Image: CERN
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
An Italian experiment has unveiled evidence that fundamental particles known as neutrinos can travel faster than light. Other researchers are cautious about the result, but if it stands further scrutiny, the finding would overturn the most fundamental rule of modern physics—that nothing travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second.
The experiment is called OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus), and lies 1,400 meters underground in the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy. It is designed to study a beam of neutrinos coming from CERN, Europe's premier high-energy physics laboratory located 730 kilometers away near Geneva, Switzerland. Neutrinos are fundamental particles that are electrically neutral, rarely interact with other matter, and have a vanishingly small mass. But they are all around us—the sun produces so many neutrinos as a by-product of nuclear reactions that many billions pass through your eye every second. [Click here to read more about CERN's Large Hadron Collider]
The 1,800-tonne OPERA detector is a complex array of electronics and photographic emulsion plates, but the new result is simple—the neutrinos are arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light allows. "We are shocked," says Antonio Ereditato, a physicist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and OPERA's spokesman.
Breaking the law
The idea that nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which itself forms the foundation of modern physics. If neutrinos are traveling faster than light speed, then one of the most fundamental assumptions of science—that the rules of physics are the same for all observers—would be invalidated. "If it's true, then it's truly extraordinary," says John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN.
Ereditato says that he is confident enough in the new result to make it public. The researchers claim to have measured the 730-kilometer trip between CERN and its detector to within 20 centimeters. They can measure the time of the trip to within 10 nanoseconds, and they have seen the effect in more than 16,000 events measured over the past two years. Given all this, they believe the result has a significance of six-sigma—the physicists' way of saying it is certainly correct. The group will present their results September 23 at CERN, and a preprint of their results will be posted on the physics website ArXiv.org.
At least one other experiment has seen a similar effect before, albeit with a much lower confidence level. In 2007, the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) experiment in Minnesota saw neutrinos from the particle-physics facility Fermilab in Illinois arriving slightly ahead of schedule. At the time, the MINOS team downplayed the result, in part because there was too much uncertainty in the detector's exact position to be sure of its significance, says Jenny Thomas, a spokeswoman for the experiment. Thomas says that MINOS was already planning more accurate follow-up experiments before the latest OPERA result. "I'm hoping that we could get that going and make a measurement in a year or two," she says.
Reasonable doubt
If MINOS were to confirm OPERA's find, the consequences would be enormous. "If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special relativity falls down," says Antonino Zichichi, a theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, Italy. Zichichi speculates that the "superluminal" neutrinos detected by OPERA could be slipping through extra dimensions in space, as predicted by theories such as string theory.
See what we're tweeting about
222 Comments
Add CommentThanks; apparently I was dreaming or imagined I saw trails in collision decay images left by particles that were traveling faster than light, and decelerating into extinction. I thought this was a known phenomena. It will be interesting to research this, because I cannot believe this is a new idea or a first proof. I swear my college professor spoke about light speed being a boundary, but not a limit; that particles and/or energies can travel up to it, or travel above it; they just can't cross. Maybe I just imagined it... thirty years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaster than light particles?
In a pig's eye!
More proof that particle physicists have wandered off into pseudo-science. We hardly needed more proof after the hammering they took in the initial LHC results.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Perhaps different dimensions in space and time exist that are unknown. Hypothesizing from the same, if they do exist, perhaps in these different dimensions, the speed of light varies from what is inherent in our present known dimensions or that, unlike our current known dimensions, there exists in the same no light speed limit to limit speed. What is stationary in one dimension could be at the speed of light in another or at increments of the same.Thus, Einstein's theory of the speed of light could prove valid in the known dimensions that existed at his time but not in alternative newly discovered dimensions of space and time!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess it's time to fire up the time machine!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnnnnd these two comments perfectly illustrate why I find the public's comprehension and understanding of scientific progress completely ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*oops, referring to promytius and rlodershaw
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein never wrote that nothing can travel faster than light. There are phenomena which certainly can. Einstein's restriction applies to mass or energy. If the results of this experiment are repeatable and verified, then it might suggest that nutrinos have no mass and transport no energy, rather than that they break accepted scientific paradigms by entering a science fiction world of hyperspace with extra dimensions etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein's Special Theory of Relativity never constrained particles from going faster than the speed of light. Only particles with a "real" rest mass are limited to less than the speed of light. Particles with an "imaginary" rest mass are constrained to go faster than the speed of light and are called "tachyons". I'm surprised at the sloppy language used in this article in discussing this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForgive my ignorance and jumping to conclusions, but is it possible, just thinking, that this means that communication can happen faster than the speed of light? Could neutrinos be encoded with information?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, only 60 nanoseconds. Is it possible that our measurement of the speed of photons doesn't account for resistence or counter balance? Perhaps a photon could even travel a little faster than our observations yeild?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, time may be reversible, like turning the clock backward. But it seems that you would have to rewind all movements of all forms of matter and energy to a state that existed at any particular point in the past along the time continuum. How much energy would that take? And the traveler himself would have to be 're-wound' so the past would replay exactly as before with no one to observe or contrast different points along the timeline. Even if there were randomness to allow time to flow a different way the second time around, the present (our present) would cease to exist. These neutrinos weren't traveling to the past. They simply traveled from one 'present' to another 'present' at a measured rate faster than the accepted speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI shall wait for confirmation of this before rushing to any conclusions .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be uncertainty about the mass of neutrinos so the uncertainty is still uncertain.
Since neutrinos do have some very small mass and interact gravitationally, I wonder if its gravitational interaction with the Earth's mass might have introduced some unforeseen effects/systematic error to the measurement process...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know where ScI Am is going but its becoming less & less reliable and more of a gee whiz uncritical reporter of anything labeled Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will report the latest nonsense without any attempt at critical thought
Every other news report on this data emphasized that even the researchers who made the observations are dubious of the results. They are releasing the results to allow the scientific community to go through the data and try to find any systemic error in the measurements before anyone cries Eureka!
Neutrinos have shown to have mass in transition states. Get your science right before knocking what may have legitimate questions see http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/borexino/nu-mass.html for more information. Remember when the LHC was first brought up it had a malfunctions that led to speculation that something from the future came back to break it. Just because it is new don't snub it. You silly rabbits gave string theory its chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciam is simply reporting what is on the wire they did not think this up and why is everybody so down on a place where people can discuss this stuff. Do you have these conversations with your pets?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you all forgot even Feynman believed time could travel both directions and used this as part of the ideal of symmetry. We are so hard wired to causality and that may be why we never get close to real GUT because we believe everything has to have a cause if it is an effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wondered what happened to Rumsfeld... Busted. We know what we know, we know that we don't know everything and we know what we don't know that we know......Oye
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStart with Fractals and end with Fractals and RIP Benoit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad to see someone mentioned tachyons, as I remember reading something about measurements being made showing that tachyons emitted by the sun were travelling "faster than light," and this was 10-15 years ago! Personally, I've always thought of the light-speed boundary to be a misconception, partially because I don't believe the speed of light to be constant. Instead, think of it as a function of gravity. After all, black holes show us that gravity can and does have an effect on the speed of photons, or else they wouldn't be "black." Also, for that to be true, photons must carry some miniscule mass in order for gravity to have a grasp on them and for mediums such as air or water to slow them down via friction. Cherenkov radiation shows us that subatomic particles can race past photons, although so far only in mediums such as water. I would have to say the true speed of light may possibly be infinite, in the complete absense of gravity, and in a perfect vaccuum without cosmic rays, dark matter, or anything else to interfere. This discovery that neutrinos can break the known speed of light is something which will hopefully give physics a much needed kick in the ass and lead to more open minded research and theorizing. Rules are made to be broken, or at least somewhat bent. Sure the interdimensional idea is a good one which very well may have standing, but keep in mind that "dark energy" is said to have inflated the universe faster than light during its first few moments of existence. I've never agreed with anything or anyone saying "No you can't do that!" But, that's just my mindset, as a hacker should have... ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed that John Ellis observed that SN1987a recorded a neutrino burst that arrived about an hour _after_ the light pulse, a direct contradiction of the report from the Opera detector. (SN1987a was a supernova in the Magellanic clouds and, indeed, light and neutrino pulses would start out there at essentially the same instant and "race" each other to the Earth). If the Opera result were correct, I believe that SN1987a neutrinos should actually have arrived about 2.5 years _before_ the light did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is another thought on this, however. Only a handful of neutrinos were actually detected with SN1987a, albeit within a very small time interval and very shortly after the supernova light pulse. So the signal did have good "significance" and most scientists, myself included, believe they were really associated with the supernova. Nevertheless, had a similar burst of neutrinos arrived 2.5 years before this, they would probably not have been noticed at all. So the possibility does exist that we actually missed them!
Einstein's theories of relativity do NOT say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. They say that nothing with non-zero rest mass can ever cross that barrier; although, zero rest-mass particles can do so. The real problem here is the relation between local and non-local events, e.g.: the dynamics of universal structure. Experimental tests of Bell's inequality have shown that microscopic causality must be violated; i.e.: there must be faster-than-light travel. In any physical theory, we must assume that there is some kind of non-local structure - and this non-local structure itself violates causality - i.e.: it must assume faster-than-light connections exist in order for it to exist and to validate any physical laws.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Ellis' observation would seem to be generally consistent with neutrinos having some rest mass, whereas the Opera result would be inconsistent. I'm just an pedestrian observer, but I understand that propagating neutrinos oscillate between lepton flavors, each thought to have still tiny but slightly different mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheyev%E2%80%93Smirnov%E2%80%93Wolfenstein_effect
"The presence of electrons in matter changes the energy levels of the propagation eigenstates of neutrinos due to charged current coherent forward scattering of the electron neutrinos (i.e., weak interactions). The coherent forward scattering is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium. This means that neutrinos in matter have a different effective mass than neutrinos in vacuum, and since neutrino oscillations depend upon the squared mass difference of the neutrinos, neutrino oscillations may be different in matter than they are in vacuum."
The entry closes with the following statement:
"The MSW effect can also modify neutrino oscillations in the Earth, and future search for new oscillations and/or leptonic CP violation may make use of this property."
Of course, non-zero mass neutrinos should also gravitationally interact to some extent with the Earth's mass, which might have some effect on their effective velocity.
At any rate, neutrinos do not propagate identically to photons, especially through matter. Of course, light could not be propagated in a vacuum following the same path as the neutrinos in this experiment.
However, the reported Opera results are probably the product of some systematic error in measurement methodology...
So nutrinos are tachyons, which have a very small rest mass. Thus they travel almost as slowly as light. Being tachyons, that explains why they hardly interact with ordinary matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo violation of special relativity is required. Travel faster than c is not forbidden, only increasing speed up to and beyond c. (due to the object's mass increasing toward infinity as that happens.) What may be occuring here is the first (recorded) way of generating tachyons, those hypothetical particles which always move faster than c. There has been much discussion about neutrinos changing type in flight. If such a change took place where the new type has a lower rest mass than the original, then energy conservation might require an increase in speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismv^2 (type 1) = mv^2 (type 2)
So if a neutrino travelling at 0.990 c, changed to one with 1/2 the rest mass, the tachyon might be moving at 1.4 c. The 60 ns overall speed increase could be used to determine the fraction of the 730 km travelled by th etachyon, if rest masses of the 2 types of neutrino are known.
ce light takes about 2.4 milliseconds to travel 730 km,
No violation of special relativity is required. Travel faster than c is not forbidden, only increasing speed up to and beyond c. (due to the object's mass increasing toward infinity as that happens.) What may be occuring here is the first (recorded) way of generating tachyons, those hypothetical particles which always move faster than c. There has been much discussion about neutrinos changing type in flight. If such a change took place where the new type has a lower rest mass than the original, then energy conservation might require an increase in speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismv^2 (type 1) = mv^2 (type 2)
So if a neutrino travelling at 0.990 c, changed to one with 1/2 the rest mass, the tachyon might be moving at 1.4 c. The 60 ns overall speed increase could be used to determine the fraction of the 730 km travelled by th etachyon, if rest masses of the 2 types of neutrino are known.
It will still be a great discovery if it can be shown that neutrinos are in fact tachyons. The discovery of the first confirmed tachyon would be historical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading from their published paper in Nature:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“3. Principle of the neutrino time of flight measurement A schematic description of the principle of the time of flight measurement is shown in Fig. 5. The time of flight of CNGS neutrinos (TOFí) cannot be precisely measured at the single interaction level since any proton in the 10.5 s extraction time may produce the neutrino detected by OPERA. However, by measuring the time distributions of protons for each extraction for which neutrino interactions are observed in the detector, and summing them together, after proper normalisation one obtains the probability density function (PDF) of the time of emission of the neutrinos within the duration of extraction. Each proton waveform is UTC time-stamped as well as the events detected by OPERA. The two time-stamps are related by TOFc, the expected time of flight assuming the speed of light [13]. It is worth stressing that this measurement does not rely on the difference between a start (t0) and a stop signal but on the comparison of two event time distributions.”
What is going on is a study of probability distributions. Since we know that nothing can exceed the speed of light, for this means going back in time violating causality, we know that there is a mistake in their analysis. The challenge is to find the mistake. The abstract stated:
“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.))X~10-5.”
I object to the headline in Nature:
“Particles break light-speed limit”
No. The particles did not break the light-speed limit. The complicated statistics seems to show this, clearly demonstrating a flaw in the statistical analysis. The paper was written in a professional fashion. The rewriting by Nature and Scientific American was not professional.
When we discuss probability density functions I think of quantum mechanics. There may be some quantum effect to give the results they obtained. Let us refrain from nonsense like time travel, which exceeding light speed is.
Excuse the font. The comments do not permit Greek.
You are right that the propagation of neutrinos in matter does not have to be the same as in vacuum. However, it would be surprising if the MSW effect could result in making neutrinos tachyonic (ie having phase or group velocity greater than c. Special relativity would require them to have pure imaginary mass for this).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are surely right when you say that systematic uncertainties in the Opera measurement need to be addressed properly. Calibration of the distance of travel, properly allowing for the MSW effect and other systematics need to be understood before physicists are likely to be convinced that tachyons have been discovered yet.
It is quite annoying to read people who misquote Einstein. He never said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. What he actually said and what relativity states is that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because it's mass would become infinite. Relativity states nothing about entities already traveling faster than the speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy money's on Einstein still.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Maybe I just imagined it... thirty years ago."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I dreamed of it thirty-ONE years ago, and I have the same rock-solid documentation of that as you have.
