PDA

View Full Version : Chatter Faster Than Light?



ElectricAye
09-24-2011, 03:08 PM
It will be interesting to see what comes of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/science/24speed.html?_r=1&hp

Ray0665
09-24-2011, 04:54 PM
Where can I place my bet against!

Martin_H
09-24-2011, 05:00 PM
XKCD's take http://xkcd.com/955/

My guess is that it is an experimental error. However, I've read that due to quantum effects particles can exceed the speed of like over very short distances at very low probabilities. This effect along with virtual particle pairs is used to predict the existence of Hawking radiation leaking out of a black hole.

So given that possibility, who knows?

skylight
09-24-2011, 05:46 PM
If electricity flows through circuits such as measuring devices at the speed of light, how did they measure something faster than light speed? :smile:

ElectricAye
09-24-2011, 06:11 PM
Most surprising to me is that they would make such an announcement. Usually when somebody finds their data fit the standard model, it's case closed and they can publish. But whenever things don't fit the dominant paradigm, everything gets scrutinized and scrubbed until it does fit the paradigm, else it just gets shelved, forgotten, never published, or, if it's in industry, they just tack on a fudge factor and move on. Makes me wonder how many babies get tossed out with the bath water just because researchers and journal editors are afraid of looking stupid if and when somebody points out the source of the error - if such an error indeed exists.

Duane Degn
09-24-2011, 06:24 PM
Science is full of stories where old theories are over turned when new evidence shows it's incorrect.

I think journals and scientists in general should be wary of miraculous claims. Otherwise we get a bunch of cold fusion and tree shaped solar panel stories in our news.

Duane

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
09-24-2011, 06:38 PM
So much of scientific revolution and anti-revolution is political. Pons and Fleischmann's second biggest sin (after announcing of their cold fusion results prematurely) was that they were chemists, and the physics establishment did not like having their turf invaded, especially since their funding could have been reallocated.

-Phil

Duane Degn
09-24-2011, 07:04 PM
Phil,

You don't think Pons and Fleischmann's fraud was a bigger sin than being a chemist?

I might be biased about this subject. Steven Jones was one of my physics professors at BYU.

I attended a special lecture about cold fusion several years before all this cold fusion stuff became news. In the lecture he made clear he didn't think cold fusion was a practical source of energy (it required more energy than it produced). Several years later Pons and Fleischmann were accusing Jones of stealing there work since he was one of the reviewers of their article. Jones had a cold fusion article published in the same issue of Nature where P&F's work was published (Jones was asked to wait to publish so the two related articles could come out together).

In my opinion P&F were scammers and crooks.

Duane (a chemist)

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
09-24-2011, 07:32 PM
It's my belief that P&F were on to something but that they announced their results prematurely before they had nailed down all the intricacies of the palladium rod preparation, which made replication of their work nearly impossible. In the decades since, work on cold fusion has progressed quietly in other quarters -- notably Japan. I have little doubt that fusion is possible under the circumstances posited by P&F. Whether it can pass the break-even point on a commercial scale is a separate question altogether. In any event, I do not think that they were deliberate scammers, and I do believe that they may have been pushed into their announcement by higher-ups at the university. In any event, I think they were sorely mistreated by the scientific establishment and, as a result of their work being labeled unscientific, any possible progress in the field was unjustifiably stunted.

-Phil

Duane Degn
09-24-2011, 08:38 PM
Phil,

I disagree (about P&F) but I don't want to spend time debating you (at least not about this). (As I said I'm biased about this subject. (One can still be right even if they're biased right?)) I'd rather spend my time getting one of Rayman's 4.3" touchscreens working with my GPS logger (it's coming along nicely so far).

Duane

Bill Chennault
09-25-2011, 01:46 AM
All--

Regarding neutrinos and FTL . . .

I wonder if the idea that neutrinos are mass-less particles might be a key factor in this discovery, if it is confirmed? To my way of (mathematically) thinking, that would not violate E = mc**2. HOWEVER, neutrinos must carry SOME energy or they couldn't be detected. (I am so far over my head on this that you don't even have to feel smug about slapping me down! :))

--Bill

ElectricAye
09-25-2011, 02:10 AM
If electricity flows through circuits such as measuring devices at the speed of light, how did they measure something faster than light speed? :smile:

I'm guessing they time the electronic path by making the detection signals travel on a round trip and they take into account the signal delays of the detectors, amps, repeaters, etc. After that, perhaps they are measuring a phase shift phenomenon of some sort - but I'm just guessing.



..
In my opinion P&F were scammers and crooks....

