Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring

Feb 22, 2012 by Jason Major, Universe Today
Part of the OPERA project's underground lab. Image credit: CORBIS/CERN

You can shelf your designs for a warp drive engine (for now) and put the DeLorean back in the garage; it turns out neutrinos may not have broken any cosmic speed limits after all.

Ever since the news came out on September 22 of last year that a team of researchers in had clocked neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, the physics world has been resounding with the potential implications of such a — that is, if it were true. The has been a key component of the standard model of physics for over a century, an Einstein-established limit that particles (even tricky neutrinos) weren’t supposed to be able to break, not even a little.

Now, according to a breaking news article by Edwin Cartlidge on AAAS’ ScienceInsider, the neutrinos may be cleared of any speed violations.

“According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos’ flight and an electronic card in a computer,” Cartlidge reported.

The original OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) experiment had a beam of neutrinos fired from CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, aimed at an underground detector array located 730 miles away at the Gran Sasso facility, near L’Aquila, Italy. Researchers were surprised to discover the neutrinos arriving earlier than expected, by a difference of 60 nanoseconds. This would have meant the neutrinos had traveled faster than light speed to get there.

Repeated experiments at the facility revealed the same results. When the news was released, the findings seemed to be solid — from a methodological standpoint, anyway.

Shocked at their own results, the OPERA researchers were more than happy to have colleagues check their results, and welcomed other facilities to attempt the same experiment.

Repeated attempts may no longer be needed.

Once the aforementioned fiber optic cable was readjusted, it was found that the speed of data traveling through it matched the 60 nanosecond discrepancy initially attributed to the . This could very well explain the subatomic particles’ apparent speed burst.

Case closed? Well… it is science, after all.

“New data,” Cartlidge added, “will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.”

Explore further: A two-stage trap for single protons leads to measurement of their magnetic properties

More information: See the original OPERA team paper here.

Below is an Associated Press article:

European researchers find flaw in experiment that measured faster-than-light particles
By FRANK JORDANS

Researchers have found a flaw in the technical setup of an experiment that startled the science world last year by appearing to show particles travelling faster than light.

The problem may have affected measurements that clocked subatomic neutrino particles breaking what Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein considered the ultimate speed barrier.

Two separate issues were identified with the GPS system that was used to time the arrival of neutrinos at an underground lab in Italy, James Gillies, spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, said Wednesday.

One could have caused the speed to be overestimated, the other could have caused it to be underestimated, he said.

"The bottom line is that we will not know until more measurements are done later this year," Gillies told The Associated Press.

The results of the experiment were received with great skepticism by scientists when they were published last September because they seemed to contradict Einstein's theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That rule is fundamental to modern physics, and breaking it is seen as a step into the realms of science fiction where time travel and warp speed engines exist.

Even researchers involved in the experiment cautioned at the time that the measurements would need to be independently verified by other scientists before a genuine finding could be declared.

The experiment involved neutrinos being fired from CERN's site on the Swiss-French border to a vast underground laboratory 454 miles (730 kilometres) away at Gran Sasso in Italy.

Researchers found that the neutrinos appeared to arrive 60 nanoseconds sooner than if they had been travelling at light's speed of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometres per second).

The experiment's margin of error allowed for just 10 nanoseconds. A nanosecond is one-billionth of a second.
-----
Online: CERN site for neutrino project: bit.ly/nd9sm1

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Related Stories

Physicists: Did neutrinos break the speed of light?

Nov 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The revolutionary news that an experiment measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light drew varied ages and backgrounds to a standing-room only physics department forum, "Faster ...

3 Questions: Faster than light?

Sep 26, 2011

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from th ...

FTL neutrinos (or not)

Oct 03, 2011

The recent news from the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) neutrino experiment, that neutrinos have been clocked travelling faster than light, made the headlines over the last week ...

