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.

 

Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

page: 8
142
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nagabonar
 


What? have your body travel faster than light? Your atoms would split apart into pure energy. You would die.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Too bad that this potential f-t-l discovery probably won't be verified in time to feed into the "100-Year Starship Symposium". I think the symposium is due to begin at the end of this month.


edit on 9/22/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Before anyone starts (figuratively) patting Einstein on the shoulder in a condescending manner, and/or calls to break out champagne and usher in some new era in physics, it would be a good idea to take a look at the details of this measurement.
It's nice to see that you and CLprime and a few others are skeptical, and even the researchers themselves are skeptical and say they make no claim that it's a valid result, and that it could be the result of systematic error they weren't able to find yet.

But in spite of all that, there do seem to be a fair number of ATSers figuratively jumping up on the table and pleasuring themselves at the thought of Einstein possibly being wrong.

When other physicists say they'd bet their house it's a systematic error, I'm personally not willing to bet against them.

can-neutrinos-be-superluminal


for now the most likely explanation by far is a systematic error. The rumoured “6.1 sigma” significance is probably a statistical error and it will be important to consider any systematic sources of error before coming to conclusions. For now we will need to wait for the official seminar at CERN on Friday to see what they have to say about that.
Maybe we'll hear more after that meeting tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I'm sure that the reason Physicists have not detected the speed of Neutrinos before is because they are SO HARD to detect.

Just "catching" one Neutrino from the sun requires watching a million gallon tank of salt water for a few months in the dark for ONE stray photon to be created.

I'll have to read the article to see HOW they figured out the speed -- it's one thing to detect a Neutrino, it's still quite another to detect the same Neutrino again.

>> For sometime, I've had a few issues with the "stranger" pillars of modern physics--namely; Quantum Particles that fill in all the gaps, Dark Matter, and Time Travel. It seemed to me, that there were a lot of particles and forces being used to move away from a concept of "the aether" which was in vogue before Einstein.

It's a lot like early models of scientists trying to describe the movements of the stars and planets revolving around earth -- every time you got an odd orbit, you had to add another wheel to the model. The UNIVERSE has to be more elegant than we are describing it.

The "elephant" looks like many different strange beasts to the 5 blind men who try and describe it's form -- and I think that a lot of these "particles" we keep looking for, are fields and only appear to be obeying as discrete points because these fields and our detectors are only going to SEE an interaction where the wavelengths match.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
i have to admit im very unsettled by this.
as a mathematician, i understand that the graph of e=mc^2 has a definite limit
it is the speed of light
resources.yesican-science.ca...
no matter how much energy we pump into this thing, velocity never can go pass this barrier which is the speed of light. it is asymptotic as we say in math.

what the hell could this mean, and the implications are disastrous to the foundations of everything ive learned. if this is true i wonder if it changes relativity?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm always skeptical of any experiment that claims to violate one of the most thoroughly and accurately tested physical models we've ever had.

The layman is eager to see the downfall of this area of physics because the layman doesn't understand it, and, what the layman doesn't understand, the layman is afraid of.
The layman also doesn't understand that the successes of Relativity are so vast that they completely overshadow this single experiment.

I would actually bet my new MacBook Air that it's a systematic error.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewsWorthy
A neutron walked into a bar and asked, "How much for a drink?" The bartender replied, "For you, no charge."


You stole that from Fallout.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm always skeptical of any experiment that claims to violate one of the most thoroughly and accurately tested physical models we've ever had.

The layman is eager to see the downfall of this area of physics because the layman doesn't understand it, and, what the layman doesn't understand, the layman is afraid of.
The layman also doesn't understand that the successes of Relativity are so vast that they completely overshadow this single experiment.

I would actually bet my new MacBook Air that it's a systematic error.


Well the 'Layman' could argue that your just clinging to a system that makes you feel as though you understand the universe. cut's both ways friend.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C



He cautioned that the neutrino researchers would also have to explain why similar results weren't detected before, such as when an exploding star - or supernova - was observed in 1987.


seems that since the neutrinos travel faster than light perhaps they reached us long before the light from the supernova...prior to the time we had the tools to measure such things.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

It reminds me slightly of the Pioneer anomaly, in that both this neutrino result and the pioneer anomaly are very tiny discrepancies.

It took researchers a long time to figure out that the Pioneer anomaly is likely a result of thermal radiation pressure differences, but before that, some people were also suggesting throwing out relativity in favor of new physics to explain that too.

Let's hope it doesn't take as long to investigate this neutrino discrepancy, but it can take a while.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 


As soon as you provide an alternative with as many experimentally proven, rigorously tested, and precisely measured observations, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Until then, the layman has nothing but wishful thinking and the inexplicable need to see one of the most beneficial scientific revolutions ever fall on its face.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem


But in spite of all that, there do seem to be a fair number of ATSers figuratively jumping up on the table and pleasuring themselves at the thought of Einstein possibly being wrong.


can-neutrinos-be-superluminal

Well theres a strange mental image right there! I would think most scientists would be excited about the prospect of expanding the possibilities of their craft.
edit on 22-9-2011 by Raivan31 because: srry messed up the quote again.....that last part was mine.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
This news is completly irrelevant to us. We will never use it. This is more news to my childs childs childs childs childs childs childs childs childs childs child child over 1000 years from now when maybe they can use it.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
does this mean we have the ability to send information back in time(albeit fractions of a second) in say binary or morse, sending nutrinos past the speed of light at specific coded intervals?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by blah yada
 


Here's the thing... if the neutrinos are really moving faster than the speed of light, then they are violating Special Relativity. This, then, negates SR. But, you see, SR is the thing that establishes time dilation, which is what you're using to justify asking if this could be used to receive information before it's sent.