Pons and Fleischmann's claims were no doubt premature, but I think it's a stretch to say they were crooks trying to scam somebody. The US Navy, for example, has been studying this phenomenon for decades and publishing some interesting results. Google SPAWAR and LENR. They have been "hiding in plain sight" as their director put it a couple years ago. What's going on is still a mystery, but from what I understand, most of the major discoveries in solid state physics have been a result of experimentation - with theory following far behind. Bottom line is we know so little about how the universe is put together, so, though I understand the need for skepticism and reproducible results, I also see the need for keeping an open mind and not pillorying everyone who pushes toward the limits of what's known. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, how proteins find the right way to fold out of 10143 possible combinations before the sun winks out.... I can't feel smug about anything I know.

Tor
09-25-2011, 01:25 PM
Most surprising to me is that they would make such an announcement. Usually when somebody finds their data fit the standard model, it's case closed and they can publish. But whenever things don't fit the dominant paradigm, everything gets scrutinized and scrubbed until it does fit the paradigm, else it just gets shelved, forgotten, never published, or, if it's in industry, they just tack on a fudge factor and move on. Makes me wonder how many babies get tossed out with the bath water just because researchers and journal editors are afraid of looking stupid if and when somebody points out the source of the error - if such an error indeed exists.
It's quite clear why they published. It's part of the scientific process: They've scrutinized their data for 3 years and they can't find the error, even though they're sure there is one. Now they want others to take a look with fresh eyes.

-Tor

Humanoido
09-25-2011, 04:49 PM
One only needs to look at the construction and function of a Neutrino observatory to understand the unusual qualities of these particles. It would not surprise me if the science on this is correct. Fill in the blank. Newton is to Einstein as Einstein is to _____________________ .

sylvie369
09-25-2011, 08:49 PM
It's quite clear why they published. It's part of the scientific process: They've scrutinized their data for 3 years and they can't find the error, even though they're sure there is one. Now they want others to take a look with fresh eyes.

-Tor

This I found impressive and reassuring. In the reports I read, the researchers were very cautious, and were very clear that they thought there was a very strong chance that someone would find a flaw in their work. They were quoted as saying that they'd published in order to expose their work to critique in order that any errors would be found. I was also impressed that the media reports I saw were responsible enough to emphasize that caution (yes, despite the gaudy attention-attracting headlines).

I'd bet against them as well, but unless I'm terribly confused, Einstein simply said that nothing can be accelerated from below the speed of light to above the speed of light, because the mass increases to infinity as the object approaches the speed of light. That doesn't preclude FTL travel of objects already exceeding the speed of light, and there may be other loopholes as well.

But then, I'm not a physicist, so I could be completely full of it. But did Einstein REALLY show that nothing can travel faster than light? Or simply that you can't get there by just pressing harder on the gas pedal? That's two entirely different things.

john_s
09-25-2011, 09:26 PM
Thoughts, feelings, dreams, wishes, poetry rhymes, prayers... I bet I miss quite a few that in my opinion do travel 'faster than light'.
Although for some of them it might take a considerably longer 'time' to reach their destination :-)

WBA Consulting
09-26-2011, 02:52 AM
Simple explanation. Tolerance of man-made equipment used to clock it. Long live Einstein's theory!

Humanoido
09-26-2011, 03:15 AM
Thoughts, feelings, dreams, wishes, poetry rhymes, prayers... I bet I miss quite a few that in my opinion do travel 'faster than light'. Although for some of them it might take a considerably longer 'time' to reach their destination :-)

John: agreed and very well said. It's all about the path taken and sometimes one must jump from one path to another.

The Road Not Taken (poem) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... with a sigh / Somewhere ages and ages hence: / Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— / I took the one less traveled by, / And that has made all the difference. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken_(poem by Robert Frost)

It's like taking Newtonian Physics and complaining that you cannot time travel. Newton's equations are correct, but only for speeds a tenth the speed of light or less. Now Einstein enters the picture with his equation. Einstein's equations are correct and define time travel but only to light speed and not faster. Now enter a new equation (i) where the jump is beyond light speed. Mathematically it exists, we only need a way to verify. (Thank you Stephen Hawking) So Newton is correct, Einstein is correct, and faster than light travel is correct.

travel 'faster than light': Thoughts, feelings, dreams, wishes, poetry rhymes, prayers... john_s

In the written pages of exceptionally good sf, the connection of thought is indeed connected to space and time - we find most things predicted by sf eventually come true.

Duane Degn
09-26-2011, 03:27 AM
- we find most things predicted by sf eventually come true.

Humanoido,

I think I disagree with this statement. I think a more accurate statement would be. . . We find things that are predicted by sf and come true stand out in our minds much more than the things predicted by sf and don't come true.

