CERN Faster than light speed clocked

When it happens everyone's entire life will be mapped from start to finish to the second, based on what you have done in this world in a matter of seconds.

Including time traveling.
 
yeah but you get some interesting paradoxes if you are able to do this, such as, does telling someone their future effect the future? Will you intentionally do the opposite of what you are told you will become so just by the act of being shown a future insure that it doesn't come true?
 
Maybe on all counts. The singularity will know all outcomes of everyone past just by searching records of there life. Maybe there is no paradox, If you dumb enough to go into the past and shot you parents or just separate them, wouldn't you just drop dead in the past and become a unknown person with no records.

Here is a link as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously

Here is another
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/09/17/1828414/washington-pair-missing-after.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/09/19/mb-reno-air-crash-hewitt-winnipeg.html
Wendy Hewitt is still officially listed as missing, though presumed dead. She hasn't been identified yet.

Her family is in Reno, trying to find her.

All answer are know in the future and recorded in time.
Sadly time travel not all fully nice stuff.


Copy paste link into new browser.
 
I'll make a prediction here:

<ul type="square"> [*]Subsequent research will show that the findings are not correct. (We have about 60 years of neutrino research that has never previously found an FTL neutrino.) [*]The current Italian researchers will end up falling into the "Ron Mallett" category of basically forgotten physicists because; [*]They have done exactly the same thing that Mallett did - leak their findings to the mass media before getting a paper published [*]It will be another black eye for the physics world in general because of their bone headed "Tweet-like" release of their research [/list]

There are many valid reasons why ethical scientific researchers write their papers and subject them to peer review prior to releasing preliminary research to the mass media/media hype machine: they could be wrong. Being wrong in this manner means loss of future research funding.

These guys may have discovered something new. But they needed to first get some review and confirmation because neutrino research is not a new field in particle physics. It has been going on since at least the early 1950's (a good deal of the energy released in a thermonuclear device is through neutrino production...6-7%). No one has ever observed this before.

So, as I said:

Prediction: Dr. Ron Mallett, Part II
 
You're welcome,

Another interesting thing about the possibly FTL neutrinos...

where's the Cherenkov Radiation? If they are traveling FTL they should be losing energy as they exceed the local speed of light and radiate that energy as Cherenkov Radiation. No Cherenkov Radiation was observed in the experiment.
 
Darby can i ask how is Cherenkov radiation possible if a particle has never traveled at the speed of light and is Cherenkov radiation just a theory?

Or am i reading it wrong?
 
You're reading it wrong. Cherenkov Radiation is always observed when a particle exceeds the local speed of light. If you've seen photos of the cooling liquid in a nuclear reactor you've probably noticed the blue-green glow in the water. That glow is the Cherenkov Radiation. In other words, it's not simply a theory, it is a theory that is substantiated by observation.

Exceeding the local speed of light is done on a daily basis and it is done using particles with substantial rest mass. The theory doesn't say that you cannot exceed the speed of light. It says that you cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. That may well be a factor here. This experiment was not conducted in a vacuum. The neutrinos travelled from CERN to Italy through the air. It could also be that the lack of a vacuum plays no part, that the particles were moving at the measured velocity and that we've learned something new about neutrinos - all without altering Special Relativity. We may also have to alter Special Reletivity to account for the observation. After all, we've known since 1905 that SR is an approximation of reality. The full theory, General Relativity, is a much better approximation. We've also known since the 1920's that it is also not entirely correct. It cannot explain quantum mechanics. QM is also not entirely correct because it cannot incorporate gravity successfully.

All that being said, no one is going to toss out SR, GR and QM because a very special and unusual particle, a neutrino, was observed in one experiment to exceed the speed of light by 1 part in 40,000. First things first - independent researchers will have to fully duplicate the experimental design and get the same results, something that should have been done before making a sensationalist press release.
 
Ray,Good find on the article.I'll read the ArXiv paper that is the basis for the article later tonight.

If the SR component of the GPS frame is correct and the time hack is 64 ns too short then we're back into the range of the Uncertainty Principle just as a previous FTL" neutrino experiment was found to be about 10 years ago.
 
Ray,

No matter what a future experiment might find it will have to deal with and explain the observations of super nova SN 1987A.

In 1987 when that super nova was first observed the neutrino burst arrived ~3 hrs before the burst of light. That was expected as the neutrinos are released just prior to the light from the SN core. Given the distance (168,000 LY) and the apparent FTL value observed in OPERA the neutrinos should have arrived 3.5 years (not hours) ahead of the photons.
 
Ray,

After further reading I should add that it does not appear that the Italian researchers were responsible for the media hype. They posted their initial observations on ArXiv and the media ran with it. They have stated that they are still skeptical of the results and have asked for independent verification. It has spawned, as of this morning, 24 papers on ArXiv.

One paper questions whether they took into account the Coriolis Effect on the southeast traveling neutrino chain. That author did some admittedly quick and dirty calculations and that brought the arrival time back into the Uncetainty Principle range (+2 ns rather than +62 ns).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0392

Another possibility that I didn't see in the papers (though it could be there) is the possibility that the two clocks (CERN and Gran Sasso) do not share a common rest frame. Gran Sasso Labs is SE of CERN. Gran Sasso, being closer to the rotational equator than CERN has a greater angular velocity than CERN. The Gran Sasso clock would be running very slightly slower than the CERN clock. 62 ns slower? I don't know. But it would run slower.