Einstein stated that, "if the speed of light is not constant, then time travel would be possible." As a scientist, even in theoretical physics, one must try to prove one self wrong, not prove oneself right (as done in hypothesis testing). Experimental physics requires independent corroboration and duplication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy first thought, as others above have speculated, that the speed of light may change, negating the claim that neutrinos are traveling faster than light. If so, it would mean that either light speed is not constant, or as we already know, the rate of time can change. Time can change locally or in a macro domain.
The European team has noted that not all neutrinos were clocked as faster than light. The slower ones had a lower energy state. They also note that neutrinos seem to pop into and out of existence unpredictably. Hence, the speculation about other dimensions, and speculations of mass or no mass.
Factually, one can slow down time, but the speculation about going backward in time is premature. At this point, we don't even know if time can be sped up. Our only certainty is that it can be slowed down by traveling fast, and we think that it can be slowed by gravity bending space-time. I expect that time is still relative to itself, even if low/no mass sub atomic particles can move faster than light. (if it turns out that space can be folded, it does not mean that time is sped up, only that distance is diminished)
It has been calculated that a Soviet Cosmonaut orbiting the earth at high speed in a space station for months actually was 2 seconds younger when he landed on Earth than he would have aged had he stayed on Earth. He was identified as the one human being who had traveled the fastest speed for the longest duration. He did not travel back in time, he only aged slower than we did; and only by 2 seconds.
I wonder if it would be possible for the collider to emit light at the same time, location, and direction as the neutrinos, and measure the speed of both simultaneously. I would not expect it to yield anything unexpected, but again, one must try to prove oneself wrong, not right. It would be nice if the American team would take this into account in making the modifications to accurately duplicate Europe's level of significance.
As an earlier commenter has pointed out mine is only a member of the public's poor understanding of physics. But I did email a NASA engineer almost daily for well over a year, with the primary topic being time-space. I hope I learned at least a little.
May be it's not a speed issue? No one said that neutrino in this experiment has traveled faster than light. It was just said that the particles reach its destination faster than they suposed to do. What if the problem isn't a speed but bended space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I were to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the detector is seeing neutrinos not from the original source, but from virtual pair-production along the baseline. One of the pair members destroys the original, while the other continues on to hit the target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is analogous to a runner jumping into a race halfway; he or she need not be the fastest to cross the finish line first.
But I suspect this would hing upon the probability of neutrino-neutrino interactions.
This question is probably out of line, but I'm just curious. Maybe someone on this website knows the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article says the neutrinos traveled 1030 km and the time was measured to an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds. Does anyone know how a distance of 1030 km is measured that accurately? I know you can measure that accurately if you have a straight unobstructed line of sight by timing the arrival of light. But there must of been plenty of solid obstacles over a distance of 1030 km that would throw off your measurement. I don't think they used a wooden yard stick. And how do they know within 10 nanoseconds just when a few million individual protons emitted what must have been trillions of neutrinos?
I don't know enough to have an opinion on this. I'm just asking in good faith whether we should be skeptical of this kind of accuracy for this kind of measurement.
I agree that some relativistic effects produced by the neutrinos' gravitational interaction with the massive Earth might be possible and should be considered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the actual path length traversed is somehow slightly shorter than expected...
That seems like a good candidate for error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaranoff quoted the Nature report:
"The time of flight of CNGS neutrinos (TOF) cannot be precisely measured at the single interaction level since any proton in the 10.5 ms extraction time may produce the neutrino detected by OPERA. However, by measuring the time distributions of protons for each extraction for which neutrino interactions are observed in the detector, and summing them together, after proper normalisation one obtains the probability density function (PDF) of the time of emission of the neutrinos within the duration of extraction."
If I understand correctly:
- Some extractions do not produce any detection events
- The probability density function of proton extractions to approximate the departure time for a group of detections presumes that a normal distribution applies.
- If, for any reason, it is the first protons in most extraction groups that actually produce neutrino detections, their TOF would be underestimated!!!!
I think there is a presumption that if only we could add enough energy to a mass, that the mass can be accelerated sufficiently. Alternatively, we could consider that if enough of the mass can be converted to energy we might find there is an interaction with space-time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would mean that a nuclear explosion would create such a distortion of space-time. While I don't expect anyone to agree with that proposition, I also don't think it is as unreasonable as it might sound at first thought.
As I understand, as a non-zero rest mass is accelerated, its effective mass increases, requiring even more energy to accelerate further. Eventually, (before the speed of light can be attained) the effective mass becomes so great that any further acceleration would require more energy than is available in the universe. Perhaps my memory is fading, though...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't get the concerns, if the wavefront for light is not a constant we would get most of the same results, that is changing time or length to keep the speed at a maximum for multiple observers. Recall that Einstein never verified the one way trip speed he just assumed it was a constant and built his physics around the assumption. Of course if you use the same physics to prove this maximum your proof will verify this assumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo measuring a particle faster does not surprise me, however the revers trip speed would be interesting to know. If the reverse is slower, then this experiment will only be verified with the same direction. Hmm, wonder if it has to do with rotation of the earth.
Either way the wavefront may be different for each observer.
Rufus
If the particles travel faster than the speed of light wouldn't relativity theory suggest that their speed propells them into the past. Would that account for the variation noted in the arrival of neutrinos from the supernova?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't want to muddy the waters any more than they are(being a relativity fan), but could quantum mechanics somehow be a player in this...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrshoff is asking the right question. Does this mean that communication can happen faster than the speed of light? The speed of light can be thought of as the limit on the speed of communication. Two alternate possibilities:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) If emission of neutrinos are random, not controllable, then they cannot be used for communication and we may be seeing an "entanglement" phenomenon.
2) 60 ns is about 18 meters at light speed. 730 km is over 12,000 times that distance. I would like to know more about how it was determined that the measurement is accurate to within 20 cm.
Yes, I have heard that that is accepted reasoning. I presume you would know it better than I.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was dreaming of changing a mass (and any increase of that mass) to energy, until it is questionable if any mass is left.
There were some who feared that fission would tear space-time. Indeed, some speculated if breaking the sound barrier would tear space-time. While I don't think we would be able to discern a space-time distortion in a controlled nuclear reaction, I would not be surprised if there is such a distortion in a nuclear blast.
Obviously, fusion delivers more energy from an equal amount of mass than fission. It has been observed that light will bend around objects like our sun. In effect, we can see around the edges. It is reasoned that this is an effect of gravity bending space that light is moving through.
I am just imagining that if the conversion of mass to energy (rather than gravity) is distorting space, and therefore time, that it could explain 1. the bending of light on a macro scale, 2. the sub atomic observations of OPERA in the article, and 3. the early arrival of neutrinos from emerging or ending stars mentioned by an earlier commentor.
Its just speculation, not a vaid theory- hopefully food for thought for those more knowledgable about such things than I.----- or fodder. One does not need to understand physics to be facinated by physics.
Could it be that the guy with the chronometer at Grand Sasso is pushing the button a bit too early?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an extraordinarily narrow-minded view, rloldershaw. I worry that had you been in charge of the experiment, you'd have buried the results as impossible. Maybe it is a mistake, but perhaps not. Without pushing the boundaries, we learn nothing new and become stagnant and complacent. I really hope this turns out to be true - it will be a very exciting time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhotons are waves, and so their speed is limited. Particles having real mass are actually limited in speed by the way they are accelerated. Neutrinos must be accelerated by non-electromagnetic forces, and so their speed is not limited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs gravity limited to the speed of light? For example, photons approaching a star gain energy, and photons leaving a star lose energy. This means gravity works faster than light.
Nerds who keep up on science just by reading scientific american and by having taken freshman or sophomore college physics shouldn't propose their new theories of nature or interpretations of relativity. It is embarrassing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts fascinating to think of new dimensions in space-time. Our senses are how we interpret the world. We know that other animals can sense many things humans cannot (migrating birds, bats, etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut when we identify phenomenon that we cannot sense, like x-rays, infrared, or gamma rays, we devise machines that can sense those effects and translate them into something we can perceive.
But new dimensions are thought of as a place we can go to, rather than a thing we can observe indirectly. This may be a lingering effect of old sci-fi movies of mentally traveling to a new dimension.
We are not certain that disappearing and re-appearing particles are jumping dimensions, but it seems to be the prevailing explanation.
Could it also be explained by a particle with an unstable mass? We think of an object as having a determinable amount of mass. That mass can be transformed to heat, light, or energy in some form, but imagine if that conversion were fluctuating or oscillating back and forth from mass to energy and back at some frequency that is also fluctuating.
In my head, this has effects of extremely high temperatures and pressures, localized at sub atomic scale. In my personal opinion, and real scientists find this laughable, but temperature and pressure can be considered to be dimensions just as length, width, height, and time. In my defense, sufficient extremes of heat and pressure can change the very structure of matter.
I think of discussions of alternate dimensions in those terms. That the very structure of elements can be transformed and have unusual properties. But sub atomic particles are not like elements and my train of thought stumbles there.
I make no appology if you are embarrased by me. I just value my own ability to think uniquely, right or wrong higher than someone else's abiility to regurgitate what is known to be right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't mind if I am wrong 10,000 times, even if it embarasses you. There is always a statistical probability that someone with a unique thought will open yet another new door... or provoke some one else to open a door in trying to straighten out queer thinking.
My perspective is simply different than yours. Its supposed to be. Its expected. Diversity is a good thing in nature. But acceptance is a measure of how evolved one is.
As we know from relativity, gravity curves spacetime around the earth and the sun. If the neutrino is translating in another dimension which is not curved by gravity, then it is explainable why it would arrive slightly ahead of photons (which must travel along the spacetime curve).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother interesting and perhaps parallel phenomenon is that dark matter also has very little interaction with our own kind of matter. They behave in some ways similar to "dark matter" (which has also been proposed to consist of WIMPs). It is suggested that neutrinos may be a breed of particles in common between physical matter and dark matter.
A Heartfelt Amen is in order! And a thumbs up. This comment applies to All areas of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also possible that despite Emmy Noether's proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimply time is symmetrical locally only. Activation energies form the variable clock.
As Feynman stated many times, attack the problem from a different angle. The current lines of attack have been well traveled. However, in the end we have to produce experiments which demonstrate the correctness of our ideas. It should be fun thinking up experiments to try and prove one way or another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf neutrinos detected by OPERA could slip through extra dimensions in space (as predicted by theories such as string theory) they would violate the Lorentz symmetry (on which string theory is based too). This paradox explains, why string theory is internally contradicting itself and why it leads into fuzzy landscape of many solutions instead of distinct testable predictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn completely flat space-time the neutrinos couldn't travel faster than light, but our space-time is not completely flat – everyone can detect with microwave antenna, how it undulates. So we can observe various (subtle) violations of relativity too. In dense aether theory the neutrinos could really travel faster than light, because photons of light (heavy photons of gamma rays in particular) interact with CMBR background slightly and they're moving along spirals trough vacuum, which makes their travel longer and as such slower.
http://tinyurl.com/yk239q7
Thank you. I was raised in a time when scientists and engineers liked to engage the public to enlighten, educate and stimulate conversations and ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow the role models are politicians and billionaires. I know theoretical physicists can seem elitist to experimental physicists, but that too may be a little dated. Perhaps many with knowledge now feel privileged among the ignorant.
Thanks for your kindness. My education may be dated, or even faulted, but my imagination just keeps going!
OFF THE SCALE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- James Ph. Kotsybar
The young lady known simply as Bright,
who could travel at speeds fast as light,
said, “While I’m never late,
I’m concerned that my weight
goes to infinite mass, though I’m slight.”
Dark matter if interacting could bring back the aether theory, in which case the neutrinos are like a hydraulic fluid. I don't think that is the case, but if you are thinking creatively and interact with dark matter its a possibility. Problem for me is we created dark matter but have never shown it to really exist. It could be just the thumb in the dam because we lack a clear fundamental picture of what is really going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, light passing through the gravitational field of a massive object is, just like all matter within a gravitational field, accelerated in the direction of that field's focal point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result, light passing through a gravitational field is accelerated in the direction of that field's focal point which, depending on the direction of that light's self-propagation, generally curves the net direction in which that light propagates, relative to an external observer.
Note that this does not increase the velocity of light in the direction of its self-propagation: it only adds additional velocity in the massive object's direction.
This simple explanation does not agree with curvature of abstract dimensional coordinates as described in general relativity, but I prefer more physical explanations...
That's fine - I seem to recall a Disney cartoon in which, I think it was Pluto and Goofey, or someone tried to exceed the speed of light, or something like that. They never made it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo,no,no, Einstein wrote in his 1905article (Annalen der Physik), that superluminal speeds cannot occur because the gamma factor in the Lorentz transformation equations assumes infinity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry Mr. Rosenfeld, Einstein was wrong as SCIAM March 2009 and my IEEE - article October 2003 ("Absence of the relastivistic transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies") have claimed much earlier and for less money!
Hartwig Thim
You may have enjoyed the NASA Engineer's thinking on time-space (I mentioned in an earlier comment). He was educated primarily in Mississippi. He had his own theory on this subject, and arguing it with peers only served to sharpen his thinking, not stop it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mentioned a variable clock. When you think about it, does a clock really measure time? Its really only a metronome. The atomic clock is just an attempt to relate a clock to nature, to something repeatable, but is it related to a known constant? If time slows, the clock slows with it. The only way we measure time slowing, is to compare it to another unaffected clock to establish relative time.
Its fun to think about. And that different angle you mentioned, sometimes it comes because the facts have changed! Thats the fun of this conversation. It seems reasonable that the fact of "c" is a constant was once revised to be true, but under certain conditions (two conditions if I remember correctly). Now those conditions are open for debate.
In describing symmetry time is allowed to travel both ways and with the weird behavior and observations regarding their phase changes one of which contains a small amount of matter makes the conclusion that the speed of light is not a boundary but a limit for matter in its regular phase. Since we understand between 2 to 4% of the matter of the universe I hardly think we understand the possible speed limits of light except how it relates to elector-magnetic changes. The word myopic and egocentric keep coming back to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me I meant electro-magnetic changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are saying that neutrinos in space and those measured by the Europeans are jumping dimensions, but not exceeding the speed of light? That the distance neutrinos travel is less than the distance we measure? And that variations of time as I suggest, are not the issue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStarting 2000, I have been pointing out that at ultra high energies, Einsteins special relativity needs to be modified : the energy momentum formula needs to be replaced by the so called Snyder-Sidharth formula. According to this, the E=mc^2 gets an extra positive term, effectively boosting the speed of fermions slightly. The MINOS & OPERA results are a confirmation of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight it be that "c" is actually 60ns faster over 730km than we previously thought?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we have been measuring the speed of actual photons to arrive at our value for "c", and photons wind up being slower than that (e.g., because out vacuum was imperfect, or some other technical imperfection in the measuring apparatus), then doesn't this simply get us to a more perfect measurement for "c"?