Duane

Humanoido
09-26-2011, 09:51 AM
We find things that are predicted by sf and come true stand out in our minds much more than the things predicted by sf and don't come true. Duane

Duane, that's certainly true - here's what I was trying to say:

Many of the things predicted by sf eventually come true.

I think we're still waiting for the Monolith to be discovered on the Moon. That's why we're going back there, right?

:)

Heater.
09-26-2011, 11:34 AM
They already found the Monolith on the moon. That's why they have been to nervous to go back there all these decades and we only send r/c cars to Mars.

Martin_H
09-26-2011, 01:27 PM
I'd bet against them as well, but unless I'm terribly confused, Einstein simply said that nothing can be accelerated from below the speed of light to above the speed of light, because the mass increases to infinity as the object approaches the speed of light. That doesn't preclude FTL travel of objects already exceeding the speed of light, and there may be other loopholes as well.

But then, I'm not a physicist, so I could be completely full of it. But did Einstein REALLY show that nothing can travel faster than light? Or simply that you can't get there by just pressing harder on the gas pedal? That's two entirely different things.

You are correct about acceleration, but causality* is the other reason FTL is problematic. For example barrier tunneling allows particles to move between two points faster than light. But they don't accelerate as they instantly move point to point. To work around the causality problems they aren't supposed to be able to carry information.

I say supposed to because there's some disagreement about that. Gunter Nimtz did an experiment back in 1992 where he transmitted music using the process.

* The causality problems are too complicated to discuss here. Brian Green gives a good overview of the problems in "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality"

ElectricAye
09-26-2011, 02:03 PM
...Gunter Nimtz did an experiment back in 1992 where he transmitted music using the process....

Maybe he transmitted rap instead, in which case no physics would've been violated.

Zap-o
09-26-2011, 02:10 PM
This has to be a mistake but if not, then the scientific community all over the world will be elated including me.

Spiral_72
09-26-2011, 03:23 PM
If electricity flows through circuits such as measuring devices at the speed of light, how did they measure something faster than light speed? :smile:

I wondered the same thing. Maybe they synchronized their swatches, then one flew to Italy 450miles away??

I "THINK" they use two ridiculous accurate atomic time clocks separated by 450 miles, so their time count is amplified by their distance apart. The neutrino left at T=0 and arrived at T=0.000000123, 450 miles away. a.k.a. "Synchronized their atomic swatches"


.... I always understood Einstein's theory to read; Nothing can travel AT the speed of light....... which does not mean things cannot travel faster than the speed of light..... which of course leads to the question; How do you pass this speed limit, without passing the speed limit?
So either:
#1 Neutrinos do not travel faster than light
#2 Einstein is wrong
#3 There is a way to jump from below the SOL to faster than SOL without ever traveling AT the SOL.
#4 There's a problem of definition here, e.g. Wormholes and the like.

Or we could blame it on dark matter and dark energy like scientists do for everything else unexplained.

Humanoido
09-28-2011, 02:42 AM
So either:
#1 Neutrinos do not travel faster than light
#2 Einstein is wrong
#3 There is a way to jump from below the SOL to faster than SOL without ever traveling AT the SOL.
#4 There's a problem of definition here, e.g. Wormholes and the like.

#3

Cluso99
09-28-2011, 11:37 AM
Maybe one day they will find that Einstein's theory has an extra component that only comes into play as you approach the SOL. I am one of those nuts that believes SOL will be achieved/broken/whatever but of course has no idea whatsoever about the how.

Heater.
09-28-2011, 11:50 AM
I cracked it.

Timing the flight of neutrinos from Cern to the Gran Sasso lab, a distance of 730km, is equivalent to racing a neutrino against a photon. In this case finding that the neutrino gets there first which should be impossible as nothing should travel faster than light.

My proposal is not that the neutrino is traveling faster than light but that the neutrino is taking a shorter path.

How can that be?

Well we know that light does not travel in straight lines. Rather it's path can be bent by gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

So we might speculate that the path of photons between these two labs is not exactly straight and that the time taken is somewhat more than if it were.

So the proposal is that perhaps neutrinos are not subject to this bending by gravity effect and do actually take the straight path hence getting there sooner.

I'm available to pick up my Nobel prize at any time.

Tor
09-28-2011, 01:10 PM
I cracked it.
So the proposal is that perhaps neutrinos are not subject to this bending by gravity effect and do actually take the straight path hence getting there sooner.

I'm available to pick up my Nobel prize at any time.

That's actually a testable theory.. you can calculate the gravitational curvature between the two locations and, combined with the distance, calculate the time difference (which can vary depending on the actual speed, but the assumption would be that the neutrino speed will be below C. Maybe near, but still below.)

