It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by TechUnique
So if this is correct then.. time travel is plausible?
I'm a noob when it comes to physics.. my apologies.


No, they're traveling faster than they should be able to under Einsteinian physics, which means we may need to rethink quite a bit of what we think we know to be true. That's the problem when you develop a mathematical model of how you wish the universe to behave rather than tweaking what you know to be true based on observational evidence. If this is confirmed, we can finally do away with this defunct archaic theory and start making some real advances in science.


I regret that I have but one star to give to this post.




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by TechUnique
So if this is correct then.. time travel is plausible?
I'm a noob when it comes to physics.. my apologies.


No, they're traveling faster than they should be able to under Einsteinian physics, which means we may need to rethink quite a bit of what we think we know to be true. That's the problem when you develop a mathematical model of how you wish the universe to behave rather than tweaking what you know to be true based on observational evidence. If this is confirmed, we can finally do away with this defunct archaic theory and start making some real advances in science.

Err... they are tweaking the model based on observational evidence. That's how science works.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Tesla was right after all!



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by TechUnique
So if this is correct then.. time travel is plausible?
I'm a noob when it comes to physics.. my apologies.


No, they're traveling faster than they should be able to under Einsteinian physics, which means we may need to rethink quite a bit of what we think we know to be true. That's the problem when you develop a mathematical model of how you wish the universe to behave rather than tweaking what you know to be true based on observational evidence. If this is confirmed, we can finally do away with this defunct archaic theory and start making some real advances in science.

Err... they are tweaking the model based on observational evidence. That's how science works.


No, they are tweaking a dead mathematical theory because observations continuously defy the predictions of the theory. If this is confirmed, this model is effectively dead and needs to be replaced. It's an archaic model developed before we really began to understand how things work in the universe. Putting a speed cap on anything arbitrarily, such as light and then basing a fourth dimension of temporal travel and time dilation garbage upon that cap is such pure insanity and borderline idiocy. Have we learned nothing from nothing can go faster than the speed of sound and all the mathematical framework that "proved" it? Basing a "truth/fact" on nothing but math is just stupid.

If there are indeed particles that travel faster than light *naturally* and *without time dilation*, then relativity is no more. Time doesn't exist, there is no time dilation, there is no time travel and any model based upon those concepts are damned to fail.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

A LOT of observations match up with the existing model. It is not complete but no one is saying it is. To say that it's based on "nothing but math" and that no observations match up with it is silly. The model works, new observations don't miraculously negate old observations, it just means that the new observations must be incorporated.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by sirnex
 

A LOT of observations match up with the existing model. It is not complete but no one is saying it is. To say that it's based on "nothing but math" and that no observations match up with it is silly. The model works, new observations don't miraculously negate old observations, it just means that the new observations must be incorporated.



Relativity is founded on the very concept of a fourth dimension of temporal travel. This is something that has never once been tested, observed nor measured in any way shape or form to date.

As I said in another thread, picking arbitrary positions of the sun across the sky and marking umbers on a disc on a wall with hands pointing to those numbers to denote the position of the sun relative to the sky is not a measure of time.

Knowing that matter increases in mass as it gets closer to the speed of light and that matter behaves differently at higher velocities, such as the more massive a object, like a black hole, the harder it is for light to move away from that massive object. There is no time dilation going on at all. The math works but the very concept is utterly wrong. If we continuously base our knowledge on a wrong idea, then we will never learn anything new.

When an observation defies the very nature of the model, it's just time to throw the model out, not fit the observation into it and pretend we're so superior and have it figured out. THE MODEL IS WRONG! It has been the day that moron came up with it.

We have no direct measure or observation of this mythical dimension of time. Yet we still cling onto the idea of four dimensions, even to the point of where we arbitrarily decide that there must be more dimensions in order to make other mathematical frameworks match observations and yet still NO ACTUAL MEASURE OF THESE DIMENSIONS. Either they exist or they don't, if they are not observed to exist the why bother pretending they do? Why base a mathematical theory on something that has never been observed??? That's not science, that's what a religion does.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Models are improved and refined all the time in light of new observational data. That is how science works. If the model works, there is no need to toss it out. Which scientists are saying that the model needs to be thrown out entirely?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by sirnex
 


Models are improved and refined all the time in light of new observational data. That is how science works. If the model works, there is no need to toss it out. Which scientists are saying that the model needs to be thrown out entirely?


