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.
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.
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.
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.....
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..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:)
...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!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
Comments
Do you mean photons?
They have a rest mass of zero, or so I hear.
I've never weighed one myself.
-Phil
Em, yea. Boy that sure ruined my argument. I made the mistake not once, but THREE TIMES!
?? I'm gonna read up on that..... Very interesting.
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
-Tor
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?
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.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922
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/
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
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.
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
--Bill
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.
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...?
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
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.
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.
Yup - agreed.
I imagine Darwin's musings would have been very different had he the cell-examining technology that now exists.
'
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
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...
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.
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