And it's not that far to go to Stocholm for you either .. :)

(Another, totally different and maybe irrelevant idea is one I find interesting: That time is two-dimensional, not one-dimensional. I've got this feeling that maybe that would nicely explain how we can all walk around with our own private time. According to special relativity the time you experience is personal, in the sense that anyone else not moving in step with you will not experience the same time as you do. E.g. the twin paradox: If one twin monitors the clocks aboard the spaceship of his twin brother, currently on his way to elsewhere at speed, he will observe that the spaceship clocks go slower than the earthly clocks. Likewise, if the brother aboard the spaceship monitors the clocks on earth he'll observe the same: Those remote clocks are moving slower than the clocks aboard the spaceship.
NB: If you thought the twin paradox was about one being younger than the older when he got back home again, that isn't the paradox, because it's no paradox.)

-Tor

ElectricAye
09-28-2011, 01:22 PM
...
So the proposal is that perhaps neutrinos are not subject to this bending by gravity effect and do actually take the straight path hence getting there sooner.....

I'm guessing they have taken this sort of thing into account. I've heard that they have taken into account, for example, the tiny distortions in the earth's crust caused by the positions of the moon and sun (geodesic tidal effects).

Spiral_72
09-28-2011, 03:48 PM
#3

Yea, that's kind of a bizarre concept if you think about it. My inexperienced, uneducated, means absolutely nothing opinion will be #3 by definition D=R*T only, and is actually a result of #4

As memory serves: Aren't neutrinos mass-less which would remove the possibility they are subject to the pull of gravity?

EDIT: Neutrinos are not mass-less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
but neither are protons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

Which leads to; Which weighs more? Thus being less affected by gravity?
Proton: 1.672621777(74)10−27kg
Neutrino: thought to be non-zero, but very small. (I found a mass of 0.04 eV, but I don't understand that number and unit)

I have no idea if that math works out or not with a Proton on a curved path around the Earth, and a neutrino on a less curved path?


All this talk of photons and stuff makes me hungry. I'm going to go bombard my food with microwave radiation now. :D

ElectricAye
09-28-2011, 03:58 PM
...
I have no idea if that math works out or not with a Proton...

Do you mean photons?
They have a rest mass of zero, or so I hear.
I've never weighed one myself.

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
09-28-2011, 05:41 PM
Actually, gravity does not deflect the photons, it warps the space through which they pass, which makes them appear to travel a curved path. And space warped for one is space warped for all -- including neutrinos.

-Phil

Spiral_72
09-28-2011, 09:13 PM
Do you mean photons?
They have a rest mass of zero, or so I hear.
I've never weighed one myself.

Em, yea. Boy that sure ruined my argument. I made the mistake not once, but THREE TIMES!



Actually, gravity does not deflect the photons, it warps the space through which they pass, which makes them appear to travel a curved path. And space warped for one is space warped for all -- including neutrinos.

-Phil
?? I'm gonna read up on that..... Very interesting.

Dave Hein
09-28-2011, 09:55 PM
Even if the results are correct it's only 0.0025% faster than the speed of light. That puts a damper on my hopes for faster than the speed of light communications. I'm still hoping there's some subatomic particle that can be peeled open to reveal a method to communicate at speeds that are thousands of times faster than the speed of light.

ElectricAye
09-28-2011, 10:00 PM
Actually, gravity does not deflect the photons, it warps the space through which they pass, which makes them appear to travel a curved path. And space warped for one is space warped for all -- including neutrinos....

I wonder if gravitrons are affected by the warping. Because if they are, and if gravitrons effect gravity, which warps space, which then affect the gravitrons which effect gravity which effects warpage which affects effects of affects of effections of affections of.....

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
09-28-2011, 10:18 PM
Phew! You just managed to escape the singularity! :)

-Phil

Tor
09-29-2011, 08:53 AM
Even if the results are correct it's only 0.0025% faster than the speed of light. That puts a damper on my hopes for faster than the speed of light communications. I'm still hoping there's some subatomic particle that can be peeled open to reveal a method to communicate at speeds that are thousands of times faster than the speed of light.
Back when I was trying to keep up with what went on on sci.physics on Usenet it was claimed that if you could communicate faster than light you would be able to break causality. I never understood the mathematics, but those physicists were pretty insistent on that..

-Tor

Martin_H
09-29-2011, 03:32 PM
@Tor, in an earlier post I mentioned a book that describes the issues. But here's an online resource that might help: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_rel_sim/index.html

Basically there's no such thing as absolute time, only the local time that each of us perceives. To an observer "now" is a slice through space time of the information that is reaching them via photons moving at the speed of light. Position and movement skew these slices so observers can perceive events as happening out of sequence relative to the sequence another observer sees.

