.
Not sure about this bit either - light's fast, but it still takes 8 minutes or so to get from the sun to us.

Something going a little bit faster would go the same distance in 7 minutes, perhaps - that's not arriving before it left.

If you can use them to communicate, you can send messages into the past. Build a receiver now and see what the future is telling us. Light Cones and all that stuff.....

Sharp Blue: Relativity, FTL and causality (http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html)

Cacophonix
23rd Sep 2011, 08:08
Faster than light? CERN findings bewilder scientists - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-0923-speed-of-light-20110923,0,497738.story)

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 08:13
Hmmm let me see,you open your neutrino source at point A simultaniously pressing a button that tells the target at point B the beam is on it's way, at point B they press a button as soon as the neutrino detector goes DING!! telling you at point A they have arrived and you look at your stop watch and do the sums,trouble is the leaving and arriving messages can only travel at the speed of light.
Tiz a puzzle.:confused:
You see the problem,at point A you open the shutter on your neutrino source and press the button, the detector at point B goes Ding! but the little red light triggered by point A's button has not yet come on as the message from point A is following the rules and travelling only at the speed of light, ergo the neutrinos have not yet left,they have arrived before they left.
The entire universe as we know it goes GNAB!! and implodes.
:rolleyes:

sitigeltfel
23rd Sep 2011, 08:19
If you can use them to communicate, you can send messages into the past. Build a receiver now and see what the future is telling us.

It has already happened. The Azeris have won two boxing gold medals at next years Olympics :rolleyes:

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 08:21
Tony, without looking into it (got better things to do) I would imagine that each spot would have and extremely good time standard. They would then just look at coincadent detections of some kind. Bit like nothings happening, oh look we got a blip at such and such time, do that enough times and you get your statistical answer.

green granite
23rd Sep 2011, 08:26
Don't know why they don't just model it, it's good enough for the IPCC to claim AGW is settled science. ::E

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 08:28
I know this Mr rh,remember we prooners are a simple folk one was just trying to explain the problem simply,one dont understand Mr Slashers sums.
:rolleyes:
Anyway didn't old Albert have summat to say on 'simultaneity':rolleyes:

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 08:48
Anyway didn't old Albert have summat to say on 'simultaneity' Then again, Albert didn't hold any water with quantum physics, and that's been confirmed by empirical evidence as well - and everyone's still struggling to produce a theory that combines the two.

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 08:50
Apologies Mr T, bit slow on the up take sometimes, second thoughts most of the time.

Yes he did, so did the rest of the old coots around them times, very smart people, dosn't mean they are are right though, but the theorys have worked well so far. But that said there has always been that disconnect between Quantum and General relativity that they havn't been able to reconcile.

damm you need to be quick, beaten to it:p

Solid Rust Twotter
23rd Sep 2011, 09:08
Only thing that worries me is why, with this level of discussion, we're still seen as a dumping ground for anything too dull for even the wobble heads in the other forums.


RH, beat me to it. Simultaneous clocks and compare time stamps.

Oops...!

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 09:25
For prooners like oneself who failed filling in crayoning book and left school before the age of 28 to earn a honest living.:E
Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 09:41
For prooners like oneself who failed filling in crayoning book and left school before the age of 28 to earn a honest living

hay I left school early, got a real job, hit my head once to often at work and had a midlife crisis. Still no where near being a real academic though. Guess one should be thankful for small mercy's.

Fitter2
23rd Sep 2011, 10:03
Prooners with better relatavistic maths than mine may be able to answer the simple question:

Are the effects of Coriolis acceleration and local gravity enough to slow down the Italian clocks to give the apparent result, given that massless neutrinos will not be affected and their 'local' clock running relatively faster?

Arm out the window
23rd Sep 2011, 11:07
If you can use them to communicate, you can send messages into the past. Build a receiver now and see what the future is telling us. Light Cones and all that stuff.....

I had a read of that link, ORAC - can't pretend to understand it fully, but what I still don't get is why light, whilst obviously very bloody fast, must be the fastest thing there is.

As it says in the blurb about the graphics on that site, there are two postulates that must be accepted to support the argument contained therein, one of which is that the speed of light is the same in all directions in all inertial frames. Maybe that's not true.

As I say, light goes at a fast but measurable speed. Theory aside, I can't see why that would have to be some kind of absolute limit, or why there would have to be any limits at all, given the way our universe seems to continually confound our attempts to describe it.

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 11:19
The speed of light limit is not just some symbols scrawled on a blackboard by some wild haired mathematician it has been proven by experiment and observation over and over again,nothing having mass can ever attain the speed of light,that is why these results are causing such a caffufle
:)

ZH875
23rd Sep 2011, 11:23
Faster than the speed of light...........


but


Slower than an MP fiddling expenses.

Storminnorm
23rd Sep 2011, 11:30
I can still remember the days when it was thought impossible
to exceed the speed of sound.
Things have just accelerated a bit since then I think.

Nopax,thanx
23rd Sep 2011, 11:35
Anyone who thinks that's fast should see Mrs.Nopax go from pussycat to b!tch in 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001sec :p

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 11:45
Draper, spel. 'kerfuffel'.

In the way I just changed your view of a data, neutrinos don't get anywhere without the space to hold them being created 'prior'. Sometimes even 'after' they 'leave' the muzzel?

'Things' go backward even as we 'speak'?

I read a fascinating essay once......

'Creation/Destruction'...... John Boyd. Not a maths guy, strictly speaking, but a genius none the less. Even though he was a fighter pilot........

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 11:47
Apologies,one used the Latin spelling.:rolleyes:

MagnusP
23rd Sep 2011, 11:55
Draper, spel. 'kerfuffel'.

There's a new theory. Potato dumplings are FTL. Or is that Kartoffel?

Solid Rust Twotter
23rd Sep 2011, 13:01
Mmmmmmgnocchi...:ok:

ExXB
23rd Sep 2011, 13:16
Er, did CERN do that conversion from km to miles? Explains a lot since 730km is not 500 miles! More like 450.

Blacksheep
23rd Sep 2011, 13:31
To an observer the neutrinos are departing at a particular time and arriving some nanoseconds later as observed by a terrestrial observer. But according to Einstein, from the neutrinos' own point of view that is not the case. At velocity c they would experience instantaneous transfer from one location to another. At a velocity greater than c could they then experience arriving before they departed? Effect precedes cause? How bizarre!.

Imagine getting up from your breakfast table full of beans and eager to go and being instantly surprised to find yourself standing in Trafalgar Square in your pyjamas. Only the time is 8 o’clock yesterday morning, and you distinctly remember being in Edinburgh waiting to catch the train to Darlington yesterday morning at 8 o’clock. Perhaps its just as well that we are stranded in our own space time continuum, safely insulated from the real universe around us, where the bizarre is commonplace and nothing is impossible.

It is reliably demonstrated that the passage of time really does vary with velocity – as predicted by Einstein – and there must therefore be as many time domains as there are objects in motion and there is nowhere where it is the same time as experienced by ourselves. Einstein is no more wrong than was Newton. He was simply stranded like the rest of us in this particular time domain. The error lies in insistence upon observing objects instead of keeping focussed on the philosophical plane – in my opinion, the only place that reality can truly exist.

An object travelling at high sub-light velocity experiences such a different time relative to our own, that any observation of such an object must take that fact into account before science is re-written. Lets wait until they have verified the experimental set-up before we jump to conclusions. :hmm:

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 13:51
Are the effects of Coriolis acceleration and local gravity enough to slow down the Italian clocks to give the apparent result, given that massless neutrinos will not be affected and their 'local' clock running relatively faster?


Most likely not, though out reading up on it I could be full of it. The time standards they are using are well undertstood. Time standards are used all over the world and the precision and differences are known down to incredible levels. In fact its a p!ssing contest on who has the best.

Just down loaded the prerelease paper today all 20 somthing pages of it (imagine the server was running hot), these guys arn't dummys and have put and incredible amount of effort to account for all the variables. The results will be under incredible scrutiny and time will tell. One of the questions asked where we were today was how accurate was their positioning information.

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 14:00
Dr Cox his very self speaks........

BBC News - Brian Cox on Cern's baffling light-speed find (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852)

MagnusP
23rd Sep 2011, 14:02
Professor Cox, if ye don't mind. :ok:

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 14:07
Oops sorry. Professor it is indeed. :O

Parapunter
23rd Sep 2011, 14:09
How would you know they haven't?

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 14:21
They need someone with one of those sticks with a wheel on the bottom end and a mileometer at the top end to walk from CERN to the place in Italy where the detector is and re measure the distance.
Of course had you read my paper on neutrinos (yet unpublished) you would know that neutrinos ignore the curvature of space caused by the gravitational mass of the Earth and travel in a really really straight lines which of course forshortens the distance betwixt two points as measured by we who have to live in curved space, as does light.
:rolleyes:

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 14:25
For anybody interested there is to be a live webcast of the results being discussed in detail at CERN this afternoon.

New results from OPERA on neutrino properties (23 September 2011) (http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620)

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 14:30
Hmmm, not only did I get a connection failed message the buggah froze me pooter screen one had to reconnect to the tinternet :=

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 14:35
Try again Mr D. I've tried it half a dozen times and it works ok for me.

It's a link from this page on the BBC news site.

New results from OPERA on neutrino properties (23 September 2011) (http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620)

Meeting starts at 16:00 (CET I assume).

Standard Noise
23rd Sep 2011, 14:35
Faster Than Light? A Scotsman who drops a 50p piece?!

If time travel is possible, then explain why not one single person from the next trillion years has bothered to come back here, ever.
Obviously it's good enough there not to want to, let's face it, would you bother coming back here?

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 14:39
Presumably we bred ourselves out of existence and there is nobody to come back. Either that or the windmills were an extremely poor idea and we all froze to death in the new ice age.

