It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all.

page: 3
8
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM

It only seems like a lie to you because you don't understand the cause of the discrepancy.

I think I do, on the other-hand.

Plus, I'm well acquainted with your anti-Relativity stance, so you would have to disagree with the conclusion, wouldn't you?

Statement Accepted.

Of course, I have a pro-Relativity stance, so I have to agree with the conclusion.

Indeed.

I still say you and I aren't all that different.

Well, we differ in our stance on the theory of Relativity at the very least.

By the way... do you Understand the theory of relativity, including all of the mathematical "Proofs", or do you "Believe" in relativity?

Just Sayin....

Anyway, the time from the satellites signals is calculated by the GPS receiver, which they probably had hooked up to both labs.

The Receivers do not "Ping" the satellite, asking for the time.... the GPS satellites actually Broadcast their on-board time along with other information in a repeating transmissions.

The Satellites look at each-other, to calculate where THEY are above the earth.

When you receive a time signal from several satellites, your Receiver calculates the time discrepancy from each satellites signal (Travel Time) and calculates your position based on that reading.

Every position on the planet has constant line of sight to at least 6 different satellites at any given time. The time at the receiver would be calculated with the relative motion of each satellite accounted for.

The neutrino hitting the detector while the GPS *RECEIVER* prints out a time-stamp, has nothing to do with the relative motion of the satellites not being accounted for, because the *SATELLITE* is not measuring the neutrino... a Stationary Computer next to the Detection apparatus *IS*

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

By the way... do you Understand the theory of relativity, including all of the mathematical "Proofs", or do you "Believe" in relativity?

I understand the core mathematics of Relativity. I'm not quite able, yet (if I ever decide I need to be), to do much with the math myself, but I do understand it. For both Relativity and String Theory, I have taken the time to sit down and learn the mathematical basis involved.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:09 AM

Oh come on. Even though I don't 100% understand the explanation given in the link, I'm familiar with these kinds of blunders in my own way.

Hmmm.

It's not a surprise to me that the CERN researchers are wrong.

Really? Why?

The particle accelerator at CERN accelerates ionized Plasma up to RELATIVISTIC SPEEDS.

I would think that RELATIVITY would be a rather SIGNIFICANT part of what they do.

But we have to wait for a confirmation from CERN that they did not properly account for ALL aspects of relativity.

The parts of Relativity that will pull your funding?

I think that we all give scientists TOO MUCH credit.

And others, not enough, I would say.

Science doesn't depend on one person or one group of researchers. Science depends on peer review and hard science. So a group is wrong; CERN. Others corrected them.

I'm pretty sure they didn't, actually.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:10 AM

I'm not sure a rudimentary look at the function of GPS is going to resolve the discrepancy.

What might be more productive is, if you downloaded the van Elburg paper (available here: arxiv.org... ) and reference specific claims in his paper which you believe to be false, if that's what you are trying to say. I think we need to deal with specifics rather than generalities to resolve this.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM

I'm not sure a rudimentary look at the function of GPS is going to resolve the discrepancy.

I thought the Function of GPS WAS presented as the Cause of the apparent neutrino speed being greater than Light.

What might be more productive is, if you downloaded the van Elburg paper

...

...

Ok...

and reference specific claims in his paper which you believe to be false.

Page 2:

"In the reference frame of the clock the source and detector positions are changing, and from the perspective of the clock the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter than the distance separating the source and detector in the clocks reference frame. We calculate the time of flight in the moving clock reference frame for fotons, i.e. particles moving at the speed of light from A to B and compare it the flight of time estimate for fotons in the baseline reference frame."

The SATTELITE does not OBSERVE the Neutrino.

The DETECTOR *OBSERVES* the neutrino.

The DETECTOR is not moving relative to the CLOCK.

I think we need to deal with specifics rather than generalities to resolve this.

Agreed.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

No Worries.

edit on 16-10-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Page 2:

"In the reference frame of the clock the source and detector positions are changing, and from the perspective of the clock the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter than the distance separating the source and detector in the clocks reference frame. We calculate the time of flight in the moving clock reference frame for fotons, i.e. particles moving at the speed of light from A to B and compare it the flight of time estimate for fotons in the baseline reference frame."