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

Jul 31, 2014

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

User comments : 123

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ragarain
1 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
yes. yes that was a possibility. until it got REPLICATED :/ http://www.wired....an-light

who reads "science insider" anyway??
Isaacsname
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 22, 2012
IMO the acceptation of most phenomena, which don't play well with mainstream physics follow the very evolution, similar to wake wave (or dark matter around massive bodies): after brief period of medial noise they're refused and slowly re-accepted again, actually the more slowly, the more controversial they are. The cold fusion is a typical example, but we have many other similar findings (room temperature superconductivity of J.F.Prins, antigravity of Podkletnov or gravitomagnetism of Tajmar). It means, I'm convinced, that superluminal neutrino concept is relevant - but the social pressure for their refusal is currently stronger, than their observational evidence.
Drumsk8
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
http://alturl.com/okine

Some more information here.
Callippo
2 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Temple
1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
When the result is so *incredibly* close to the *exact* value of C we expect which pops out of Maxwell's equations, then good money is on a mundane explanation.

Still, knowing there was sure to be a mundane explanation for the FTL results does not lessen the disappointment in disproving them.

(More information here about how c isn't really a measured value that might have just been 'slightly off': http://www.isthis...tspeed/)
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (23) Feb 22, 2012
But what about all that interdimensional quantum tunneling that was being yammered about here?

How about those new negative time neutrino's, surface plasmons, n dimensional wet willies and that stuff about Einstein being a complete fraud?

Remember that from a couple of months ago?

Idiots.

This is why it is best for the ignorant to keep their ignorant mouths shut until they actually have something rational and competent to say.

Callippo
1 / 5 (20) Feb 22, 2012
As Einstein once said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." In dense aether model the neutrinos (solitons of longitudinal waves) have a good reason for being slightly superluminal in the same way, like the photons (a solitons of transverse waves) have a good reason to be subluminal, at least in certain, IMO quite wide range of energies. These stuffs actually follow just from certain - though very local - aspects of Einsteinian relativity, too. General relativity allows violation of special relativity in certain geometries (time holes). So now we have just wait for independent confirmation/refusal of results and for official peer-reviewed publications. These premature reports are indeed full of quantum noise.
Drumsk8
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Callippo I did try using the orignal url, but after 5 edits of it not working when linking, i decided on using the short version to get around the issues of submission.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
I did try using the orignal url
Yep, I actually saw it..;-) Try to use the [ url = some_link ] caption [ / url ] notation (just without spaces) next time.
Drumsk8
5 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
Anyways since they've found two area's which are affected by gps, one being faster and slower I think i'll wait for proper repeat results and disclosure of them before calling this one done and dusted. Thats how science rolls hypothesize and then test, test and test some more. Mind you Occam's Razor would suggest it's a technical glitch.
Drumsk8
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2012
Ok thanks for the hint on the formatting, normally not been an issue in the past. :)
sstritt
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
I was just sure that the Gyre TOE would explain the speedy neutrinos!
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
There is at least dozen of theories, which would accept, if not welcome the finding of superluminal neutrinos - including some versions of string theory. It's not therefore just an artifact of crackpot theories.
Turritopsis
3.5 / 5 (21) Feb 22, 2012
But what about all that interdimensional quantum tunneling that was being yammered about here?

How about those new negative time neutrino's, surface plasmons, n dimensional wet willies and that stuff about Einstein being a complete fraud?

Remember that from a couple of months ago?

Idiots.

This is why it is best for the ignorant to keep their ignorant mouths shut until they actually have something rational and competent to say.


But then we'd never get a chance to hear you speak.
cyberCMDR
4.7 / 5 (24) Feb 22, 2012
This was an excellent example of science working as it should. They found remarkable results, and after checking it internally they asked the rest of the community to check their results. They didn't make big claims, they just reported what they found with caveats. The thing is, the phenomenon was testable and verifiable.
I'm sure the religious zealots out there will point to it and say science is broken, how can you trust it? What they can't (or won't) fathom is that this is how the process works.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
"But then we'd never get a chance to hear you speak." - Turnip

Yes. You will find that I advanced no opinions, ideas, or pet speculations on the matter.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.7 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2012
"This was an excellent example of science working as it should."