MagnusP
23rd Sep 2011, 14:53
Faster Than Light? A Scotsman who drops a 50p piece?!

:= := No true Scotsman he, SN. ;)

Tyres O'Flaherty
23rd Sep 2011, 15:14
Personally, the SN 1987a argument seems to suggest measurement error/statistical F*** up to me. Bit of a good control for this, not subject to too much human error/confirmation bias or whatever.

Storminnorm
23rd Sep 2011, 15:19
They'll be serving tea and coffee in 10 minutes!!!

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 15:42
Just watching the CERN webcast.

The timing mechanism is unusual in high energy physics but is commonly used in high accuracy meteorological systems. Could be this where the error (if any) is introduced ?

jackieofalltrades
23rd Sep 2011, 16:44
Maybe the scientists have ignored the well-documented effect of "Fergie-Time".

That strange phenomenon where the passage of time either speeds up or slows down depending on the result required that day. It's effect is most noticeable in North West England, but has been observed in Europe on a number of occasions.

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 16:52
Slasher:

I tore my brain
in two just to successfully get through the 2nd year exams!

Implication: You're a half wit? :E

handsfree
23rd Sep 2011, 16:56
The presentation at CERN has just finished.
Was I watching a piece of history in the making ?

Extremely well conducted experiment by the looks of it.

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 17:04
They need to repeat the experiment with a much longer base line, say the Moon, but we shall have to figure out a way of making a mirror that will reflect neutrinos,if anybody wants me I'll be in me shed.
:rolleyes:

Storminnorm
23rd Sep 2011, 17:21
Sorry, I dozed off.
Has it landed yet?

Slasher
23rd Sep 2011, 17:44
Implication: You're a half wit?

No, it means one half my brain is pure science genius and the
other half is pure sex addiction, big boob obsessions and filth.

That's why you don't see me mix the two hemispheres on any
given post I write.

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 18:15
No, it means one half my brain is pure science genius and the
other half is pure sex addiction, big boob obsessions and filth.

Are we related? :}

radeng
23rd Sep 2011, 18:22
How do they know that they are the same neutrinos? As was said earlier, take an electric cable, put a pulse in one end and it travels at some speed less than that of light and pops out the other end. BUT the electrons pushed each other - they actually move at about 12 mph.

Then there's the difference between phase and wave velocity in a waveguide, where you can get something going faster than light - well, apparently.

So unless they can paint a number on the neutiron or attach a little card like they do for pushbike races, how do they know?

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 18:33
From the bits of the webcast I understood most of those boffins seemed to be questioning the method of timing measurment and the method of measuring the distance,seemed the obvious things to question,not sure if I wudda stuck me hand up had I been there though.
"Yes,Mr Draper"
"Blah blah blah"??
"You stupid boy"!!
:rolleyes:

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 18:41
Blacksheep

If one could only rely on finding one's self in pyjamas a mere twenty fours earlier.

I think there is no cadence whatever to this phenomenon. You expect to appear yesterday as yourself, in Pyjamas? Not 10,000 years earlier, club in hand, dressed in elk skins confronting a large toothed Cat? Or elsewhere, perhaps on a frozen slab of Methane, with but nanoseconds of life left?

Whatever happened to Discovery? When was it replaced with "Prediction"?

The human consciousness creates reality, not arse about?

Lonewolf_50
23rd Sep 2011, 18:48
It is reliably demonstrated that the passage of time really does vary with velocity – as predicted by Einstein – and there must therefore be as many time domains as there are objects in motion and there is nowhere where it is the same time as experienced by ourselves.
Einstein is no more wrong than was Newton. He was simply stranded like the rest of us in this particular time domain.

Liked that bit.

The error lies in insistence upon observing objects instead of keeping focussed on the philosophical plane – in my opinion, the only place that reality can truly exist.

Sorry, you can't find a decent pub there, nor a decent stewardess to serve you a pint, on a philosophical plane.
Given that we live in the mundane and physical plane, then we humans are best served within that unfortunate limitation.
An object travelling at high sub-light velocity experiences such a different time relative to our own, that any observation of such an object must take that fact into account before science is re-written. Lets wait until they have verified the experimental set-up before we jump to conclusions.
Which is about what the CERN team are saying. "We didn't expect this, we'd like to see this done a few more times to be sure it is a consistent, reproducible result we are seeing here."

Good science, that, to ask for another team, same set up, to see if they get the same results.

Bravo for the CERN team. They are pushing the edge of the envelope, so to speak.

Blacksheep
If time travel is possible, then explain why not one single person from the next trillion years has bothered to come back here, ever.
Two answers on that one:
1. Universe goes cold in about 4 billion years, or 40 billion, so there isn't anyone a trillion years from now to come back to our time. All energy states ~ 0.

2. The gals a trillion years from now have much nicer tits, are beyond gorgeous, and generally horny. The guys of that time tend to focus their efforts perfecting erotic techniques.

No motivation to travel back to this time by much of anyone.

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 19:34
How do they know that they are the same neutrinos? As was said earlier, take an electric cable, put a pulse in one end and it travels at some speed less than that of light and pops out the other end. BUT the electrons pushed each other - they actually move at about 12 mph.

The point is information transfer (FTL is allowed if no information is transferred).In the example you give the information is transferred regardless of the transfer mechanism.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Sep 2011, 19:40
How does information relate to, or differ from, energy and mass?

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 19:46
The Rim of the event horizon is smudged with all the data that was lost as the mass entered. Data is all that exists.

Simultaneity occupies all Space, there is no distance. Transition is what makes things real. Only Change.

Approximately, it remains to be "seen".

There is no proof that we do not know everything there is to know.
Hell of a responsibility that. Some knowledge is just....shy.

"To review, is to create, anew".

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 19:55
Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#FTL_travel_of_non-information) Think of searchlight from the earth with enough power to reach mega-lightyears. if you turn it over 180 degrees, in a couple of seconds the speed the beam covers at distance would exceed the speed of light, but it carries no information, so is allowable. (Light spots and shadows)

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 20:06
Pretty much how they first clocked 'c', yes? Just with alot of mirrors.

iws
23rd Sep 2011, 20:35
Unfortunately the known speed of light in a vacuum is the ONLY speed at which it can travel and keep the electric and magnetic field relationships as derived previous to Einstein in Maxwell's field equations.
Light (or any other electromagnetic waves) would simply just not work at any other speed.

The equation E=MCsquared is significant when you consider that C is velocity
which is distance over time. Distance is space, so the equation interlinks
Energy, Matter, Space and Time, which can all vary or distort to keep C constant.

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 21:13
The neutrino has been disqualified after being tested for performance-enhancing substances.

... and the prize for the funniest one liner goes to TwoOneFour...

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Loose rivets
23rd Sep 2011, 22:34
Oooo . . . a competition. Alright then,

A neutrino arrives at the party and says, "I'm sorry I'm early, but I travel so much faster without Higgs."


You may think I'm as frutty as a newt cake, but I bet that's the answer. It might well be the one way we'll be able to deduce the God Particle is actually there.

Flap 5
23rd Sep 2011, 22:39
Sorry Flap 5 but flight, supersonic travel, going to the Moon
and iPads (incl iPad2) are but ENGINEERING problems, not
problems in trying to change the fundamental unbreakable
Laws of Nature.

However all is not lost - its only the LOCAL speed of Light that
can't be broken. Compressing the space ahead and expanding
the space behind one could lead one to what would classically
be termed as faster than light travel, as observed outside that
traveller's frame of reference (a la USS Enterprise which warps
space, similar as to one walking along a moving travellator at
the airport, and one's speed measured from the reference of a
motionless observer away from the travellator).

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh0C0Xf9joO-OPREY6pIxTzl2XVonQYE8afeqIZgXEbH0YIUGIZA

You say it is different and yet you then go on to state a possible ENGINEERING (your capitals) solution of some sort. I am sure the knowledgably challenged of 100 years ago would say the same as you have when they could only see the status quo and were not able to comprehend any change to it.

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 22:49
A scientist has just announced on Newsnight that he will eat his shorts in front of the cameras if this result is proven correct.:uhoh:

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 22:50
Loose:

Sorry, TwoOneFour's appeals to a larger audience... ;)

Flash2001
23rd Sep 2011, 23:08
I read some stuff the other day postulating that tachyons (FTL particles) could exist provided they never decelerated to c. Thus they could not interact with stuff in our world.

TD keeping my mouth shut on certain occasions has prevented me, up till now, from finding out what my shorts taste like!

After an excellent landing etc...

Mr Optimistic
23rd Sep 2011, 23:11
You would think they would have better uses for their time.

Slasher
23rd Sep 2011, 23:12
If time travel is possible, then explain why not one single person from the next trillion years has bothered to come back here, ever.

If I understand Stevie Hawking, time travel is possible only
to the exact point where one's time machine is created...for
example if I invented a time machine on 5th March 2012 and
decide to go back in time on 19 Sept 2026, then 5th March
2012 is the limiting far-backest date anyone can go back to,
even if someone copied my machine.

So unfortunately no one in the future can go back to kill Hitler
or prevent JFK from being assassinated, nor see the pyramids
being built or buy Microsoft shares in 1978.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRU3eBRo-hBk37TLgqenA6I3Mrbt3Dd_JOq1-9m45xSlhJ8rdHh



You say it is different....

Reread my post Mr 5. Nature doesn't have to be in agreement
with human ambition, but we can possibly bend the laws a bit.
Mass cannot go faster than the local speed of light.

Mr Optimistic
23rd Sep 2011, 23:19
Calm down everyone. It's only about the speed of light in a vacuum. There's nothing in it.

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 23:25
It's only about the speed of light in a vacuum.


Are you saying light travels faster in politicians heads?

Slasher
23rd Sep 2011, 23:26
It's only about the speed of light in a vacuum. There's nothing in it.

No its not - the missus's one is full of dust and dirt!

