Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

I'll be waiting until other collider labs do the same experiment and come to the same conclusions.

It must be a b!tch to control all the measuring equipment when dealing with such extreem precise values.

Originally posted by zatara
I'll be waiting until other collider labs do the same experiment and come to the same conclusions.

It must be a b!tch to control all the measuring equipment when dealing with such extreem precise values.

Why?

I do not understand this (science) world very well. It seems to me as though we know very little about our universe for fact today. We got a lot of theories which are still speculations and/or which have been long disproven and still hold for truth. Now another one of the major assumptions of science is disproven by science itself and we need second opinion evidence?

Originally posted by CeeRZ
So we get Speed of Neutrino? Not catchy. I mean, we already have "faster than the speed of light"... but that takes too long to say and is incredibly broad in case they find multiple things with speeds that are faster than light. So what should we call this new speed? How about the speed of energy? Or is that already calculated?

We lump all of the things that travel Faster Then Light together and just call it FTL.

Originally posted by davidchin
I was under the impression that the speed of light was a "limit", not a "barrier". Which means that no physical entity could reach the speed of light. I recall working some equations back in college on contracting dimensions and increases in mass for objects travelling close to the speed of light, and upon examining the equations that we were given (probably simplified for us "unsophisticated" undergraduates), it seemed to me that teh equations also worked for objects that travelled at speeds faster than the speed of light. For such faster-than-light objects, they could never slow down to approach light speed due to the same dimensional and mass restrictions, and were forever destined to go much faster that light but somehow never able to slow down.

Are there any physics majors who might be able to address this?

In this context a limit is a barrier, but I agree with the rest of your post.

I do remember reading somewhere that it was theorized that not only did neutrinos travel FTL, but that if they slowed to the speed of light, they spontaneously decayed.

My bad, just found it and it is tachyons, not neutrinos.

The discussions between the physicists I know lean in the direction of measurement errors.
And the tests done at CERN now is to establish where the error occurred.

I would welcome a new paradigm in physics, but we shouldn't celebrate too early.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by DragonFire1024

 

But, then, if the same experiment is run in another location, should we not expect that the same systematic error could be present?

Different equipment, different systematic errors.

Originally posted by Nonvexatious
reply to post by DragonFire1024

 

In one of the threads on this that got closed, someone posted this link from NewScientist.

www.newscientist.com...

"Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500."

I'm not a scientist at all, but I try and keep up with what's happening in physics and cosmology, and I've never heard of experiments where light was made to exceed the speed of light.

I'd really appreciate it if someone here who understands physics could try and explain that in layman's terms.

edit on 22-9-2011 by Nonvexatious because: To add quote from link

Newscientist is not the most reputable of sources, they are more of a science tabloid.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
So does relativity exclude the possibility of faster than light objects? Or only that you cannot break the barrier (either way)?

From what I have been able to glean from my research, relativity works fine in an Einsteinian universe.

The only issue with it is that we live in a quantum universe, where effect can precede cause.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You aren't thinking relativistically, meaning the observation of which clock runs slower is not absolute. it depends on your frame of reference. You seem to think there's a preferred frame of reference, but that's a false assumption which causes you to not be able to answer the simple question.

The question I asked is a famous question known as Dingles question. There have been attempts to answer it, mostly much like in the way you answered.
No I don't think there'e a preferred frame of reference, that's the whole point and root of the paradox.
But thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by flexy123
There is no such thing as "passing of time periods"....in fact there is no such thing as "time" or "space".
Time is what we PERCEIVE because our brain works in such a way - our brain only CAN perceive events in a linear, fashion (it cannot process ALL information at the same time, naturally) - thus creating an illusion what we call "time".

Saying that "time is linear" is a very outdated concept...it's as naive as "imagining" a "time" which flows by or events moving in time etc..simply based on OUR HUMAN perception...and has LONG been replaced by far better scientific theories about the true nature of the universe.

The passage of time is required for the universe to "move". Without time, the universe would be completely static and forever unchanging, because particles move and interact against a backdrop of time (i.e., a particle could not move unless it has the time to do so).

Originally posted by flexy123

The revolution of the Earth around the sun causes years, not night and day.

Oh cheezus, the revolution of the Earth or WHATEVER OTHER EVENT doesn't "cause" anything....we "made up" the system and the concept and say "one year passed" once the Earth revolved around the sun.