Absolutely correct. Commendable.
StarGazer2011
2.7 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
Hey guys, this isnt done. They just have a theory about what caused the results. It needs to be tested, and it would be better if a different lab attempted replication of the original result.
@ragarian: It was repeated by CERN using the same equipment, thats not exactly the same as replication and in this case doesnt rule out a systemic glitch at CERN of the type alluded to in the article. For true replication you need another lab to do it.
Deesky
5 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
I too cannot help but recall how all the cranks worked themselves into a lather and ran around like headless hens when the initial FTL articles were posted a few months ago. I'm looking at you QC/Zephyr et al. :)

While the more science literate membership acknowledged an interesting finding, but due to its incredible nature, called for further corroboration before needlessly jumping up and down.

Science at work.
thomowen20
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
"Case closed?" Not at all!

"Well it is science, after all." Correct. So until additional experiments are done by the other facilites, I consider it not "case closed".
axemaster
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
Ah... This is pretty funny. They must have spent an obscene amount of time testing everything over and over to find this glitch. Kudos to them for finally figuring it out if this is true.
PS3
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
Why would a loose cable make it go faster than light?
thematrix606
3.2 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
This was an excellent example of science working as it should. They found remarkable results, and after checking it internally they asked the rest of the community to check their results. They didn't make big claims, they just reported what they found with caveats. The thing is, the phenomenon was testable and verifiable.
I'm sure the religious zealots out there will point to it and say science is broken, how can you trust it? What they can't (or won't) fathom is that this is how the process works.


I love the first part, but why in the world did you have to attack half of the world population with the second part? I just don't get what people on this website get by feeling better about bringing others down? Work together ffs, not apart. It's ok to be wrong, in fact, it's important! Don't bring anyone down because they are wrong, encourage them to learn from their mistakes!
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
Why would a loose cable make it go faster than light?


The neutrinos are created during high energy collisions.

The Earth moves around the Sun and spins around its axis.

The neutrinos arrive to their destination.

The GPS system shows information on the two points: 1. Neutrino creation point in Switzerland 2. Neutrino detection point in Italy. The Earth is moving while the neutrinos are in transit.

The ability to gauge the distance between the two points is crucial. Any disruption to the GPS system gives an incorrect measure of space travelled and time spent in travel.

The distance travelled is not the true distance between the two points. The Earth is in motion, the distance the neutrinos have to travel changes with respect to time.
Foolish1
not rated yet Feb 23, 2012
I thought in their origional paper they checked GPS with a mobile atomic clock. Wouldn't this have cought any discrepancy with GPS clock reference?
Substance90
not rated yet Feb 23, 2012
Replicating your own results is tantamount to self-referencing. The scientific community doesn't work that way thankfully.
yes. yes that was a possibility. until it got REPLICATED :/ http://www.wired....an-light

who reads "science insider" anyway??

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2012
When the result is so *incredibly* close to the *exact* value of C

The closeness wasn't an issue. It was six sigma off the mean value (which is a lot).
I'm not very surprised that it turned out to be a technical problem.
Though actually getting a peek at something that is faster than light would have been awesome - but wishful thinking doesn't hold any sway in science.
I just don't get what people on this website get by feeling better about bringing others down?

I think it is just a jab at thereliguious nuts cluttering up this site with pointless posts. He probably meant it as a helpful reminder that they should shut their collective traps before they understand what they are dealing with.
Being the righteous people that they are (and by nature impervious to logic) I suspect nothing short of a bullet to the brain will do so (and I'm not even sure that that would be enough)
roboferret
not rated yet Feb 23, 2012
yes. yes that was a possibility. until it got REPLICATED :/ http://www.wired....an-light

who reads "science insider" anyway??


Says the guy who quotes "Wired"?!
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
"Why would a loose cable make it go faster than light?" - ps3

Lost ticks resulting in loss of synchronization of source with target.
greenman-23
1 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2012
Proof if we really need it that CERN are about as competent and as Guilty as BP for recklessness w43w.com/no-higgs-boson-puts-cern-safety-assurances-into-bps-deep-water/

how much longer must we ignore the truth about CERN, the worlds most obnoxious weapons institute and its threat to us? w43w.com/great-circles/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
roof if we really need it that CERN are about as competent...


Another sockpuppet ryg2? *sigh*
You never do grow tired of making a fool of yourself, do you?
Anda
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2012
"quantum noise" Calippo.