Explain how a model works based upon something that's never been observed and when thing's that are observed defy the model forcing the model to be reworked to retain the very thing it's founded on that has never been observed...

It's not science, it's what a religion does.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Mathematical theory only gets you so far following relativity. Once it reaches the problem of the singularity it falls apart all on its own.

That said, the model does work. The problem is that most scientists view this model as gospel and anything contrary to it must be deemed incorrect or inconclusive. This breakthrough at CERN, if proven and replicated, does have the potential to open new doors in our understanding of the universe. It may completely negate relativity or it may fit nicely as an extension to the model.

In either case, there will always be proponents of relativity and proponents supporting a more quantum angle on the universe. This, however, is just another nail in the coffin of the universal constant.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Explain how a model works based upon something that's never been observed and when thing's that are observed defy the model forcing the model to be reworked to retain the very thing it's founded on that has never been observed...

It's not science, it's what a religion does.

New observations do not invalidate the old observations. If you cannot grasp concept that then no wonder you are getting science and religion confused. Again, I ask you to demonstrate any scientific consensus that the new findings suddenly warrant the existing model being tossed out the window.
edit on 23-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MattC
 

Who views the existing model as "gospel"? The reason why scientists are so cautious about the results is due to error margins involved. It would be premature to make any firm statements until scientists have had a chance to properly review the findings.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_Denali
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


so if neutrinos travel faster than light, wouldnt you have to detect them before the light from an exploding star reached you? If you watched the big bang, the neutrinos would hit you before the flash would. Is this why the are trying to recreate a mini big bang? Sorry i quit following cern when the black hole doomsday stuff hit.
edit on 22-9-2011 by Agent_Denali because: my phone is whack


Do neutrinos have negative weight then?

What is the speed limit of the universe then?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by sirnex

Explain how a model works based upon something that's never been observed and when thing's that are observed defy the model forcing the model to be reworked to retain the very thing it's founded on that has never been observed...

It's not science, it's what a religion does.

New observations do not invalidate the old observations. If you cannot grasp concept that then no wonder you are getting science and religion confused. Again, I ask you to demonstrate any scientific consensus that the new findings suddenly warrant the existing model being tossed out the window.
edit on 23-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


No observation has been made upon the very foundation of relativity, that being of a fourth dimension of temoral travel. If this is confirmed, it will be another observation that defies what the model predicts, that being that NOTHING can travel faster than C. NOTHING. I can't remember everything, but there is an old thread from months ago that listed out a bunch of thing's that defy relativity, only thing that pops to mind right this second is quasars show no signs of time dilation. Kind of a big issue right there that to my knowledge has still not been resolved, just swept under the rugs.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I meant mathematicians view it as gospel as it is (or was, if this is proven) a universal truth that underpins a lot of our mathematical understanding of the universe.

My point was that we have made some pretty neat advances using this model and advancing on it, however if it turns out that the univesal constant is wrong this allows us to look at our equations in a new light with the possibility of C being a variable that could exceed the speed of light.
edit on 23-9-2011 by MattC because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

No observation has been made upon the very foundation of relativity, that being of a fourth dimension of temoral travel. If this is confirmed, it will be another observation that defies what the model predicts, that being that NOTHING can travel faster than C. NOTHING. I can't remember everything, but there is an old thread from months ago that listed out a bunch of thing's that defy relativity, only thing that pops to mind right this second is quasars show no signs of time dilation. Kind of a big issue right there that to my knowledge has still not been resolved, just swept under the rugs.


There is also quantum entanglement. Experiments have show than that the effects can travel at speeds much faster than the speed of light. Althought technically different as this is the result of particles passing information between each other. The results at CERN seem to show a single neutrino particle travelling faster than light on its own with no entanglement.

Source - Quantum Entanglement Experiment



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Relativity does not say that nothing can travel faster than light. That is an incorrect statement typical of those who have little understanding of relativity.