Thanks for citing a specific reference, now we have a better basis for discussion.

The SATTELITE does not OBSERVE the Neutrino.
Relativity allows you to pick a reference frame. You can pick the ground as your reference frame, or you can pick the satellite. You just have to keep straight which is which and realize that time isn't absolute but varies depending on the reference frame.

Time is not absolute. Which time you are interested in depends on whether you are looking at time on the satellite or time on the ground. The other factor mentioned in the part of the article you cited in the distance. If you choose the satellite as a reference frame, which is certainly allowable under relativity despite your objections, the distance observed from the satellite is not the same as the distance observed from the ground. That may be the point you're missing, as you failed to address it.

The DETECTOR is not moving relative to the CLOCK.
It's moving relative to the GPS clock, but not the ground clock.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:29 PM

Thanks for citing a specific reference, now we have a better basis for discussion.

ErtaiNaGia
The SATTELITE does not OBSERVE the Neutrino.

Relativity allows you to pick a reference frame. You can pick the ground as your reference frame, or you can pick the satellite. You just have to keep straight which is which and realize that time isn't absolute but varies depending on the reference frame.

And in this instance, the experiment was looking for Distance Travelled, over Elapsed Time.

The reference frames are as follows:

1. Emitter
2. Detector.

What time was it *EXACTLY* when the neutrino was emitted, and what time was it *EXACTLY* when it was received.

How much distance did the Neutrino cover DIVIDED BY how long it took it to do so.

The clocks are SET by the Global Positioning System, but once that signal reaches the ground, it leaves the Jurisdiction of Relativity, because it's just Local electric fields fluctuating in a resonant oscillator attached to a counting circuit.

We got the Time elapsed from the GROUND, not the satellite.

Otherwise you are stating that two GPS receivers, within line of site of 4 of the exact same satellites at any given time as the OTHER station, With all of the satellites moving with respect to all of the others, AND the ground, are somehow disagreeing on Time.

In only One Direction.

Repeatedly.

As opposed to the Delay being the Same delay for BOTH stations, and thus cancelling each-other out.

ErtaiNaGia

Time is not absolute.

The two base stations are traveling at the same speed, and in the same direction... the Continental Shelf of Europe prevents "Relative Motion" between the two Locations.

ANY OTHER REFERENCE FRAME IS IRRELEVANT.

speed...

distance...

time.

Which time you are interested in depends on whether you are looking at time on the satellite or time on the ground.

The time was on the ground, because that's where the receiver was.

The other factor mentioned in the part of the article you cited in the distance.

... ooookay?

If you choose the satellite as a reference frame,

There is no reason to use the satellite as a reference frame. the satellite is not participating in the experiment.

They just threw that in there to confuse you.

which is certainly allowable under relativity despite your objections,

Technically you can use the reference frame of alpha centauri when you are calculating heat transfers from a lit Match....

Doesn't mean it's going to give you any meaningful data.

the distance observed from the satellite is not the same as the distance observed from the ground.

Are you suggesting that the Satellite... Watching the Ground... causes The Ground... To shrink?

ErtaiNaGia
The DETECTOR is not moving relative to the CLOCK.

It's moving relative to the GPS clock, but not the ground clock.

Do you suppose they just ran a Really long extension cord from CERN up to the Satellite, and connected the "Thar Be Neutrino's HERE!" alarm Directly to the Satellites Clock?

And asked the satellite to "Tell me When this happens!"

Really?
edit on 16-10-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:42 PM
Neutrinos from k capture is a free energy process.
No wonder so many experiments,
Go to some Tesla potentials to better the speed of light.
Fifty times sol 27/7 Tesla found.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM

The only thing that really matters is that, according to the GPS satellite, the distance is slightly shorter than it is according to observers on the surface. According to the on-board clock, the time of travel, then, is measured to be shorter (the time dilation has already been accounted for, as has been discussed in this thread...but that doesn't do anything about the shorter measured distance between the two locations on the surface). Using the time reported by the GPS, the calculated velocity will be greater than the actual velocity. Taking into account the shortening of the distance in the reference frame of the GPS satellite, we get a perfectly reasonable result - the neutrinos arrived about 4 nanoseconds after the beam of light.
edit on 16-10-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:26 PM

...According to the on-board clock, the time of travel, then, is measured to be shorter...