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 23:29
What this result really shows (if it's correct), is how little we know.

Some might find that disturbing, but I find it reassuring.

The scientists would be the first to admit that everythings' subject to revision but most non-scientists, ie yer average dude, thing the scientists know everything that's to be known, and faith in science is 'a good thing'.

The truth is that much of science is wrong.

The theories that are advanced in areas such as Quantum mechanics, are just theories, best guesses and likely a load of complete bollocks.

If it turns out that exceeding the SOL is possible, then it's time for mass humble pie eating sessions.

And they can eat the 'Big Bang theory while they're at it, because, truthfully, they have NO IDEA how things started and likely NEVER will.

And neither do I!:p

Loose rivets
23rd Sep 2011, 23:30
I'm getting rid of my vacuum, it's just standing in the corner gathering dust.:uhoh:


Pah! missed the connection by 60 seconds. Wonder if I can go back in time and push it ahead of the above.

Parapunter
23rd Sep 2011, 23:34
If it turns out that exceeding the SOL is possible, then it's time for mass humble pie eating sessions.How exactly and in detail, did you work out this genius theory?

Mr Optimistic
23rd Sep 2011, 23:43
Keep burning the plastic BB.
Have a read about Mach's Principle and wonder if mass only exists because of gravity, and time only exists because of em energy. Physics cheats by taking what exists as the truth, and the only truth (despite the wild ravings of string theoreticians who would be better employed emptying bins).

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 23:51
Para. Because they've been telling us for decades that IT IS A FACT that nothing can go faster than 186,000 mps. All sorts of stuff is based on this established FACT.

So, if it's not, then back to square one for advocates of relativity.

Opto.

Ta. Lots left to go. Packaging? Dontcha love it?

Machs principle? Never heard of it. I shall look it up. I though that everything had mass. Adding gravity gives things weight.

I think time does not really exist. We choose to measure it, but if we stopped? There's just neverending 'now'.

I don't really understand your post......yet.

crippen
23rd Sep 2011, 23:52
It's not these little things going faster than light can go! It's the scientists light that has slowed down on this occasion :cool:

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 23:56
Mr Optomistic.

Looked up Machs Principle.

It's a load of bollocks.

So that's that sorted.:ok:

Parapunter
23rd Sep 2011, 23:57
So, if it's not, then back to square one for advocates of relativity.
So in BBF world, no one ever heard of theoretical revision, peer review, scientific advancement, the notion that we believed the earth was the centre of the universe but somehow, we no longer think that?

Earth, wind & Fire?... Al Jarreau, Stevie Wonder?

Have you considered a career in the Catholic Church? I think it may suit.

tony draper
23rd Sep 2011, 23:58
The Space cadets hope it's true because it might give us the starship Enterprise which is bollix because as we all know, we aint ever going to no stars, we are going into extinction right here on this here mudball
:E

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 00:12
Para.

Sure, I've heard of them.

Trouble is, that's not the way the world works, is it?

A scientist says this-take AGW for example- your taxes do THIS.

Real scientists have no problem eating humble pie. They like it! Takes them nearer to the truth.

This one's a biggie tho. All that they've been preaching, relativity wise....is false.

I never believed the buggers anyway.

Suck it UP!

Parapunter
24th Sep 2011, 00:29
I find this debate divides along the usual lines. There's the desperate to show you how smart they are, flashing the equations about. The flat earthers, who can't conceive of any kind of change, nuff said, the comedians for whom it's all a big old laugh, the out & out cretins and & once in a blue moon, the sagacious & perspicacious.

You, BBF, fall into one of these categories.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 00:31
Para, Don't we all?

If you've got me down as a 'Flat Earther' you can kiss my arse!

I just recognise that a lot of what is presented as fact, isn't.

Loose rivets
24th Sep 2011, 00:41
Wake up at the back there! Time for my annual refresher on the Rivets theory of gravity. And, the way matter might interact with the fabric of space.

At all times, I invite argument, discussion, ridicule and lewd suggestions - though the latter would be better on an unmarked envelope.


Space is made of stuff. That's a fundamental of my hypothesis. Call it, Aether II. It has a very specific set of characteristics. It flows into what we perceive as matter, giving the illusion of an attractive force. That, and that alone, is gravity.

Where does all this spacetime go? That was a question asked by the only other person I've ever known to think along these lines. He was in school when I first wrote to the major magazines on the idea. He's now a physics PhD in an American university, and not the best person to communicate with.

(I've just found John Gribbin's letter to me about it, from decades ago.)

Anyway, where's it all going?

I suggested it flows into every particle and that particle changes scale. Spacetime feeds this expansion, if you like. There's plenty of room in an expanding universe.

Inertia is accounted for by the inflow not readily accepting a new lump of matter entering its local frame, but nevertheless it imparts discrete pulses upon the new object. Remember, this object also has to be fed from its new local spacetime, but the change has to adapt over time.

Simply, a photon trying to swim out of a black hole would be swimming against a tide of spacetime. But now I suggest this tide is flowing in discrete steps. I'm talkin' Plank distances here.

Fine, but the major changes over the last 10 years are the ones I've made regarding energy being imparted into the newly arrived particle.

Spacetime is made up of discrete points, the ultimate building blocks. Assuming they do flow in discrete steps, it's easy to see they might impart pulses of energy into the very distortions we call matter, not just sweep it along smoothly. Years ago at CERN, it was noticed the curved flight of particles after a collision, happened in jagged steps. Little more was ever said about that.

So now, why should a little point of distortion/matter be limited to a universal speed?

Remember, in this idea, the constituent parts of matter are being continuously created by the inflow. When a particle travels, it has to take its spacetime from an ever changing part of the ocean of space. There is likely to be a maximum rate at which its expansion can be fueled while moving in a continuously changing frame.

But now, what if we find a particle that does not have to be fed from spacetime? What would excuse it from being like most matter and needing the fuel spacetime for it to stay at the same scale as the rest of the Universe?

End of part I

Mr Optimistic
24th Sep 2011, 00:55
BB: I used to teach it- and try and direct the bright young things away from astrophysics and particle physics. You're talking to the South Kensington and Pasedena one here. Anyway, how much did you pay for your 2 tons of logs ? A flat bed level cost me £120 last week. Read Robert Browning's Love & Art and ignore the current cold fusion nonsense. Sheldon was right, there is no dark matter.

G-CPTN
24th Sep 2011, 00:58
I suggest that the current FTL phenomenon is God (or some other supernatural being) having a larf . . .

Parapunter
24th Sep 2011, 00:59
You'll forgive me if I decline.

The fundamental disagreement is what you see as incontrovertible fact, I see as the best information available at present. The 'fact' that we no longer believe in fairies, Michael Foot, or thr Gruffalo lends credence to my view that 'facts' tend to be superceded with the passage of time, whatever the passage of time might be, yet still it remains the case that we have gone from worshipping the big fiery ball in the sky to wondering about the origin of the universe itself in about a thousand years, all of which would suggest to even the most entrenched Enoch Powell fanboi that there is in fact, after all within us a process of succession of curiosity, thought, test, theory and debate and thus what you would call 'facts' are actually nothing more than passing notions subject to forces of intellect, observation and reason and thus, you are wrong to suggest that there is some kind of intellectual arrogance in broad consensual scientific accord when all of history suggests those same scientists are more than willing to discard the status quo in favour of the new.

In fact I would go further and postulate that the very purpose of scientific endeavour is to challenge the frontiers and push our comprehension to new levels of understanding. Right or wrong, this is what we see over time & whether general relativity stands for 100 or 1000 years, it is still a theory. It remains open to testing, observation and conclusion, to have a few beers and rock up here banging on about these science tossers bandying facts around displays a shallowness of thought that is depressing beyond measure.

Mr Optimistic
24th Sep 2011, 01:08
ParaPunter: you need to drink more.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 01:12
Para.

I do forgive you.;)

And hope you soon get over your depression.

Look. I've no problem with the scientists doing their stuff.

What I DO have a problem with, is being mmade to do stuff, based on the latest ejaculations of the scientists.

That **** out of blur makes me spew. His utterings have not a shred of doubt. Not one iota of 'maybe'.

Yet he talketh complete bollocks. If the CERN SOL stuff is correct

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 01:17
Opto

£125 for a good big trailer load. Coal and Logs (and recyled plastic bottles). That's how you keep global warming at bay. Keep the place nice 'n toasty.:ok:

Lyman
24th Sep 2011, 01:25
LR

I believe there is a good deal more to the word "Unifying" than meets the eye.

Any homogeneous blend of stuff implies a) an affinity, and b) a spatial distribution, expressed as "content". If behaviour is predictable in the known Universe (as Physics), it is conclusive that discrete stuff has an attraction for itself, by its predictable behaviours.

Mere "distance" is not disqualifying of these rules, obviously. It is short sighted (!) to view space between particles as diminishing of interaction between them. Just as a discrete particle can have two positions, may it not also have three? More?

The idea of finite numbering defeats what we see as infinite, yet to have an infinite number of anything is to have "sets" of these. The use of numbered sets is a proof of the concept of infinity, yes? The Universe has always been "full", is "expansion" not an illusion? Gravity has unlimited "Range", and in itself is an infinite container, a matrix?

Mr Optimistic
24th Sep 2011, 01:29
That's all very well but carting the stuff over the Arm***g estate nearly killed me. And don't you be so dismisive about Her Mach. While sitting here with 3 bottles of wine waiting for Nasa's little darling to destroy my greenhouse, the issue of inertia, gravitational mass and under age sex have been occupying my mind.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 01:34
Opto.

I'm going to have to run that post through my onboard puter.

So far though, we're baffled.:uhoh:

That Mach stuff is complete sh*te though.

Yer arms stick out cos yer birling- as any fule kno.

ORAC
24th Sep 2011, 07:26
The scientists would be the first to admit that everythings' subject to revision but most non-scientists, ie yer average dude, thing the scientists know everything that's to be known, and faith in science is 'a good thing'.