Since relativity made many predictions, all of which have been observably true and all of which depend on "c" being the maximum speed, then I think that if this is not just a statistical error then we just found that the number we had for "c" was wrong an needs to be revised.
SigmaEyes- I have it on high authority that time passes Much slower in Mississippi.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may be tagging onto your shirttail, but even with my poor understanding of your comment, you may better describe what I have tried to construct. Mr (or Dr?) Sidharth, can you put this Snyder-Sidharth in terms I can understand? Is the positive term additive? Is it constant? Is it known? Is it based on calculations? And would it account for the neutrinos traveling vast distances in space as well as the OPERA results and expected MINOS results?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, additional dimensions are too complex for my simple thinking - I certainly don't even understand GR. I'm just guessing that gravitation's effect on the propagation of (non-zero rest mass) neutrinos may change its path through the Earth and perhaps contribute some additional velocity while not exceeding the speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the neutrinos propagate at near the speed of light in the direction of their propagation AND are accelerated by gravitation in a secondary direction, I think it might be considered by most that it is traversing 'spacetime' in some intermediate net direction at a velocity exceeding c, but perhaps the multidirectional velocities allow this to occur without violating any speed of light restriction...
Has the actual speed of light traversing curved spacetime ever been measured in any way? Maybe spacetime is being curved back on itself by the Earth's gravitation in conjunction with the neutrino's relativistic velocity or something...
I do think that gravitation's effects on non-zero mass neutrinos passing though the Earth's mass would exceed the effects of light passing through the Sun's gravitational field in the supposed vacuum of Solar space, and I suspect they are not well understood or fully considered in these experiments.
I burst out a laugh out loud at that! Thanks. Perhaps you have been there, too. It can be a nice thing. Things just don't move as fast in the southern heat unless you have central air [smile]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed that some of the social conservatism down there, and in Alabama is greater than that in Texas; but I have met some very nice people in the South, including those three states. And time is indeed slower in the more rural towns.
I hope others get a chuckle out of your comment, too.
If mini black holes can appear for a short period & collapse inside the LHC at CERN, why not a mini worm hole? Why this neutrino particle could not have crossed covered that distance thru worm hole within the LHC thus giving thus appearing to have traveled faster than the speed of light?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI relate vectors to navigation. If a boat is traveling west with a speed limit of c, and the current is moving south at a slower speed, the boat travels SW a little faster than vector c minus the current vector. Its the same formula as solving a triangle in geometry, but it would not yield the faster than c speed recorded for the neutrinos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps I am not following you, though.
I would think that the gravitation of the earth would not account for the observations in space that other commenters mentioned earlier. And I have read about those some time ago - they were considered to be anomalies, unexplained, or errored at the time.
I understand your questioning of measuring the speed of light. Our Apollo, the Europeans, and the Soviets left reflective mirrors on the surface of the moon. Eventually, it was learned how to point lasers at the mirrors accurately enough for the reflected light to be captured and measured. But the time is used to calculate the varying distance between the Earth and Moon, not to verify the speed of the laser light over long distances. I suppose if we knew the distance for certain, by some other means, scientists could verify c this way. I believe scientists on Earth have measured the speed of light directly, but even the discovery of new planets are based on light being c and the wobble of exo-stars.
Of course you could argue that a straight line between Earth and the Moon would not be through curved space, and that the search for exo-planets is done by looking at dark spots in the night sky. But the exo-star wobble is caused by the gravity of the exo-planets.
Photons are attracted by gravity because photons travel through "ether" that is affected by gravity. Neutrinos are not affected by "ether". Photons are waves, and so their speed is limited. Particles having real mass are actually limited in speed by the way they are accelerated. Neutrinos must be accelerated by non-electromagnetic forces, and so their speed is not limited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to measure how gravity limits the speed of photons. For example, photons approaching a star gain energy, and photons leaving a star lose energy. This means gravity works faster than light. But measuring the exact change for a photon approaching, and then comparing that to the change for a photon leaving, can provide us with a measurement of the speed of gravity.
Very good clarification of speedboat vectors - thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if I concede the relativistic contraction of spacetime for a particle that self-propagates at near the speed of light, the additional accelerating effect of gravitation might contribute to those relativistic effects, curving spacetime for the particles in some way that alters velocity/distance traversed. Similarly to gravitational lensing of light but perhaps even more so because of the neutrino's mass.
I don't find any comments regarding observations in space - can you give me some comment ref. numbers?
My question about measuring the speed of light pertains to light traversing 'curved' spacetime - gravitational lensed light. While it might seem that its traversal distance has been increased (relative to an expected uncurved path), I don't know.
If spacetime within the Earth is graviationally curved and particles with mass are traversing that spacetime without interacting electromagnetically with matter, how would that compare to the linear path of neutrinos presumed by the experimenters?
I don't follow you on what the speed of light has to do with the detection of exoplanets from the wobble of stars being gravitationally perturbed or by the dimming of the star as a planet traverses its observed surface, but perhaps that a moot point?
I mention light being curved traversing spacetime that is gravitationally 'curved' because propagating neutrinos should be similarly effected, since they usually travel at near c, only more so because they have some tiny mass.
The effects of gravitation do not stop at the Earth's surface. Since neutrinos can pass through matter without interacting with it at near the speed of light but do interact gravitationally, I strongly suspect that the neutrinos in this experiment are not following a straight path from CERN to the detectors.
From what I've read, it seems that the experimenters have estimated the baseline traversal time for particles traveling at c based on a straight path.
Then there's the possible accelerating effect of gravitation on particles of even tiny mass... I don't know what the net effects might be but I think there's a potential discrepancy between expectations and actual traversal path, distance and perhaps velocity due to the relativistic effects of neutrino velocity and the Earth's gravitation.
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A neutrino... is an electrically neutral, weakly interacting elementary subatomic particle with a small but non-zero mass. It usually travels close to the speed of light. Being electrically neutral, it is able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected, "like a bullet passing through a bank of fog"."
As I understand, it difficult to keep a propagating very low mass particle from traveling at near the speed of light. As I understand, propagating particles are waves: they collapse into a localized particle when they are 'detected' by the material absorption of their momentum. However, I'm not an authority on the subject.
It may be the ultimate particle to measure the speed of light. http://bit.ly/qsvnNe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisneutrinos are 25 ppm faster than c, they found. The speed of light in air is 292 ppm slower than c, which depends on temperature and air pressure. To measure the distance between CERN and gran sasso GPS electromagnetical waves are used. If their speed, i.e. path, air pressure, index of refraction in air, is misestimated by 10 % we have the effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's keep in mind that reports of the neutrino velocity anomaly have been blown up for the purpose of selling copy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is unverified experimental evidence, and the investigators are seeking corroboration of their results.
Here's an honest headline:
Investigators seek corroboration of unexplained experimental results which indicate neutrinos travel
faster than light;
OR:
"Particles Found to Travel Faster than Speed of Light
Neutrino results challenge a cornerstone of Einstein's special theory of relativity, which itself forms the foundation of modern physics"
I find it disturbing that SciAm has become so sensationalized and so damn unscientific.
The data has not been peer-reviewed or published yet much less corroborated. The results may be corroborated and if so that's wonderful, but let's look at HYPE for what it is. Is the need to sell subscriptions so desperate that SciAm must become the "National Inquirer" of scientific publications?
So what's next for our popular American scientific journal?
Scientific American Media Group teams up with Fox and the Weather Channel to produce "So we think you can dance for the weather!"
That would appear the simplest answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs described by Sigma Eyes better than I, a clock is a metronome, and time is dependent on change of rate, which may be variable.
If time is variable, then time itself moves from dense to less dense. Time could still be symmetrical locally based on the local clock and distance from that clock.
Also Relativity who's effects have been measured are not rendered moot, but rather we have a deeper understanding of time.
I do think that the first thing is to check that the speed of light is not just a better measurement.
Even though the speculation is fun.
LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see the hype as good in that it makes many jump out of the box and look at things from a different angle.
On the other hand, if you forget that this is just early experimental data, then some people may be confused.
How many times have I had to explain that entropy in a thermodynamic sense is not disorder, but simply moving from dense to less dense. Still today there are people who have this false conception because it was borrowed for information theory.
The brain of Albert Einstein was abnormal, maybe some of his concepts are abnormal too. Does the thing we call vacuum actually exist ? -This doesn't try to resuscitate "Ether"-. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell like absolute 0 K a true vacuum should be impossible to reach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is abnormal to be less or greater in intelligence than the mean.
Aether or Ether depending on where you learned, same thing.
Is Dark Matter Ether? I don't know, don't know that Dark matter really exists, except that we have a knowledge gap.
Oh and I read that someone concluded that if this is true that causality is gone. That is not necessarily the case. Time could be variable but like entropy have a set direction where reversibility is only locally.
Time if locally symmetrical but variable between points in space then solves the problem, and if this was the case then many things click into place in such a way that the world makes more sense. At least in my mind compared to string theory.
But the truth is the poster who mentioned that its most likely due to us not having an accurate measurement for the speed of light is the first place to check.
It will be fun to watch as things develop and to speculate.
I think physical light travel is a notion not justified by this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf special relativity is 'breaking down', then it cannot be relied upon to extrapolate a conclusion that FTL ability predicates physical time travel.
FTL communication without physical time travel seems realistic to me.
Einstein's brain was a normal brain, but he made logic errors For example his light speed postulate was illogical yielding illogical equations the Lorentz transformation equations. These equations have been derived by emitting a light flash in the rest system x,y,z,t, Einstein claimed that this flash will expand accrording to x² +y²+z²-c²t² =0 when an observer passes by he would see in his systemx',y',z',t' the equation x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0. this is physically and logically impossible as one flash cannot create two flashes one in the system x,y,z,t and another one in x',y',z',t' since only for one flash electrical energy has been supplied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn conclusion Einstein was not able to do logically correct thinking. The philosopher Helmut Hille ascribed Einstein's thinking deficiency to the Asperger syndrom Einstein was probably suffering from.
100 years have been wasted and a lot of money, too.
Nonsense Herr Rosenfeld! Photons also have rest mass zero, they travel in the fundamental aether frame (Cosmic Micreqave background) at c, on earth they can travel at c+v v= 370km/s in the direction of constellation LEO according to Smoot (Nobelprize 2006).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou shoud really read Einsteins 1905paper. And also my IEEE article:"Absence of the relativistic transvers Doppler shift" which contains the wrong gamma factor (time dilation).
neutrinos can travel faster than light, in the opposite direction of constellation LEO their speed would exceed tlight speed c by 370km/s. Einstein said no, nothing can travel faster than c, he was wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn further reading about this experiment, I found that this group is claiming a distance accuracy of 20 cm over 1030 km. Apparently they are relying on satellite telemetry for this distance measurement even though part of the distance is underground. The accuracy of their distance measurement is one of the areas that is being challenged. So in other words, one possibility is that they are claiming a precision in their distance measurement that they simply don't have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscould the neutrinos that are moving "faster than light" actually be hitting the front end of the detector while the distance the scientists measured to the neutrino source was from the center of the detector?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein wrote, that in physics speed larger than c does not occur. The Lorentz transformations the basis of Special relativity have been derived on the assumption that c can not be exceeded. His theorem for adding velocities shows that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisv1 + v2 = (v1+v2)/1+(v1.v2)/c.c
for two lightbeams travel in opposite directions this yields: c + c = c
Hartwig Thim
There is no way around relativity has been refuted at CERN.
Why are we so egocentric that we assume no other dimensions. It was only 400 years ago the sun spun around the earth, shortly after that the earth and universe spun around the sun then we realized the sun occupied a small amount of space in an unimportant part of the universe which we assumed was the milky way and then we discovered the Milky Way is one of many galaxies and not very distinct occupying a part of space that we can see. Since we can only account for 4% at best of what we call matter why is everyone afraid of extra-dimensions. It reminds me of segregation in the service, women in combat roles and now gays serving their country and worse of all getting married. My advice to all you great minds is get over it and let the facts speak for themselves. I love Einstein, Feynman, Smolin and Freeman but even they are wired to view reality a certain way. And as a rule we seem to always be off by a factor or two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaster than light is unlikely if it has mass which implies inertia. If you remove the inertia you may remove the limit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtra dimension IS needed to manifest the phenomena we call gravity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concept of ether NEEDS to be reintroduced in our understanding of the universe.
The OPERA experiment is a proof of extra dimension. The future will confirm that!
Here is an explanation to the differences in time that the OPERA experiment states:
Space-time is curved by matter and all our measurements for distances are down to the bone dependent on electromagnetic radiation and wavelengths that move on that surface the space-time provides. The neutrino can on the other hand move through space-time in a hyperspace of a higher order than the space-time. The neutrino has the ability to move freely and is NOT dependent to move along the curvature of space-time. As space-time is curved between the distances of CERN and Gran Sasso light will need MORE time than the “free” neutrino to cross that distance in hyperspace.
http://www.konvektionsteorin.n.nu/english-version
(this explanation was also sent to press office at CERN, 2011-09-23; 14:28)
If time is variable then why do we need extra dimensions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst we need to define what is time. Time is the distance between events. How we define time is based off something which we know changes with regularity and we use that as a ratio of comparison.
Sometimes the models we use are so simple that we see the forest and not the trees.
WOW - someone who sees entropy as I do! I'm just a self-uneducated bystander with my own ideas, but I never expected anyone else would conceive of entropy as the dispersal of energy... As an experienced information analyst - I think physicists' conception of information is obtuse as well...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think these researchers have simply released their observations to openly solicit comments from their peers to resolve an apparent anomaly. However, reading their report I think they are naturally convinced of the correctness of their implementation and have not really released enough detailed information about their actual programming algorithms and methodology for external contributors to identify any source of error.
The press are having a field day, though!
Frank Lambert and others have worked hard to ensure most modern textbooks differentiate between thermodynamic entropy and entropy when used in information theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Entropy is times arrow, but Chemical Kinetics are its variable clock" -Frank Lambert PHD Professor Emeritus Occidental.
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been the popular press which has confused the public on entropy.