Congratulations Calippo best definition of yourself
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Feb 23, 2012
Nah, much simpler than that. The GPS time signal would be delayed by 60ns so reading the arrival time, they would seem to get there 60ns before they should. The whole story just highlights the difference between science and engineering ;-)
Temple
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
@antialias_physorg:
The closeness wasn't an issue. It was six sigma off the mean value (which is a lot)."


I wasn't speaking to the statistical significance of the measured result.

My point about it being so very, very close to the calculated value for c was that, it would be highly suspicious that FTL travel would just *happen* to be incredibly close to c.

If a phenomenon isn't constrained by the speeds that are inherent in Maxwell's equations, then there's absolutely no reason to expect it to travel anywhere close to c.

Why not over double c? Why not on the order of 10 times or a million times c?

When it was so, so close to c, you had to suspect that it was following the laws that dictate c as the cosmic limit, but that something screwy was going on in the measurement.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Nah, much simpler than that. The GPS time signal would be delayed by 60ns so reading the arrival time, they would seem to get there 60ns before they should. The whole story just highlights the difference between science and engineering ;-)


So clock was running 60ns slow, instead of showing the travel between the points as taking 0.024 seconds it registered as 0.023999940 seconds. 60 nanoseconds, 0.000000060 seconds, less.

Thanks for info. Problem wasn't one of distance discrepancy from point 1 to point 2.

The clock timing the event was running slow.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
I thought in their origional paper they checked GPS with a mobile atomic clock. Wouldn't this have cought any discrepancy with GPS clock reference?


The fiber optic connection between the clock and computer was the problem. The time information was arriving late.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
You can try this yourself. Take 2 television sets, put them side by side. Run a cable and split it. Now take a short cable and connect it to 1 TV set. Take a really long cable and connect it to the other TV.

Turn it on.

The second TV (with the longer cable) will receive programming information later than the first.

TV 2 will be showing the program you already saw on TV 1.
------
The loose connection added distance that wasn't accounted for. Time information arrived later. Giving the appearance of neutrinos arriving sooner.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2012
If a phenomenon isn't constrained by the speeds that are inherent in Maxwell's equations, then there's absolutely no reason to expect it to travel anywhere close to c

On the other hand we do know that e.g. relativistic effects only really become noticeable close to c. So there are effects that happen in that vicinity. You are right: there's no reason why it shouldn't be far away from c but there is also no reason why it should. It could have just been 'anti relative' with the effect being probable around c and less likely the further you get away from c (otherwise we would have detected FTL neutrinos long ago from extrasolar sources)

But all of this is academic. It was a glitch in the hardware. so we're back to square one with regards to beating light speed.
Billy_Madison
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Question: Are neutrinos affected by gravity? This may be a dumb question, but if they aren't then it is possible they could travel at a FTL speed in Earth based experiments. Seeing that light is affected by gravity would possibly slow the C speed down compared to something that is not.
Skultch
not rated yet Feb 23, 2012
Am I the only one surprised that a loose cable caused ONLY a 60ns difference? I would have thought some sort of diagnostic trigger would have gone off or a much bigger deviation from c. That thing wasn't very loose, I assume. I have no idea what type of connectors these things use, but as a networking guy I can't help but wonder if there was actually a person who had to check this thing physically and felt and/or heard an audible *click* as he/she re-seated the cable. What a feeling that must have been!
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Are neutrinos affected by gravity?
IMO yes, but the neutrinos at energies higher than CMBR photons and lower than electrons are of opposite gravitational charge: they're repelled from places, where the gravity field is ceasing down or from accelerating massive bodies.. They're behaving like militant atheists, who are attracted to sectarian groups just because of their hate of religion.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
"quantum noise" Calippo. Congratulations Calippo best definition of yourself
The evidence of aether is similar to evidence of water at the water surface, which is being observed with its own waves only. Only the subtle quantum noise, scalar waves and related phenomena can serve as an indicia of the reality hidden at extradimensions in this case. Many proponents of protoscience have character of noise just because they do anticipate the hidden reality (the quantum future of Universe).