The truth is that much of science is wrong.

The theories that are advanced in areas such as Quantum mechanics, are just theories, best guesses and likely a load of complete bollocks.

Theories are models which describe some aspect of how the universe works. But to quote George Box, "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful."

ORAC
24th Sep 2011, 07:42
I suggested it flows into every particle and that particle changes scale. Spacetime feeds this expansion

LR, may I suggest you buy this week's New Scientist? There's an interesting article concerning problems with the current model of the universe and expansion.

In summary, the universe is full of information, even empty space as it would have at least the byte describing the curvature of space-time. The smallest quantum of information will be at the Planck level. As the universe expands more space is created, but how is the information for this space provided?

a. More information at the current size of the Planck is created. But information is conserved, no more can be created.

b. The scale of the existing Planck increases in size so that the same number covers a larger area. But this causes the information to be inexact (think of it as blowing up a photo and seeing it becoming more pixellated - which fits nicely with the idea of a holographic universe. The result of this is that at some stage the atomic structure of particles breaks down. The effect would already be perceptible, and it isn't.

That's a poor layman's description of the problem. But I think you'd enjoy it - and maybe write them a letter.... ;)

GreenWings
24th Sep 2011, 09:45
The bartender says, "I'm sorry, we don't serve neutrinos in here."
A neutrino walks into a bar.

ORAC
24th Sep 2011, 09:52
Somebody had to come up with a tacky one... :rolleyes:

alisoncc
24th Sep 2011, 10:29
Must be possible to move back in time. How many of you noticed that you were commenting on Slasher's posting before he made it. See date top lefthand corner.

http://www.users.on.net/~alisoncc/slasher1.jpg

Tyres O'Flaherty
24th Sep 2011, 11:05
The Neutrino burst from supernova 1987a arrived 3 hours before the photons, accounted for by the photons being slowed by having to move through the stellar atmosphere.

If the effect magnitude is as stated, they would have arrived app 4 years before the photons.

True enough that I have no idea what the detection capacity was 4 years before 1987, but those neutrinos turned up exactly when the standard model would predict

Granted both particles were (mostly) moving through vacuum, so some sort of tunelling might be the spanner !?! (in this experiment)

edited for clarity

radeng
24th Sep 2011, 11:10
One is reminded of the old saw:

Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said 'Let Newton be', and there was light.

But it was not to last. The Devil howling
'Ho! let Einstein be' restored the status quo.

tony draper
24th Sep 2011, 11:21
I was under the impression they had a hell of a job detecting neutrinos anyway? swimming pool sized tanks of Carbon Tetrachloride at the bottom of deep mines and such to capture interactions and thus far norra sausage?
What had changed.
:confused:

Tyres O'Flaherty
24th Sep 2011, 11:35
FSL - from the Independent

''It's very simple. They've fired a beam of particles called neutrinos from a gun in Geneva which have smashed into an underground brick wall in Gran Sasso, 730km away. They've measured how far it is. They've measured how long it's taken, and it would appear to have travelled faster than the speed of light. They fire it out of a high-intensity proton source that produces a beam of neutrinos and smashes into a ton of bricks made out of photographic emulsion.''

tony draper
24th Sep 2011, 12:17
I understood that a neutrion could zip right through a hundred foot thick wall of solid lead without even pulling in its wing mirrors or slowing down,seems to me they would just titter behind their hands at photographic emulsion.
:rolleyes:

Loki
24th Sep 2011, 13:18
I understand from the Times article today, that the detector (OPERA) weighs in at 1300 tons, and consists partially of 105000 bricks of the material interleaved with sheets of lead......most neutrinos making it through unhindered, but some interacting and being detected.

The artical says that the interaction results in tau lepton particles being emitted....I thought neutrinos were leptons....anyone?

Re-entry
24th Sep 2011, 13:54
Here's the actual paper.

[1109.4897] Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam (http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897)

And here's the abstract.

The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the
velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher
accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on highstatistics
data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS
timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the
measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies.
An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of
light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative
difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ±
0.30 (sys.)) ×10-5.

Mr Optimistic
24th Sep 2011, 16:57
BBB: it puzzled me too:confused:

vulcanised
24th Sep 2011, 17:47
How long before we are offered cornflakes 'With added Neutrinos' ?

tony draper
24th Sep 2011, 17:53
More likely in the ladies anti aging cream they adverize on telly,:)

Flash2001
24th Sep 2011, 18:14
I seem to remember reading that the neutrinos from supernovas that popped some billions of years ago arrive here a few hours before the photons.

After an excellent landing etc...

Loose rivets
24th Sep 2011, 18:17
Flippin' 'ek...I only remembered me sozzled ramble some time this afternoon. Haven't dared look at it again yet. One was slipping away thanks to Mr Zolpidem and a bottle of wine.

However, I will try to find a copy of NS, thanks. It sounds like I need to read it.

I do however, hold great store in what I was trying to say.:hmm:

ShyTorque
24th Sep 2011, 20:03
Any chance of a Bluetooth feed in time for next week's Lottery draw?

G-CPTN
24th Sep 2011, 21:07
If the speed of light is the determinant for the possibility for time travel - why?

What relationship is there between light and time?

I think we should be told.

Storminnorm
24th Sep 2011, 21:09
There isn't any. Time was there first, and will be there last.

Light is purely transitory.

Checkboard
24th Sep 2011, 21:31
If the speed of light is the determinant for the possibility for time travel - why?

What relationship is there between light and time?

The Michelson–Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) demonstrated that the speed of light is always measured as a constant, regardless of the observer's individual speed.

Einstein theorised that, if the speed is always measured as the same, and Speed = distance ÷ time; then the time (and distance) must be changing.

So the fact that the speed of light is always the same means that different observers are operating in different time frames. If you measure a speed greater than the speed of light, you must have travelled back in time a little bit. :uhoh:

wiggy
24th Sep 2011, 21:46
Or, in other words..

"There was a young woman called Bright
Who could travel faster than light
she left one day, in a relative way,
and came back the previous night...."

james ozzie
24th Sep 2011, 21:47
Hey Mr Checkboard, I think the Michelson Moreley experiment was to prove there was no "ether". It pre-dated special relativity and if you look at your own reference, it says it did not prove relativity though widely and mistakenly believed to have done so.

tony draper
24th Sep 2011, 21:51
Moving clocks run slower than clocks than stationary clocks,so you get in the car with your clock,the missus stays home wih her clock you drive down the road near the speed of light ,near mind you not at,:= you finish your business turn round and drive back home, you have been away six months accordng to your clock,you enter your house and her indoors throws the frying pan at your head shrieking "wherrthefeck have you been for the last ten years"!!
Moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks the faster they move the slower they run,from a outside observers viewpoint that is.
Do not try the above experiment at home.
:rolleyes:

Checkboard
24th Sep 2011, 22:22
Ahem...correction?
Hey Mr Checkboard, I think the Michelson Moreley experiment was to prove there was no "ether". It pre-dated special relativity and if you look at your own reference, it says it did not prove relativity though widely and mistakenly believed to have done so.

Michelson–Morley was indeed designed to detect ether drag, however the more important consequence was that it proved that light speed was a constant. The wiki reference does quote an Einstein interview where he cites electromagnetic theory as his inspiration ... but here's the thing:

Einstein was terribly vain, and while he had a great insight - he wasn't VERY smart.

I think he lied in the interview.

(And of course it had to pre-date special relativity, if it was to inspire it! :rolleyes:)

Mike X
24th Sep 2011, 23:31
Einstein was terribly vain, and while he had a great insight - he wasn't VERY smart.

I think he lied in the interview.


So, he debunked theories. And so much research is based on his theories, yet to be discredited.

Hawking takes into account whom ?

Apparently Einstein destroyed some of his findings before his demise.

Blacksheep
24th Sep 2011, 23:54
The human consciousness creates reality, not arse about?Sure. My reality is the only one I know. For now.

As to the connection between light and time: light has been measured in our own little bit of the universe as travelling at 300x10>6 meters per second and until now this has been considered a limiting velocity. The question is, what is the value of that one second? When measuring light, the photon we examine is travelling at velocity c and experiences no change in time - time varies with velocity hence everything that moves in relation to anything else experiences its own time.

In this animated universe there can be no universal time constant. So, why is time so often assumed to have a fixed value in so many equations? We measure small differences in space in terms of distance (meters) and large differences in terms of time (light years. astronomical units etc) Relativity told us that both have variable values dependent upon the relative motion of the relevant observers. So what does this latest experimental result teach us? That our mathematics is faulty? So what happened to reality? Mine remains pretty much the same as it was last week.


Whenever that was. :E

Loose rivets
25th Sep 2011, 00:02
Hawking takes into account whom ?

Newton, to no lesser amount.


The Michelson Morley experiment was until the 80s, one of the most exquisitely crafted piece of science known to man. Michelson labored for 50 years in his endeavors, detecting the speed of light seemed to be his passion.

The apparatus floated on mercury, held in a pool on a substantial mass. I'm not sure they concluded anything from the null results for quite a while.

Michelson-Morley Experiment - The Null Result - Relativity, Special, Einstein, Ether, Theory, and (http://science.jrank.org/pages/4301/Michelson-Morley-Experiment-null-result.html)

The Michelson-Morley experiment is a perfect example of a null experiment, one in which something that was expected to happen is not observed. The consequences of their observations for the development of physics were profound. Having proven that there could be no stationary ether, physicists tried to advance new theories that would save the ether concept. Michelson himself suggested that the ether might move, at least near the Earth. Others studied the possibility that rigid objects might actually contract as they traveled. But it was Einstein's theory of special relativity that finally explained their results.

The significance of the Michelson-Morley experiment was not assimilated by the scientific community until after Einstein presented his theory. In fact, when Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 1907, the first American to receive that honor, it was for his measurements of the standard meter using his interferometer. The ether wind experiment was not mentioned.



