CERN Faster than light speed clocked

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.
Click to expand...

would you consider looking into water from land an extra dimension to percieve?

special relativity is pretty cool. the cats in the box over there and we are on this spinning disc, hanging out with light and such...

wonder how the cat is doing.
 
Michio Kaku (I found this quote in an article of Kaku but don’t know if he said this)

"There is a loophole in Einstein's equation that even Einstein realized was there. In Einstein's equation, time is a river. It speeds up, meanders, and slows down. The new wrinkle, is that it can have whirlpools and fork into two rivers. So, if the river of time can be bent into a pretzel, create whirlpools and fork into two rivers, then time travel cannot be ruled out."

If there is fork in time does it not mean it is two-dimensional with one axis (X) as real and the other (Y) imaginary thus it is complex. Someone needs to rework the entire math for fun and see what comes out in the wash with time being two-dimensional versus one dimensional.

Here the link

quote from here

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
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.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem:

We now have a bit over 105 years of Special Relativity and 95 years of General Relativity. They are the basis of every physical law that we have and they have been verified as being correct to an approximation more accurate than random fluctuations (Principle of Uncertainty) every day during those 95 to 105 years. SR and GR are correct.

Massive particles are forbidden to travel at or beyond the speed of light. At the speed of light their mass, energy, momentum would have to be infinite; they are also spread out over the entire universe (another way if saying that the universe from the particle's perspective is condensed to a singularity. This isn't a rule that Einstein picked from the air. It had been implied by the works of Maxwell, Faraday, Hertz, Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, etc. Einstein put all of the pieces of the 19th Century puzzle together in 1905. He was the first to look at the problem from the correct perspective: the mass of a particle is not a constant,

m = (E/c^2)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

The mass of a particle is a function of its relative velocity and tends to infinity as velocity tends to the speed of light.

The list of what SR and GR implies and which have been verified as true is long and involves every branch of physical science (chemistry, biology, geology, engineering, optics, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, etc.), not just physics.

If they are wrong, if normal particles can somehow exceed the speed of light (and we aren't talking about taking a spacetime shortcut such as a wormhole) then we may as well stop talking about time travel and close the site. Why? Because if they are wrong then there is no theory to support the concept of time travel. We can also forget discussing how building a fire in our fireplaces to stay warm works because there would be no theory to explain just how and how much a broken chemical bond delivers energy. Nuclear energy would simply be Medieval magic. There would be no possible explanation, other than magic, to explain how breaking the particle bonds of a nucleus liberates 10,000,000 times more energy than breaking the electron bonds of the same atom (chemical energy).

So it is a big deal.
 
would you consider looking into water from land an extra dimension to percieve?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, yes. Mathematicians, geometers and physicists use the Flatlander analogy to give us some sort of an idea about what higher dimensions are (dimensions beyond our normal three, or 4 if you add time).

So Flatlanders, who live on the bottom of the lake, don't even know that the water exists. Their world is the 2D plane that we call the lakebed. There is no up or down in Flatland. They only have port, starboard, fore and aft. Because we live in a 3D world we can stand on the lakeshore, look down into the water and see all the Flatlanders moving around (literally around - they can't walk "over" anything) but they cannot see us. If we step into the water they would see a 2D mark on their world made by our feet but they would not see anything else.
 
Designer,

If there is fork in time does it not mean it is two-dimensional with one axis (X) as real and the other (Y) imaginary thus it is complex
Click to expand...

Yes. If you isolate the real time axis (X) and the imaginary time axis (Y) you have a complex 2D plane. Add it to the full coordinate system of spacetime you have a complex multi-dimensional space (a complex Hilbert space).

You have to take Dr. Kaku with a bit of a grain of salt. He makes his living selling books and giving pop-sci lectures and guest appearances. His profession of physics. He is a bit imprecise with his language when he speaks to or writes for a pop-sci crowd. It's a lot more exciting that way thus it sells a lot more pop-sci books that it would sell physics text books.

Time isn't really a meandering river. That's an analogy much like the lakebed/Flatlander analogy above: it paints a picture for demonstrative purposes but it doesn't explain anything. Minkowski told us 100 years ago to stop looking at time and space as two seperate entities. Special Relativity shouts loud and clear that time and space are entangled in a way that is similar to electricity and magnetism - they are different aspects of a single entity.
 
