Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

reply to post by KJV1611


I like where you are headed with this. From a Neutrino's perspective would everything appear to stand still? Makes for a real beginning to the time travel of our wildest sci-fi favorites. Is there other particles that may have these qualities, could the Neutrino's be the tip of the iceberg?

If relativity is disproved we can add this to the standard model for particle physics. Basically more information if wiping out everything after classical mechanics.... Less Physics to know.

reply to post by CLPrime
the illustrative nature of the wave particle could be devided in to 12 equal parts by 13 points for an easier calculation and m so compared to an octave


ie:
COMMON MUSIC NOTATION
ccrma.stanford.edu...

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.

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:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If nobody else in the history of mankind has ever satisfactorily answered this question about relativity, you can read my explanation of why this is so. I have a much different view on the topic than the university of Toronto author who wrote an article on it.

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 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.

Thank you.

Considering that the claim is that no physicist on the entire planet has been able to answer the question after over 35 years of trying, it's probably something which does require some thought rather than an off-the cuff answer. So take your time. If you have anything to add, it's appreciated.

Amino acids found in meteorite

Multiple Goldilocks planets found.

Bacteria living off of cyanide.

And now this potential bombshell?

Lots of traditional thinking has been sent back to the drawing board in the last couple years, which is good because that is where true science belongs.

Anytime someone claims that the debate is over it's time to worry about the integrity of the process.

Oh well, a known sexist has probably been proven wrong, thank god for that.

Originally posted by MushroomWig
Oh well, a known sexist has probably been proven wrong, thank god for that.

If civilization only paid attention to the discoveries made by perfectly pious and moral human beings, and minimized the importance of discoveries made by imperfect humans...

...then we'd probably still be nomadic hunter-gatherers.

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.

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?

I found THIS explanation about the importance of experiments and the verfication. Is a bit of a read but will answer your question without a doubt.

To keep it short....it is all about knowing for sure.

Technically Einstein is not wrong either, did he know about neutrinos at the time and their mass? Will have to look it up.

His theory was based on mass also so if these neutrino particles have no mass it means they can travel faster than light. He just said people and objects our size could not travel faster than light and that could always be the right theory, a neutrino does not mean it can make man one day travel faster than light.

But what about Quantum theory, one object effect another in another part of the universe, that is quicker?

reply to post by The time lord


The first neutrino (the electron neutrino) was discovered in 1956 - the year after Einstein died.
Not that it matters. If Relativity is right, then even neutrinos should obey it, whether Einstein knew they existed or not. It's not like anything found after Einstein died is exempt from his theories.

I noticed this story has dropped out of the news cycle this week.

I think these folks made a mistake in their math and are now hiding.

I expected as much at this point.

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.

Although Titor mentioned micro black holes ans that time travel is discovered in Cern, I do not think that this was a result of a micro black hole, because light would also be affected by the mini black hole.

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

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

Which equation of Znidarsic's says a neutrino will travel just a tiny bit faster than the speed of light?



That's what I thought.

reply to post by Amatoremsapeientiae


A member and I discussed Znidarsic's work a few months ago. I found a paper encompassing his work, and decided to go over it.
This was the paper: The Transitional Quantum State of Matter.
And this was my response:

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.

reply to post by CLPrime


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.

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.

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.

Drop a paper clip from your desktop to the ground. Did the paperclip move toward the ground, or did the ground move toward the paperclip, or both?

Not many people will answer both, but we are pretty confident that's what happens. The problem is, the movement of the Earth toward the paper clip is so small, how are you going to measure it? Trying to measure the gravitational field of a photon is similar in that you're trying to measure something that's very small; so small, that it's hard to measure.

Since we measure light being bent by the sun and other stars, we know photons interact with other gravitational bodies so I see no reason to doubt they exert gravity themselves, but it's so small I have no idea how to measure it. Nor do I have any idea how to measure the earth moving toward the paperclip when you drop it.

In a way this is relevant because the neutrino speed could also be a measurement problem. They think they've accounted for all measurement errors, but they may not have. 60ns is a pretty short time and there are plenty of things that could affect the measurement.