The wiki reference does quote an Einstein interview where he cites electromagnetic theory as his inspiration ...

Perhaps why his Nobel Prize was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and not Relativity.

corsair
25th Sep 2011, 00:09
The bartender says, "I'm sorry, we don't serve neutrinos in here."
A neutrino walks into a bar. Seriously that's funny.

Loose rivets
25th Sep 2011, 00:11
But not yet.:p

Checkboard
25th Sep 2011, 00:11
Hawking takes into account whom ?

Apparently Einstein destroyed some of his findings before his demise.

Einstein destroyed some of Hawking's findings?? :confused: Einstein died in '55, and Hawking was born in '42 :confused::confused:

corsair
25th Sep 2011, 00:13
The Space cadets hope it's true because it might give us the starship Enterprise which is bollix because as we all know, we aint ever going to no stars, we are going into extinction right here on this here mudball
Seriously that's true. We're not leaving here anytime soon and seeking out civilisations and going places no one/man have gone before.

Space travel is a science fiction fantasy. I'm sorry to say because I really want to believe in it.

corsair
25th Sep 2011, 00:14
But not yet. It was now.

Lyman
25th Sep 2011, 00:15
Knock it on.

Blacksheep
25th Sep 2011, 00:18
I found a neutrino in my Old Pulteney just now. I poured it out only tomorrow. :)

corsair
25th Sep 2011, 00:20
This thread is like the old pprune chat. Instant reply.

Checkboard
25th Sep 2011, 00:29
The Space cadets hope it's true because it might give us the starship Enterprise which is bollix because as we all know, we aint ever going to no stars, we are going into extinction right here on this here mudball
Seriously that's true. We're not leaving here anytime soon and seeking out civilisations and going places no one/man have gone before.

Space travel is a science fiction fantasy. I'm sorry to say because I really want to believe in it.

Oh you pessimists! You are looking at Sci-Fi based too far in the future, when you should be looking at Solar-system based Sci-Fi, like Outland (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082869/) :)

Lyman
25th Sep 2011, 00:35
rackerjack of a movie, Sir. C

".tseb" s'yrennoC naeS fo enO

Checkboard
25th Sep 2011, 00:42
(: ʞɹoʍ puoq s!Ⴁ әɹouƃ! noʎ ɟ! ʎႨuo

radeng
25th Sep 2011, 15:19
Blacksheep,

A unit of time is defined as the time taken for a certain number of transitions between energy levels of a Caesium isotope, so it is of course related to wavelength. Various spectral lines can be found in light from other stars, which allowing for Doppler, correspond to the lines produced here from the same elements - if all the spectral lines shift by the same amount, then we have the same set of elements. Because the frequency (allowing for Doppler) is the same, it follows the same number of transitions in energy levels must have taken place in the same time.

Mike X
25th Sep 2011, 23:49
Where's everyone ?

I must be a neutrino.

Loose rivets
26th Sep 2011, 00:03
No . . . sorry . . . (said in a John Cleese sort of way,) don't get it.:confused:



Reading my post on gravity and the change of scale of matter, it struck me as funny that I could sense the Zolpidem slowly passing my blood-brain barrier. Started out okay, but really turned into a bluuuuuuuuuur.

I'll try to elucidate when I get all me neutrinos in a row. :rolleyes:

I've thought about this for decades, but it's all about getting clear the concept of one click of spacetime feeding an existing distortion (that we perceive as matter) and imparting a pulse of energy - and as it happens, size - that would endow it with all the effects found with inertia.

Back to Higgs again, I'm afraid.

Mike X
26th Sep 2011, 00:09
An old one.

If one is moving faster than the speed of light, there is only darkness ?

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 00:39
There is that postulate that Time and Inertia are indistuingishable.

Mike X
26th Sep 2011, 00:44
Slight drift.

What "speeds" do our brains fire at ?

Mr Optimistic
26th Sep 2011, 01:10
I never believed in gravitation anyway. Why should two lumps of 'stuff' feel any attraction, they don't even know they're there ! The whole thing is a con.

Mike X
26th Sep 2011, 01:19
I never believed in gravitation anyway. Why should two lumps of 'stuff' feel any attraction, they don't even know they're there ! The whole thing is a con.

You've never been in love ?

rh200
26th Sep 2011, 02:41
Why should two lumps of 'stuff' feel any attraction, they don't even know they're there !

Sort of explains me and women:(.

ExSp33db1rd
26th Sep 2011, 04:42
..........Because the frequency (allowing for Doppler) is the same, it follows the same number of transitions in energy levels must have taken place in the same time.

Not A Lot Of People Know That !

Slasher
26th Sep 2011, 05:53
What relationship is there between light and time?

Light is THE constant in time - mass - acceleration equations
G-CPTN. Light is the absolute constant whilst time mass and
acceleration are all variables depending where in the Universe
your butt is as compared to where someone else's butt is, and
how fast your butt is moving through spacetime with respect
to that other butt.

In an alternative Universe it is quite possible that light is the
variable whilst time is the constant, but in this one (like it or
lump it) 'c' is the constant. Otherwise the place would be one
hell of a horrible bloody confusing mess.

As I mentioned before, and I've already posted the math as
Alison CC said, no mass can EVER go faster than the LOCAL
speed of Light. However we can BEND the rules and still obey
Nature by warping space such that we can travel LOCALLY at
say 99% of c yet exceed it as seen by an observer bloke who
is OUTSIDE that warped space.

I could even go on by saying the Universe fully permits one to
buggerise around all day travelling backwards in time by just
using Black Holes, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Loose rivets
26th Sep 2011, 11:05
Light is the absolute constant whilst time mass and
acceleration are all variables . . .


Yes, but to whom? (yes, I know, the blokes with the butts . . . but . . .)


The following is how 'my' universe would behave:

What I'm getting at, is from an Olympian viewpoint, or God's eye, the 'mapped graticule of spacetime'* does not have to be linear.

For this very reason, we may never be able to detect gravity waves, because there would be no way we could tell if a photon had arrived via an area of distorted spacetime. In such a distortion, everything in it might appear enlarged or even unrecognizable, if viewed with magical eyesight from another (distant) viewpoint.


What is vital to understand is that a photon would take the same time to traverse one 'segment' - or graticule mapping-cube - no matter where in the Universe it was. Its size would be to scale, and its energy, although diluted from that distant viewpoint, would be correct when compared with matter that befits that area.




*an imaginary, or perhaps even real, mesh-like structure that would reveal just how spacetime was being distorted - be it by uneven expansion or tried and tested gravitational curvature. The Great Attractor might well be pulling spacetime into a bizarre lobe, the thing is, while we can observe matter giving us a clue to that phenomenon, we could not see such a bulge in the fabric in which matter is accelerating - if photons took the same time to traverse such a unit of spacetime.

antic81
26th Sep 2011, 12:35
You're all wrong...

My theory (which is completely correct) is no matter how fast the speed of light travels the speed of darkness will always be there first. Therefore ipso facto - the speed of Dark is faster.
Problem solved...everyone can go home now...and dont forget before you leave to put a dollar in the box.

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 14:12
Has one forgotten that matter behaves (or misbehaves) according to how (or if) it is observed? How much? How 'Fast'? "Where"?

In and of itself, that is rather a humbling concept at the outset of any journey to the Grail of Knowing.

CERN have affirmed the standard model, in most every way, Super Symmetry has been spanked, and Super Strings is shown to be, erm, wrong.

The Higgs is 95% disproved. The eleventh dimension is 'bogus', which means super gravity is nonsense.

100 Billion Euros to be so humbled by Nature? What is a Mother to do?

New nonsense cascading through the Transom as we speak.........

Lonewolf_50
26th Sep 2011, 18:59
There is that postulate that Time and Inertia are indistuingishable.
Does that make it a moment in inertia, rather than a moment of inertia, the factor in helicopter blades (when spinning) tending to approximate a disc? :E

antic: well, at least the CERN folks have derived a value for the speed of dark aka SOD. :\

Lonewolf_50
26th Sep 2011, 19:00
But Lyman, what if they were measuring by a blonde RCH rather than a red RCH? That might explain the dimensional difference. :cool:

Pugilistic Animus
26th Sep 2011, 20:46
I suspect quantum mechanical tunneling:)

Mr Grimsdale
26th Sep 2011, 21:02
I'm sick of hearing girls tell me there's no chemistry so all this talk of physics is a welcome change!

Loose rivets
26th Sep 2011, 22:01
Crumbs, my last post was even worse. Hard to make things clear.

Thing is, my idea gets rid of the need for more dimensions, strings, be they super or not, and indeed, complies with General Relativity. It's so simple, albeit at tad mechanical, but it just works - until one tries to explain inertia. That's what all the above waffle is about.

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 22:22
Does autorotation 'ply to Spatial Mechanics?

Nothing can exist without Time, for that Matter.

If Time and Transition are the same thing, are we OK?

tony draper
26th Sep 2011, 22:22
Inertia exists because there is another type of gravity operating at ninety degrees to the one we are familiar with it doesn't cause things to be attracted to each other it just dislikes anything moving from its own lump of spacetime.
:rolleyes:

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 23:24
Sir, Admiral, Sir

I think not ninety degrees. There are two? One push, one resist. Space resists intrusive Matter, and Inertia is repulsive.

All directions, and all reciprocals. What a fight. reminds me of my first wife.

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 13:09
You know, I don't blame scientists for not knowing, but I blame them for positing their guesses as highly likely.

And I blame the press for translating their best guesses into a form of 'fact' which the gullible then adopt as Gospel.

They don't know that SoL is absolute. Why should it be?

'Curved Space' is another Crock. Space is 'bugger all'. It's the empty space between the stuff that's floating about. How can 'Bugger all' be curved?