BTW the people, who don't like the concept of FTL neutrinos are behaving like these neutrinos in certain extent. They're surrounding its evidence like the hostile outsiders, they don't struggle to penetrate the to its depth (the neutrinos form the dark matter AROUND galaxies, but they don't penetrate them too deeply). Being negativistic to it, the opponents of concept usually spread negative reports about it a bit faster, than the sympathizers of this concept (a photons).
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
Note that this concept is completely symmetric: with respect to mainstream science the free thinkers do behave like the dark matter surrounding its boundaries, but they don't try to penetrate it deeply (they usually don't manage the mainstream theories too well). But they do follow and report every evidence, which could violate established theories faster and in more detailed way than their proponents, just because they're motivated into their denial. When revolution (a social phase transition) travels trough society, then the proponents of dual opinions travel with the boundary at both sides of it. For example, the discussions bellow articles about new versions of Apple products are being attacked with supporters of Windows - and vice versa, the articles about new versions of Windows are being attacked with fans of bitten fruit. IMO these analogies point to deep similarity of hyperdimensional/multiparticle human society and physical reality.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Inside of environment, where some opinion or stance prevails the proponents of mainstream opinion are usually a bit slower and conservative in their judgment of new reports and they do exchange the information more slowly (like the photons), than the carriers of the opposite opinion (a neutrinos). The protoscientists are more sensitive to the informational noise surrounding the new findings and they're reporting about it with passion - whereas the conservative proponents are more lethargic to it, because they're essentially hostile toward every change of established status quo. Note that loudest proponents of both dual opinions gain their mass with Higgs mechanism, because they do collect and drag sympathizers from their environment (we know about supporters of evolution, both supporters of creation). The sectarian communities formed are rigid in their opinion and they do exchange information slowly in similar way, like the massive particles of both matter, both antimatter.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
The results of the experiment were received with great skepticism by scientists when they were published last September because they seemed to contradict Einstein's theory that nothing can travel faster than light


Neutrinos are not bound by lightspeed. 

Photons are electromagnetic particles of neutral charge. They follow a transverse wave pattern.

All fermions are charged. They are 1/2 spin particles. Matter. Light is full spin (spin 1).

All fermions are charged particles. Except neutrinos.

Neutrinos are nuclear ash released from weak decay.

Einsteins speed limit law pertains to electromagnetic particles which follow a transverse wave pattern or 1/2 wave pattern.

Neutrinos aren't electromagnetic. They can go any speed at all.

But how do you accelerate them faster than the pulse that creates them?

Matter that creates it interacts at lightspeed. The ash follows the same speed.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
All fermions are charged. They are 1/2 spin particles. All fermions are charged particles. Except neutrinos...
Neutrinos are fermions as well and 1/2 spin particles - which implies, they're charged too. On the other hand, the absence of charge doesn't imply, the particles can move with whatever speed. For example the neutrons aren't electromagnetic in the same way, like the neutrinos - well, and they cannot go any speed at all.

Your problem is, you're just pilling tautologies, which are mostly correct by itself, but they're connected with very weak/fuzzy logics instead of logically robust deduction. You're guessing the reality instead of deducing it. As the result, the way of your conclusions can be objected easily.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
But neutrinos doesn't follow a transverse wave motion.

Light follows a wave motion. Energetic particles follow the same motion but are formed differently. Particles are point energy.

Neutrinos are field energy. Like a field tensor. Tension of the field that is space and time.

When point particles radiate their energy (through quark quark, and quark lepton interactions) the field tension is released.

Neutrinos are field particles they have a non-wave motion. They follow a straight line (longitudinal wave) vs light which troughs and peaks (transverse wave).

EM particles tense up the field. As the particles lose energy through radiation neutrinos are created.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
No.

Neutrons have 3 charged quarks. They are collectively neutral particles but are electromagnetic.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Light is also electromagnetically neutral. But where neutrons are point particles light is a wave.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Neutrinos are different from all other fermions as they are not charged particles (or neutrally charged like photons).

For this reason they don't follow a transverse wave pattern.

Blackhole may produce faster than light neutrinos.

Neutrinos are the release of a tensed up field.