Also makes it hard on students who spend time memorizing and regurgitation, without thinking.
I agree that the distance determination is most likely source of error, especially since I think that an ideal linear neutrino detection path is unlikely due to unidentified relativistic and gravitational effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, only a small portion of neutrinos produced are detected and yet their proton release to neutron detection traversal time is an exceedingly complex statistical process with apparently plenty of (unproven) assumptions.
These are the two very large areas in which I would recommend intense investigations.
Great reference - Thanks! There's nothing more dangerous than a disordered mind...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistime is so subjective that it can only exist between two objects. There is no cosmic clock no cosmic space constraints. As Smolin states so well one event becomes aware of another event based on relative velocity, spin and trajectory. The moment you throw three particles into any problem dealing with time the solution is subjectively based on which observer you are working with. That is why we have such a hard time reconciling relativity to quantum mechanics. That is mostly because quantum expects universal time and space. It will not work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as a layman: would Heisenberg with his Uncertainty Principle have anything to remark about this experiment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause it created a math model which has to assume a constant time. The math model and reality may be different things all together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVariable clocks are not a problem in reality, they are a problem for our simplified conceptual models.
Take a discrete view in time and time dilation and couple it to space/volume.
Time does not really exist except as a tick mark for a change. We model time continuously but is it really?
From and abstract mathematical point of view, but when we touch the real world we enter discrete functions.
Anyway makes for interesting thought experiments.
He would probably not want to be in the box to start with and I think the cat was pretty nervous too. Unless he was both dead and alive at the same time. The closest I see to reality and to Feynman's concerns is that the Universe per se is a singularity that expresses itself as a Fractal allowing for one being many at once. Again RIP Benoît Mandelbrot you were probably right and no one will ever agree with your simple elegance to what makes a Universe and allows for eternity within a singularity. Any other answer to infinity breaks down at some point and is a useless waste of time but we are probably not wired to see that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special relativity falls down,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement is not correct. If we take the (1- v2/c2) and v is small we are facing Newtonian formula, and it is a special case. Long time I was thinking the speed could not be limited but we can not dream and should wait the acquirements. I think the correct formula should be ( G body/G average – v2/c2). V depending to G body can be more than c. if not we are facing antimatter. Then relativity is a specialk case of another theory. Just as an example.
"If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special relativity falls down,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement is not correct. If we take the (1- v2/c2) and v is small we are facing Newtonian formula, and it is a special case. Long time I was thinking the speed could not be limited but we can not dream and should wait the acquirements. I think the correct formula should be ( G body/G average – v2/c2). V depending to G body can be more than c. if not we are facing antimatter. Then relativity is a specialk case of another theory. Just as an example.
"If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special relativity falls down,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement is not correct. If we take the (1- v2/c2) and v is small we are facing Newtonian formula, and it is a special case. Long time I was thinking the speed could not be limited but we can not dream and should wait the acquirements. I think the correct formula should be ( G body/G average –minus v2/c2). V depending to G body can be more than c. if not we are facing antimatter. Then relativity is a specialk case of another theory. Just as an example.
I had a theory before, and I think these results support me...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=283564574992652
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisParticles are a common problem of the world. There are different kind of particles. Dust particles are also there. any way developed world could not find any answer for the that. In a vacume particles are moving more faster than ligth. Particle is contains with volume. Light dose not hold volume.
Volume is based on electro-magnetic properties based on where the electron cloud ends. If a particle carries no charge it is likely to be point like in volume. Remember the analogy of a nucleus being the size of a foot ball in a foot ball stadium and the electron shell extending outside of the football field. I think the biggest problem with the search for dark matter fails to take this small detail into effect. The reason objects cannot pass through each other is based on the fact that the electron shells keep bumping into each other. Oops outside of the box but then 96 to 98% of the universe may well be outside of this box. We give volume too much space and mass too few alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best example that one can envision is the collision of Andromeda and the Milky Way in about 2 billion years; it has been correctly stated that most stars will not notice unless they are suddenly propelled by a gravitational effect. Did you ever notice I hate the box it takes up too much volume and just like bad music please keep the volume down.
The current shapes of atoms resemble drops of water with a lot of give and take yet what is being described is the tension effect of the electron cloud. Can it be made any easier?
Hear Hear. I think you are on to something. Universal time was not an issue until the rail system was starting to have problems. I have bought into Einstein's concept of C being an unchangeable ergo space or time had to give. But that assumed that time and space are real not just geometric necessities. If we can prove the prior then there is no limit to speed, space or time they are just required to solve geometric problems in out universe; Let's see where that goes fot a while I'm back in the box for a nap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do need a nap; fot instead of for and out instead of our. My time is dilating and my space is shrinking. I wanted to kill relativity not the English Language, my apologies please. Time for picture books where did I put my Penthouse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do need a nap; fot instead of for and out instead of our. My time is dilating and my space is shrinking. I wanted to kill relativity not the English Language, my apologies please. Time for picture books where did I put my Penthouse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComment 113 was a double stroke of post 112 no pun intended.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are funny. Thanks for the smile!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find that a large portion of the posting public unwilling to accept that a theory postulated by a man in the 1930's might have some fallacies disappointing to say the least. If no one challenged the status quo we would all be thinking the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth!!! Give them the benefit of the doubt and let them prove or disprove their findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid I just see someone out of the box. Welcome to the real Universe and what drove Albert nuts. God does as God wills and it never has to make sense it just has to work. William James described truth so elegantly with the squirrel and the tree it goes like this 'The pragmatic temperament appears in the book's opening chapter, where (following a method he first set out in “Remarks on Spencer's Definition of Mind as Correspondence”) James classifies philosophers according to their temperaments: in this case “tough-minded” or “tender-minded.” The pragmatist is the mediator between these extremes, someone, like James himself, with “scientific loyalty to facts,” but also “the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaneity, whether of the religious or romantic type” (P, 17). The method of resolving disputes and the theory of meaning are on display in James's discussion of an argument about whether a man chasing a squirrel around a tree goes around the squirrel too. Taking meaning as the “conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve,” the pragmatist philosopher finds that two “practical” meanings of “go around” are in play: either the man goes North, East, South, and West of the squirrel, or he faces first the squirrel's head, then one of his sides, then his tail, then his other side. “Make the distinction,” James writes, “and there is no occasion for any further dispute.”'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure that in both quantum mechanics and relativity there are corrections to be made to the models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth have yielded much experimental data which support the conclusions, and both break down.
When we view the real world, it is not abstract and continuous, rather it is discrete, and finite. We have concepts such as absolute 0 K or Vacuum, which we can
never reach, but serve as abstractions which enable us to better think about an issue.
Enter time variation and we introduce Zeno's paradox in a slightly different form.
In a finite Universe one cannot fire up ones starship and meet the end of the Universe, because you would just travel a circular path. This assumes or course that space is symmetrical and it seems it is not, it is lumpy.
If we take time and space as dynamical qualities, with space, mass, and energy being state variables.
We do not need the extra dimensions of string theory.
When time is subjective (Relativity) a new constant was needed so the speed of light became the clock by which we would measure change and thus light became the yardstick with which to measure the Universe.
The facts that both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have held up so well is because they are good models.
It's obvious we are all missing something in the model.
If space is connected by dense and less dense regions and time is symmetrical in a conservation of energy sort of way with the density, then we replace relativistic smooth continuous space with discrete space, whereby space interacts with energy waves and matter and in reverse. Quantum mechanics no longer needs magic tethers. Time and space follow the same laws of entropy and activation energies.
The Universe has a Fractal nature.
I think neutrinos can move faster than light. My proof is simple, since black holes emit neutrinos, neutrinos must be able to travel faster than light. I think gravity waves move faster than light also. Black holes are stars from which light cannot escape. But gravity waves can escape from a black hole. Gravitons must be able to move faster than light. Perhaps, neutrinos are gravitons, or perhaps neutrinos are relatives of gravitons. But more importantly, how can neutrinos be generated by black holes unless neutrinos can indeed travel faster than light?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comment is to both R. Blakely and KimberlyPeacock for showing me that there is hope. Yes if neutrinos can escape black holes plus have at least 4 flavors one of which contains mass they break the law and the sheriff loses. To KimberlyPeacock I have been preaching Fractals as the basis of of not only the forces we are aware of but also the dilemma that Feynman kept running into as he added more energy into the colliders the more energetic particles would come out. I think of it like we are sitting on a sphere and we can see to the horizon and realize there is something more there. Lee Smolin in his book Life in the Cosmos came so close to admitting the universe was fractal and then he wimped out (I usually use a stronger word but I am being polite).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have always been egocentric and science has always been knocking us back a peg or two. We can see about 30 billion to 4 billion light years out and because it appears to be similar we assume that the whole universe is like that. The only problem is that we can describe in any kind of detail between 2 and 4% of matter that is like ours. What if the black whole is really a gateway to another Universe it would fit the fractal model perfectly and would be self repeating.
The hardest concept I had to deal with is infinity and again fractal comes to the rescue. It is self repeating but has no known rules of self-containment. When I explored infinity and such they failed because there was always one more but when I went the other way into singularity there was no failure and fractals were allowed as long as they wrapped back on themselves. You both hit the proverbial nail on the head with your peculiar answers and I want to thank you for validating a concept that was so easy to see yet so hard to talk about. In other words BINGO!!!!
The way to prove we are right is to prove that a black hole is another new force (call it super-gravity that becomes unaware of weak or strong force) and that it requires another dimension that is not aware of one of the four forces we consider common from our point of view such as strong or weak. This is where I could really use some help from Lee Smolin or Freeman Dyson if you are still listening.
What I find interesting is the omission of precisely how much faster neutrinos have been going. A mere 20ppm over the speed of light. That works out to about 6 km/s faster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I believe that Einstein was only slightly mistaken about the upper limit. It's not the speed of light that is the limit, but rather the speed of a neutrino (which was unknown in his time). If true, light would be traveling something like 99.998% of the absolute highest speed allowed.
Considering that the technology required to measure to this degree of accuracy is a recent development, it should not be a surprise.
You are so close it is scary and BTW string theory sucks big ones. So thanks for your kind remark much better than I can do for a theory that predicts everything. I think what hurts if Benoit Manderbolt saw all this so clearly and he died before the rest of physics got off the string theory train. Did I mention I love Lee Smolin, have you read his great book on group thought called 'The Trouble with Science' it dealt with group thought that should have died after Eric Hoffer's book 'The True Believer' written in 1951 (by a longshoreman no less) and validated by Science Magazine in 70's through the 80's the exact date of the article eludes me. But you are not one and it is nice to see someone else who gets fractals. BIG HUGGS AND SMILES!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA FRESH INTERPRETATION OF EINSTEIN’S MASS –ENERGY EQUIVALENCE supports the Italian experiment OPERA unveiling evidence that “fundamental particles known as neutrinos can travel faster than light” as CORRECT. There have been similar situations where X-rays travelling faster than light. (1. Solar flare on April 21, 2002 has shown strong, localized bursts of high energy X-rays coming from the base of the flaring region well before the initial brightening in the EUV. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020605rhessi.html 2. " the X-ray emissions of flares are followed, an hour or two later, by a pulse of extreme ultraviolet containing three times more energy than the initial X-ray burst". http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100724/full/news.2010.374.html “The observed delay in EUV emission to the X-rays has been attributed to X-rays traveling faster than EUV, against the traditional wisdom the X-rays and EUV travel at the same speed C". http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/1010/Solarfission.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe famous Einstein's mass--energy equivalence widely used for sub-atomic particles such as electron having a mass cannot be directly applied to neutrino with near-zero rest-mass or for gamma or X-ray having zero rest mass. Since gamma, X-ray or light photon are said to have no mass, all these photons are assumed to have negligible but equal mass. When m is given a value 1, E equals to the square of light velocity C. On replacing C with V, which represents relative velocity, energy E of a gamma, X-ray or light photon equals to square of Velocity (V). If this modified formula is really true, 40 keV X-ray photon goes 100 times faster than 4 eV light photon. Similarly EUV photon can go faster than an infrared photon. Basically, this formula justifies X-rays travelling faster than a light photon from cosmic sources. On similar lines one can understand why neutrinos can travel faster than light, when neutrino’s near-zero rest-mass is considered somewhat close to X-ray’s zero rest mass. For accuracy, the above formula may need further modifications for applying to neutrino in view of it’s near-zero rest-mass.
M.A.Padmanabha Rao, PhD (A.I.I.M.S)
Former Professor of Medical Physics, India
raomap@yahoo.com
Relativity is a theory, to be supported or disproved based on the state of empirical research. Science means knowledge. What we know about our world certainly changes based our ability to observe its goings-on with greater discernment and clarity. At this point, what this observation means is moot. But it is certainly intriguing and worthy of informed discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo date a good theory but sucking blood from the victims of disease was good medicine then bad medicine and the last I heard it is in good graces again. Why I find pragmatic truth the only real truth and only while it is true. Well put. I do think Einstein was wrapped up in perfection and that was perhaps the fatal flaw humanity as a whole is guilty of. I think the speed of light was used to make tensors and transformations to work and Bohr and Einstein asked and answered the most important questions of their time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid they considered Earth curvature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CERN experiment on fast neutrinos is easily explained by the motion of the earth in the direction of constellation Leo (370km/s, measured by Smoot 2006 Nobelprize). All particles(also photons) feel this motion. At the European Physical Society meeting in Poellau, Austria I have given a talk on this and have claimed that this motion refutes special relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHartwig Thim (www.ime.jku.at)
Yes and the police gave chase. What on earth would the curvature have to do with the measurement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould neutrions travel faster through matter? If so this could account for them arriving faster than light from 1987 supernova nd from CERN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould neutrions travel faster through matter? If so this could account for them arriving faster than light from 1987 supernova nd from CERN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinsteines predictions on the special theory of relativity were a stepping stone to what are now people who are in the study of physics and may have access to better equipment and new math more suitable for the anilization(?) of such things.I also believe that Physics is all about a point of referance and even then,people see different things and results from the same expirements differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was predicted long ago in a paper--MISJUDGEMENTS BY NEWTON --published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it possible that photons don't travel at the "speed of light" and, therefore they have a little mass and that those neutrinos do have a smaller mass than the photon, so they can travel faster than photons, because the "real speed of light" is a little bit higher than we thought before ? And isn't it a little exaggerated to attribute exactly zero mass to a particle (the photon) that like the other particles don't have a mass derived from any theory and that we have to assign empirically?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was not aware of Lee Smolin's work, but a quick Google and a look into quantum loop gravity and I get a the idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that we are thinking in a similar fashion.