Dark matter? Complete bollocks. Guesswork. A theory that only stands til the next one.

The 'Big Bang' theory- fact? Fiction. They have precisely no clue!

Oi thinks that the universe is a lot simpler than many realise. It's just jolly big.:ok:

If you don't know. Don't guess! :ooh:

Keep yer half-baked theories to yourselves, oh scientists, until you know for sure.

Cacophonix
27th Sep 2011, 13:17
'Curved Space' is another Crock. Space is 'bugger all'. It's the empty space between the stuff that's floating about. How can 'Bugger all' be curved?



It is possible to measure the slight twisting of space time due to gravitational effects...

Relativity in the Global Positioning System (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/)

Caco

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 13:41
Knickers. ..

Checkboard
27th Sep 2011, 13:51
It's possible to measure the twist you have in those knickers as well ;)

Cacophonix
27th Sep 2011, 14:09
Knickers. ..

Relativistic knickers :ok: .

I am a fan already. :)

But seriously, space time like a girl's knickers (not knockers) can be twisted. Gravitational lensing relies on this phenomenon as well and is the basis for our ability to discern planets around other suns etc. (I am fighting a losing battle here aren't I)? ;)

Caco

Let Kip Thorne take on this brief history of knickers...

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/PubScans/VI-47.pdf

(See the stuff about LISA)

Loose rivets
28th Sep 2011, 00:03
Caco, what a superb review. Section 9, frequency shifts . . . really spells out the difficulties the project designers had to cope with.


100 pico-seconds. Sheesh . . . if they can do that, it's easy to see how they could detect the time error in the arrival of the neutrinos.





Simple-minded use of Einstein synchronization in the rotating frame gives only ∫ ′ dσ ∕c, and thus leads to a significant error.


Yes, any fuel would know not to do that ;)

Cacophonix
28th Sep 2011, 00:08
Loose

You are a good man...

Caco

reynoldsno1
28th Sep 2011, 01:02
The whole thing is a calibration problem - are they using the same stopwatch that Einstein used?

Loose rivets
28th Sep 2011, 01:48
(See the stuff about LISA)


Indeed. Again, it's a 9. Page 9. And the fun-loving Kip is following the (then) party line. But there's a problem.

In a universe that's pictured in pure math, however sound, the fundamental faults in a hypothesis often don't shout loudly enough. In this paper, he's way back in the days of the rubber sheet analogy, and it really works well for getting the basic concepts across. But, it really doesn't show a clear model of a sphere with spacetime flowing in from all directions. I've often said, try imagining a three-dimensional graticule that has a point crimped into a singularity. A lot harder. It's even harder to imagine that 3 D lattice pouring into that crimped area, but that's what we have to do. The greater the mass, the more distortion, and the faster the flow. That is just what a spaceship or even a photon has to overcome to leave that massive distortion. It flies against a tide of inflowing spacetime.

It's easy to see how spacetime would be twisted when the mass/distortion, is rotating.


Now, back to LISA. I believe this detection system will never work. I'm a bit alone here, and a long conversation with a professor in Brownsville TX ended in a rather dazed silence. Not surprising, since I was saying his entire reason for being was based on a fundamental mistake.

I have to say, I was uncharacteristically polite and modest about my assertions, but nevertheless, persisted.

Imagine 'my' universe. Every tiny spec of matter is being fed by an inflow of spacetime. Those points, are changing scale to absorb the inflow. Or, spacetime is feeding a change of scale, it doesn't matter, what matters is, any experiment we do will be made with stuff. Simple kit, all made of atoms. All being modified by their own inflow. Any stretching or compressing of our local spacetime - by a gravity wave - will not be something that is localized and measurable. The entire fabric of our local spacetime will be modified, and change scale in any wave-like pattern it likes, no material object will be able to detect this, because it, and the gaps between its parts, will all be modified by the passing wave. To those parts, nothing will seem to have changed.

I rather imagin it wouldn't be much different if it was in a common or garden spacetime. It is being curved by gravity, and so why not stretched and compressed as above? I'm not sure the component parts of LIGO would be immune from scale distortion even with the universe we know and love.

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 02:30
Bend or no, our Universe is infinite, yes? If it is, 'locale' is not only unimportant, it is impossible. We experience, therefore, only a version of time, nothing more, or less. It really isn't important how things work, because we know they do. This is not a philosophical canard, it is reality.

Mathematics is merely a language. It shares some truths with other languages that are intriguing, in that they suggest things that have to be true, but cannot be observed. The Higgs Boson is one such.

Nomenclature is a trap. My brother, the agnostic Astronomy professor believes at this point that Consciousness is necessary for things to work, and consciousness is simply a euphemism for spirituality.

Mike X
28th Sep 2011, 02:38
Consciousness is necessary for things to work, and consciousness is simply a euphemism for spirituality.

Energy follows thought. We create our own reality. Self-consciousness, only humans are endowed with. Yes, we have that which we have (unwittingly) created.

We have much time to learn.

arcniz
3rd Oct 2011, 11:41
Consciousness is necessary for things to work, and consciousness is simply a euphemism for spirituality.

Not!


Spirituality is a deliberate process of self-deception thorough which pre-digested ideas and myths are substituted for observable reality.


Consciousness is no more and no less than the combined aggregate effect of all the stimulus recently perceived within one's ambit, processed selectively through the sieve of one's historical memory and then finally modified in emphasis according to one's present state of intentions -- which might include spirituality as a filter, per above, or not.


>>>>>>>> back to the main topic


Speed of light through the Alps is not going to be the same as in vacuo. Light interacts with matter to slow down in various media -- with the slowing effect being analogous to the "refractive" index applied in optics.

For the nominal transit time (2.4 millisec, IIRC) the observed error of 60ns faster is highly significant. With CERN-style budgets and properly wound atomic clocks, they might well be able to do very repeatable measuring of particle stream transit times down to the sub-pico second level, which makes nanoseconds look very big in comparison.

If such high-resolution is available, then a repeated series of identical tests in different seasons should be able to sense the change in refractive index of the intervening Alpine mass as a function of seasonal (or perhaps even daily) variations in temperature - a kind of noise originating either from sunlight effects or from cyclic variations in heat flux from the earth's core, which one guesses might need to be on the order of 0.00001 C over several cycles in order to be helpful.

The logic would be that demonstrating variation in the delay phenomenon attributable to observable thermal effects would argue that the difference in the original observations is due to a refractive-index-type property of the signal path. Conclusion would then seem to follow that neutrinos have different properties vis-a-vis refraction than does light itself -- an interesting observation but not necessarily a violation of the baseline concept for an absolute fixed light-speed in vacuo.

OFSO
3rd Oct 2011, 15:34
Sometimes one's posts appear before they were written.....is this proof of FTL (Faster Than Light) or just FTT (Faster Than Thought) ?

Lyman
3rd Oct 2011, 16:25
In our world, nothing can arrive before it leaves.


In our World.

?

Lyman
3rd Oct 2011, 16:33
I think nomenclature is important to the individual. To see the World as a wonder does not mean one sees it as a myth, although myth is an important word.

Myth describes various historical conceptual versions of reality, and as such, does not exclude a hostile reaction in defense of logic v. (!) spirit.

For instance, getting worked up in projection of a theory as fact.

It has at times gotten innocent and intelligent people hung by the neck.

Explaining to people that they are demented, and 'offered proof' is a set of data that itself is suspect is not rational.

whistle/graveyard

arcniz
3rd Oct 2011, 21:56
My brother, the agnostic Astronomy professor...

Were yer bro also dyslexic, and an Irishman, a Scot, a Frog and a Rabbi present at the scene, then this confluence could well be the seed of an epochal joke that would set all the weighty-detail ballast of the larger topic in the Universal context it so greatly deserves.

tarbaby
3rd Oct 2011, 23:11
If the Big Bang occurred 4 million years ago, and the universe is 200+x million light years across, then something must have been going faster than light. But whatever, my brain hurts from all this reading. I can make a rum and coke disappear fairly fast.

aviate1138
4th Oct 2011, 07:56
Er, the Big Bang happened [unless you are a religious type] about 13.7 BILLION years ago.
Your 4 million years is barely a flick of the eyelid. :)

Nemrytter
4th Oct 2011, 08:21
This is worth a read: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.6160v1.pdf
The first of - I suspect - many papers to try and pick holes in the superluminal neutrino result.

Slasher
4th Oct 2011, 10:24
....about 13.7 BILLION years ago.

Um, its 14.3 billion years actually but I'm not about
to squabble over a piddling mere 600 million yonks.

Describing the origins of our Universe is like asking
a bloke to describe his conception complete with all
the math and probabilities. There are bound to be a
few different lengths on each error bar.

911slf
4th Oct 2011, 16:51
... on the faster than light result turning out to be mistaken.

If I am wrong and things really do move faster than light, then contact me last year and claim your winnings. :confused:

tony draper
4th Oct 2011, 17:08
Now now Mr Slasher:= your math is way out, tiz nowhere near 14.3 billion years since Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.
:rolleyes:

malljush
4th Oct 2011, 17:30
The harrier u go the behinder you will get and so IN THE PAS:OT U WILL BE

Mike X
5th Oct 2011, 00:35
I swear I read all this a few weeks ago ?

Slasher
5th Oct 2011, 04:43
...Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.

On that day -

- Adam was built and patented (on October 30th Eve was manufactured to satisfy Adam's shagging needs).

- Agriculture spread from the Near East to throughout southern and central Europe.

- Animal husbandry spread throughout Eurasia and reached China (ovine wifery hadn't yet reached New Zealand).

- World population grew to a staggering 7 million people.

- Not a lot happening in Egypt and the Nile valley. A lot of shit involving apples was about to go down in Eden.

Mr Optimistic
5th Oct 2011, 22:12
I think there are a lot of personal tragedies being played out on this thread.