Normally the speed of light is so high and the distances we deal with are so small, that these effects are not noticeable. But information traveling faster than the speed of light would make them noticible because I could see events outside of my "now" slice. The skew would become more apparent with greater distances between two observers. At large enough distances it would become noticible at a walking pace.

So imagine we have an FTL radio which can transmit, receive, and bounce signals off dense objects (e.g. a neutron star really far away). By walking towards or away from the star I can change my slice through space time relative to the star. This would allow me to receive signals I bounced off the star in the future! I could put this to practical use by sending myself useful information from the future (e.g. winning lotto numbers).

Even worse, suppose I later refused to send myself a signal I has already received?

Dave Hein
09-29-2011, 04:43 PM
I never really understood the causality paradoxes with FTL communication. It seems to be related to the order of events that two observers see when they are in motion relative to each other. The example of the distant neutron star doesn't seem to violate causality. However, if an observer is moving relative to me his perception of space and time will be different than mine, but I haven't quite figured out how it violates causality.

Mark_T
09-29-2011, 04:46 PM
The main reason to suspect this result is a case of experimental error of some sort is that we already have convincing evidence of neutrinos travelling slower than light from distant supernovae - the light beat the neutrinos over half the universe or something like that - if this new result were true the neutrinos should have arrived days before the light from the supernova. Its much easier to be sure of a neutrino detection measurement on a scale of days than nanoseconds.

ElectricAye
09-29-2011, 07:13 PM
The main reason to suspect this result is a case of experimental error of some sort is that we already have convincing evidence of neutrinos travelling slower than light from distant supernovae....

I suppose what we see over vast distances might be different from what we measure at shorter distances. I think humans tend to think in terms of inverse square laws because that's kinda what we're used to experiencing with our senses (light and sound) but some (nuclear) forces of nature do not follow that relationship and there's evidence of forces acting in unexpected ways over astronomical distances. If these faster-than-light neutrinos hold up to experiment, then surely the astronomical observations will play a role in determining what's going on.

Humanoido
09-30-2011, 07:22 AM
They did the experiment 15,000 times over three years using the ultimate CERN accelerator, a device which is one of the highest technological achievements in the world when it comes physics and particle dynamics. Einstein never had access to this technology. When new cutting edge super technology is used, one has to expect revolutionary results and changes of how we view the Universe.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922

Heater.
09-30-2011, 08:22 AM
I never realized how damn slow light is. I mean really, two and half milli-seconds to cover 750Km.

When those financial institutions involved in high velocity stock trading hear about this they are going to pour billions of dollars into finding a faster than light solution:)

http://www.accedian.com/blog/news/hiberniaatlantic-cable-save-5-ms-york-london-route/

mindrobots
09-30-2011, 08:55 AM
...and other financial institutions will start collecting interest from the PRECISE time a transaction hits the wire. Given enough volume, there's money to be made there!!

Humanoido
09-30-2011, 11:47 AM
I never realized how damn slow light is. I mean really, two and half milli-seconds to cover 750Km. When those financial institutions involved in high velocity stock trading hear about this they are going to pour billions of dollars into finding a faster than light solution:)

It's rumored they're already drafting neutrinos.

Now that we think about it, light speed is kinda like horse and buggy travel.

Stocks won't be the only app for faster than light speed.

01) Star Ships can now traverse the galaxy
02) Time travel is more convenient and "takes less time"
03) Faster than light computers will revolutionize the world
04) Internet will no longer poke along stuck in traffic
05) We can communicate with friendly aliens in another part of the galaxy
06) Telescopes will have electric thingamajiggers to show images beyond light
07) It will open up new dimensions that Hawking was seeking
08) Nanites will cure your cold before you have it
09) Teleportation is now possible in real time
10) Clocks will run fast
11) Woman will apply makeup faster with faster-than-light mirrors
12) Society will be forced to shorten the length of a week

ElectricAye
09-30-2011, 03:10 PM
...

When those financial institutions involved in high velocity stock trading hear about this...

They will start charging us interest rates on borrowed money even before we apply for the loans.

Then they will demand - and receive - negative tax rates because they won't be able to stand the thought of all that future money being in pockets that belong to people that haven't yet been born.

Humanoido
10-05-2011, 01:21 PM
So far the research and documentation for the faster than light experiment with the CERN accelerator has held up. I wonder if this will be like the Mars rock discovered with real microbial fossils but half the scientists could not accept it.