What the Special Theory of Relativity states is that particles that are travelling slower than light cannot cross the light barrier and travel faster. It does NOT forbid the existence of particles (tachyons) that are created travelling faster than light, although it does forbid them slowing up below the speed of light. As causality is violated when particles speed faster than light, this led physicists to assume that such superluminal particles cannot exist. But it is no more than an assumption that could turn out to be wrong. If it were created in a high-energy particle accelerator at CERN or elsewhere, Special Relativity would NOT be violated, as it does not disallow the existence of tachyons.

This measurement at CERN contradicts Relativity because neutrinos have mass (neutrino oscillations proved that) and therefore travel below the speed of light and cannot be accelerated across this speed barrier.

I am confident that sources of errors in the measurement will be discovered in due course, leaving egg on the face of the research team that reported the anomaly.
edit on 23-9-2011 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Finnish experts are betting a bottle of whiskey that this isn't true. They site that there was a supernova which was detected in 1987 but if the neutrinos travel faster than light they should've measured those in 1984. Not sure what to make of this.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Relativity does not say that nothing can travel faster than light. That is an incorrect statement typical of those who have little understanding of relativity.

What the Special Theory of Relativity states is that particles that are travelling slower than light cannot cross the light barrier and travel faster. It does NOT forbid the existence of particles (tachyons) that are created travelling faster than light, although it does forbid them slowing up below the speed of light. As causality is violated when particles speed faster than light, this led physicists to assume that such superluminal particles cannot exist. But it is no more than an assumption that could turn out to be wrong. If it were created in a high-energy particle accelerator at CERN or elsewhere, Special Relativity would NOT be violated, as it does not disallow the existence of tachyons.


Agreed, but I thought it was clear we were discussing an object accelarating past the point of light and not theoretical particles that already travel faster than light? This is a measurement of a neutrino, not a tachyon.

Special Relativity may not be violated directly, I agree, but some of the fundamental mathematical models that have been constructed, with the understanding that an accelerating object cannot exceed C, may well be.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Relativity does not say that nothing can travel faster than light. That is an incorrect statement typical of those who have little understanding of relativity.

What the Special Theory of Relativity states is that particles that are travelling slower than light cannot cross the light barrier and travel faster. It does NOT forbid the existence of particles (tachyons) that are created travelling faster than light, although it does forbid them slowing up below the speed of light. As causality is violated when particles speed faster than light, this led physicists to assume that such superluminal particles cannot exist. But it is no more than an assumption that could turn out to be wrong. If it were created in a high-energy particle accelerator at CERN or elsewhere, Special Relativity would NOT be violated, as it does not disallow the existence of tachyons.

This measurement at CERN contradicts Relativity because neutrinos have mass (neutrino oscillations proved that) and therefore travel below the speed of light and cannot be accelerated across this speed barrier.

I am confident that sources of errors in the measurement will be discovered in due course, leaving egg on the face of the research team that reported the anomaly.
edit on 23-9-2011 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.


If confirmed this kills that notion entirely. Especially if they can further experiment and observe the nutrinos slowing down below C. Einstein was wrong, no big deal. Science is supposed to move forward right? New discoveries and understandings are showing that his hundred year old folly is just plain garbage.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
In the realm that we can see and measure we have instruments made of men that observe for us the limits which we have placed upon our existence. We call this realm the "Known Universe". We know of spectrums beyond sight and sound because we have built instruments that can "see" beyond our innate abilities. Before, when we could not hear or see outside those limits we concluded that that was the furthest goal and set a blind there, imposing penalties if crossed (Here there be dragons). Even though the modern age of discovery has shown us that there appears to be no limits to the physical Universe, man still imposes speed limits on his imagination of such until proven otherwise. What happened to our imagination along the way?

Without scientific proof we cannot entertain the infinite? Or wonder about the unknown? I put it to you the reader that even with our vast knowledge base we have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding. Like plants in a garden trying to see and understand the gardener, we are far below the true hi water mark of the real.

Just peckin on the surface. Barriers... BAH !



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join