Ascend Charlie
5th Oct 2011, 23:17
So there was Adam and Eve, and then there was Cain and Abel, and then there was only Cain. OK, how did the world's population incestuously emerge from the loins of A&E if their only remaining offspring was a boy?
Was there more kids? Did they all shag each other and produce the rest of us? Why don't we all have the same DNA?

I think I will travel backwards through time with Slasher's camera and suss it all out.

Wow. That was amazing. The pictures didn't survive the time travel. Sorry.

Slasher
7th Oct 2011, 04:26
I think there are a lot of personal tragedies being played out on this thread.

You wrongly posted here mate. I believe you're looking for the Limerick Thread.

ORAC
7th Oct 2011, 04:36
Nonsense, it's just a bit of light relief. :=

Slasher
7th Oct 2011, 04:42
He'll understand when he gets there! ;)

tony draper
7th Oct 2011, 08:06
Of course it is possible we have got everything arse about face.:uhoh:
BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rgg31/Horizon_20092010_Is_Everything_We_Know_About_The_Universe_Wr ong/)
Oh buggah! Dark Flow,Dark bloody Flow.:(

Slasher
7th Oct 2011, 15:52
That real hi tech iPlayer thingy of the Beeb won't let any of
us bloody furriners look at the content Drapes unless we all
trek to UKdom and get local IP's and stuff.

Is Wood Lane afraid we might get ejamakated or somethin?

Cacophonix
7th Oct 2011, 16:07
This whole FTL thing is interesting in the sense that it has long been recognized that certain astronomical processes appear to occur faster than the speed of light from a geostatic frame of reference e.g. orbits and differential movements of distant galaxies and so on.

It can be argued that the universe is expanding faster than c and that light from the far reaches of this universe will never reach us on the earth for example.

At a particle level two particles approaching each other at or near the speed of light converge at a rate faster than would be predicted by c itself and this is not precluded by special relativity.

What would be interesting (and is precluded by theory) is the transmission of information at or faster than the speed of light.

Now superluminal computing would be cool!

How to Build a Superluminal Computer - Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24903/)

Now that that very clever chap Jobs has moved beyond our ken I would expect Apple to take on this challenge! ;)

Caco

Dave Barnshaw
7th Oct 2011, 16:35
Who cares a monkeys about going faster than the speed of light---I am quite happy toodling 'round the countryside at 85k. in a nice little c152.:):)

Slasher
7th Oct 2011, 16:40
I am quite happy toodling 'round the countryside at 85k.

Are we talking quids here or the kilometric distance from Old Bolingroke?

BarbiesBoyfriend
7th Oct 2011, 17:58
Oh, Dearie dear.

They've got a 'standard model'.

But it wont work without 'Dark Matter'- so they invent it (despite the required mass of DM being equal to the mass of the universe x 5) and it being undetectable by any means. :uhoh:

Then they find that the Standard model needs 'Dark energy', so they invent that too.

Now they've got an observation (well at least it actually is something tangible), 'dark flow', that doesn't fit the Standard model, so they ignore it.:rolleyes:

These guys should listen to themselves.

The fact is that they have no idea at all how the universe started and their standard model is almost certainly complete BS.

G-CPTN
7th Oct 2011, 18:02
Stealth matter - that's the solution!

Explains UFOs too . . .

Cacophonix
7th Oct 2011, 18:11
Barbie

The Standard Model relates to strong and weak interactions at the particle level and does not incorporate gravity or dark matter.

The model is usually useful at the quantum field level and it certainly doesn't need Dark Matter to be useful!

Science and physics needs a theory until a better one comes along. What did these folks do to you to turn you so far from the the Standard Model (incomplete as it is)?

What makes you think it is all just a load of Higgs Bosons? ;)

Caco

BarbiesBoyfriend
7th Oct 2011, 19:15
Caco

My arguament is of a more philosophical nature.

There are things we know and there's things we don't. Theories such as the 'Big Bang' are just wild guesses. We have no clue really, and while I understand the need to posit something- anything- to stand in for a while as we wait for our knowledge to grow, in the case of the origin of the universe we really haven't a Scooby* (as we say in Scotland) :)

For example? What happened before the BB? Where did all the energy come from? Where did all the matter come from? Who or what caused it to go bang? We have no idea! None!!

We dinnae ken and should be honest enough to say so.

IMHO the 'big bang' is just a big guess.

I think the universe is a lot simpler than we think. I don't think that there's any curved space, dark matter, other bloody universes, dark energy etc etc.

What we see is what is there and the fact that there are many things about it that don't fit our 'standard model' is because our standard model is not correct.

I looked at that programme Drapes linked to in his post 215



* A 'Scooby doo'. a clue.

Cacophonix
7th Oct 2011, 19:47
Theories such as the 'Big Bang' are just wild guesses. We have no clue really, and while I understand the need to posit something- anything- to stand in for a while as we wait for our knowledge to grow, in the case of the origin of the universe we really haven't a Scooby* (as we say in Scotland)

BarbiesBoyfriend (I dinnae ken)

You know I'd put money on the fact that you were Fred Hoyle in another life! :ok:

Caco

PS - I also use the "not a scooby phrase" and there's nae a Scottish bone in my body. Where did I pick that up I wonder? ;)

Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards.

Fred Hoyle

tony draper
7th Oct 2011, 22:29
One's own theory involves the Earth floating alone in space surrounded by vast glass spheres,the outer one with the fixed stars/galaxies and such attached on its surface a inner one with the sun and planets rotating round us and the moon fixed to the innermost,once one has has the retrograde motion of mars sussed one shall submit one's paper to New Scientist for publication and world wide acclaim shall be mine.
:)

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Oct 2011, 02:12
Cac

I checked out Fred Hoyle briefly on't web.

Turns out that me and (the late) Fred mostly agree.:ok:

I thinks Fred and I is right and a lot of highly respected Cosmologists are talking out of their arses.

;)

Hydromet
8th Oct 2011, 02:48
You're all wrong, it's turtles all the way down. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

ORAC
8th Oct 2011, 06:50
Theories such as the 'Big Bang' are just wild guesses. We have no clue really
Radiation ripples show the Big Bang may not have been the first, and there could be more to come (http://www.news.com.au/technology/radiation-rings-show-big-bang-may-have-been-just-one-of-many-and-theyre-not-over/story-e6frfrnr-1225963294939)

For example? What happened before the BB? Where did all the energy come from? A Universe from Nothing (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html)

It's a zero sum universe.

Nemrytter
8th Oct 2011, 07:28
There are things we know and there's things we don't. Theories such as the 'Big Bang' are just wild guesses. We have no clue really, and while I understand the need to posit something- anything- to stand in for a while as we wait for our knowledge to grow, in the case of the origin of the universe we really haven't a Scooby* (as we say in Scotland
It's not a wild guess, it's an educated guess. There's a big difference. The big bang theory works well, we've got no information to suggest that it's incorrect and it fits with everything we know about physics. Perhaps it will turn out to be incorrect, and eventually maybe we'll have a better theory to explain the apparent expansion of the universe. Until then it's the best we've got.

I think the universe is a lot simpler than we think. I don't think that there's any curved space, dark matter, other bloody universes, dark energy etc etc.
Sounds like a wild guess to me. Particularly as it doesn't fit with experimental evidence ;)

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Oct 2011, 13:14
Simonpro. Well, let's call it our best guess. It's still a guess.

I don't think we'll ever know.

According to that programme Drapes linked to, the standard model only works if you add in 'dark matter' on a scale of 5 kg of DM for every 1 kg of matter in the universe.
In other words, there needs to be a mass of 5 universes worth of DM distributedaround the universe without being detected or the SM is off.

QED, it is. (IMHO;))

I say: if you don't know- don't guess.

Cacophonix
8th Oct 2011, 13:25
God forbid that we get you onto string theory BarbiesBoyfriend! ;)

Caco

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/SYxbbwIAaEI/AAAAAAAABpc/oXoJyZmcR7I/how-to-answer-stupid-critics-of-string-theory.JPG

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Oct 2011, 13:32
Sod that ORAC. Check out the author of the article.....:)


Radiation ripples show the Big Bang may not have been the first, and there could be more to come | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/technology/radiation-rings-show-big-bang-may-have-been-just-one-of-many-and-theyre-not-over/story-e6frfrnr-1225963294939)

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Oct 2011, 13:46
Cac

You made me larf! :ooh:

See that link that ORAC posted (and Tyres just referred to), contains a line about the CMB, and I quote:

'IS the leftover glow from the Big Bang'

Well, it may be. Or it may not.

This is what pisses me off! :)

We don't know that the CMB is anything! We think it might be this and in a few years we'll probably think it's that.

Makes me mad!:mad:

Cacophonix
8th Oct 2011, 13:58
'IS the leftover glow from the Big Bang'

Well the microwave frequency part of it isn't caused by bird shit at least! We know that thanks to Penzias and Wilson! :p


http://www.bell-labs.com/project/feature/archives/cosmology/cosmicnoise.mp3

Caco

Give it a whirl... Dr Amy is also easy on the eye!

9q7DbUCl6QU

G-CPTN
8th Oct 2011, 17:07
At least twice in that video (at 1:02 and 2:02) the phrase "faster than the speed of light" was used to describe the motion of elements of the Universe.

How can that be?

Cacophonix
8th Oct 2011, 17:27
At least twice in that video (at 1:02 and 2:02) the phrase "faster than the speed of light" was used to describe the motion of elements of the Universe.

How can that be?

In essence the expansion that occurred after the big bang was an expansion of space time itself (i.e. the universe). Light travels in the universe but the expansion occurs outside space time without violating Einstein's laws of relativity.

Of course people then ask well what is the universe expanding into and the answer it seems is nothing.

