Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought it was a valid caveat, however you would think the supernova being more energetic would be more likely to create the faster moving particles compared to the CERN experiment.

Arb, I don't see any basis for speculation on that, it just doesn't follow. No matter how much energy a supernova would release does not impact, in any clear way, the velocity of particles produced.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Well I did say I agree with the caveat, which was an admission my speculation is not really well founded, and I appreciate your recognition of the fact my statement was speculative.
And regarding neutrinos the basis may be even more speculative. But there are some interesting observations.

Some cosmic rays are over 100 million times more energetic than what the LHC can produce.
We don't really know why, so I think there's nothing BUT speculation on why we measure these ultra-high energy particles coming to the Earth.

We think most cosmic rays come from supernovas, but those 10^19 eV particles may not ( and probably don't, but we aren't sure where they come from).

auger.cnrs.fr...

Astronomers have long speculated that the bulk of galactic cosmic rays--those with energies below about 10^16 eV--originate with supernovae.

So if particles with 7x10^15 eV come from a supernova, and the LHC can produce at most 7x10^12 eV, the particles coming from the supernova are 1000 times more energetic, are they not?

That's what I was referring to when I made that speculative comment. But by saying I agree with the caveat, I was also admitting that doesn't necessarily apply to neutrinos.

reply to post by davidchin


Yeah, I think I recall something similar. Wasn't Einstein's theory that nothing could *accelerate* to the speed of light because that would make its mass infinity (or something close to it)?

Originally posted by C3RB3RU5
reply to post by davidchin

 

Yeah, I think I recall something similar. Wasn't Einstein's theory that nothing could *accelerate* to the speed of light because that would make its mass infinity (or something close to it)?

IIRC, the result you mention comes from the original assumption that the speed of light is a constant. Not the other way around.

The speed of light was assumed by Einstein to be constant because of several considerations, not the least of which was the fact that the speed of light had actually been been measured to an extreme degree in various circumstance (accelerating source, static source, etc.) with the same results being found, starting with Michelson-Morely.

The assertions that c is constant, and that there is no "preferred" reference frame, lead to the field equations of Special (and General) Relativity. One of which is used to calculate relativistic mass, which you mention above.

Harte

reply to post by Epsillion70


It's interesting that he says there are actually 10 planets.
Considering there is a debate amongst astrophysicists about I'm not talking about Planet X I'm talking about Tyche.
The proposed planet at least as big as Jupiter and possibly stolen from another star system.
It is supposed to exist between .5 and 1 light year away which is 1/4 the distance to our nearest star neighbor.

The planet is suspected of playing havoc with periodic Asteroids.

It's just interesting since when K-pax was made as far as I know Tyche wasn't theorized yet.

reply to post by DragonFire1024


I am soo excited about this. I have been reading about this with great interest and would have like to post it here in ATS, but I haven't yet reached my first 20 posts.

It this is proven without a doubt, the possibilities could be limitless.

I can's help but think of some of the far-fetched ideas of the past are now norms. We could be on the brink of another huge step forward.

Thank you for posting this, DragonFire1024. Stars to you.

Now that I have this excited rant out, I'm going to read the rest of the thread...

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by Epsillion70

 

It's interesting that he says there are actually 10 planets.
Considering there is a debate amongst astrophysicists about I'm not talking about Planet X I'm talking about Tyche....

If Pluto was still considered a planet, then there would be 10 planets -- and I'm not talking about Tyche (which may yet exist, but has not been "found" yet). I'm talking about "Eris".

"Eris" is a body that is larger than Pluto and even has its own Moon. Therefore, if Pluto was still the ninth planet, then Eris would be the tenth planet.

It was in fact the discovery of Eris in 2005 (by Mike Brown at Cal-Tech) that caused Pluto to be demoted into the class of "dwarf planet", along with Eris. There was always an ongoing debate as to whether or not Pluto was a planet, and the discovery of Eris finally pushed the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to better define what is and isn't a planet -- and Pluto and Eris fell outside that definition.

If Tyche is ever physically found (not just found by calculation) it may become the ninth planet after Neptune, but that would depend on its size, orbit, and other characteristics.