The idea that an FTL neutrino might open the possibility of time travel has some problems in itself. If the neutrinos do indeed travel faster than the speed of light, because they do have some minute rest mass, then the very theory that postulates relativistic time travel is falsified. Special Relativity would have to be completely re-worked and if there actually is no maxima for velocity then there is no relativistic time travel.

And last (though I'm preaching to the choir here) we have to be careful about stating that Special Relativity postulates time travel into the past if we exceed the speed of light. The Lorentz Transformation for FTL massive particles doesn't quite state it that way.

The Lorentzian gamma factor is defined as:

gamma = sqrt (1-v^2) where c=1

If v (the velocity of the object) is greater than c (greater than 1 - for the sake of the problem let's say it is 2, twice the speed of light) then we have:

gamma = sqrt (1-2^2) = sqrt (1-4) = sqrt(-3) ~= 1.73i and -1.73i

That doesn't state that time (if we are applying the gamma to the time factor) is running in the negative direction. It states that the gamma factor for time is imaginary, the squareroot of minus 3. The imaginary time coordinate is running orthogonal to our ordinary time coordinate - whatever that means (other time can be defined as a two dimensional coordinate space).

So running the clock backwards, if it is possible, is somewhat more complex than it appears. Might explain why physicists have to go to school for a few years more than 4. It might take a "couple of days" or more for them to wrap their heads around the concept of imaginary time and what it means in the real world.
 
Hi Darby

Designer here.

I think you stumble over something new when you take the square root of a negative number.

If there is all positive number there can only be one universal time line.

But when you take the negative the time domain becomes a plain and thus many resulting in multiple time paths where you can take into account divergent time lines.

So when you go into the past a divergence occurs and thus a new time line is created. Thus there can be no paradoxes since time is two-dimensional and impossible to get back the exact same timeline and only a similar one.

In reference to Darby quote “other time can be defined as a two dimensional coordinate space.”
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
So when you go into the past a divergence occurs and thus a new time line is created. Thus there can be no paradoxes since time is two-dimensional and impossible to get back the exact same timeline and only a similar one.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But we'd be jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion to view the imaginary time coordinate as "the past" of anything.

On a 2D space plane going 2 steps "north" along the +Y axis doesn't mean that you end up somewhere on the -Y axis simply because the plane has two coordinate axes, X and Y.

On a light cone the imaginary portion of spacetime (the spacelike area on the left and right of the cone) is simply labeled "elsewhere", not the past.
 
Sorry I still don’t fully understand. Regardless I still believe you got something new of importance.

So this is what I mean and draw it out.


Axis of 2 D time
*---------------------------------- Real component of time -------------------&gt; X
|
|
|
| Imaginary component of time
|
|
|
\/





Time Travel plot for a person that eventually goes into a time machine.

(1) &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;regular time&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Time machine&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt; (2) &lt;-time line 1
^Divergence-------------------------------------------------------------&lt;
|Divergence-----------------------------------------------&lt; Divergence (Time travel)
|Divergence-------------------------------------&lt;
|Divergence--------------------------&lt;
*Divergence-------------- (3) &gt;&gt;&gt;out of time machine&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;regular time&gt;&gt;&gt; (4) &lt;-time line 2


Where '&gt;' is regular flow of time.
and '&lt;' is time travel with divergence.

1 to 2 regular passage of time
2 to 3 time travel with imaginary divergence component in it as well a real.
3 to 4 regular passage of time (time line 2) with a divergence with respect to 1 to 2 (time line 1)

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Designer,

Trust me, I understand the confusion (wow - that's a really weird statement but you get the gist). Trained and experienced physicists struggle with the concept of imaginary time so don't feel bad about being confused.


Einstein and Minkowski correctly stated that we can no longer view time and space seperately as was the case with Newtonian physics and before. They define a spacetime continuum - a 4D space where space and time are mixed together. If you add imaginary spacetime axes you have at least five and probably six dimensions. I suppose that it would be very helpful if we humans could actually picture spaces in our minds that have more than three dimensions. Alas, we can't.

The best that Einstein could propose was that the imaginary parts of spacetime might be different places and/or times in this universe or some other universe entirely. That's still pretty much the state of the art today. No one knows for sure because the laws of physics indicate that we cannot exceed the speed of light unless we are tachyonic. But tachyons cannot travel at less than the speed of light. And we get to another "imaginary" - tachyons have imaginary mass.

If you apply E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to a tachyonic particle you can see the same problem that I showed in the previous post. v --&gt; c and when you take the square root of the negative result you have a result of Ei, -Ei.

(In the above equation you have to add the gamma factor as the divisor because E=mc^2 is for rest mass, not moving mass.)

So were back to the question of what the heck is imaginary mass (exotic matter), energy and time? If you continue working through the Lorentz Tansformations of Special Relativity, because everything is stated as a squared value, you'll also come up with imaginary length.

We have a lot of fun here taking our best guesses about time travel and physics more generally but I have to say that my hat is off to the men and women who spend 8 to 12 years in the university getting their PhD in physics. The good ones (physicists) have to be great scientists, really good mathematicians and still have the left brain imagination of an artist in order to make any sense of what their "numbers" are describing. Those criteria are met by very few folks. And after studying for a decade or more they have to spend another two years doing post doc work to make sure they can actually make a career of it.
 
Just out of curiosity, what would be the big problem with finding another particle that can travel at and occasionally exceed the speed of light. Not being any-type of physicist it doesn't give me pause to consider this. I understand it causes problems with current mathematical proofs in physics but they always seem to find their way around that. I just don't see the big concern. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Back
Top