So, no. If these neutrinos are violating the light-speed limit, then they are also violating time dilation, and so we'd still have no way of receiving information before it's sent.
edit on 22-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Before anyone starts (figuratively) patting Einstein on the shoulder in a condescending manner, and/or calls to break out champagne and usher in some new era in physics, it would be a good idea to take a look at the details of this measurement.
It's nice to see that you and CLprime and a few others are skeptical, and even the researchers themselves are skeptical and say they make no claim that it's a valid result, and that it could be the result of systematic error they weren't able to find yet.

But in spite of all that, there do seem to be a fair number of ATSers figuratively jumping up on the table and pleasuring themselves at the thought of Einstein possibly being wrong.

When other physicists say they'd bet their house it's a systematic error, I'm personally not willing to bet against them.

can-neutrinos-be-superluminal


for now the most likely explanation by far is a systematic error. The rumoured “6.1 sigma” significance is probably a statistical error and it will be important to consider any systematic sources of error before coming to conclusions. For now we will need to wait for the official seminar at CERN on Friday to see what they have to say about that.
Maybe we'll hear more after that meeting tomorrow.




>> I will probably bet MY HOUSE that you and the physicists are correct in the "SYSTEMIC ERROR."

It's just that, it's so hard to detect a Neutrino, that EVERYTHING else is easier to detect by comparison. According to current physics -- the Neutrino can pass through a few planets the size of Jupiter and not "interact with any molecules."

Electrons and Protons are REALLY, REALLY TINY -- and most of an atom is empty space. In fact - it is SO EMPTY, that the distance between the electron and the nucleus of an atom is compared to the distance between the sun and Jupiter.

So, if you launched a BILLION ROCKETS - the chance of them hitting a planet in our Solar system, is kind of like having a Neutrino hit a detector.

The chance of detecting a Neutrino, and then detecting that same particle again and being able to measure it's speed, is like having that one in a BILLION rocket hit another planet in another solar system. The 2nd detection could be a stray bit of ionizing radiation, or, a loose connection in 100 miles of wires.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 

Sometimes great new discoveries are first discovered through tiny discrepancies, so there's always that possibility.

But I think scientists are just being realistic, because it's far more common that tiny discrepancies are the result of tiny errors in measurement.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


We r super relative to these things. They r somehow "lock" in time, since they already spin on themselves at the speed of light. Time is only a perception ultimately.

But you r right if they do travel fast then the speed of light they would have to be receive before leaving... but since time stops at the speed of light i understand that they would be perceive as arriving at the same time they are fired.

The problem with speed of light is the conception of "space time". Not only it was tough before Einstein the void was ether, we now know that this "void" is filled with free particles since it as resistivity. Remove or attenuate that resistance, as they do at Cern, by making the particles travel trough a "field" that attenuate resistance you can possibly travel faster then light.
What i understand of dilatation is that a object accelerating is gaining energy, is equal to gaining mass. At some point the particle reach a max density and simply gain volume.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I believe some have come very close to explaining what happened here. but have stopped just short of saying it.

Einstein was right...but he stated it was based on observance...I feel it is not that we recorded a FTL object, it is that we have just discovered Time travel. whether due to the influence of a micro-black hole or just the operation of the CERN itself at an accelerated power level. the "warped" time of the "observers" made their calculations prove wrongly that the object had gone faster than the speed of light, but in fact, that they/we had altered space time at the time of observance, thus making the object appear to have traveled faster because they/we had moved away in time from the observed event.

I am not a physicist I just play one in my mind.

But maybe just maybe...wow, now that would be a discovery.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


There is the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity. When people claim we cannot go faster than the speed of light are applying the Special Theory of Relativity. When in reality the General Theory of Relativity take precedence over the STR. There are particles that travel faster than the speed of light and they are called tachyonic neutrinos. What is funny is this article is should be more about the fact we are able to prove the existence of tachyonic neutrinos. With this discovery it will support the Unified Field Theory which will verify how we are able to explain gravity. Plus, it will allow us to have a better understanding of some propulsion engines that scientist have been trying or most likely successfully built using Gravity Electromagnetism or GEM. What is the most amazing outcome of the proof of tachyonic neutrinos is it means worm holes, bending of space and time like a pretzel is possible. Which mean we can travel light years to distant stars possibly in seconds.
I realize this all sounds like science fiction. With the proof of Fast Than Light particles or FTP's we will be able to show that time, space are variables as stated in the General Theory of Relativity. What’s funny is we know that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light in the beginning. Well I am excited because with this discovery I hope it puts us closer to Quantum, String and multiple dimensions, universes etc.

edit on 22-9-2011 by rgzing because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join