Information on Eris and its Moon "Dysnomia":

Cal-Tech Press Release: Planetary Scientists Discover Tenth Planet
Mike Brown's "Eris" Webpage
Mike Brown's "Dysnomia" Webpage
Eris Wikipedia Entry

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I know about the current state of Pluto and the debate behind it.

I was referencing the movie though.
I found it odd and interesting that when the movie was made there were 9 planets and he said actually 10.
Now it turns out there could be up to 3 other planets if you count all of the sources.
Who by the way don't often agree with each other.

Originally posted by jroberts227

I am soo excited about this. I have been reading about this with great interest and would have like to post it here in ATS, but I haven't yet reached my first 20 posts.

It this is proven without a doubt, the possibilities could be limitless.

50 t0 90 nanos in msm ops, which may even be an error.
Though allegedly black ops have been at warp infinity for
some time.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by CantSay
Being a scientist, I think I know the scientific method quite well. I also know the philosophy behind it and that ultimately all data is interpreted the best way we can based on what we cumulatively know - be it our current knowledge of mathematics or of associated physical phenomena that we use to interpret the data.

How does that support your claim that science is mostly interpretation of data? There are realms of science in both theory and experiment that have little to do with "interpretation of data". Yes, data is used to decide whether a theory is worth considering, but there is so much more going on.

For example, the belief of having data support a theory by modifying the theory to support the data

Example?

or having the data invalidate the theory in order to replace the theory.

Wait, if data was double or triple checked, and theory doesn't square with it, it's not correct. You told me you knew how scientific method works.

How that decision is made, and how we go about it, is based on beliefs which affect the interpretation of the data.

If a theory tells me that a voltage at a particular point in a circuit must be 3V, and I measure consistently 7V, how much belief goes into my decision making?

There are a lot of pressures in science outside of the scientific method that affect the scientific method, like having a level of uncertainty but publicly claiming it's almost exact in order to get funding.

I've never heard of claims being doctored when speaking to funding agencies. You'd be crucified to making such move. When the LHC construction was being funded, nobody said that there is a Swiss bank guarantee that the Higgs particle would be found. In fact, there were, and are, many other possibilities.

Semantics my friend. Read most published material in the last 50 years. It states that the speed of light is either constant, a limit or both. Most probable hypothesis is what a scientist should know, but due to semantics, it's not what's written which in turn forms belief, especially given the longevity of the assumption.

Semantics indeed. In this case, you used it to obfuscate the subject. Really, imagine that every formula in every book which contains "c" would have a lengthy footnote attached to it, stating that the value and constant nature of speed of light is a theory, not a fact.

I'm not hear to support anything. I'm hear to shred all absoluteness. Stating that c is a theory, more correctly an assumption, which has persisted decades and footnoting it is actually an excellent way to educate the people, and reminds scientists, that everything we know is only our best hypothesis. That everything, absolutely everything, maybe invalidated in time. But there is one caveat. We can either defend existing knowledge or try to break it. Science and scientists should be trying to break it all by being innovative with new tests. Testing should be constant and never stop. CERN OPERA stumbled onto something that perhaps invalidates c. Was it expected? No. Why? Because we stopped trying to invalidate c. It might not be a conscious effort to stop, but more of reduced effort given the decades this assumption has existed. Live knowing all things are wrong, continually test all knowledge and question it, and we will see progress like never before. In regards to electric potential, our current understanding consistently shows certain outcomes but under what conditions? How can electric potential be broken? Is it only consistent in our part of the Universe or is electric potential stronger or weaker in other parts of the Universe? I don't know, but neither does anyone else. For this "fact", we should strive to test this. We should strive to ask why constantly and innovate new tests perpetually.


"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar." ~ Richard Feynman

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I know about the current state of Pluto and the debate behind it.

I was referencing the movie though.
I found it odd and interesting that when the movie was made there were 9 planets and he said actually 10.
Now it turns out there could be up to 3 other planets if you count all of the sources.
Who by the way don't often agree with each other.