Loopy Byteloose
10-05-2011, 05:38 PM
Superman exists, I knew it.

Bill Chennault
11-18-2011, 01:10 PM
All--

I revived this topic from the future. I haven't actually posted it, yet. (I'm using the new Neut 'Net.) I think I will drink another cup of coffee while you read this, but before I post it.

Was Einstein Wrong? Faster Than Light Speeds Reconfirmed by New Neutrino Test (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/18/was-einstein-wrong-faster-than-light-speeds-reconfirmed-by-new-neutrino-test/?test=faces)

--Bill





(http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/18/was-einstein-wrong-faster-than-light-speeds-reconfirmed-by-new-neutrino-test/?test=faces)

Martin_H
11-18-2011, 01:32 PM
One explanation I heard about this phenomena is that they are measuring the effects of frame dragging. Basically as the Earth turns it drags space along with it, which shortens the distance the neutrinos are travelling.

ElectricAye
11-18-2011, 02:35 PM
Thanks, Bill. And the original article can be found here:

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

As for Frame Dragging and so forth, wouldn't they be able to calculate that? I would guess that such a phenomenon would not be a mystery to these folks.

Martin_H
11-18-2011, 03:01 PM
As for Frame Dragging and so forth, wouldn't they be able to calculate that? I would guess that such a phenomenon would not be a mystery to these folks.

Yes, but it's complicated because frame dragging effects the GPS satellites they used to determine the distances on the globe and the neutrinos when they are actually sent. Also, this isn't my idea, but the current thinking on why their results aren't aligned with relativity.

ElectricAye
11-18-2011, 03:34 PM
Yes, but it's complicated because frame dragging effects the GPS satellites they used to determine the distances on the globe and the neutrinos when they are actually sent. Also, this isn't my idea, but the current thinking on why their results aren't aligned with relativity.

Interesting. But is there some inherent reason why these effects can't be "backed out" of the equations? Are there simply too many variables to crunch the numbers or are there some kind of fuzzy unknowns that can't be nailed down or...?

Bill Chennault
11-18-2011, 03:59 PM
Martin--

Is frame dragging (in this situation) a constant? In other words, does it affect the satellites the same as the neutrinos, source, and target equipment? I studied frame dragging a bit, years ago, and vaguely remember it.

Does the distance traveled by the neutrinos nullify frame dragging? Or, is that question inappropriate?

I understand that the frame dragging scenario is not your idea. I am just trying to get more information from someone that knows more than I do about the subject . . . which could be just about anyone.

--Bill

Martin_H
11-18-2011, 04:23 PM
Interesting. But is there some inherent reason why these effects can't be "backed out" of the equations? Are there simply too many variables to crunch the numbers or are there some kind of fuzzy unknowns that can't be nailed down or...?

Up to now frame dragging has only been measured once, but the results matched the predictions by relativity. So they should be able to correct their calculations to include the effect. But see my response to Bill below.


Martin-- Is frame dragging (in this situation) a constant? In other words, does it affect the satellites the same as the neutrinos, source, and target equipment? I studied frame dragging a bit, years ago, and vaguely remember it.

We're approaching the limits of my understanding of the concept. But I believe that frame dragging is proportional to gravity and the rotational speed of the body. So the effect is greater the closer one gets to a massive rotating body. I'm not sure how fast it drops off for a body in orbit versus a body on the surface. Most of the time frame dragging can be ignored because the effects are small, but they are trying to make precise measurements.

davejames
11-18-2011, 05:18 PM
Einstein never had access to this technology. When new cutting edge super technology is used, one has to expect revolutionary results and changes of how we view the Universe.

Yup - agreed.

I imagine Darwin's musings would have been very different had he the cell-examining technology that now exists.

$WMc%
11-18-2011, 07:17 PM
I think their just smoked-up
'
Their Mars Rover was so much more advanced then the US MarsRover.....How much data has this sent back from this EUROROVER?....Haha...LOL!!!!
'
There was a reason the US bailed on the H.C.....We already knew the out come...
'
The rest of the world is playing catch-up......Their not good at it ether.
'
If this finding was from the US....It might be credible

Cluso99
11-18-2011, 11:24 PM
Since Einstein's Theory of Relativity was explained in high school (to me), I always believed that someday someone would find that as speed approaches light another (missing) part to the formula would come into play. Perhaps they are on the cusp of finding it.

I have no basis for my belief, just that travel beyond the speed of light is possible, just as cracking the sound barrier was deemed impossible at one time.

I am simply in awe of all the discoveries and things that were said to be impossible recently are in fact now reality.

