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.

 

Are Superluminal Neutrinos Possible?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Two objects cannot collide with a combined velocity of 1.2 c. All velocities are relative, hence, "Theory of Relativity." I suggest you re-read Einstein, paying careful attention to the implications of the Lorentz Transformations.


And I suggest you, also, pay attention to Lorentz transformations.

It is, entirely, possible to accelerate two objects toward each other at a combined velocity that is greater than the speed of light.

The Lorentz Transformation is a plug&chug formula derived from the very principle that something cannot travel faster than light. You are merely inverting the reference. Rather than working with a derived virtual point of minimum - you deal with the absolute point of maximum, utilizing the constant, C.

Both approaches resolve the problem - but each have to reference an external constant.




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Relativity doesn't work without a universal frame of reference.

Two objects collide at a combined relative velocity of 1.2C.

Resolve that without assuming a universal frame of reference. You can't, without selecting an arbitrary region of space to set as your reference frame (logically, the point of impact.) The 'problem' is that each object will appear to collide at the same velocity (0.6C, respectively). However - if one object is traveling 0.9C, and the other 0.3C - the energy released from the impact is going to be far greater than two 0.6C objects colliding (presuming equal mass of the two bodies).


Why can't that be resolved without a universal frame of reference? It seems to me you can use either frame of reference in your example, and transform the answer you got in one frame easily to the other. Also, afaik speed does not behave linearly at such magnitudes. That would mean that two objects each approaching at 0,6 does not equal a situation where 1 object approaches at 0,3 and the other at 0,9.
edit on 4-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



On many levels. For example, carbon dating of the pieces of beef will show different reading after they finish their storage cycle.


Exactly.


Your point


Think about it.

Why would observing an alteration of perceived atomic activity/decay translate to an alteration of time any more than a refrigerator does?

Entanglement already demonstrates that it doesn't give a gahootin' holler about our perception of time. While we can't use it to send information (at least, not entanglement, itself - we have yet to see what all can be derived from its constituent phenomena) - the effect does propagate instantaneously (or as close to it as we can measure). It's not unlike how the atom or circuit doesn't really care much what temperature it is (to some degree - but not nearly to the same degree as a chemical clock).

Why should time care any more about what the atom thinks is going on?

And, if time is not linked to atomic activity - or is decidedly outside of it - then it really removes causal violations from the picture (along with time travel; a ludicrous idea if there ever was one). Of course - so does the speed of light limitations - but we're getting dangerously close to shifting that paradigm with recent experiments in quantum tunneling that demonstrate superluminal tunneling to be possible.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Why would observing an alteration of perceived atomic activity/decay translate to an alteration of time any more than a refrigerator does?


I alluded to that before, but I'll say it again -- because when placed in the fridge, the observer will note a change of physical parameters of specific processes around him/her. When placed on a satellite moving at high velocity, the observer will not see any change of physical parameters in anything that happens aboard the satellite.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Why would observing an alteration of perceived atomic activity/decay translate to an alteration of time any more than a refrigerator does?


It seems to me that the answer is because that is how we define time. How else would you define time other than the interval between or the duration of certain events?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



That would mean that two objects each approaching at 0,6 does not equal a situation where 1 object approaches at 0,3 and the other at 0,9.


Precisely.

I stated that in the post, though.

But you're catching what I'm talking about.


Why can't that be resolved without a universal frame of reference? It seems to me you can use either frame of reference in your example, and transform the answer you got in one frame easily to the other.


Then you're using C as your universal frame of reference.

Which is easier - when dealing with simple situations involving two or three reference bodies.

However, if you want to start simulating larger macroscopic scenes - it becomes easier to derive zero and work the mechanics from there.

And, of course, you can't unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics so long as you allow mass acceleration to continue indefinitely toward the speed of light. There will come a point when the velocity is simply too great to allow the mass to exist in that location, as per Planck limits. Once that limit is reached for the given properties of that mass, you suddenly have a limit to the effects of time dilation.

From there - it all goes down-hill.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Why can't that be resolved without a universal frame of reference? It seems to me you can use either frame of reference in your example, and transform the answer you got in one frame easily to the other.


Then you're using C as your universal frame of reference.


No, this is plain ridiculous. Nobody's using "C" as "frame of reference", and your interlocutor never attempted same. You just put stuff in his mouth.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I alluded to that before, but I'll say it again -- because when placed in the fridge, the observer will note a change of physical parameters of specific processes around him/her. When placed on a satellite moving at high velocity, the observer will not see any change of physical parameters in anything that happens aboard the satellite.


And I already gave you your answer.

It would be interesting, if possible, to trigger an entangled pair several million times over the course of a second, here on Earth, and compare its entangled counterpart on the satellite. While not necessarily a jab at causality - such an experiment set up to test whether or not relativistic time dilation has any influence on the behavior of entangled pairs would be quite telling, particularly at the more extreme ends - where the pair is triggered so rapidly as to require violations of Planck Time for the one end to keep up (which is theoretically possible with instantaneous changes occurring).