KPAX wasn't really "prophesizing" any new information. The idea that more planets are out there is a very old idea. Even after Pluto was found, there were astronomers who dreamed of finding the "next one".

But as you pointed, even KPAX was wrong, then. Depending on what the definition of a planet is, there may be 8, or there may be 11 or 12 -- but not 10. If we count Pluto and Eris (9 and 10), then most would argue that we should also count Sedna (11)....And then there is the idea that Tyche exists (12) -- but the evidence for Tyche's existence is dubious at best and is purely circumstantial. It is based solely on a perceived oddity in the population of comets.

So I amend what I said in my other post above -- if you count Pluto, then there are at least 11 planets (but not 10).

And the big news of the day, for those who missed it in the other thread, is that this whole thread is now consigned to the dustbin of history.

It was a silly measurement error.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have.

reply to post by CantSay

That's an awfully broad generalization.

If there's already been one or two tests to measure something, of course we should do a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so on to verify and refine the measurement.

But if there have already been 99 measurements made, I'm not sure I see the value in making #100, #101, etc, unless the measurement is still being refined, or unless it will tell us something we didn't already know.

If your 100th measurement is different from measurements 1-99, it's more likely that there was a problem with your measurement, than it is you actually found a different result which is valid. That's sort of where we are at with the neutrino measurement.

Besides, somebody claims to have solved the mystery:
Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity

van Elburg says there is one effect that the OPERA team seems to have overlooked: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks...

The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.

How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.

So it may not be time for Einstein to roll over just yet. In fact wouldn't it be ironic if this turns out to be another confirmation of Einstein's theory?

That's impressive but it's not to say the problem is done and dusted. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and this argument must hold its own under scrutiny from the community at large and the OPERA team in particular.

If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.

Let see what the peer review has to say about the relativity claim.

But 64 nanoseconds is pretty close to 60 nanoseconds so it may turn out that explains the result seen, if others can confirm this.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

In fact wouldn't it be ironic if this turns out to be another confirmation of Einstein's theory?

Quite ironic. Not to mention immensely satisfying, and a relief that I don't have to give up my Mac, which I bet in favour of this being a systematic error.

So, it turns out, if this conclusion is confirmed, it will serve as experiment #100 in confirmation of Relativity.

Originally posted by CLPrime
So, it turns out, if this conclusion is confirmed, it will serve as experiment #100 in confirmation of Relativity.

Yes if this is confirmed, it will be at least #100, probably much more than that considering CERN did 15,000 experiments on the neutrino velocity and apparently NONE of them went faster than light.

dvice.com...

Over 15,000 experiments, the neutrinos consistently arrived about 60 nanoseconds early

Congratulations on keeping your mac (probably, when they admit their mistake). I was willing to put up my car in a bet, but nobody else was willing to put up theirs to bet against me!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by CantSay

 

That's an awfully broad generalization.

If there's already been one or two tests to measure something, of course we should do a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so on to verify and refine the measurement.

But if there have already been 99 measurements made, I'm not sure I see the value in making #100, #101, etc, unless the measurement is still being refined, or unless it will tell us something we didn't already know.

If your 100th measurement is different from measurements 1-99, it's more likely that there was a problem with your measurement, than it is you actually found a different result which is valid. That's sort of where we are at with the neutrino measurement.

Besides, somebody claims to have solved the mystery:
Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity

van Elburg says there is one effect that the OPERA team seems to have overlooked: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks...

The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.

How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.

So it may not be time for Einstein to roll over just yet. In fact wouldn't it be ironic if this turns out to be another confirmation of Einstein's theory?

That's impressive but it's not to say the problem is done and dusted. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and this argument must hold its own under scrutiny from the community at large and the OPERA team in particular.

If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.

Let see what the peer review has to say about the relativity claim.

But 64 nanoseconds is pretty close to 60 nanoseconds so it may turn out that explains the result seen, if others can confirm this.