See:

Curious About Astronomy: How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation? (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387)

Faster Than Light (http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html)

Caco

fxNbXjBbzEo

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Oct 2011, 18:08
We're getting off the subject

Who is the hottest lady physicist (or science journalist ?)

tony draper
8th Oct 2011, 18:44
One hates to be pedantic but there is no such thing as 'Hot' in physics,:rolleyes:

G-CPTN
8th Oct 2011, 18:55
An absence of cold, then?

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Oct 2011, 19:04
Ok Drapes. Which Lady physicist is furthest from thermal equilibrium then

(or science journo. They are definitely in as I have looked back at that Helen Davidson and she is top class)

Cacophonix
8th Oct 2011, 19:06
Of course the timing on the original neutrino experiment may be out... as Contaldi argues in this paper...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.6160v2.pdf

One-way speed of light measurements in non-inertial frames of reference have always suffered from an interpretation problem due to a requirement for synchronising two or more clocks [11]. The problem does not exist in two-way speed of light measurements in which the (light) signal is reflected back to the origin of the apparatus where its arrival is measured with the same clock that measured its departure.

In this letter we will focus on the problem of synchronisation of the time signals used to calculate the TOF of the neutrino beam by the OPERA experiment. We will argue that there is sufficient ambiguity in the synchronisation and as such, the result may not be interpreted as done in [1].

The synchronisation of clocks is a fundamental problem in accelerating frames as only inertial observers are equivalent in general relativity. The OPERA experiment attempts to get around this problem by time-stamping their time chains using the clock signal of a single GPS satellite. GPS satellite signals have relativistic corrections applied to their tick rate and transmission frequencies...

If BarbiesBoyfriend is flying and navigating using an INS that is corrected using GPS then he might want to review this paper and be glad that that some theories (e.g. relativity) have practical application in the real world. :ok:

Caco

Slasher
9th Oct 2011, 02:41
At least twice in that video (at 1:02 and 2:02) the phrase "faster than the speed of light" was used to describe the motion of elements of the Universe.

How can that be?

Because there was no such thing as Time until a few trillionths
of a nanosecond (to put it in classical terms) after the Bang.

Nemrytter
9th Oct 2011, 06:20
Simonpro. Well, let's call it our best guess. It's still a guess.
I don't think we'll ever know.
Not with that attitude.:yuk:
We make a best guess and we work with it. Maybe it gets proven to be a bad guess, and in that case we'll come up with a better one.

According to that programme Drapes linked to, the standard model only works if you add in 'dark matter' on a scale of 5 kg of DM for every 1 kg of matter in the universe.
In other words, there needs to be a mass of 5 universes worth of DM distributedaround the universe without being detected or the SM is off.
It's not 'the' standard model, it's the cosmological standard model (which is not to be confused with the quantum mechanical standard model).

Cacophonix
9th Oct 2011, 08:34
It's not 'the' standard model, it's the cosmological standard model (which is not to be confused with the quantum mechanical standard model).

Simonpro

I suspect that BarbiesBoyfriend doesn't care what model he is referring to.

I trust, as a pilot, he accepts Newtonian physics, particularly his 3rd law and Bernoulli's principle. As for the stars, he might just look up from his EFIS now and again and wonder (not too long) where they came from and why they (and we) are here.

He might also ponder about gravity! ;)

Caco

BarbiesBoyfriend
9th Oct 2011, 12:00
Simonpro.

Goodness! I've no problem at all with us seeking to find out the truth. None at all.
What annoys me is when the most recent guess/ research work, gets presented as fact.
Comprendez?

Clearly though I've been mixing my models! Ta.;)

Cac

As a practical person, I've no problem recognising the presence of physics in my work. Highly aware of it in fact, which has to be healthy for a pilot!

Gravity: I'm glad you mentioned it here as clearly it's at the very heart of things 'cosmological'.
We live on a planet where gravity is ever-present. We have been studying it in various degrees, as long as we've been here.
So here we have an example of something that we don't have to make wild guesses at. We can study it in real time and close proximity at our leisure. We can bring the concerted efforts of the worlds scientists and scientific equipment to bear for as long and as often as we like.
Do we know how it works yet? No.:rolleyes:

You're correct in your suppositions. I oft think about time too. I'm not sure that there's any such thing.

I'm protesting not at the present state of our knowledge, but more at our arrogance.

We've a theory that the Speed of light is absolute. I say no. We think it's absolute only until we find out it isn't. QED, it's wrong to say Sol is absolute. We don't have all the facts and pan-universal knowledge to make a statement like that.

Similarly, The origin of the Universe. Give me a break! We have NO CLUE.
Yes, we have a theory. What is the likely chance of it being correct?

Don't represent it as fact!

Again, on a very grand scale, we're simply in no position to know how the Universe started (and I'm sure pretty much all proper scientists would acknowledge that).
So by all means posit the big bang theory and prop up the 'cosmological standard model' with dark matter, dark energy, dark flow and whatever else you need to cook up the books but DON'T represent it in any way as even quasi-factual.

Science is great, but it's when it leaps from 'we think' to 'we know' (- and sometimes, now we must act!), that it lets itself down.

Cacophonix
9th Oct 2011, 12:10
As a practical person, I've no problem recognising the presence of physics in my work. Highly aware of it in fact, which has to be healthy for a pilot!


BarbiesBoyfriend

I figured you for a practical man and I have never met a pilot (a living one that is) who didn't appreciate physics ...

All my posts have been with the proverbial tongue in my big cheek! :ok:

Caco

As for gravity who really knows what it is? We know its effects but what is it? Now I have a theory... ;)

BarbiesBoyfriend
9th Oct 2011, 12:12
Caco.

Yes, I appreciate your tongue being there. :ok:

You'll have figured out I'm no scientist, nor pretending to be one either.

I just think that they need checked from time to time (and rarely are).:hmm:

Cacophonix
9th Oct 2011, 12:24
QED, it's wrong to say Sol is absolute. We don't have all the facts and pan-universal knowledge to make a statement like that.

To be fair to Einstein he never actually said this (I know you are not saying he did).

In truth there are physical phenomena that occur at speeds faster than light but no information can be transmitted or transferred faster than light (OK, we believe no information can be)...!

What an enjoyable thread this is... :ok:

Caco

BarbiesBoyfriend
9th Oct 2011, 12:39
Let's try putting some perspective or scale on it.

Imagine a scale where knowing nothing puts you at zero and knowing everything about the origin of the universe puts you at 100.

Where are we now?

I'd say, somewhere a long way less than one.

Cacophonix
9th Oct 2011, 12:46
knowing everything about the origin of the universe puts you at 100

I suspect that only an omniscient creator gets 100/100. God forbid that I start a religious debate here (cue Richard Dawkins) but the current expansionist theories have a lot going for them.

As for scientists I suspect that that lawyer Hubble might have appreciated your blunt approach and challenged you to a duel for your lack of willingness to see his rose tinted shift... ;)

Edwin Hubble Biography Pt.1 (http://www.edwinhubble.com/hubble_bio_001.htm)

Caco

ENFP
9th Oct 2011, 14:11
If time travel is possible, then explain why not one single person from the next trillion years has bothered to come back here, ever.

Hasn't it been calculated by mathematicians that it is 99.9 % certain that we are in fact a computer simulation? A sort of 35th century sims if you will (I just wonder why I got such a shitty bit of the program). It was postulated that this would be the simplest and most effective way in which to observe life 'during our times', rather than all of the inherent difficulties and dangers associated with time travel. I know, I know, I need to dig out a link. Back in a bit!

BombayDuck
9th Oct 2011, 14:15
The origin of the Universe. Give me a break! We have NO CLUE

The COBE mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer) begs to differ.

Nemrytter
9th Oct 2011, 15:07
What annoys me is when the most recent guess/ research work, gets presented as fact.
Blame the media, then. They seem to have a rather low opinion of the general public, and think that it's impossible to present scientific work as anything other than BREAKTHROUGH! NEW TRUTH!

Do we know how it works yet? No.
That depends how you define 'works'. General relativity explains it very well, and has been proven correct with all experiments thus far. We know how it works, but we can't say why.

We've a theory that the Speed of light is absolute. I say no. We think it's absolute only until we find out it isn't. QED, it's wrong to say Sol is absolute
I underlined the important words. It's not wrong to say that the speed of light is absolute. As far as we can tell it is - but we also need to be aware that at some point in the future we might discover that it is not.
By your argument we shouldn't ever say anything, just in case it's wrong. We can't say that gravity always pulls us towards massive objects. We can't say that uranium fission always releases energy. We can't say that sound is a pressure wave.

Imagine a scale where knowing nothing puts you at zero and knowing everything about the origin of the universe puts you at 100.

Where are we now?

I'd say, somewhere a long way less than one.
And you can't say that. You, or anyone else, has absolutely no idea how close or far we are from being able to understand everything.

crippen
9th Oct 2011, 15:25
It was once said( I believe by the Mail) that the universe was shaped like this:-
http://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/userpics/29301/pringle.jpg

If it is shaped like a Pringle,light will arrive at different times depending on which way it travels.:E

BarbiesBoyfriend
9th Oct 2011, 16:35
Simonpro

I can go along with most of that. Just a couple of comments.

Yes, I agree the press make statements of 'fact' that would make a scientist cringe with embarassment. All part of the ubiquitous dumbing down that they promulgate.

Gravity. You take my point about not figuring it all out even though able to study it, then? Compared to trying to figure other things remotely ie from a very great distance.

Light. You say 'as far as we can tell it is'. Well, I've no problem with that form of wording. Once we've had a chance to gain a lot of knowledge, then maybe we can move to 'FTL is not possible'.

I think postulating SoL as an absolute is some way away from saying 'sound is a pressure wave'.

We can demonstrate that sound is a pressure wave, but we cant demonstrate that moving faster than SoL is impossible.

Hey, if Einstein never said it was impossible to go faster than light....

Of course, you're right too about my 1-100 scale. I'm sure you realised that I simply meant we don't know much. You'd probably agree?