Maxwell Smart - what a stupid place to put your phone!
Dick Tracey - Your screen is too small!
Jules Verne - There is no space for lounge chairs aboard the Apollo spacecraft!
??? - We don't fall off the edge of the earth when we travel, and its not flat!
??? - There are only red and white corpussels in the blood and one of them is useless (taught to my mother in school - she was graphing certain blood tests when my father had cancer)
??? - The atom is the smallest particle divisible by man!
??? - The atom is composed of electrons, protons and neutrons!
... I think you get the idea...

Martin_H
11-19-2011, 12:01 AM
A few funny things I read about this today.

They believe the error in their measurement is as high as 27 ns and the effect they measured is only 90 ns. That is cutting it close!

In general relativity, mass can be described by a complex number. So if a portion of the neutrino's mass is imaginary the neutrino can act like a tachyon and exceed the speed of light. But what is imaginary mass?

These results don't match the supernova neutrino results, and the scientists haven't published these results in a journal. Basically these are announcements and not publication. This is a science protocol thing about the confidence they have in the results.

Tor
11-19-2011, 03:18 PM
I have no basis for my belief, just that travel beyond the speed of light is possible, just as cracking the sound barrier was deemed impossible at one time. But there is a difference.. or several. Cracking the sound barrier wasn't deemed impossible due to any physical laws, it was only that it was believed (with reason) that an aircraft would vibrate itself to pieces at the speed of sound.

Travel beyond the speed of light is something else.. time stops existing at the speed of light, and if you could pass the speed of light you would go backwards in time. With all the implications for causality which follows. And anyway mass increases with speed.. and gets very large indeed at the speed of light. So far everything indicates that all these effects are true. Your own mass, for example, is mostly due to relativistic effects: Some 92% (IIRC) of the mass of protons is due to the speed of the gluons inside. If they were moving slower your mass would be lower.

-Tor

Humanoido
11-20-2011, 01:01 AM
Like Newtonian mechanics that hold up to .1C, we believe Einsteinian relativity holds up to the infinity aspects of the speed of light c. It's likely there's a jump that takes place over light, where the speed of light is never reached but is surpassed. We cannot predict the variables of time time travel when traveling faster than c, or causality, using Einstein's time travel equation, as it may not, and likely does not, hold true for anything at or over the speed of light. Someone will need to rewrite the rules of Physics for faster than light travel.

There's a totally different world on the other side of the speed of light remaining to be discovered. I think over light is much like over the rainbow. (Dorothy) "Do you suppose there is such a place, Toto? There must be. It's not a place you can get to by a boat, or a train. It's far, far away. Behind the moon, beyond the rain.....", commencing with singing the song. (Over the Rainbow - Judy Garland) - Wizard of Oz, Book by L. Frank Baum, music by Harold Arlen, lyrics by E.Y. Harburg.

ElectricAye
11-20-2011, 01:57 AM
...We cannot predict the variables of time time travel when traveling faster than c, or causality, using Einstein's time travel equation...

Won't we all feel silly if there is a handful of particles, traveling faster than light, that operate by some fairly mundane, common-sensical rules that even a middle school student could understand?

Humanoido
11-21-2011, 12:04 PM
Won't we all feel silly if there is a handful of particles, traveling faster than light, that operate by some fairly mundane, common-sensical rules that even a middle school student could understand?I expected Hawking will come up with this, considering his work with gravity, black holes and space time. FTL travel probably will have an equation as simple as E=MC^2. And the particles that travel faster than the speed of light are here, just beyond our visibility. Maybe CERN will have something to say about it.

Bill Chennault
11-21-2011, 01:44 PM
All--

What if we have detected the first few particles--or the first particle type--of an entire alternate universe of particles, with the common characteristic of a constant c faster than "ours?"

--Bill

Martin_H
11-21-2011, 02:23 PM
I just read more criticisms of this experiment.

It's impossible to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but it is possible to exceed the speed of light in a medium like rock or water. When this happens the superluminal particle emits Cherenkov radiation, loses energy, and slows below the speed of light in that medium. Although neutrinos are weakly interacting odd ducks, superluminal neutrinos should still radiate and lose energy through Cherenkov effects. Since no such radiation was detected, it again points to an experimental error of some sort.

Bill Chennault
11-21-2011, 02:35 PM
Martin--

It has been known the speed of light varies in different mediums for a long time. Cherenkov radiation has been known for a long time. (Just as long?) Do you think the fact that no Cherenkov radiation was detected points to experimental error or might it be another "impossible" observation? (Or, non-observation in this case.)

