Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

Hi. Just wanna share something with you.
I'm from country where Tesla were born.
I'v seen today in some newspaper, that Tesla was claiming there are faster then light particles.
It says: 1932. in an article in Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, Tesla was claiming that all his research indicate that there are particles which carry so little electric charge and they can move faster then light. He called them "neutrons", altought neither neutrons nor neutrinos were discovered that time.
Local director of Tesla's museum here says author of that article was John J. O'Neill (he also wrote a book: Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla)

p.s. sry for bad English

edit: i guess only way to confirm this is to check all archives from brookly new yourk eagle from 1932 year
(if that is the right newspaper at all)
www.fultonhistory.com...

reply to post by griswold


It would not surprise me at all if tesla had already proposed or discovered the existance of neutrons , and or neutrinos during his time on earth.
He discovered wireless transmission of energy in the 1920's and we only started using the technology as commonplace in the last decade !

Originally posted by griswold
Hi. Just wanna share something with you.
I'm from country where Tesla were born.
I'v seen today in some newspaper, that Tesla was claiming there are faster then light particles.
It says: 1932. in an article in Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, Tesla was claiming that all his research indicate that there are particles which carry so little electric charge and they can move faster then light. He called them "neutrons", altought neither neutrons nor neutrinos were discovered that time.
Local director of Tesla's museum here says author of that article was John J. O'Neill (he also wrote a book: Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla)

p.s. sry for bad English

edit: i guess only way to confirm this is to check all archives from brookly new yourk eagle from 1932 year

(if that is the right newspaper at all)
www.fultonhistory.com...

edit on 27-9-2011 by griswold because: (no reason given)

Sorry, but no:

“All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.” – Nikola Tesla, July 10, 1932

The Nikola Tesla quote above has been making the rounds since last week’s announcement from the OPERA research team that they had detected neutrinos that may have traveled faster than the speed of light. For the most part, this has been going under headers like “Tesla was right!”, etc.

However, a quick glance at the source of the quote shows that Tesla was, in fact, completely wrong. See the “they” in that first part of the sentence? In context of the article, that refers to cosmic rays. And cosmic rays are not neutrinos. They’re mostly highly charged protons, atomic nuclei, and electrons (and the occasional anti-particle for fun). It also probably goes without saying that cosmic rays do not, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light.

Source: Forbes

Harte

Occams`s Razor.............

A systematic Error.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

How is it off topic?

Anyhoo, figures vs figuring oh fiddlesticks.

If the figuring can prove a fact then it must be fact? Even if figures, values, can be observed, measured, in physical form what good is it if the math does not exist to prove the perception/s correct, or what is thought to be observed being accurately interpreted where it can be proven as fact?

What is the purpose of creating a physical experiment or model if you can't prove the observation on paper?

One can't recreate in an exact duplication if it can't be put down on paper.


I get the idea that they are dealing with infinitesimal values however you can put as many zeros in front of any number you wish, and it still can be figured as easily as if there were none.

The equipment being used to gather the data I'm sure is limited. Probably equipment that can't produce up to the capacity needed for what these folks are using it for. I believe that's what you are saying. That is, measuring the mass of a paperclip in deep space, if I may put your analogy in different terms, would at this point be out of our technological grasp at this point in time just as being able to measure the speed of a neutron, photon or any subatomic particle travailing beyond light speed; making this claim bunk.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


While there are no experimental results proving this (I'd love to see the experiment that can measure the gravitational potential of a beam of light), General Relativity predicts that photons should generate a gravitational field. In GR, gravity is the stress-energy tensor field, so anything that has energy (including mass, through mass-energy equivalence), and, therefore, exerts stress on the spacetime manifold, generates a gravitational potential. Photons are quantized energy, so they have a gravitational potential.

Ironically, if gravity is ever found to be quantized (in the form of gravitons), then those gravitons, according to GR, should also generate their own gravitational field. Gravitons, producing gravitons, producing gravitons....

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - Einstein. He made himself look like that dumb kid in class who copies his classmates' incorrect answers. I don't even want to get started on string theory...

All very interesting.
I don't really care if the math does not add up, if something is observed to be so, then it usually is.
So here's something to chew on;
Still no answers to my question on the speed of gravity.