The field is infinitely tense around blackholes.

If neutrinos are found to go faster than light speed then the field has dimensions we can't see.

There could be other forms of energy that interact in the same field that we do.

Neutrinos moving past lightspeed would prove extradimension IMO.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Only Einsteins law applies to relative particles.

There could be particles in our field which don't relate to us. These particles would be of another nature than electromagnetic.

Their transverse wave could be faster than ours.

If neutrinos move faster than lightspeed then other transverse waves other than the 'relative ones' (electromagnetic) may exist.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Our universe is measured by the distance light travels in any given time.

If other waves are present that don't relate to ours that is another dimension to reality.

Different space different time. Same field.

8D space.

People miscalculate keeping time the same, 3D plus 1T plus 3D = 7D

False our universe is measured in our lightspeed 4D package. (relativity theory)

Another universe residing in our field is another 4D. (irrelativity theory)

Total 8D for 2 universes having different wave speeds.

Another universe (or multiple universes) could be residing in our universal field having its (or their) own relative space time.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Neutrinos are different from all other fermions as they are not charged particles (or neutrally charged like photons). For this reason they don't follow a transverse wave pattern.
Now you have neutral particles without charge (like the neutrinos), neutral particles of "neutral charge" (like the photons) and neutral particles of "compensated charge" (like the neutrons). From these many differences you're guessing, just and only neutrinos will not follow the transverse waves - which is essentially the "epicycle-like" model, which provides just as many predictions as many deductions used.

This is what the circular reasoning is called - you're assuming, the neutrinos do behave differently from photons (with respect to their common absence of charge), which enables them to behave differently from photons. What's worse, your way of thinking is as sparse and impulsive, like the posts of yours, which you're pilling in this thread.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
The fiber optic connection between the clock and computer was the problem. The time information was arriving late.


Actually I think I'm wrong.

Fiberoptic cable carries photons. A loose connection causes a loss of photons (not all of them but some get reflected and lost in the cable insulation/connector).

VendicarDecarian was correct I think. Loss of photons. Loss of ticks.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
you're assuming, the neutrinos do behave differently from photons


Photons are quantized packets of neutrally charged electromagnetic energy. Light. Positive charge causes peak, negative charge causes trough. Wave type motion.

Neutrinos don't have a charge but have a small (but non zero) mass.

Neutrinos aren't the same as the other particles (which continually trough, or continually peak, or some combination peak trough peak, or trough peak trough).

Neutrinos have no electromagnetic interaction.

Their motion through the field doesn't trough and peak like light or any charged particles.

Neutrinos are the release of field tension.

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Up down up. Down (trough) up (peak) down (trough).

Neutrinos are created when matter loses energy. In other words as matter gets less energetic it releases field tension.

If neutrinos are traveling faster than light then an unseen form of energy is tensing up the field. That energy has a faster transverse wave. That unseen energy is another universe. Superimposed.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
What the neutrinos are probably doing is, they undergo the quantum oscillations, during which the color and charge of neutrinos is changing. Being of weak charge, the change of charge sign is followed with change of parity due the leptonic number conservation law. When the neutrino is changing into antineutrino, it becomes a neutral, i.e. sterile neutrino (sometimes called the Majorana particle or Goldstone boson) and it's spreading like the superluminal gravitational wave during this brief period of its existence. This is just the moment, in which the neutrino gains the superluminal speed in average. Low energy neutrinos are still moving with subluminal speed though.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Everything you say seems possible. But neutrinos don't have charge. They have spin which results from the spin of the charged particle that creates them. What you mean is spin of the neutrino.

The goldstone boson is a spinless neutrino.

Neutrinos aren't charged so they don't create their own spin. When leptons are created as a result of nuclear decay the neutrino gains spin. Acquires spin.

This is why neutrinos switch flavors. They acquire spin from interaction.