The Satellite did not measure the neutrino.

(Second Line)

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM

What did they use, a stop-watch?
Why are we talking about GPS if it wasn't used to measure the time?
Why are these scientists even mentioning GPS if it wasn't used to measure the time?

ETA: It just occurred to me... do you mean that the GPS didn't measure the neutrino's time, or that it didn't measure the distance?
edit on 16-10-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
ANY OTHER REFERENCE FRAME IS IRRELEVANT.
Actually you can talk about three reference frames:

1. The Earth's axis.
2. The Earth's surface, (let's say in Italy).
3. The satellites in orbit.
Let's say you have clocks at all three reference frames. All three clocks will run at different speeds. And lengths will be different also.

You seem to doubt this but here's Einstein's explanation:

Albert Einstein- Relativity: The Special and General Theory.

The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K. It is obvious that the same effect would be noted by an observer whom we will imagine sitting alongside his clock at the centre of the circular disc. Thus on our circular disc, or, to make the case more general, in every gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is situated (at rest). For this reason it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest with respect to the body of reference. A similar difficulty presents itself when we attempt to apply our earlier definition of simultaneously in such a case....

Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space co-ordinates also presents unsurmountable difficulties. If the observer applies his standard measuring-rod (a rod which is short as compared with the radius of the disc) tangentially to the edge of the disc, then, as judged from the Galileian system, the length of this rod will be less than 1, since, according to Section XII, moving bodies suffer a shortening in the direction of the motion....

This proves that the propositions of Euclidean geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc
So times and lengths are not absolute according to relativity. The reference frame among the three I listed that's moving the least is the Earth's axis.

The other two reference frames, the Earth's surface and the satellites, are in motion with respect to the Earth's axis (as well as each other) and that relative motion will affect both length and time.

And did you notice this part?: " it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest with respect to the body of reference." You seem to be claiming otherwise, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
edit on 16-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 07:54 PM
Alright.
Alcubierre Drives, Matter, Space and everything else
that, being as drunk as I am, I think explains better my "general wanderenment-thing"

Thanks

Drakus
edit on 16/10/2011 by drakus because: duh!

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:28 PM

What did they use, a stop-watch?

For something as precise as this, I'm pretty sure they used more than a stopwatch.

A certain level of precision is required, considering that we are dealing with time-frames measured in Nanoseconds, so they had to have a fairly accurate chronometer attached to the Scientific instrumentation and measuring devices.

Considering the level of precision required, and also taking into account that the GPS satellites do not act as a "Stopwatch" either, they merely broadcast their own internal time at regular intervals (probably a great deal less than a nanosecond.) Therefore, the Signal from the sattelite itself is not accurate enough to measure into nanoseconds....

This means that you must have a Chronometer On the Ground that, while updating itself TO the satellites time, periodically, Has it's own internal chronometer... otherwise you couldn't measure anything more frequent than the Satellites time broadcast pulses.

Why are we talking about GPS if it wasn't used to measure the time?

Because the GPS satellites are being offered as the "Explanation" in a way that is not consistent with Reality.

Why are these scientists even mentioning GPS if it wasn't used to measure the time?

Because, I would think, that they were threatened bodily harm if they didn't.

ETA: It just occurred to me... do you mean that the GPS didn't measure the neutrino's time, or that it didn't measure the distance?

It didn't measure the Time of the particles departure, or the particles arrival... clocks on the ground did that.

The GPS signal was merely used to "Synchronize" the clocks on the ground.

So, the only way that the "GPS Solution" is correct, is if the GPS system ITSELF has internal Time Errors that are not accounted for.

And considering the Resolution that the GPS system requires, *AND* that it already deals with light speed latency to Check it's own position against the ground and other sattelites.