I'm oversimplifying the phenomena of entanglement and greatly simplifying the design of such an experiment - but I believe you should be able to see what I am hinting at.

reply to post by -PLB-
 



It seems to me that the answer is because that is how we define time. How else would you define time other than the interval between or the duration of certain events?


It seems you got it.

It is not necessary to define time. It is a philosophical illusion.

Given your known states of particles and energies - only a given number of future scenarios are possible (the number of possibilities grow exponentially with each passing Planck Second, however). Similarly, only a given number of previous scenarios could have led to yours.

An object capable of instantly changing position, presuming it has the correct energy equivalents to facilitate the change, will assume the state(s) it is able to. No more or less causality is necessary. It can come back, but will never be able to come back to the region it left at a previous time - as the concept simply doesn't exist.

Do note that this conversation is -horribly- limited by the confines of human diction. It would be much easier if we could simply show each other what we were thinking. We probably wouldn't be arguing, if that were the case - well... spare for hypotheitcals and their validity/accuracy.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



No, this is plain ridiculous. Nobody's using "C" as "frame of reference", and your interlocutor never attempted same. You just put stuff in his mouth.


Not paying attention to Lorentz Transformations, I see.

The basis of Lorentz Transformations as they pertain to special relativity and electromagnetic calculations is the constant - the speed of light.

The speed of light is your universal frame of reference. Whether you want to recognize that, or not.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



No, this is plain ridiculous. Nobody's using "C" as "frame of reference", and your interlocutor never attempted same. You just put stuff in his mouth.


Not paying attention to Lorentz Transformations, I see.

The basis of Lorentz Transformations as they pertain to special relativity and electromagnetic calculations is the constant - the speed of light.

The speed of light is your universal frame of reference. Whether you want to recognize that, or not.


You first say "a constant", then "universal frame of reference". In the second instance, you are doing a "dictionary hijack". Frame of reference is a concept in science that does not have to do with ANY physics constant in particular.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



The speed of light is your universal frame of reference. Whether you want to recognize that, or not.


I don't think that expression means what you think it means. Oh, and lets add "Planck Seconds" to the list of expressions you need to define without using the word "time."


edit on 4-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have yet to grasp how superluminal communication causes causality problems. I find the explanations on Wikipedia a bit vague. The article there sais "From this it is argued that, statistically, Bob cannot tell the difference between what Alice did and a random measurement (or whether she did anything at all).". The critique made sense to me, which is that the proofs seem to be circular.
The proofs are based on principles of special relativity.

So if you don't believe special relativity is correct, to that degree the proofs are circular. To put it another way, if special relativity is incorrect, then there may not be the causality problem which is calculated using special relativity equations. But to dismiss the causality problem you have to dismiss special relativity.

I think this link explains the problem better than Wikipedia, they illustrate it with five nice space-time diagrams:

Relativity, FTL and causality


...that’s why faster than light travel or communication, special relativity and causality cannot coexist.
So the author doesn't claim that FTL necessarily creates a causality violation. He only claims that special relativity cannot co-exist with causality and faster than light communication.

Since the definition of science is that it must be falsifiable, we can't be certain that special relativity is correct since it could be falsified, possibly with the neutrino experiment that's the topic of this thread. But prior to the neutrino experiment, there was a lot of evidence supporting special relativity, and I would say there still is.

But I'm not trying to argue that special relativity must be correct, only that there's a lot of evidence supporting it. It's possible that special relativity is flawed and there is no causality violation with FTL communication. None of the arguments in this thread have convinced me of that, but I could be convinced of that with some convincing experimental results.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



You first say "a constant", then "universal frame of reference". In the second instance, you are doing a "dictionary hijack". Frame of reference is a concept in science that does not have to do with ANY physics constant in particular.


A constant is a universal frame of reference.

Its importance to the validity of Loretnz Transformations is the propagation of 'gravity.' Mass increases as an object accelerates because it begins to compress and 'ride' its own gravitational propagation. This, in turn, slows the rate of experiences.

Here, is where things get fun. According to the moving observer, he is be-bopping along, normally - and his gravity propagates with a speed equal to that of light away from him.

However, to an outside observer, he will appear compressed and stacked against his own gravitational emissions (presuming they are emissions... gravity is a peculiar phenomena to begin with).

Which begs the question... what is really happening?

The answer is that there is an absolute reference point. You either use the speed of light, or you use the derived zero. In either case, the result is the same. You still use the speed of light as the universal frame, since zero can always be derived from the speed of light and the two relatively colliding bodies.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Precisely.

I stated that in the post, though.

But you're catching what I'm talking about.


It seemed to me that you were trying to make the point that describing one situation from 2 different frames of reference yields two different results. I pointed out that this is not the case, as you are actuality describing two different situations. You are not just making a change in frame of reference (which may actually not have changed), but you are making a change to the conditions of the objects.

So your argument why two different frames of reference results in different outcomes is flawed based on this example. Would the example be correct, the frame of reference would not matter for the outcome.


Then you're using C as your universal frame of reference.

Which is easier - when dealing with simple situations involving two or three reference bodies.

However, if you want to start simulating larger macroscopic scenes - it becomes easier to derive zero and work the mechanics from there.