So a measurement is done 100 times, but for all we know it will take 1000 times to prove the measurement wrong. Why? Because between 1 and 1000 times, the experimental apparatus was refined, was changed, or a new experimental apparatus was innovated. If you stop at 100 times, than you stop making progress, because you "believe" 100 times is more than enough. You see belief never escapes even in science. Take length measurement for example under the context of Einstein's Special Relativity. What we though previously to be invariant, length of an object, is not depending your perspective or frame of reference. All I'm saying is don't stop testing and retesting.

Repeating a measurement 100 times with the same outcome might only mean that the process of measure is also the same, so all that means under process A outcome C is highly probable. Change the circumstance, the environment, the barriers, the perspective. Change the context of the experiment and do that same measurement. No measurement is solely onto itself. All measurements are predicated on lower-level theories. The theory of distance (space and time). It's not that hard to understand. It is what science is. You must question and re-question. There are no facts, just probabilities. To think otherwise is to form belief and indirectly form religious dogma.

Just to add, doing an experiment with a consistent outcome A 100 times does give you a probability, but the kicker is that it takes only 1 experiment to falsify the previous 100 with outcome B. With probability, that lowers the probability that the outcome A is consistently the same. It goes from 99.9999% to 98.9999%. But if the experiment which reduced the probability of outcome A is repeated consistently, the probability can go from 98.9999% to 50% to 0.0001%, but in order for this to happen, all processes that lead to the original outcome A must be revisited and retested many, many times to reduce the probability of outcome A. This applies to CERN OPERA's outcome also. They are a massive authority in science. This data is something to definitely consider. As it stands, it reduced the correctness of Einstein's work from 99.9999% to something less given the amount of experimental claims supporting Einstein's assumptions over the years. Does this mean Einstein is wrong? Not yet. Just that he has a less probability of being correct. If this outcome is repeated over and over, than you can throw out Einstein's axiom of light speed, but it does not invalidate the other axiom of the principle of relativity.

I thought GPS satellites were in geosync orbit. If so, these satellites have the same angular velocity as two detectors on earth. They do not move in relation to one another, so shouldn't they be considered in the same reference frame? And if they are in the same reference frame, the Lorentz Transformation equations do not apply.

The only way I see that this would work is to add a third reference frame, the center of rotation. So, as viewed from the center of the earth there is a difference in velocity of 9000 for the speed of the satellite minus 1000 mph for the speed of the detectors around the center of the earth, but I don't think relativity works this way, or does it?

Originally posted by consciousgod
I thought GPS satellites were in geosync orbit.

One minute of research could make your thinking a lot more productive.

www.kowoma.de...

geostationary satellites like ASTRA or Meteosat – satellites orbit the earth at 42300 km, which is about twice the distance of GPS satellites.

They only orbit at roughly half the altitude of geostationary satellites so they aren't geostationary.

Originally posted by CantSay
Just to add, doing an experiment with a consistent outcome A 100 times does give you a probability, but the kicker is that it takes only 1 experiment to falsify the previous 100 with outcome B.

First, no need to quote the entire post, just trim the relevant part.

Second, I'm not sure it works that way. Even if the 101st test gives a different result, you still have to explain why you got the results you did on the first 100 trials.

Third, with all that quoting you did, I don't think you read my post too carefully because I did say: "I'm not sure I see the value in making #100, #101, etc, unless the measurement is still being refined, or unless it will tell us something we didn't already know." You seem to have ignored that in your reply.

Fourth, if you want to fund doing the same experiment a million times, you can probably find someone willing to do it, but existing sources of funding may not keep funding the same experiment forever. Case in point may be the closure of the Tevatron particle accelerator in Illinois last month. If you want to fund it, they might keep it open and follow your suggestion, but it's expensive.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

In fact wouldn't it be ironic if this turns out to be another confirmation of Einstein's theory?

Quite ironic. Not to mention immensely satisfying, and a relief that I don't have to give up my Mac, which I bet in favour of this being a systematic error.

So, it turns out, if this conclusion is confirmed, it will serve as experiment #100 in confirmation of Relativity.

To derive immense satisfaction from a flawed GR / SR hypotheses
is the height of folly

upload.wikimedia.org...



en.wikipedia.org...:ConstellationGPS.gif

Looks like all the satellites move in relation to each other and points on earth making the solutions very, very complicated.