Time is not being created or "caused". What a horrible choice of words..or do you really think that a year is "caused" by the Earth revolving around the Sun?

As for the term "year", it is only a method man uses to measure time -- it isn't "time" itself. How can you equate a measurement (the term "year") of a thing (time) to the actual thing itself?

With that in mind, I don't understand why you are being so critical here. I see no reason why we can't define that measurement of time we call a year as the revolution of the Earth once around the Sun. We're not saying the revolution is time itself, but it is a method of measuring the passage of time.

So -- yeah -- the Earth's revolution doesn't cause time, but he never said it causes time. It DOES, however, cause that artificial construct of measurement that we call a "year" to occur.


For example, a person may be two meters tall. Two meters is a measurement of their height....

A meter (like a year) is a "made up" system of measuring length and height. Therefore, using your logic, that would mean that since a meter is just a made up concept, then a person actually has no height at all, and height is simply an illusion.

Of course that isn't true, because a "meter" is simply a method of measuring height (and not height itself) and a "year" is simply a method of measuring time (and not time itself).

I suppose this means the we should figure laws of physics are more guidelines.

reply to post by CLPrime


Thanks for the explanation. In case space is stretched, what is the maximum stretching point? If it actually grows, does it come to existence empty or with energy (in last case energy/matter would not be constant in our universe). I don't know if science has any answers to the above questions.

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by nii900

 

The Uncertainty Principle guarrantees a random will, not a free will.

how do you know that ?

reply to post by QueenofWeird


As soon as we start talking about things like metric expansion, we're crossing over into mathematical concepts which correspond to sometimes rather abstract physical realities. So, there's one answer to both questions: we don't know.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by nii900

 

We may not be able to predict someone's future perfectly, but this doesn't preclude being able to predict a future with a certain remaining uncertainty. We can predict a lot of things with a rough probability. For example, a 70% chance that Rob will kill his wife tomorrow after finding out that she is having an affair. I do not believe we will ever be able to predict things with certainty. The heisenberg principle prevents that. It's the same reason our climate models can't be perfect.

You're overlooking a lot of macro-scale things going on. Psychology and genetics and experience and various things have a large impact on peoples choices. From this we can get a profile of a person and make predictions about how they might react in a given situation. We make simulations in emergency management to predict what people will do in a earthquake or a fire or some other event. This can save money. We do know a lot about how people think and act.

Free will is a misnomer. It suggests a non-material source of our intelligence. A source that's not subject to evolution or environment or things that can be (roughly) observed. This I have always been against because it seems to be popular in religious circles. It's not scientific.

edit on 24-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

darlin
i think your site was too much stuck on the experiments like this one done 2005 www.physorg.com...
so the predictions might of been an interference
try something eleses by seeng the thinkes tru to and tru...or 2?

reply to post by nii900


The Uncertainty Principle doesn't guarantee free will or random will. Quantum Uncertainty is a result of the wave nature of particles, and of the necessity of superposition in the determination of certain qualities of those waves. It has nothing to do with "will".

reply to post by CLPrime
if necessity equals fate it would require some faith to see that nature there in a wave are of the ones called rahu and cethu that are next to the A and Z points in a scale of 13 devivsions
so whats in there >>

Text
........
Venoms are exquisitely complex, composed of as many as a hundred different peptides, enzymes, and toxins. Not only are the venoms of every snake species different, there are also subtle variations within each species.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Dont know if anyone else knows but photons are moving faster than light to this is what gives them the appearence of being in more than one place at the same time simple error by us we use light speed to mesure travling distance and location, so i guess these little buggers are time traveling to have no fixed place time or identity is very neat.

Simply put Photons would smash the record because they can be at both start and finish and appear before test has even begun.

My solution though simple is and will be proved correct.

Originally posted by nii900

if necessity equals fate it would require some faith to see that nature there in a wave are of the ones called rahu and cethu that are next to the A and Z points in a scale of 13 devivsions

Do you come with an interpreter, or do I have to buy one?

Originally posted by nii900

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by nii900

 

The Uncertainty Principle guarrantees a random will, not a free will.

how do you know that ?

The uncertainty principle is about randomness. When we measure both the velocity and position of a particle, we get random data as output.

If we didn't get random data, then the universe would be deterministic.