And does not the C60 'buckyball' experiment prove once & for all that ALL matter can collapse into a wave.
This would require lots of energy, such as from a proton decay, in the case of Neutrino's
As a wave, it can travel at any speed it wants, it is not bound by relativity.
The uncertainty principle even upset the experiment, since when attempting to 'observe' the C60 molecules entering the 2 slits, they promptly went into 'mass' mode and chose either the left slit or the right one.
When left to themselves, they chose both....

reply to post by playswithmachines


Gravity does not have a speed. It has a strength, an order of magnitude. It has no velocity associated with it, aside from that of a body affected by it moving in response to its grasp. That is not called the speed of gravity, because gravities pull on an object is not measured in terms of its pace, but in terms of its grip so to speak.

reply to post by TrueBrit


So how long does it take that force to propagate between interstellar bodies?
When a star goes nova, the effect is instantly transmitted to neighbouring stars.
So i wil ask again, what is the speed of gravity?
Ask an astronomer, i guess...

reply to post by playswithmachines


And yes, i know that the centre of gravitational mass will still be in the centre as the star explodes, but if it goes off centre, the effects are interesting.

reply to post by playswithmachines


In both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by playswithmachines

 

In both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.

Not to be splitting hair, but classical Quantum Mechanics is not a relativistic theory, hence the speed of light does not have special significance there.

Buddhasystem , we'd rather you split hairs than atoms !



I always thought that gravity filled the universe like a liquid and it is just everywher , and where mass exists it then has a gravitational force exerted on it !

is that not the reason that dark energy / dark matter is pulled outwards as the universe expands , like as dark matter is supposed to exist then gravity must effect it as well ?

It's kind of like gravity being the force , so to speak it moves through every living thing and everything in the universe , some things are effected by gravity more than others due to their mass !

reply to post by buddhasystem


Quantum Mechanics wouldn't be nearly as effective if it wasn't for relativistic considerations. The two are inseparable.
For instance, where would particle physics be if Dirac hadn't thought to apply Relativity to the Schrodinger equation? We'd have a whole bunch of anti-particles floating around with nothing to justify their existence.

reply to post by CLPrime


Are you talking about this home.earthlink.net... ?

Beware they have a color contrast on that page that makes you see red everywhere after a few minutes of reading unless you're colorblind. I'm not sure what the purpose is of doing that.

Why doesn't an electron's mass approach infinity as it scoots along just under the speed of light?

Doesn't the fact that the electron's mass doesn't increase according to the Lorentz Transformation indicate Einstein's theory is flawed?

Hasn't this question always been there and ignored for a hundred years?

Shouldn't a neutrino traveling faster than c have a mass equal to more than the mass of the universe?

Seems to me the implications of this new discovery are old news.

Not being a scientist this doesn't affect my psyche a whole lot. But if I had studied and thought about physics all my life I can understand the end of the world as we know it is nigh. Not that anything in the real world would change, it's all in the mind of the scientist.

So I wonder where this will go. Will the scientist community blame the machines and programmers for this error? It's an easy way out to conserve all the doctrine, no loss of power, everyone but the quantum mechanic scientists would be happy. That is until some scientist starts questioning other already accepted theories because if there can be an error in measurement equipment, then how many errors are there. On the side track I can see lots of conspiracy theories forming about how these results have been covered up to look like a glitch but in reality there's some new secret organization experimenting with time travel and benevolent beings are warning us how all of reality is going to be screwed up.

If the programmers and hardware manufacturers are smart enough they'll put the blame back to the scientific community and blame the guy or gal who thought up all the equasions which were then digitized, nothing more. If it's an error science has to point it out and deliver new calculations. Which would then need to be used to update other measurement equipment (which previous readings would have to be revised also) which is no small task. Or everything turns out to be true but then all previous physics theories from Einstein forward need to be rewritten.

What I want to know , if light can escape a black hole can a neutrino ?
since now it is shown to travel faster than light

Originally posted by sapien82
What I want to know , if light can escape a black hole can a neutrino ?
since now it is shown to travel faster than light

You meant if light CAN'T escape, right?

They only checked their own measurements for 6 months and nobody else has confirmed it with a replication, so I wouldn't say it's been shown with much confidence, in fact confidence in the scientific community is quite low.

But if it travels a hair faster than light, the difference is so small, that for all practical purposes for most black holes, we know of, no, it probably wouldn't escape any more than light would. The reported speed just isn't much faster than the speed of light. Maybe in isolated unique exceptional cases it could happen but as a general rule, if the light can't escape, the neutrinos probably can't either.