Electrons on the other hand are charged and spin of their own accord.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2012
But neutrinos don't have charge, so they don't create their own spin.
Neutrinos have 1/2 spin like any other fermion and they have a (weak) lepton charge on their own. Actually, it they wouldn't have it, they couldn't oscillate (between other things). A dense aether theory models them like sparse bubbles of vacuum, surrounded with thin "skin". Even electrons do behave so, but their "skin" is thicker, so that their mass is higher (not to say about heavier particles). It means, only the most lightweight particles do have their anti-gravity pronounced, these heavier ones should be always gravitationally attractive and they do violate equivalence principle in very subtle extent only.

http://www.aether...cles.gif
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
You can imagine the anti-particles like so called the anti-bubbles, which are formed with droplets of dense fluid surrounded with thin layer of air. The smaller/lightweight such an anti-bubble is, the higher is the ratio of air and water and the relative density of such a particle decreases. A very tiny antiparticles (like the neutrinos) can be therefore of imaginary mass, whereas the density and gravity of heavier antifermions doesn't differ very much from their chiral counterparts. The lower mass of neutron results from the same mechanism, but the negative curvature of space-time becomes positive in dense environment of atom nuclei, so they're still sufficiently stable there. When the neutron decays, the small space-time bubble of negative curvature in form of antineutrino is released in similar way, like during the coalescing and "decay" of anti-bubbles at the underwater.
CardacianNeverid
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2012
Clappo vs Turnip...

Oh, for the love of god, let the stupid stop!!!
Billy_Madison
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Everyone missed my comment. What are the gravity affects applied to light vs. neutrinos? Light may be the fastest, but if it's wearing "heavier shoes" in a race vs. neutrinos, of course neutrinos are going to be somewhat faster.
CardacianNeverid
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
Everyone missed my comment. What are the gravity affects applied to light vs. neutrinos? - Billy

That's an awkwardly worded question. Gravity affects both matter and energy, which includes both light and neutrinos.

Light may be the fastest, but if it's wearing "heavier shoes" in a race vs. neutrinos, of course neutrinos are going to be somewhat faster. - Billy

That makes no sense - 'c' is the maximum limit for everything.
Billy_Madison
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
That's an awkwardly worded question. Gravity affects both matter and energy, which includes both light and neutrinos.


What I meant was are there not any special attributes of neutrinos that allow them to bypass the laws of gravity? Maybe some quantum properties that allow them to neglect for short instances the gravitational pull of their environment?

That makes no sense - 'c' is the maximum limit for everything.


'C' is the maximum limit for the speed of light, which is supposedly the fastest anything can go. In a perfect universe where we, as humans, know everything then yes it is the maximum limit for everything. We, as humans, also broadcast shows such as Jersey Shore. See where I am going with this? What I am trying to say is that perhaps 'c', speed of light, is the fastest traveling particle/object in the universe... UNDER the specific laws and restrictions applied by our belief in Newtonian physics and relativity and etc...
CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
What I meant was are there not any special attributes of neutrinos that allow them to bypass the laws of gravity? Maybe some quantum properties that allow them to neglect for short instances the gravitational pull of their environment? -Billy

Nope. No theoretical reasons to suppose this would be the case.

'C' is the maximum limit for the speed of light, which is supposedly the fastest anything can go -Billy

Yes and for good theoretical reasons which have been verified countless times.

We, as humans, also broadcast shows such as Jersey Shore. See where I am going with this? -Billy

Nope.

What I am trying to say is that perhaps 'c', speed of light, is the fastest traveling particle/object in the universe... UNDER the specific laws and restrictions applied by our belief in Newtonian physics and relativity -Billy

Relativity, yes, Newtonian physics, no. At least do some basic wiki research to educate yourself.
Billy_Madison
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
Relativity is a modified version of Newtonian physics allowing us to study particles traveling at speeds of 10% of light and faster. It's still based off of the original Newtonian physics although.


That's an awkwardly worded question. Gravity affects both matter and energy, which includes both light and neutrinos.


Didn't Newton come up with the idea of gravity? Pretty sure when you compare a new Ford 150 with an old Model T they have one thing in common... they were both Fords. In other words, newer modified physics are still part of the old physics. This means that yes, although you can't correctly calculate attributes of light with Newtonian physics, light still acts under Newtonian physics.

First law: A body remains at constant velocity until acted upon by an external force - your quote from earlier stating gravity affects light agrees with this. Pretty sure light follows the third law as well (solar panels).