--Bill

Martin_H
11-21-2011, 02:56 PM
Bill, the problem is that some existing neutrino detectors use Cherenkov radiation to detect the arrival of supernova generated neutrinos. So these neutrinos should have emitted it as well if they were superluminal and act like neutrinos normally do. So there's an impossible observation coupled with a missing observation that should be there if the first measurement were correct.

Beau Schwabe (Parallax)
11-21-2011, 04:02 PM
Most of us have seen the vapor plumes created when a plane is flying at 'transonic' speeds .... if it were at all possible I wonder what the 'transluminal' plume, assuming there is such a thing, would look like? :-)

Martin_H
11-21-2011, 04:30 PM
Something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg

Bill Chennault
11-21-2011, 04:40 PM
Martin--

You have one of those, too? Where did you get yours?

--Bill
ps Mine has different style electrodes. Other than that, they look pretty much the same.

Martin_H
11-21-2011, 05:03 PM
eBay, it was Erco's deal of the day a few weeks back.

Bill Chennault
11-21-2011, 05:09 PM
Martin--

Yeah. He's always tuned into the best stuff.

--Bill

Humanoido
11-22-2011, 04:27 AM
If this was in error, it's likely someone would have disproved it by now. The experiment has repeated numerous times, even over a year, and always leads to the same number one conclusion of faster than light travel. It would be a good idea to immediately start looking at the immense applications and get started right away.

Humanoido
11-22-2011, 04:32 AM
eBay, it was Erco's deal of the day a few weeks back.I'm sure he posted the FTL thing-a-ma-jiggy a while back. There's no doubt it sold out right away. The question is which side bought it? While we're debating the obvious right under our noses, other countries are harnessing it. The question is, will it be friend or foe?

Tor
11-22-2011, 07:30 AM
Speed of light is one thing, C is another.. in vacuum the speed of light is C, in a medium like rock or water the speed of light is lower but C is still C. Think of it as light being slower because the photons keeps getting absorbed and re-emitted by all the atoms in the way.
To have Cherenkov radiation you also need some kind of interaction with the matter in between.. neutrinos aren't easily detected by Cherenkov radiation - they generally don't interact with anything (you can send neutrinos through a light year's thickness of lead and still half of them get through). Otherwise (because of their speed, even not taking into account the current experiment) we should all be bathed in blue Cherenkov light because of the billions of neutrinos passing through not only the atmosphere and the earth but also our bodies every fraction of a second.

-Tor

Martin_H
11-22-2011, 10:07 AM
Tor, we probably are glowing very dimly from cosmic rays and neutrinos that impact with us, but it is lost among all the photons around us. The detectors work because they are underground to isolate them from cosmic rays, and can detect miniscule amounts of light.

Martin_H
11-22-2011, 01:23 PM
If this was in error, it's likely someone would have disproved it by now. The experiment has repeated numerous times, even over a year, and always leads to the same number one conclusion of faster than light travel. It would be a good idea to immediately start looking at the immense applications and get started right away.

I hate to a wet blanket on this thread, but science requires skepticism. The Opera team are the only ones to produce this result, other experimenters (e.g. the ICARUS scientists) have not reproduced these results. The Opera measurement is close to the limits of the resolution of their equipment, so the burden of proof is on them to show that they do not have some sort of systematic error in their measurement. Their own confidence in the results seems low because they announced the results and didn't publish them.

DavidSmith
11-22-2011, 10:47 PM
Important!

Einstein never said nothing can travel faster than light. What he said (in a lot of mathematics) was: No useable information can travel faster than light. Since this is difficult to understand it is usually simplified to "nothing" - seeing has how electromagnetic radiation or solid particles contain information.

ElectricAye
11-29-2011, 01:19 AM
Here's an article arguing against the faster-than-light results, based on lack of Cherenkov radiation that should have been detected coming from such particles:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2

I wonder how certain they are of that since I don't think anyone has ever measured such phenomena in the past - and known about it, anyway.

Wossname
11-29-2011, 11:09 AM
Something else predicted by popular science fiction that will never come true... The Propeller 2 chip!

/satire

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
02-23-2012, 01:37 AM
Nothing to see here, folks! Move along!

http://www.phipi.com/images/moveon.gif

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html?ref=hp#.T0U_N0pYVRc.twitter

-Phil

ElectricAye
02-23-2012, 04:08 AM
Nothing to see here, folks! Move along!...

Nothing to see here? Are you kidding?

http://hiphopwired.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/damaris-lewis-20090306042141.jpg

"...After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed...."

Wow, that must've been one heck of a tightening job. Considering light travels roughly 60 feet in 60 nanoseconds. So what could account for so much time difference at that connector?

Martin_H
02-23-2012, 12:47 PM
I figured this would turn out to be something like this.