Thank you Darby;
You have been patient with me since I first posted here and I hope you can extend that a bit more.
I don't know if I'm right brained or left brained or middle or little brained but I have always had the hardest time getting my head around that little photon bugger. It too, has mass. Just no rest mass. If it has mass (relativistic) regardless as to how small it may be, doesn't it then violate the rule? It comes into existence at the speed of light. Where is the acceleration I was taught is necessary? It always travels at the speed of light. What about the second law of thermodynamics and entropy? If it can be "trapped" by a black hole, how can we be sure it isn't actually being slowed down so it is no longer a photon of light as defined? If it can have its direction altered by gravity, wouldn't that affect the measurements of speed and distance over great distances, i.e. the Universe? The speed of light may be a constant here, where we can measure it within our tiny reach, but at 100,000,000 light years out maybe we're wrong and it's actually 200,000,000 light years or only 50,000,000.
This NEWS about neutrinos got me looking into them a bit and I found this which you may find interesting and understand a whole lot more than I did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light

If a neutrino can achieve or exceed the speed of light maybe it is because it's relativistic mass is somehow affected to allow it.
Physicists routinely find ways around problems. I don't mean this negatively, but sometimes how they do it seems dubious to me. Not that "that" is a big deal as I am one level below a layman in understanding physics. I did great at Biology and Chemistry. The physics contained in them is more straight forward whereas theoretical and more advanced physics simply confuses me.
We have General physics, Quantum physics, mechanical and fluid physics, electromagnetism, optics, and many other areas in physics. I would like to offer one more ( to all the physicists out there feel free to use it)...
Quoniam Physics... the physics of " because". It will be the study of all the things that "just are". Our level of understanding can't yet explain them but some things just are.
 
It too, has mass. Just no rest mass. If it has mass (relativistic) regardless as to how small it may be, doesn't it then violate the rule? It comes into existence at the speed of light. Where is the acceleration I was taught is necessary? It always travels at the speed of light. What about the second law of thermodynamics and entropy? If it can be "trapped" by a black hole, how can we be sure it isn't actually being slowed down so it is no longer a photon of light as defined?
Click to expand...
That the photon has no rest mass is simply another way of stating that it can travel only at the speed of light.

Does it speed up or slow down under certain circumstances? No. It gains or loses kinetic energy (mass).

If you travel very fast - fast as in very close to the speed of light - why don't you observe that the photon you are chasing slows down relative to you? After all, if you chase a car that is going away at 60 mph you'll eventually match its speed and even catch up if you go fast enough. The answer is two fold. As you travel ever faster your clock slows relative to the photon's clock. At the same time your ruler undergoes Lorentz Contraction - it gets shorter as measured in the photon's frame. In some other universe where the laws of physics are different you might observe that the photon behaves like the car you chase in this universe. But in this universe your clock slows down and your ruler contracts in the precise proportions such that the photon from your POV forever moves away from you at the speed of light.

Keep this part in mind too: If I saw you riding bye in your spaceship traveling at 99% the speed of light chasing that photon I would see the photon pulling away from you at 300 km/sec, not traveling away from you with a relative velocity of 300,000 km/sec. No laws of physics are violated. I see the photon traveling as the speed of light and you traveling at 99% the speed of light. There is no law that says that I should view the situation in the same "light" as you see it. Quite the opposite. The law states that I will not observe the same situation because there is a relative velocity between you and me.

And the photon does obey all of the conservation laws. If you fire a photon into an atom and it is absorbed by an electron the electron gains the momentum of the photon and jumps to a higher orbital shell. When the electron radiates the photon it drops back to the lower shell. That's exactly what is meant by "ionizing radiation". If a photon with sufficient momentum (UV ray, x-ray, gamma ray, etc.) is absorbed by an electron it jumps completely off the orbital shells leaving the original atom in an ionized state...one electron is missing and if the atom was part of a compound the compound breaks apart...it is atomized. When this happens with DNA, for example, we can end up with mutations; some good, some bad, some of no consequence but mitations none-the-less.
 
I agree with Darbyshire. Eventually we'll get an "Ooops!! we used the wrong measuring tools to measure what we don't quite understand yet."
 
On Wed Feb 22, 2012, they discovered a loose fibre optic cable which seems to account for 60ms discrepancy in original experiment, many news sources claimed that the "neutrinos faster than light" experiment was false and the neutrinos speed was slower than recorded.

However, later, on top of that loose cable, the researchers found:

"...the second glitch in system, involving an oscillator responsible for providing time stamps to the experimental readings with GPS signals. It is now believed that accounting for this second glitch would in fact cause the system to underestimate the neutrinos' speed, givining them a velocity even FASTER than originally reported."

Source: http://www.themanitoban.com/2012/03/neutrinos-are-faster-than-light-some-weeks/9538/
 
servantx,

"...the second glitch in system, involving an oscillator responsible for providing time stamps to the experimental readings with GPS signals. It is now believed that accounting for this second glitch would in fact cause the system to underestimate the neutrinos' speed, givining them a velocity even FASTER than originally reported."
Click to expand...

This is the problem with PopSci reporting, as opposed to scientific investigation. Scientists would immediately seek to quantify those system errors which they have discovered. PopSci reporters (often people who wanted to be scientists but could not handle the intellectual complexity to get the degree) just report the fluff. By quantifying the system error, they would be able to report a normalized distribution of that error (average value for the error and its standard deviation) based on an independent measure that quantifies the error. For example, if the error is a loose connection in a cable, the error would be quantified as a normal distribution on either the resistance (if it were an electrical signal cable) or index of refraction (if it were an optical cable). Such analysis is how we, in engineering, are able to quantify Total System Error (TSE) of any closed-loop measurement and control system. We state such accuracies in terms of "+/-" one, two, or three sigma (standard deviations) of error.