The Ether theory gets recycled but ether becomes space/time which is related to the density of matter and its energy at that density.
If we apply Emmy Noether's symmetry work with a thermodynamics view toward space/time and energy/matter interacting then maybe an experiment can be developed which would shed some light (smile) on the matter.
Space shrinks as time (local speed tends towards infinity) Like a hydraulic fluid any change in the singularity is communicated across the singularity instantly. As we move away from the singularity time slows down as space increases and from an outside viewer it would appear as if the universe is accelerating away from them.
I wonder if there is a limit to how small space time can shrink? That would also imply that there is a maximum. If you have a dynamic relationship between matter/energy and space/time then you can have infinite combinations within a finite energy/mass.
Unlike mathematical fractals we have an entropy type relationship which couples space/time to energy/mass which determines if we are contracting in space time or expanding. Infinite while being finite, and the direction determines if we are zooming in, or zooming out.
I am just being creative and throwing this out there as something to think about.
Chaos has given us predictable uncertainty. We can know what state we will arrive at but not predict the intermediate steps. (I know its a naive simplistic description)
If Neutrino's traveled faster through matter that would be a very interesting result. It would provide some support for variable space/time interaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeutrino' definition is as bad as special relativity with its illogical light speed postulate. Einstein postulated that nothing (photons, particles etc.etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscan travel faster than at speed of light (c~300.000km/s) in his 1905 article, in which special relativity was defined as a valid theory. Since 1905 many scientists have refuted this illogical theory, and CERN is just adding another experimental refutation.
Same page but think of the photon as the picture of the particle at a particular point in time/space with no mass but substantial information. When you said an instant is related to the information not the size you hit the nail on the head. A good example is the sun at about 1 million miles in diameter the ideal of an instant is about 15 earth seconds. We are so puny that our ideal of an instant is sub-second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to keep ether out of this because I don't think it matters. What would matter is the sum of all the events required for the observer to see the event being observed which is why gravity lensing makes sense. One issue that quickly comes in is that if there is more than one observer the time and space factors go to hell quickly which is why I think this is how we can relate quantum physics to relativity. Same thing, almost the same rules but there are no absolutes and all events are subjective to the particular observer and how much mass/space they occupy.
Another interesting but seldom talked about phenomenon is time dilation based on metabolic rates. If you can find some stop action shots of star fish it will blow your mind. What appears almost inanimate to us is quite active when slowed down and it makes me wonder since we are so low on the energy level (a mere 200+ degrees above absolute zero Celsius) what is going on at other frequencies. We only discovered x-rays, ultraviolet and VLF recently. I think there is much more to the universe than we are capable of observing and we spend to much time on some of the weird geometry required to see what we do see.
Neutrinos have at least three or four phases one of which contains a small amount of mass. That is why the early experiments were failing so badly. It may be that they have mass in other universes or in other parts of this universe. If you read QED Feynman discusses antimatter as particles that are traveling backwards in time and it is actually allowed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf space collapses around a singularity, such that any change is instantaneously communicated through the singularity, then we have a case of distance and time being meaningless. As rate of distance over time becomes infinite (0) we end up in a situation like absolute 0 Kelvin. In which case an argument could be made for an oscillation between space/time at its minimum quantity (0) (Which we could argue that like a vacuum can not exist in any form rather than a mathematical abstraction)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs it moves towards its minimum, time becomes binary, oscillating between infinity and discrete units of time. Hawking radiation needs to travel almost no distance and infinite speed to sublimate the energy, and energy and space oscillate until the energy condensing space can no longer keep the space condensed and then space expands and the remaining energy is released in a burst.
So i my little though experiment, I have data that I can look for to see if it matches up or not.
Yes well that is why I brought up Ether, and you got my point by relating it to quantum mechanics. The reason we have uncertainty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am happy to find that others have thought this out much as I have and have followed similar paths.
I start talking this way to some engineering friends and they are ready to get me mental health help. :)
Ether in this case would only server to confuse much like entropy used in statistical distribution is different from thermodynamic entropy.
Need a new word to describe a Universe where we are all connected by a dynamical space/time which has a dynamical interaction with energy/mass.
String theory at a high level has great appeal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't have time without change. You have change you must have greater than 1 variable. If you have change you have frequency of change. Everything in the Universe we can see can be described in frequency, more than one variable and at its simplest form it may be just energy/mass and the space (volume) of its interaction.
Throw in some governing rules from chaos for emergent behavior, and it is both unifying, dazzlingly complex, while being simple at the same time.
You can have a finite Universe with conservation, with infinite perturbations. While traveling backwards in time may seem cool, I don't think the world is built that way, rather we can revisit the location but it is not the same.
I think sometimes our definitions get in the way. String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, etc.
We should probably think in terms of thermodynamics as 1st principles. Anything that seemingly violates those principles should be suspect.
The monster at the end of the ocean is the following in my opinion. How did the Universe come into being?
If we have a finite Universe and energy is conserved than it never did it was always here, and if not we pass the buck to some other Universe, but we still have a situation where something had to be created from nothing. Time, space, energy/mass the frequency of the music of the Universe.
For me, back to applied science where I can make a difference.
As I understand, the detected neutrinos were determined to be FTL by comparison of their statistically derived Time of Flight (ToF) with the ToF estimated for light traveling what was presumed to be the same distance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that the distance traversed was presumed to be that returned by standard GPS routines: following the curvature of the Earth! Is there any reason to expect a neutron beam to follow the curvature of the Earth? I don’t think so – please let me know if I’ve overlooked something!
If in fact the reference speed of light ToF estimate was based on a presumedly curved flight path and the detected neutrinos actually followed a shorter, more direct, flight path through the Earth, the difference between presumed and actual distance traversed could fully account for an erroneous FTL determination of comparative ToF!!!!
I’m not the only person to identify this potential source of error, but I would like to somehow reach the OPERA collaboration for evaluation! In my experience, it’s often the silly little errors that produce the most intractable problems…
Kim, That is why I think fractals and singularity are all that works. If the fractal falls back into itself similar to Escher then the system works and black holes are considered by many to many to be a singularity also. You can fall back to thermodynamics but then how do you explain life which becomes more complicated not less. I hate applied science because we tend to make weapons from it and I would much rather spend or if you want waste my time on what is real. At least it doesn't kill unless you are a true believer or ism bound and some one has to do it. I'm glad you picked the applied side. I tried it for a while and did not like who I was becoming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Jim, I agree in order to follow the curve of the earth and travel faster than light a force of infinite magnitude would have to be introduced. However I remember last year when bringing the LHC up something very strange and destructive happened and it appeared to point to something in to something in the future trying to warn us of something. Anyway keeping it light and interfering as little as possible.
Because entropy is not disorder, it is simply moving from a dense state to a less dense state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThermodynamics describe the world we live in. Fractals and Chaos may be a better tool to model the physical world with. The model is not the same as reality, and our models up until fractals and chaos were decidedly different from the natural world.
Also from observation the natural world abhors the limit. We can't have an absolute vacuum, 0 Kelvin, 0 Dimensional Gravitational Space. Or put another way, a truly isolated system.
Quantum Mechanics works because its a statistical and probabilistic approach, based on discrete space and time.
Relativity works when applied in the Macro.
The bridge between them can be unified by adjusting our view of time/space and the dynamic relationship with energy/mass. Fractals patterns are found in Chaos, but what we used to call noise we now has a formed pattern, and has emergent behavior, and along with this we can predict the future. So the patterns of the Universe may look like a fractal it does not mean that the Universe is a Fractal.
I think about this stuff, because I am a seeker, and I can't help myself.
On the applied side, you can find interesting things to do besides build weapons.
Copied from http://entropysite.oxy.edu/shuffled_cards.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEntropy is not a driving force.
Energy of all types changes from being localized to becoming dispersed or spread out, if it is not hindered from doing so. The overall process is an increase in thermodynamic entropy, enabled in chemistry by the motional energy of molecules (or the energy from bond energy change in a reaction) and actualized because the process makes available a larger number of microstates, a maximal probability.
The two factors, energy and probability, are both necessary for thermodynamic entropy change but neither is sufficient alone. In sharp contrast, information ‘entropy’ depends only on the Shannon H, and ‘sigma entropy’ in physics (σ = S/kB) depends only on probability as ln W.
Entropy is not "disorder". [See http://entropysite.oxy.edu/cracked_crutch.html ]
Entropy is not a "measure of disorder".
Disorder in macro objects is caused by energetic agents (wind, heat, earthquakes, driving rain, people, or, in a quite different category, gravity) acting on them to push them around to what we see as "disorderly" arrangements, their most probable locations after any active agent has moved them. The agents (other than gravity!) undergo an increase in their entropy in the process. The objects are unchanged in entropy if they are simply rearranged.
If an object is broken, there is no measurable change in entropy until the number of bonds broken is about a thousandth of those unchanged in the object. This means that one fracture or even hundreds make no significant difference in an object's entropy. (It is only when something is ground to a fine powder that a measurable increase or decrease in entropy occurs -- the sign of change depending on the kinds of new bonds formed after the break compared to those in the original object.)
Even though breaking a mole-sized crystal of NaCl in half involves slight changes in hundreds to thousands of the NaCl units adjacent to the fracture line, in addition to those actually on such a line, there are still at least 106 bonds totally unaffected. Thus we can see why a single fracture of a ski (unhappy as it is to the skier), or a house torn apart in to ten thousand pieces by a hurricane (disastrous as it is to the homeowner), represent truly insignificant entropy changes. [http://shakespeare2ndlaw.oxy.edu] The only notable scientific entropy change occurs in the agent causing the breaks. Human concepts of order are misplaced in evaluating entropy.
I like the way you think. It is opening my eyes to some other concepts. Agree with you on how entropy is abused and glad to see a fractal fan. I do disagree with one statement. When ever we develop new technology, military use follows right behind it. I got very excited a few years ago when some research was done showing how viruses could be custom tipped to create all kinds of devices with the simplest application being one tip a diode the other a anode and guess what the military is pursuing it as a battery that is both flexible and easy to implement. Other than that I enjoy your thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is one example of military use of a great ideal http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=body-armor-with-batteries&posted=1 I am searching for the original work it will blow your mind also looking for an article from Nature that discussed using cryogenic bacteria that pooped O2 part of the day and H2 the other part. It fed on Chlorophyll and resolved the storage issue that H2 has always presented. I want you to see it because at last look there were 4 comments 3 of which were mine and of course the Shell ad was on the page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sound like you are in applied science which branch and what is your role I would be interested in knowing more.
Closest I could find I will keep looking but the article I had found had a whole audience of 4 and it was H2 on demand http://www.garlictrader.com/biogas/Biogas%20Processes%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid
It appears my simple question was deleted so here it goes again, catch it before it's deleted again for unknown reasons:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf particles exceed the speed of life, DO THEY TRAVEL BACKWARDS IN TIME? What is wrong with asking this question? ;-)
In haste I made a typo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf particles EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT do they travel backwards in time?
If so then how do we measure them since the moment they exceed light speed they vanish in our timeline and go back to some point in a past timeline (or multiverse)?
Jim, do you have the link to the production of H2 abd O2 from a cyanogen bacteria I share with you a while ago. It has mysteriously disappeared. I remember sending it you a lot of times as Dave Cota
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJim, do you have the link to the production of H2 abd O2 from a cyanogen bacteria I share with you a while ago. It has mysteriously disappeared. I remember sending it you a lot of times as Dave Cota
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKim I went looking for the virus tipping and it fell off the map the closest I could find is the following Patents
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInfinite Power raises $13M to ramp thin-film batteries - IPS licensed thin-film battery patents from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2001, supplementing that expertise with proprietary production processes, tooling and device modifications. One of the co-inventors of the thin-film battery, Bernd Neudecker, is IPS's chief technology officer. (CleanTech; Dec. 3, 2008)
"Many people have tried a lot of things and, when they get into it, they are always surprised how difficult it is to make a flat battery," Bernd Neudecker said. "It reads so easy in all the patents, but keep in mind that most of the good stuff isn't written in patents; they are trade secrets." (Greentech Media; Oct, 22, 2007)
Profiles
Company: Infinite Power Solutions, Inc. (IPS)
Infinite Power Solutions Appoints Finance & Manufacturing Executives to Management Team - (BNet; July 16, 2007)
Founded in 2001, IPS is a privately held company with corporate headquarters and manufacturing facilities in Littleton, CO.
Raymond R. Johnson, CEO - (AndCor; Sept. 7, 2005)
David Kirwan, CFO. Bernd Neudecker, CTO. Robert Smith, VP Manufacturing.
IPS has raised more than $35 million in VC funds.
Inventor: Bernd Neudecker, Ph
I went to the site pointed to and it was 404'ed not found check out this page: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Infinite_Power_Solutions%2C_Inc#How_it_Works
Not that I am surprised but why I make noise.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1 found this it was buried in the trash heap of history/ Regarding applied science this is what would give us hydrogen on demand or just in time which is required because of the storage issues regarding its use. You will notice only 4 comments on it and a shell commercial. Until this promise of the end of black mail by foreign powers is gone I will continue to make noise. Please read and if you agree get everyone you know to read it also. It was probably the most important article last year and only 4 people even paid attention to it yet on this post we are already past 150 responses. The only good news is I got to meet you. I am still looking for the tipping of viruses you will get a kick out of that but 135 million makes a person pretty quiet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could also use CeNi5 a reversible metal hydride, utilize a double acting cylinder for the hydrogen desorption. The double acting cylinder is connected to a hydraulic pump, which powers two hydrualic motors one for compressing ethane and one for a generator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you insulate with an aerogel, and you utilize heat pipes for thermal transfer, what you will see is a system where over 98% of the thermal transfer is within the system and the 2% can be coupled to a ground temp of 50F. Power developed 24/7.
Eq Pressure of CeNi5 at 50 F is 613 PSI.
We use it at 600 PSI and use it to pump hydraulic fluid at 2,500 PSI.
Cost is lower than any other system including gas generators, and is green and clean.
If you would like to see the numbers and or see a demonstration I can arrange.
I do not believe we can travel back in time. I think we can revisit the same space, place, etc, but that is not the same thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIN some cases for a simple particle it could be indistinguishable.