If what they are suggesting about the GPS latency is true, that would imply that the GPS system itself was inaccurate, and that some locations had "Faster Time" than other locations on the ground.

And since the GPS system utterly Relies on accurate time....... I don't really see that as a likely explanation.

Actually you can talk about three reference frames:

Actually, you can talk about a billion refrence frames until you are blue in the face... it doesn't make them relevant to the discussion at hand.

The only two reference frames that MATTER for the purposes of this discussion, are the Detector, and the Emitter, both joined together into one single reference frame by the Crust of the Earth.

You seem to doubt this but here's Einstein's explanation:

Einstein's Explanation is Irrelevant.

So times and lengths are not absolute according to relativity. The reference frame among the three I listed that's moving the least is the Earth's axis.

You are still not getting it, and I feel that you don't want to...

The other two reference frames, the Earth's surface and the satellites, are in motion with respect to the Earth's axis (as well as each other) and that relative motion will affect both length and time.

No, they will not.

You seem to think that Relativity is some form of magic, that if you just point to any given celestial object, you can say "From that bodies 'Perspective', the Ground is actually longer this way than that", and somehow think that This actually alters the Spacial Dimensions on the ground.

IT's ridiculous.

And did you notice this part?: " it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest with respect to the body of reference." You seem to be claiming otherwise, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

And you seem to think that THIS Experiment was the FIRST one involving high speed particles where the travel time of the particle was important.

As if these people just... OOPS! Forgot SCIENCE.

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:53 PM
So this was a faulty gps distance measurement caused by the difference in velocity of the 2 frames of reference? The gps measured the trip (distance only, the time was fine) the neutrinos took as shorter than what it actually is here on earth?

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
The only two reference frames that MATTER for the purposes of this discussion, are the Detector, and the Emitter, both joined together into one single reference frame by the Crust of the Earth...

Einstein's Explanation is Irrelevant.
Einstein explains very clearly why that is not true. If you are unwilling or incapable of understanding Einstein's clear explanation, then I see no point in debating this further with you. Einstein is right in saying that two points connected on a rotating body (such as two points on the ground connected by crust) does NOT allow you to use them as a single reference frame. This may seem counter-intuitive, but he explains why it's so. In cases where extreme precision isn't required, it might be a satisfactory approximation, but this isn't such a case.

You seem to think that Relativity is some form of magic, that if you just point to any given celestial object, you can say "From that bodies 'Perspective', the Ground is actually longer this way than that", and somehow think that This actually alters the Spacial Dimensions on the ground..
You're not thinking relativistically. Not everyone is capable of understanding Einstein's theory, and it's ok if you don't, since three centuries of the world's best scientists didn't figure it out before Einstein either, so you're in good company (for the year 1900). Here's some information about that. It's not magic, though it may seem like it:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

And you seem to think that THIS Experiment was the FIRST one involving high speed particles where the travel time of the particle was important.
That suggests you know of another experiment we should look at, to which experiment(s) do you refer?
edit on 16-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:44 AM
It is my understanding that the universe is in fact expanding at a rate greater than > c but i must admit I am having troubling wrapping my mind around it.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:11 AM

It is my understanding that the universe is in fact expanding at a rate greater than > c but i must admit I am having troubling wrapping my mind around it.
The inflation expansion (if it happened) was definitely greater than c, but see CLPrime's post about that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The current expansion rate may be pushing c but whether it's greater than c or not I haven't seen confirmed. But the same comments would apply as for inflation. There's a difference between an object moving through space, which is limited to c, and space itself moving (expanding) which has no such limitation.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:40 AM

Seriously the fastest speed in the universe is not light speed. It is instantaneous data transmission via two entangled matter.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:19 PM

You're not thinking relativistically. Not everyone is capable of understanding Einstein's theory, and it's ok if you don't, since three centuries of the world's best scientists didn't figure it out before Einstein either, so you're in good company (for the year 1900). Here's some information about that. It's not magic, though it may seem like it:

You do realize that a Lorentz Transformation is a Dimensional Transformation resetting the Speed of light as invariant by changing the distance and time aspects to Variants, right?

new topics

8