And, of course, you can't unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics so long as you allow mass acceleration to continue indefinitely toward the speed of light. There will come a point when the velocity is simply too great to allow the mass to exist in that location, as per Planck limits. Once that limit is reached for the given properties of that mass, you suddenly have a limit to the effects of time dilation.

From there - it all goes down-hill.


I don't know what you mean by "using C as your universal frame of reference". The frame of reference just tells us the motion of the observer compared to the observed object(s). This is not c. And I don't see how this could ever be c, as c is a constant without dimensions.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



You first say "a constant", then "universal frame of reference". In the second instance, you are doing a "dictionary hijack". Frame of reference is a concept in science that does not have to do with ANY physics constant in particular.


A constant is a universal frame of reference.


It's not.


A frame of reference in physics, may refer to a coordinate system or set of axes within which to measure the position, orientation, and other properties of objects in it, or it may refer to an observational reference frame tied to the state of motion of an observer. It may also refer to both an observational reference frame and an attached coordinate system as a unit.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Aim64C
 



The speed of light is your universal frame of reference. Whether you want to recognize that, or not.


I don't think that expression means what you think it means. Oh, and lets add "Planck Seconds" to the list of expressions you need to define without using the word "time."
While relativity doesn't require a preferred reference frame, we actually do have a reference frame to use, if we so desire: it's the cosmic microwave background.

physics.indiana.edu...

The laws of physics do not provide a preferred frame of reference, but the Cosmic Microwave Background does give us a way of detecting motion relative to the big bang (CoM), and is this sense it can provide a “preferred” local frame against which others could be compared).
In fact we can measure our velocity on Earth relative to this CMB reference frame.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The answer is that there is an absolute reference point. You either use the speed of light, or you use the derived zero. In either case, the result is the same. You still use the speed of light as the universal frame, since zero can always be derived from the speed of light and the two relatively colliding bodies.
Aside from the dictionary hijacking problem that buddhasystem pointed out with using the speed of light as a universal reference frame, it also can't be used universally due to the metric expansion of space.

But if you wanted to use the CMB as a preferred local reference frame and the speed of light locally in the local CMB reference frame as preferred, I'd have no problem with that.

The only way you might see speeds faster than light in that case is non-locally, as a result of the metric expansion of space, if the widely accepted lambda-CDM model is correct.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
It is not necessary to define time. It is a philosophical illusion.


I don't see what use it is to call time a philosophical illusion. Time in the context of physics isn't a philosophical illusion and has a specific definition. In light of this specific definition, we can say certain things about time, and do experiments involving it. The results are of course only true for the definition of time that is used in science, not any other (for example philosophical) definition. So saying a certain claim about time is wrong based on any other definition of time than the one used in that experiment doesn't make any sense.



Given your known states of particles and energies - only a given number of future scenarios are possible (the number of possibilities grow exponentially with each passing Planck Second, however). Similarly, only a given number of previous scenarios could have led to yours.


I can be wrong here, but there is an infinite amount of possibilities, not a number. In a continuous probability distribution there is an infinite amount of possibilities, by definition.


An object capable of instantly changing position, presuming it has the correct energy equivalents to facilitate the change, will assume the state(s) it is able to. No more or less causality is necessary. It can come back, but will never be able to come back to the region it left at a previous time - as the concept simply doesn't exist.


I am afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say here.


Do note that this conversation is -horribly- limited by the confines of human diction. It would be much easier if we could simply show each other what we were thinking. We probably wouldn't be arguing, if that were the case - well... spare for hypotheitcals and their validity/accuracy.


I think it is more limited by our understanding of the subject, and for us laymen (or at least me), a misunderstanding of the meaning of certain terms. When two physicists discuss these kind of subjects, I don't think the vocabulary is the limiting factor.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


*yawn*

Light as a universal frame of reference exists.

Electromagnetic waves have both energy (amplitude), frequency, spin, etc. When one encounters light - they encounter a propagation wave that has defined geometric properties. Thus fulfilling the requirements for being a frame of reference.

*smiles*

I've been going far, far too easy on you guys.

Relativity is absolute, is it not? Therefor - when I attach a clock to myself, and run away from you, and return. Who has the slower clock?

It's a trick question. Relativity is absolute. From my frame of reference, you were moving away from me - not the other way around. The two frames of reference cannot be reconciled unless a third frame of reference is called into account.

This, however, creates two possible interpretations for the speed of light. Which collapses relativity and forms an absolute reference.

I'll give you a little bit to digest that.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


*yawn*



Yawn indeed, your alphabet soup becomes tiresome.


Light as a universal frame of reference exists.


Light is a phenomenon. It's not more of a "frame" than, say, a weak decay. Or your flatulence.


Electromagnetic waves have both energy (amplitude), frequency, spin, etc.


a) Energy and amplitude are not interchangeable
b) Waves do not have spin


When one encounters light - they encounter a propagation wave that has defined geometric properties.


What defined properties?

It just seems you are one of these people who purposely misuse physics terminology because it allows one to feel important while making some vague philosophical pronouncements without actual need to do hard math.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join