Now that science has demonstrated that light may not be the one constant of the Universe at 186,292 miles per second ~ perhaps it’s time to recognize that a Unified field of love and soul consciousness is the one constant of the universe for within this field of innate connectedness, which we all once knew as a child, there is no time and space and all the forces of nature are merely conditions of state. See http://allenlrolandsweblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/its-really-quite-simple-its-all-about.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrides need not just store and have a fuel cell consume hydrogen. They can be thermocycled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCeNi5 as I said has an eq pressure of 613 PSI at 10C.
The heat of formation is 22.4 KJ/Mol.
If On desorption we use the hydrogen to compress a hydraulic fluid we can use all the work in gas expansion.
The hydraulic fluid can be used to used to power an electric generator and to compress ethane, which the heat is conveyed to the Hydride on desorption and endothermic reaction, and expanded over the absorbing hydride an exothermic reaction which needs to be cooled down to a lower temperature so that it has a lower eq pressure.
It's not perpetual motion anymore than the Cavendish clock at oxford is perpetual motion. Even with Aerogel you will have thermal energy cross the boundary, but surprisingly thermal losses are not the problem its mass lose because H2 will work its way through anything, but they can be made sufficiently low that it does not matter.
Using 4KG 7.4 Mol of H2 per KG I can generate 15KW the rest of the work is used in ethane compression to complete the cycle but the massive heat transfer is internal to the system. The biggest problem was heat transfer and insulation. Using 6h SiC Mono crystals and Heat Pipes we met the heat transfer requirements.
It has taken me over 5 years to get something that I knew would work on paper to work in the real world.
Many told me I could not do it, mostly because they did not dig into the Physics and clearly understand.
Some thought the mass and thermal transfer issues were insurmountable so I could make it work but I could not cycle fast enough. Some of the issues i have sold if I had a better understanding of manufacturing limits in the beginning, I would not have even tried.
So I am at a demonstration level and now I have to solve manufacturing issues with the HX (Heat Exchange). Too Labor intensive)
I apologize to others because we have wondered far from topic. So lets get back to space/time.
It has not demonstrated yet. That is not how science works. It will need to be repeated countless times, with the same result, and everyone will dig through the data to test that the result was not a false result 1st.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm all for the discussion of ideas, but the philosophy/religion of a self aware Universe does not belong in a scientific discussion. Why?
There is no evidence or test proposed. Yes science can speculate but within a set of rules for the speculation.
Thank you. Yes considering the ether for propagation of light, the earth's motion wrt the ether (Smoot's Cosmic Microwave Backgroung) which amounts to 370km/s this explains why neutrinos did travel faster than light
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(at c+370km/s)
Einstein's first step was to deny the existence of any sort of "ether". Yet "ether" keeps cropping up in various commenters' discussions. I'm wondering why this idea is so die-hard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, in a lovable simplemindedness, velocity vectors do not simply add up at relativistic velocities.
These are two cornerstones of relativity theory, which shows no signs of becoming obsolete...
Is this fact perhaps the first “proof” that there are other dimensions? If neutrinos took another shorter path out of our dimensions, Einstein’s laws should be safe!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell I do not think that Ether exists as they thought about it at the time. I think rather we have borrowed the term and used it to describe variable space/time which is a relativistic world combined with the discreteness of quantum mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOleg Jefimenko of Jefimenko's equations never gave up on the idea of the ether. It is why he was often denied publication in the U.S. and had to seek publication in Europe.
He was a good man, and I got to meet him before he passed away. Problem with most mean and women, is that we tend to get locked into our own view point.
He did do some interesting work on electrostatics in the 70's.
I think ether the idea that we are surrounded in a type of fluid has intuitive appeal. The difference between the classical ether and modern ether is a variation in density.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to me that idea has some beauty, but on some level before you enter the twilight zone, so does string theory.
We need experimental data and quantum mechanics and relativity have that, everything else is math models, and math models can allow you to make assumptions or create rules that do not exist in the real world.
Despite the success of reductionist, Chaos theory has shown that the sum is more than the whole. We need to start thinking in systems in my opinion to move forward in understanding nature more deeply.
If any law shows a discrepancy then it should not ever be safe. Einstein had tremendous insight but does that mean the theory is perfected, no!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever the core idea that time/space are dynamic qualities is here to stay.
What is needed is for someone to come up with tests which can show that even on a micro scale that we have not been able to show till now, that time/space dynamically respond to the matter/energy flowing around and or through them. Is space/time rigid on the micro scale or is it dynamic.
We need lots of applied science to develop the tools with which to test these ideas. Till then all these ideas are sort of like Porn for Mathematicians and Physicists.
I agree with a lot of applied science but when patents are bought out at outrageous prices and proven science is then mysteriously removed from the public sector something is broken. The article on the bacteria that produces Hydrogen in profuse amounts in a sustainable way was discovered in 1993 yet to date is sits hidden and I love the shell advertisement on the same page. With the custom tipping of the viruses the patent was sold for around 135 million dollars and now I can't find a trace of the original article but I am aware that the military is using it for flexible and diverse battery devices which was only one of the potential uses for the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGraphene won 2 Nobel prizes this year one of them was for finding a simple way to harvest it and there is currently a company that can take a small piece of a diamond and using it as a seed create diamonds at about any size required. Nanotubes have been shown to have conducting, semiconducting and non conducting properties and has also been shown to be capable as a battery source not to mention that it is among the hardest objects on earth yet with carbon composites it can be made as soft as silk.
But we will continue to burn carbon, use rare earth metals as catalyst versus iron and when these cheaper more effective ways of producing goods is discovered a small check of 135 million will be written to keep the current applied sciences alive and well. The bottom line in all of this is the bottom line. All of the above mentioned products exist but they open too many doors. So stay safe in the applied science world while what could save the earth as we reach a population level of between 9 and 16 billion people becomes a world or have and have-nots.
I agree with a lot of applied science but when patents are bought out at outrageous prices and proven science is then mysteriously removed from the public sector something is broken. The article on the bacteria that produces Hydrogen in profuse amounts in a sustainable way was discovered in 1993 yet to date is sits hidden and I love the shell advertisement on the same page. With the custom tipping of the viruses the patent was sold for around 135 million dollars and now I can't find a trace of the original article but I am aware that the military is using it for flexible and diverse battery devices which was only one of the potential uses for the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGraphene won 2 Nobel prizes this year one of them was for finding a simple way to harvest it and there is currently a company that can take a small piece of a diamond and using it as a seed create diamonds at about any size required. Nanotubes have been shown to have conducting, semiconducting and non conducting properties and has also been shown to be capable as a battery source not to mention that it is among the hardest objects on earth yet with carbon composites it can be made as soft as silk.
But we will continue to burn carbon, use rare earth metals as catalyst versus iron and when these cheaper more effective ways of producing goods is discovered a small check of 135 million will be written to keep the current applied sciences alive and well. The bottom line in all of this is the bottom line. All of the above mentioned products exist but they open too many doors. So stay safe in the applied science world while what could save the earth as we reach a population level of between 9 and 16 billion people becomes a world or have and have-nots.
Please take note of the Shell ad on this page is everybody bought and paid for?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGraphene can solve the problem of Hydrogen permeation but there are still issues of translating it for industrial production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance harvesting it is simple in the small scale, but if you have a large cylinder and need to apply it as a multi layer surface treatment we can't do that yet.
CeNi5 is not the only hydride, its just the best right now to match to a refrigerant in this way and has the high eq pressure at low temps.
The principles could be applied to other complex hydrides which do not require rare earths.
I say principles, but I have yet to find one that delivers the cost per power.
I have patents because my research is not funded by the government and by the private sector, and these people are motivated by profit. However a for profit motive, does not mean that you can't help humanity.
If anything the cost of patents should come down and we should steer it back towards individuals instead of corporations.
As to promising technology for renewable energy, look at the SRI Spinoff artificialmuscle.com
The electroactive polymers could be deployed as buoys along the cost line, and the wave action generate H2, and then fisherman could be used to pick up the H2 in storage to curb over fishing, and fuel cells can be manufactured at a cost competitive basis with internal combustion engines, it all about doing it in scale.
Unlike most schemes this would work economically, and would yield energy independence.
I think my approach is better, but I immediately see the possibilities.
EAP (ElectroActive Polymer Research)was funded by the military (Darpa) initially so that we could have lightweight portable power, and as exoskeleton support for soldiers, when used as actuators.
Biggest problem is the financial community does not know enough to evaluate and few look at the entire picture and formulate a plan.
Want to make a difference take your knowledge and be part of the solution. Network with politicians and business and the public and educate.
That is job number 1 of any scientist or engineer.
Graphene can solve the problem of Hydrogen permeation but there are still issues of translating it for industrial production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance harvesting it is simple in the small scale, but if you have a large cylinder and need to apply it as a multi layer surface treatment we can't do that yet.
CeNi5 is not the only hydride, its just the best right now to match to a refrigerant in this way and has the high eq pressure at low temps.
The principles could be applied to other complex hydrides which do not require rare earths.
I say principles, but I have yet to find one that delivers the cost per power.
I have patents because my research is not funded by the government and by the private sector, and these people are motivated by profit. However a for profit motive, does not mean that you can't help humanity.
If anything the cost of patents should come down and we should steer it back towards individuals instead of corporations.
As to promising technology for renewable energy, look at the SRI Spinoff artificialmuscle.com
The electroactive polymers could be deployed as buoys along the cost line, and the wave action generate H2, and then fisherman could be used to pick up the H2 in storage to curb over fishing, and fuel cells can be manufactured at a cost competitive basis with internal combustion engines, it all about doing it in scale.
Unlike most schemes this would work economically, and would yield energy independence.
I think my approach is better, but I immediately see the possibilities.
EAP (ElectroActive Polymer Research)was funded by the military (Darpa) initially so that we could have lightweight portable power, and as exoskeleton support for soldiers, when used as actuators.
Biggest problem is the financial community does not know enough to evaluate and few look at the entire picture and formulate a plan.
Want to make a difference take your knowledge and be part of the solution. Network with politicians and business and the public and educate.
That is job number 1 of any scientist or engineer.
I needed a break from my work so I figured I would come back to the ether comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think ether is an intuitive concept, Newton thought so, as did Einstein early on.
Why? Space is like our atmosphere, we do not see it, we just observe its interaction on other objects.
In fact if we look at weather patterns in our atmosphere and look into outer space they have striking similarities in form. (Yes, a fractal form for those on the fractal wagon)
Scientists like other people tend to interpret the data in such a way that supports their world view.
Hubble interpreted the red shift in that everything is moving away but it could just as easily been space/time changing the frequency of light at a distance.
Hoyle of Steady state fame argued an evolutionary Universe of Symmetry and Conservation. Hubble argued the Cosmological creationist version where there would be a Birth and a Death.
Controversy sells, and with Biblical and popular press enthused about a creationist story we arrive to where we are today.
Einstein came back to the ether theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng
Physics should be about how things work.
Leave creation stories to the theologians and Cosmologists.
Unfortunately many scientist funded by the tax payers know where their next meal is coming from and so there is a built in group think at least in public, so that one can continue to feed oneself.
Yes, and its equally true for those of us who report to Investors and or Corporate management.
How can we test and challenge our assumptions, that should be the mantra driving us further. How does it fit in with the current rules and do those assumptions have different view points to which we can see the object of our inquiry from a different perspective?
Wish I had the time. I am glad you are pursuing this and don't give up on the oxygen hating bacteria that poops H2 and O2 at voracious rates and is capable of just in time delivery of H2 for fuel. Myself has about 6 mos to live and my mind is really starting to float around but I hope your patents come through but some technology should be free if it solves big enough problems. What was your take on the http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1 which talked about sustainable production pretty much on demand of H2 with Chlorophyll being the fuel and a return of over 3,000 time the input. And they claim to have 11 similar bacteria to mix from. It has been known since 93 and still sits on the shelf. I am still amazed at all 4 comments on a subject that big. Anyway make love contagious, hope we talk some more and I was never meant to be a scientist because I can't stay focused long enough when there is so much to learn. My e-mail is dcota@aol.com if you want to go off line or Dave Cota on FB the social network. And my hippie blog is http://peace-happy-n-alive.blogspot.com/ stop on by sometime. The art and poems are still free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, 6 months to live. Cancer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many a scientist and mathematician who had a hard time staying focused.
It's your passion for knowledge and discovering which glue your focus to the subject, and the more you learn the more ease you have in seeing similar patterns to problems from other fields and applying them to the current problem.
For individuals you can always copy a patent as long as you are not selling the product. In 20 years the patent becomes free.
Patents and Copyrights may be the next homestead. (What I mean is the ability for an individual to boot strap themselves much as immigrants coming to early America could boot strap themselves.) What is needed is for Patents and Copy Rights to reflect the individual more than corporate interests.
I hope you beat the odds, but in the end we all face the void. Your ripple in the void will be remembered.
I'm not an atheist in the strict sense, but neither am I religious. I wish in some ways I could have faith in a mythology. My emotional and creative side could take comfort in that, but my analytically mind leaves me without faith.
So I am not one that can provide much solace in knowing you are going to die.
I can only say that energy is conserved and reserve the outside chance that the Universe is Self Aware.
Even if it is not, when a signal is attenuated, it still leaves a trace in all that it touched by the changes it left behind.
Like space/time and energy/mass we are all connected.
Reduction-ism can only take us so far, we must look with a systems view. The whole is indeed greater than the parts. Reduction-ism does not provide for being self aware, only a system/network view does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_Fdly3rX8
I just looked over the paper at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo determine velocity you need distance and time. They used GPS measurements for distance and checked the time with atomic clocks. It looks pretty convincing.
There is still the question of the lack of delay found in the supernova event. If no flaw is found in the measurements I would suggest that neutrinos may speed up when traveling through a mass. In the supernova event they went through space at the speed of light because the mass density is near zero in space. In the CERN event they are measuring neutrinos that are traveling through the Earth. The speedup would then be a factor of 1/12000 for the mass density of the outer shell of the Earth.
I wonder what the velocity is through a black hole? Would they enter at a point in the event horizon and immediately exit on the other side?
If mass/gravity equivalence (general theory of relativity) still holds for neutrinos, gravitaty might also speed them up.
Suggested further experiments. The 3rd one is not serious:
1) Use detectors at various distances to see of the speed is maintained. Twice the distance should yield twice the delay.
2) Put a detector close to the other side of the Earth (antipode). New Zealand will be close enough. By going through the core of the Earth the average mass density should be raised enough to find out if the speed is increased with mass density.