Until we see such a quantified error analysis of these two errors reported on blogs (note: not reported in any form of peer reviewed material), all we are reading is PopSci speculations. Really cannot put much value in either of these reports, other than the fact that they COULD explain why a result that was not in accord with Relativity was observed. In short, there seems to be circumstantial evidence that suggests their original conclusions can be falsified.

RMT
 
thats why science is science, but its also a double edged sword. what is inherited from laws is limitations. in order to put something new into the system, you have to break laws to get rid of parts that never were, even though the data wasnt right in the first place. thats a fatal error by scientists.
 
Hi RMT,

"Neutrinos are nearly massless and travel very close to the speed of light. Because they only interact with matter via gravity and the weak force, they can pass through substances, including entire planets, with little disruption. "


Try to use gravitational forces to acelerate Neutrinos to break through it's original speed, in a spiral shape where the centre of spiral path is the source of gravitation pull.


Just beware that solar flares can erupt the gravitation fields. Two currently known events of solar flares of disruptions: one in April 2001 (which can effect 2000) and May 2012 (which can effect 2011).

These 2 events will pull gravitational forces, and gravitatinal forces affect time (eg, time slow down near black hole)...
 
Try to use gravitational forces to acelerate Neutrinos to break through it's original speed, in a spiral shape where the centre of spiral path is the source of gravitation pull.
Click to expand...

To produce what effect?

As Ray pointed out, neutrinos are associated with (and interact with) the weak force. In a supernova where a neutron star is left the gravitational forces collapse the core of the star during the final few microseconds of the star's life. The gravitational forces are strong enough to "squeeze" the protons causing them to decay leaving the neutrons. When that occurs there's a neutrino flux. The Beta+ decay reaction emits a positron, gamma ray and an electron neutrino. Fully 25% of the entire mass of the star is emitted as electron neutrinos...which zip away slightly behind the photon pulse. They don't gravitationally spiral back in to the neutron core because they leave at a velocity in excess of their escape velocity.

BTW: Astronomy experiments on just such events is the most direct evidence casting the OPERA results into doubt. Italian neutrinos are either very special or OPERA is flat wrong. In every case where a supernova light pulse is detected hundreds or thousands of LY away the light pulse always preceedes the neutrino flux. If the neutrinos were moving faster than the photons they would have long ago caught up with and passed the photon pulse and arrived here several hours before the light. Never observed to occur.
 
The scenario posed in the gedanken is based on the Schwarzschild field. With no other information in the article we have to assume that the scenario is a well prepared and idealized "laboratory" that assumes perfect spherical bodies, uniform distribution of matter, uniform density of mass, etc.. Generally the Schwarzschild metrics assume that the object(s) under observation exist in a system where no other outside influences exist. It is the basic starting point for looking at the "real"world. Ask yourself what would happen if...? After that you have to place the idealized system in a real world where stars, planets, dust, external gravitational fields, etc. exist and see what else occurs when you consider what the real world looks like.

Creating neutrinos is not easy. We know how to do it. Particle colliders, nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons - fission and fusion reactions - all create neutrinos. They also leave behind unstable nuclides that, in many cases, are highly radioactive (large mass - short half-life). Creating massive amounts of neutrinos also means leaving behind massive numbers of radioactive elements.

Neutrinos are emitted when you "flip" a quark from up to down or down to up (thus changing a proton to a neutron or a neutron to a proton). If you inject a neutron into Thorium-232 it becomes Thorium-233. But it only has a half-life of 22 minutes. Too many neutrons, just one too many in this case, is catastrophic for Thorium. It becomes unstable and radioactive. One of the neutrons "flips" and emits an electron, gamma ray and an electron antineutrino. One of the down quarks in the neutron flips to an up quark and a proton is created. and we have Protactinium-233. A month (27 days) later the Protactinium undergoes yet another beta decay (same as above) and we have Uranium-233, a highly fissile weapons grade element.

All of this because of one little neutron. I don't think that "neutrino comminication" is something that the(American) public is going to want considering that they won't even consider the situation of increasing nuclear reactor capacity. It's a high price to pay for decreasing the time lag in comminication by a factor of picoseconds over satellite EM based communication if you want to talk to China from North America.
 
Hi Darby,

I am thinking about Intergalactic Communication. Neutrinos can go through the entire planet, so the communication will not disrupt even a giant planet is blocking in between the space probe or bases in the other planet in the future.

If it is used on earth, current radar technology cannot intercept what is inside the core of earth, and Neutrino communication has military value during warfare. In your U.S. to China scenario, imagine the phone call from Washington to Beijing cannot be detected from other countries.
 
Back
Top