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.
While the topic does involve Einstein's relativity so it's vaguely on topic here, it's strayed from the neutrino subject so I started a separate thread on it here:
Originally posted by squiz
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.
Thank you.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thanks, I liked your thread. I'll give it thought when I have time and am not as tired.
Originally posted by MushroomWig
Oh well, a known sexist has probably been proven wrong, thank god for that.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by tomten
Originally posted by chrismir
Ok, here goes nothing. I'm in no way educated in science, so I might just be blattering here.
What if... our calculation of the maximum possible speed was always just a bit off.
The conditions in the LHC are quite different then a light-beam that can be measured. Light, once left the source, is an autonomous force naked to other forces and energies such as gravity. But the speed of the particles at CERN is maintained by the LHC and conditions might be more balanced then any setup for measuring the speed of light.
There is a extreamly tiny chance that the Neutrino passed by a micro-black hole.
CERN...
"micro black holes"...
You've been reading John Titor again, haven't you?
Originally posted by BlueSkies
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 tomten
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by tomten
Originally posted by chrismir
Ok, here goes nothing. I'm in no way educated in science, so I might just be blattering here.
What if... our calculation of the maximum possible speed was always just a bit off.
The conditions in the LHC are quite different then a light-beam that can be measured. Light, once left the source, is an autonomous force naked to other forces and energies such as gravity. But the speed of the particles at CERN is maintained by the LHC and conditions might be more balanced then any setup for measuring the speed of light.
There is a extreamly tiny chance that the Neutrino passed by a micro-black hole.
CERN...
"micro black holes"...
You've been reading John Titor again, haven't you?
No, I didn't know Titor mentioned that.
There are other sources.
Like this one.
Which equation of Znidarsic's says a neutrino will travel just a tiny bit faster than the speed of light?
Originally posted by Amatoremsapeientiae
Everybody on this thread needs to look up Frank Znidarsic, he has proven the mathematics as to why FTL, Cold Fusion, and Gravity Manipulation, are all possible. It's not just the speed of light
I had a chance to go over the math in the paper I found. Given that the paper, itself, is adapted from Znidarsic's theory, I can't speak of his theory specifically, but I can speak of the paper, itself, and this is what I've found:
The math in the first section, The Velocity of Nuclear Waves, is legitimate, with no errors that I've noticed. However, like I've said, I have yet to see a convincing justification for the use of a spring constant in a situation where no elastic potential energy should exist.
The second section, The Fine Structure Constant, is merely a redefinition of the fine-structure constant in terms of Znidarsic's constant, which was derived in the first section. It's nothing truly novel. It's like redefining 10+4 as 6+8... both equal 14.
The third section, Einstein's Photoelectric Effect, is a bit more innovative. The math works, and it's not entirely derivative, as far as I can tell. However, the author is still using Znidarsic's constant - a contrived value having very little justification (it replaces Planck's constant, but I can come up with Prime's constant that redefines the Gravitational constant and rewrite all of the formulas, it doesn't make the change justified). Overall, I'm mildly impressed by this section, but it's not a work of genius, by any means.
The fourth section, DeBroglie's Matter Wave, is a basic overview of existing quantum effects.
The fifth section, Reconciling Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, hardly does what it claims. It certainly manages to combine the two sets of equations, but this combination is something any physicist is aware of. It's exactly this kind of "reconciliation" that turned the basic Schrodinger equation into the relativistic Dirac equation.
The sixth section, Schrodinger equation, is really where things start to get interesting. At first, this and the next section were what impressed me the most. But, upon closer examination, that first impression has pretty much gone away. First, the author shows a "short derivation" of the wave equation. This is, in fact, not a short derivation, but is a convoluted derivation going through at least three unnecessary steps apparent with the intent of making the derivation seem all the more complex. This "short derivation" is not how Schrodinger derived the wave equation.
Second, the author presents what he claims is his own derivation of the wave equation. In fact, what he has done is very underhandedly taken the (simple) method Schrodinger, himself, used and rewritten it in terms of Znidarsic's constant, making it seem as if the Znidarsic constant leads more naturally to the wave equation. This entire section, I must say, is deceptive.
The seventh section, Inertial Mass, was also initially impressive. But, again, an analysis of the math makes that go away. The author presents several equations, claiming that each equation leads to the next, and, ultimately, gives the relativistic momentum, claiming it followed naturally from the case of energy confined in a "box".
In fact, anyone who takes the time to go through the math (as I did) will find that, not only does each successive equation NOT follow from the one before, but each given equation actually equals zero. That is, until the last equation, which magically becomes the equation for relativistic momentum. Nothing in this section is legitimate.
The final section, Gravitational Mass, is yet another collection of unjustified assumptions and faulty math. For instance, the claim that "Each time the photon strikes the wall of the box it produces a gravitation field" goes unjustified. Consequently, the math based on that premise is suited to arrive at the desired result. If he could (or has) justified the creation of a force by such an action, then the math would follow, though it's unnaturally messy... but the place to justify this would be in this paper, and that wasn't done. So, again, I'm sensing deception.
My conclusion, after going over everything, is that the paper starts out innocently enough, though under the pretense of a new quantization constant, but turns into a deceptive attempt to make the theory seem more powerful than it actually is.
Slightly off-topic but since the thread died down I can give you my view. I don't think it's a problem with mathematics as much as it's a problem with measurement.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Regarding where you mention they have not actually proven that photons produce a gravitational field, do you think photons do regardless of the mathematics not having been irrefutably proven as of yet?
I'm of the belief if anything exists in this universe despite how minute in quantity it does dent the fabric of space and thus creates a gravitational vortex.