3) This is a wild one. Detect neutrinos from a known supernova source that skirt the Milky Way's central black hole to detect if they speed up in a strong gravitational field. We may need about 15,000 years and some accurate tracking to do this one :)
Just for fun read the book Deciphered by StelPavlo. He had more faith in myths than anything else. What else last beyond civilizations and besides he sees a lot of the same things I see in using Carbon versus burning it. Based on what I have read of yours you may end up reading it as many times as I have. I just started my fifth read this week. You are what a lot of scientist should grow up to be. But do me a favor and don't grow up. Also remember it was Siddhartha (Buddha) that said there was no god. He did that so when you found out the universe is alive it was your view not some hearsay or as most religions say heresy. :) Happy we met hope you can navigate through my blog. I am going to be working on that until I can't any more. Not cancer just you only get so many miles out of a chevy and I am well past the 200K mark. Also if you haven't discovered Freeman Dyson please do he is still living and without him and a trip out west with Feynman we would all still be scratching our heads at QED.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have heard a rumor: neutrinos are phantasia-praticles, calculated from special relativity and quantum mechanics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisuuuuhps, all wrong my microwave experiment (IEEE published) had refuted special relativity so the
message of CERN is right, special relativity must be trashed.
Hartwig Thim
Neutrinos are being stopped at the Border of AZ and if they have mass they are being held as illegal aliens. If no mass then no mas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder, whether or not neutrinos have a passport, Switzerland is not EU and Italy is. Does Berlusconi love very young female neutrinos?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt occurred to me that the speed of light is determined on Earth in a vacuum manufactured in a laboratory. It is questionable that such a vacuum is identical to that of space - for that matter, space is not a perfect vacuum. Neutrinos are said to pass, unhindered, through matter, whereas the speed of light is dependant upon the medium it is traveling through. Consequently, if the above is true, neutrinos would win any race with light, except in a perfect vacuum when it would be a tie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeutrinos may be a relic of the superinflation, which, billions of years later, did not interact with our 3-D universe enough to have disappeared. If they exist in a higher dimensional space, and that higher dimension is curved, neutrinos might be able to travel between two points in the 3-D Universe faster than light can. Alternately, light may be forced by gravity to travel on a curved path while neutrinos can take a shorter route.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a physicist, I would need to explore these and other explanations before dismissing either Einstein's special or general theories of relativity.
You are right, the neutrino is a not well defined aparticle derived from the standard model. Lee Smolin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishas told us that this model has failed to explain things correctly. If there were no other refutations of special relativity, I would hesitate to claim that the OPERA experiment has refuted SR clearly using a not clearly defined particle with imaginary mass (Gamma factor assumes an imaginary number for v>c)
This limit can be exceeded simply by allowing complex numbers in the equations. For example the Mass of an object is equal to its rest mass divided by the square root of one minus the relative velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared. What this means is in order for an object to go faster than the speed of light it simply has to be traveling in another direction than the assumed direction of the velocity (velocity is a vector). That velocity could simply be through another dimension. The measurement does not tell us that the equation is wrong, it just tells us that there is another dimension in the physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe speed of light (c) is only a statistical constant in the space separating source and detector. This should be plainly evident in the derivation of the famous equation, e = mc^2, now from first principles of, yes, Newtonian mechanics (the photon quantum has a to-and-fro vibrational motion between emitter and receiver atoms); please see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissubsection 2.2 in: www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
and
www.sittampalam.net/MassEnergy.htm
www.sittampalam.net/TheNeutrino.htm
www.sittampalam.net/EinsteinLegacy.htm
Refute this or any one aspect of the propounded classical mechanical model for the unification of physics - only to the satisfaction of your own, or any, university physics department head and be the richer for it by US$25,000. No joke, no scam; word of honour.
Please access also:
.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.pdf
www.sittampalam.net/NobelResponse.pdf
Thank you for your time well spent here.
The speed (c) of the electromagnetic radiation such as the light photon or the neutrino is only a statistical constant in the space between the source and detector atoms. Classical mass and energy are not only equivalent, as per e=mc^2, but the two are in fact one and the same in the field of quantum physics. Thus, the photons and neutrinos are seen as the evaporated state of classical matter and atoms and molecules the condensed form in our universe. The photon evaporates from the (over-excited) atom and attains escape speed c, from zero, not instantaneously but in a finite time period; and the neutrino, likewise, evaporates from the nucleonic grain in nonzero time. Similarly at the detector end, such a quantum gets absorbed in a finite time period. Moreover, en route between source and detector. The quantum has a to-and-fro vibrational motion where its speed again suffers at every encounter to transfer its effect (that is its momentum e/c) through the field of the mass-energy continuum of the classical void.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease see:
www.sittampalam.net/MassEnergy.htm
www.sittampalam.net/TheNeutrino.htm
www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
Thus, it is easily seen that c depends on its environment. Its presently detected constancy is only in the highly confined solar space. In, say, galactic, and more so in extragalactic, the speed can be even orders higher, making the quasars and galaxies of the far cosmos to be closer than presently reckoned!
Refute at least any one aspect of this model propounded for the unification of physics - and be the richer for it by US$25,000! No joke, no spam; word of honour.
Details in:
www.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.pdf
www.sittampalam.net/NobelResponse.pdf
There are one houndred million people with a bucket. Each person uses the bucket to transport water from the water well to the huge flower garden in a glass house. The water well and glass house are aprox. 3 km apart. Every bucket has a tiny hole, so when a person takes some water from the water well, by the time that person gets back to the glass house, some water was lost on the way. The amount of water lost in total for all people per one trip from water well to garden is aprox. 2000000 litres of water. Each bucket loses about 2 ml of water per trip, which for a 20 l bucket is not much, but for the 100 million people the loss is as much as though 200000 people out of the 100 million were not carrying water to the garden. That might not be such a great loss, but if in a day a single person makes 10 trips to the garden and they work 5 days a week, every week, then in one year they would lose 5.2 billion liters of water and in 15 billion years they would lose 5.2 * 10^18 litres of water and that would be equal to 100 million people making 2.6 billion trips (10 trips/day ; 5 days/week ; 52 weeks/year) in total from the water well to the garden which would take the 100 million people 1 million years. Basically they lost 1 * 10^6 years of work in 1.5 * 10^10 of years. The point is that less people could do the same job only their buckets had no holes in them. Someone perfect would create a machine that is 100% efficient or 99% efficient? Do scientists ever ask questions as "What for?" or "What is the reason for that?" or do you just drink knowledge as it goes regardless what you are drinking is water, dirty water or poison? Say you are sent to the water garden to inspect the work in progress and you notice that the buckets are leaking, would you do nothing about it and think "it's just the way it is"? Do you even notice? That is the question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe speed of neutrinos is the upper limit. The speed of light is variable depending on the gravity frame where it is measured. Google "Tuomo Suntola" and read his papers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUniverse is an "x,y,z,i" universe, not an "x,y,z,t" universe.
I shall pick up the book and let you know what I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisALL CONSERVATED FIELDS DIFFUSE FASTER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that all conservated fields are
1- Gravitational field
Fg= G.m1m2/r^2
2- Electrical field
Fe = k.q1q2/r^2
3- Magnetic field
Fm= s.g1g2/r^2
These equations show that all conservated fields diffuse faster than speed of light.Because they are independent from the velocity and speed.
As to de Broglie hypothesis ;Wave form can travel faster than speed of light.But particle form can not travel faster than speed of light.
Best Regards.
cebrail hasimi oktar
It is truly a disturbing discovery, and one notes the hurry by many to use it to dispel Einstein's understanding of relativity. Yet on another level, Newtonian physics is still very usefull to explain falling apples. Would it not be wiser, especially at this stage of particle research to state that while we may be getting further rather than closer to a unified cosmological theory, we might still be, in our imperfect undestanding of the universe, at a stage where three, maybe four theoretical models of explanation might have to coexist ? And alternatively that Einstein's explanation of relativity is still quite useful to understand what's going on in our universe ? Just a thought...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn Mythology I find Joseph Campbell ideas appeal to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDecipher seems to touch on this fact.
Their is a common theme that runs through all the worlds major religions and myths. The flood story is mirrored world wide.
To be a seeker is to admit that you do not know the truth and may never know it, but you would rather know pieces of it incompletely, than to delude yourself into thinking you know, when you do not.
We try and separate ourselves from nature, but we are a part of nature. Nature is harsh. Mankind has tried to fill the harshness with meaning, and illusion of equity.
We are all equal parts creator and destroyer, and you cannot be one without being the other.
You make interesting points, now what about a case where you alternate between 0 mass and energy cloud?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real world exists as discrete steps between points.
That is where science is in applied reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are four boxes. Three white boxes and one black box. Which one is the odd one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@rloldershaw:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would not be so quick to dismiss the OPERA experiment. As I understand it, the authors were very careful in their methodology; presumably to be hardened against dismissive arguments such as yours. If you have a cause for argument please present it. I read this is not the first time neutrinos appeared to be going at superluminal velocities. In the other experiment, the results were not widely published due to insufficient confidence levels; that alone adds to the probability that a real superluminal velocity is being witnessed here.
The white one that should be black ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur assumed x, y and z axis of space seem to me to be actually one dimensions that appears as three due to the vector attribute of forces. The neutrinos could be traveling in other dimensions so it appears that information is traveling faster than light when it is not. Also the speed of light limit is only limited to the dimension of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe speed of light is calculated from Eo, the strength of the electrostatic force and the u, the strength of the magnetic interaction. Eo is 8.854187817 x 10^12 coul^2 / (joule-meter) and u is 4 x pi x 10^-7 N / amp^2. The speed of light, c = 1/(E0 x u)^0.5. What this demonstrates is that the speed of light in the space that we are used to describing is limited because of the dielectric of space itself. Space, or how we perceive it, is a result of photons and other particles that interact with photons traveling through it and the speed limit, c, is a result of that observation. When there is no space measured in meters and velocity in meters/second then the speed of light becomes meaningless. The other dimensions are not dimensions of space but of different kinds of forces. The neutrino could simply be traveling partialy through the other dimension making the trip somewhat shorter.
One of them is the odd one out, for the reason that is at present, not a reason that should be, nonetheless you got it right, it is one of the white boxes, but why is it the odd one out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have it. Buddha was searching to end misery and I still think that was the flaw. Without the sad and bad how can one be happy or loved and know what it is worth. I liked the fact that mythology surpasses all regarding races, religions, empires etc.. Your mind is on track in a good way. Please check this for me https://www.facebook.com/pages/Make-love-contagious-and-cure-fear/182303961847362 it is a start but the only cure to fear is love.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with our disassociation with nature which has always upset me because instead of being inclusive we become reclusive. On my other site peace-happyn-alive I go into how to become one you have to accept what I call warts or as others would say things they would change about themselves. The minute they succeed they are no longer that person. How many times have you been here I think I might be on my last. I lost my mom a few years ago and a weird cat showed up that I am pretty sure was a re-incarnation of some sort. Lasted for a week, I hate little cats (not totally) but this one acted so strangely and I think it may be because I was the only one who told mom it was okay to die, she had a great life and it would never come back to what it was. I am near that point now but I have a few things left to say and I agree we can only find out so much but I think we get a few tries to realize it was an elephant all along. Anyway check out "Only With Love can we become one" on http://peace-happy-n-alive.blogspot.com it deals with the ying yang required to be whole and the evil of fair. Thanks for the thoughts and I enjoyed Campbell's show also ended up reading the book. He was an old soul also. Isn't amazing that the speed of light starts the most interesting conversations by a species that can only explain 2 to 4% of what the universe is made of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding that I think we are missing the boat thinking dark matter requires volume. I think because it does not interact with electromagnetic energy the concept of shells doesn't apply and when a nucleus is compared in volume to an atom it is like a foot ball in the middle of a foot ball stadium with about 4 or 5 more blocks left out of the area. It may be only point like objects in our reference frame. That will get me moving on to Fractals and why I think Lee Smolin wussed out in his book 'Life in the Cosmos', he got so close and then wimped. I still see the universe as a singularity that resembles Escher painting that falls back on itself. And we get the honor of being able to ask all these crazy questions because being a singularity is hard to do alone but infinity fails when you really study it. But these darn fractals and chaos theory keep sounding better and better. Thanks for the insight.
If the mass is in the .ss of course he does. Cute. May I see your papers. Thim if you ever get a chance check out The Firesign Theater's 'Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him'. You will as they say LYAO Dave. They were big in my times and this actually made it to CD format. If you like them they did a few other things worth checking out. Do let me know what you think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey may speed in Italy but 129 Kilometers is not that fast. But a Lamborghini can do that about three times faster. I'm so glad we did not go metric here if i was pulled over for doing 70 KM in a 55 KM zone I would die laughing and then think of the paper work (in grams of course). Loved the comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also loved the buckeye balls with nitrogen in them in Decipher. We are only beginning to see what Carbon can do and burning it is still the worse use of a great atom. I found out that at around 2000 F the O2 separates out and the C ends up as a graphine type substance. The only real issue is what happens to the Nitrogen. But Carbon has potential in every applied science I ever studied and it did it better, cheaper and more sustainable than any of the other fancy alternatives. I am eating that book like Junk food, I had to grab a copy of Hawking's new book just to remember why we aren't there yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid it ever occur that the speed of light is relative to the velocity, trajectory, spin, distance of the two observers and the further we go the faster it appears to the point that we hit something similar to an event horizon where it appears to be traveling faster than c. This follows a lot of work done by Hubble and his ratio of how space expands, done a long time ago in a far different place some 80 light years from here. A photon is really a picture of an event at some specific time that is measurable by some other electron that transforms it into another photon and the event goes on and on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome time soon I want to discuss why we got lucky when an object about the size of mars hit the new born earth which exchanged a large amount of heavy metal, angular momentum, destruction of a CO2 heavy atmosphere, regulating the rotational angle of the earth to between 23 degrees and 9 degrees and might have made our orbit a bit less elliptic and also taking some of the bigger hits yet to come. I think that plus our sweet spot and the 4 billion years that have passed since all this happened allowed for us to be having our discussions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOtherwise I think we would be much more like our twin very hot (in a negative connotation) sister Venus. I see this very seldom mentioned as to one of the big reasons we have life and not single cell constantly having to restart type of life that is probably more common in this part of the hills.
Just to jump in on this one. We know 2 to 4% of what makes up our universe. It is entirely possible that the speed of light is how we observe since we are so close to what some call absolute zero. Also the more we look the bigger the so called universe may be much larger than expected and appears homogenous since we can only visualize a part of it that follows our rules.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven after finding a new theory we need to explain relativity as special case of the theory. Anyway I have a problem with relativity since I am not able to answer the following question may be some one can:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo observers A & b are travelling with a constant velocity V with respect to each other. Observer A sees an object travelling with constant velocity U(with components Ux in the same direction as V and Uy perpendicular to it. A & B communicate regularly. What is the velocity of the object as measured by B. Uy' is easy to compute and is equal to Uy*sqrt(1 - V^2/C^2) but what about Ux.
Ranish,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I see the issue. When you state Two observers A & b are traveling with a constant velocity V with respect to each other. Observer A sees an object traveling with constant velocity U(with components Ux in the same direction as V and Uy perpendicular to it. The question I have to ask first is are they traveling in parallel, towards each other in other words is there any other issues that would not make the object being viewed as being perpendicular to each observer. Once you solve that the only issue is the relative velocity of the object being observed. This is one of the classic reasons why physics both quantum and relative have issues once you throw a third object into the soup. This is also why I love Smolin and his work on loop quantum gravity and how time is more an illusion of each observer. I would suggest trying a fractal representation of the event and you may be pleasantly surprised.
My take has always been time and space are so subjective they don't exist and lately some of the research in gravity is showing it too is a subjective result of geometry between two or more objects. I think in the end we will realize we live in a singularity that has an imagination.
Despite all our education, haven't you always BELIEVED something could go faster than light? I mean really. Speed (or velocity) always depends on your reference point of what you consider to be static (still). i.e. Relativity... If something is traveling the speed of light away from you, and you take one step away from it, now it is going faster than the speed of light away from you. Or the old throw a baseball out the front window of your spaceship going the speed of light... Light is just ONE way that we sense or observe things as energy is permeated. Why should it define the LIMIT for everything's speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStephen Deratz in reply to Miller JamesD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRIGHT: NO definite limit for speed.
Limit was introduced by the velocity addition of the Lorentz Transformation, which was the consequence of the Lorentz length contraction to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and there was a mistake.
Details of this mistake: www.sderatz.com
information can't travel faster than light. The fact that nutrinos even have any mass to speak of at all is contentious at best because wave partical duality dictates they must be able to travel as a wave and therefor within the guidelines of maxwells equations -the speed of light!. The dual split experiment showed that even molocules of over 60 atoms were shown to exhibit wave interference patterns so a single nutrino should have no trouble at all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know why people do not believe in multiple dimensions; maybe it is because people do not understand the process... multiple dimensions could quite well be fact - we SEE 3 spacial dimensions because a brain which can form MEMORIES (and therefor know about dimensions) can only operate in a universe where 1> entropy always increases over time, and 2> so that the memory pathways in the brain can become ionised in order to CREATE ORDER (memories) that run against the flow of thermodynamic time. Otherwise we would remember things before they were caused and would remember our concluding thought before our question- this is why we see 3 spacial dimensions and none other ... because calabi yau dimensional spaces over 3 allow for a dillution of entropy and therefor memories would not form !... so under 3 dimensions and biology wouldnt allow life, over 3 dimensions and memories and thought would not be possible - but that doesnt mean to say that PARTICLES (strings) cannot travel in these higher dimensions.... but they would not be our idea of 'mass particles', they must have no mass in 3 dimensional space or they would be dimensionally entangled (be in more than one plank position at once and not be able to move into a 4th dimension due to cohesion between the particles)... so nutrinos / photons / electrons / etc etc should be able to do it.. i believe the reason we scarsely see it is because once u attain a 4th dimensional space then it would be even more unlikely that the particle could ever return - simple mathamatics.
This being said - there has always been a need for extra dimensional observance.. due to quantum entanglement problems which link the spin of dual produced photons changing to be the others polar opposite as as soon as its partner undergoes a quantum measurment... this information exchange happens faster than light obviously becuase the photons are traveling away from each other at the speed of light !... how else could this be the case other than an extra dimensional link
How to make this clear in few words?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.Detector length is +/- 20m
2.Neutrinos ahead of theoretical photons +/- 18m
I would not open champagne bottle just yet.
P.S. But would not it be great if finally we could measure space curvature near Earth not just Sun?
http://mshedeed.blogspot.com/2011/10/do-cerns-measurements-about-neutrinos.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do CERN's measurements about neutrinos miss some factors?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was re-thinking about if really my research about the speed of light:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mohamed-ismail-shedeed/do-you-believe-that-the-speed-of-light-is-constant/283564574992652
supports the CERN last results about the neutrinos or not, and I got something here based on my research,
A) the light travels in an opposite direction of the observer:
if the new speed of Cn = Root(Cstat.^2 + V^2); where;
Cstat is the speed of light relative to a stationary observer, and
V is the speed of a moving observer, and
Cn is the new speed of light yo the moving observer.
and where I got the new Cn by treating the distance d which is the distance taken by the light to travel through it is Relative distance.
So, by treating the distance needed by the Neutrinos to travel through as a relative distance, and changing the GPS satellite that is used by CERN in time measurements by a Neutrino as an observer, I got it:
Cn = Root(Cstat.^2 + Vneut.^2) ; where;
Vneut is the speed of the Neutrinos relative to a stationary observer, that's measured as faster than the Cstat.
So, the new speed of light must be:
Cn ~= Root( (3X10^8)^2 + (3X10^8+0.3X10^8)^2 ) = 445,982,062.42 m/s.
So, the speed of light is still faster than the speed of Neutrinos
B) the light travels in the same direction of the observer (the strange results):
Cn = Root(Cstat.^2 - Vneut.^2) = Root(negative value) = Imaginary
that means the light will travel in an imaginary dimension -extra dimension?!- ,
the same for the Neutrinos' time:
tn = told/Root(1-Vneu.^2/Cstat.^2) = told/Root(negative) = Imaginary time.
It's a random study , and I may be wrong...
I still am amazed that the article from 12-10-10 has been so ignored for such hubris as this. Is the health of the earth so unimportant that we are willing to post over 200 notes on little changeable particles that may explain some issues that occur because Einstein and Borhs had arguments while we continue to use carbon for burning because we have been sold a bag of poop that Hydrogen is not workable because it has storage issue. The following link is to a story that presents an answer to just in time H2 and O2 and two or more of all five comments are mine pleading for attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople wake up we are killing this planet on esoteric issues and ignoring real ideals that could change everything overnight. Take a minute and visit this posting from SCIAM before you waste another minute on things that we may not be around to see the answer to.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1
If you have any questions about just in time delivery or storage or what else we can do with Carbon but burn it please reply to this posting.
David
i have a theory for the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino..while Special Relativity cannot accomodate the experiment General Relativity cab do so
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://vixra.org/abs/1110.0033
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00630737/en/
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/INSMI/hal-00630737/fr/
Hello my names Dave D, i am an aerospace Technologist,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been working on a project that envolves a light speed engine, with special capabilites of utillizing coaxle lazer technology with a new patented propulsion nozel which condenses the lazer beem into a singularity type event that can generate thrust sufficiant to propell man into deep space at speeds not yet whitnessed by mankind. If my theroies stand corrected and my knowledge exceeds my experteese in aerospace fucntions then i would love to keep everyone informed and would like to receive feed back if so that would be great i will be posting further postings on here and you will be hearing more of me, i may be the first one to ever invent the first ever super lazer light speed engine, or perhaps it might be a neutron speed engine that can travel throught the fabric of space time and fly baby fly.
My name is David D and i am a aerospace technologist and i am working on a super propulsion lazer engine that may be able to travle at the speed of neutrino, its a theory that i have had for some time now and am going to build it so i will keep everyone posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone taken into account the time/space density difference of traveling through planet Earth compared to the time/distance traveling through air/space around planet Earth (ie the direct gravitational effect of the more densely packed atoms in Earth's crust than the less dense atoms to near vacuum of space around planet Earth). Seeing as gravity is the the contraction of time and space, the distances traveled and time elapsed should be smaller in a more densely packed atomic state (if my mass was near infinity, time would slow to near zero and distances would also approach zero). This would seem to be the case, if the neutrinos aren't breaking the speed of light, but are actually traveling a shorter distance with less time elapsing as they pass through planet Earth. I seem to remember an experiment (sometime in the last 20 years but don't remember where or when I saw it) where gamma rays were observed to travel faster through a dense object than through a vaccum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice post....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispraveen
This is old news going on 8 months now that radically changed physics solving the problem of frozen time and has moved on in many directions throughout physics and astronomy and even DNA research and music theory but is being publicly hidden by politics protecting many reputations and egos trying to figure it out to be the "first" to announce it using fancier words than needed. But for those that don't know yet here it is again and I'll try to keep it simple which means leaving a lot out as everything is connected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is now well known CERN's neutrinos at V-C/C=2.48e-5 in 453.6 miles (as well as Fermilabs) is caused by the paradox noted in the observation of light that goes back to 1947 and is a result of the asymmetry of the weak force and the calculations that prove it are so simple to do it's being done in high school math classes.
Stanford's SLAC E158 data ratio @ 2.48e-5 in 453.6 miles matches CERN's neutrinos @ v-c/c=2.48e-5 in 453.6 miles and produced the needed harmonic comma for space. Because it added time it added space making the WF asy stand out @ .20e-5 sec and that is the really big news because it showed space is the force carrier of gravity and the "hole" shown opposite the electron for many years now is the "missing" graviton moving in a second reverse arrow of time that clearly showed the asymmetry of the weak force was the cause of the gain in time and distance added, not a lose cable. No one that did the calculations believes that as the ratio comes from the huge distance light travels in 1000 years with one hour added. So it's fair to say adding a 4th time phase or "part" to the atom is big news especially if it's the missing graviton no one can argue about because it wasn't really missing, just misidentified but right where its supposed to be.
The neutrino is the force carrier space of the photon and the time/space added is added at the speed of light so not only was Special Relativity not violated, it made me aware that a set of equations I had come up with years ago working on the Unified Field Theory equation was actually the Einstein-Planck equation I had corrected to get through one Mass oscillation cycle using the UFT equation. All the energy to prove Einstein was right seems to have carried over proving Einstein was also right when he said "God does not play dice with the Universe" eliminating the dice in quantum mechanics showing just how far ahead his natural instinct of physics was and that he did not waste the last years of his life refusing to accept chance in QM was acceptable.
The importance of the weak force asymmetry is vast in physics and all the sciences. In the quantum theory of gravity there’s the Wheeler-DeWitt equation which doesn't have a time variable suggesting that the universe should be frozen, and never changing. This has been called the "problem of frozen time". This problem is resolved by adding the asymmetry of the weak force. In observing the weak force functioning in a star like our sun we are observing a speed of light clock which would stop all clocks in the Universe without it. It is the asymmetry of the weak force that “un-freezes” time and allows for movement and variable Mass energy density levels by adding one hour every thousand years. It might not seem like much but it is exactly the right amount needed and gives us the required cosmological constant with Einstein’s harmonic comma as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever before the Wheeler-DeWitt equation you start with the Einstein-Planck equation (which is now two equations to give entropy its arrow) in two dimensions first and this creates "information frames". You cannot put up where down goes, or have up without down anymore than you can have nothing without something to create the opposite concept of "nothing" and you should notice there is an arrow relative to the Observer needed giving direction to the flow of information made of time.
Chance leaves out what is needed to expose the truth of time creating the symmetry in opposite conceptions of thought that mirror reality and connect the chemistry of your emotions to energy as you read this. The frames require two opposite phase clock cycles. The physics of chemistry needs the energy of time to function, and the separation of one into two requires time to create the middle intermediate state for separation and accurate measurement. If you know the exact location of a particle in time than you also know it's exact speed provided of course you have established an initial or true inertial frame of reference to measure time from. Time gives you an exact measurement on both sides of the information frame with "Maxwell's Demon" in the middle so to speak.
To truly understand this you must realize that quantum physics is showing us that Consciousness has Mass that is in oscillation and it's location in space is relative to time, and it takes two Mass oscillation cycles of up and down to create the time (and experience) needed for one instance of a 3D Observer C/G as seen occurring in the Gene Ensemble Instance Summery locations.
But first lets just focus on E158 reduced to 2.48e-5 sec.
There are three critical things revealed by SLAC E158 data matching CERN's data @ v-c/c=2.48e-5.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first is the data itself matching shown by reducing the ratio of 1 hour added to the distance light travels in a 1000 years which is an enormous distance eliminating any realistic chance of coincidence into the time the asymmetry of the weak force adds in 453.6 miles.
We start with 3600 seconds gained in 1000 years which is 3.6 seconds gained in a year.
Light travels 186,282 miles in a second so each year gains 3.6 x 186,282 or 670,615.2 miles in distance added by the asy of the weak force creating a speed of light clock running fast. This is an exceptionally important observation because of time dilation.
From here we simply divide that by the number of days in a year to get the time/distance added in a single day which is 1,836.08 miles, then the distance added in an hour which is 76.50 miles, then the distance gained in a minute which is 1.27 miles, then the distance gained in a second which is .021 of a mile.
So we now know the asy of the weak force adds .021 of a mile in one second, which is to say the time it takes for light to travel that distance at the speed of light, and CERN's neutrinos gained 2.48e-5 in 453.6 miles.
So since our one second/186,282 mile unit of measurement is too large we must reduce it so we divide 186,282 miles by 453.6 miles which gives us a new unit of measurement of 410.67 miles (410.67 miles x 453.6 = 186282 miles).
We now simply divide what the asy of the weak force adds in one second, .021 by 410 and we get 5.17e-5.
Now here is the second exceptionally important observation to understand what we are seeing here regarding the nature of time and it is perhaps the most important discovery that CERN/SLAC’s data uncovers: a Mass pendulum's second arrow of time moving in the opposite direction: the direction of the graviton’s phase in time creating a second clock cycle.
So we divide 5.17e-5 by 2 and we get 2.58e-5.
Now this brings us to the third and equally important revelation regarding the nature of space from music theory: the harmonic comma the two sets of data create that shows the asymmetry added to space in the second reverse arrow. CERN’s neutrino data shows a gain in the forward arrow of time of 2.48e-5 so we subtract 2.48e-5 from 2.58e-5 and this gives us .10e-5 to apply to the second reverse arrow which gives us a comma of .20e-5 making the gain in time added to the second arrow 2.68e-5 by adding .10e-5 to 2.58e-5.
Why? We are using increasing time to measure with.
maybe light is just a byproduct of the neutrinos a sort of vapor trail this would explain why the neutrinos dont reach us much sooner, even over long distances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this