At least do some basic wiki research...
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
Newtonian physics wasn't concerned with light so one should not expect newtonian physics to be fully applicable to light
E.g.
A body remains at constant velocity until acted upon by an external force

...you can't change the velocity of light. Not even by a force acting on it (like gravity). Newton's laws are only useful in the context of 'bodies' (i.e. objects that have (rest) mass). While photons can be accorded an 'equivalent mass' this is not the same as talking about a massive body in the newtonian sense.

Billy_Madison
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
Gravity causes bending in the path of traveling light. This causes it to reach point B from point A at a slower time. Although it travels at the the same velocity, it can be considered as a slower speed (meters per second). While it may travel a certain m/s it still takes longer to cover that distance per second due to gravity. So, in conclusion, gravity slows the speed of light.

You can also slow light by propagating it through materials. Would this be considered frictional (refraction, etc...) forces? That would fall into the category of First Law as well.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
No. Light always tavels the fastest possible path in spacetime (there is no faster path between points A and B that you could use to overtake a photon)

Gravity does not slow photons down. It merely changes the frequency.
sstritt
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
Gravity causes bending in the path of traveling light.

Light always follows a geodesic (think of a straight line in curved space)This is always the shortest distance between 2 points. Light does not slow down due to gravity.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
Take a 1 cubic kilometer volume of space and compress it into a 1 cubic centimeter volume.

Light will take the same amount of time to pass through the 1km^3 region of space, as it'll take to pass through the 1cm^3 region of dense space.

The amount of space present is the same in both volumes. The 1cm^3 region is just more dense.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Take a 1 cubic kilometer volume of space and compress it into a 1 cubic centimeter volume.
WTF? No. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Distances are measured by the time it takes light to traverse it. Light is our yardstick in this universe (spacetime, remember?) You describe some euclidian idea of compressing space(?) that has nothing to do with reality at all.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
How long does it take for light to pass through a blackhole? You know, an infinitely dense region of space.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
How long does it take for light to pass through a blackhole?

It can't from the inside (beyond the event horizon) a black hole is infinitely big.

If you're inside the event horizon no direction you point in leads outside. There's no way to put rulers next to one another or time a photon from one side to the other.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Exactly the blackhole is large on the inside (contains alot of space), but is extremely small from outside (occupies a small volume of space from our perspective)
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
Ah: you finally see your error. A 'cubic kilometer of space' is not 'compressed into a cubic centimeter of space'. There is no compression taking place. There is no slowing down of light taking place.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
LOL. You still don't get it.

Here's another example:

Water is more dense than air.

Light takes a longer time to pass through a km of water (which is more dense) than it does to pass through a km of air (which is less dense).

The speed of light doesn't change. The density of the medium does..
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 24, 2012
Light takes a longer time to pass through a km of water (which is more dense) than it does to pass through a km of air (which is less dense).

So? Water and air are different media with different speeds of light. What has that to do with your inane comment on compressing space?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Vacuum is empty. Space is filled with energy. When you compress space you increase energy density.
juanko
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
my roomate's aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...NuttyRich dot com
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2012
Nice thread discourse.

My first comment to the breaking news ... FLT neutrinos... was to find fault with GPS satellite measurement systems.

I accused the redundancy of satellites fallback systems to be the culprit. My apologies to the builders of the satellites.

Kudos to the fiber wire guys. None of us will be this lucky when the second round of FLT neutrinos news breaks.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
The rate of flow for time is altered by the intensity of a gravitational field.

For C to remain constant, either the distance traveled or the time of travel must change depending on the gravitational field intensity.

Neutrinos have little or no interaction with gravity (they rarely react with other mass) and so its no surprise that they can outrun photons in a gravitational field.

Do the same tests in a low/zero gravity environment.

Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
Gravity does not slow photons down. It merely changes the frequency.
The gravitational lensing wouldn't occur, after then. If the light would pass the gravity lens, its wavelength should be decreased by GR, but such effect doesn't occur.
Blakut
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
The rate of flow for time is altered by the intensity of a gravitational field.

For C to remain constant, either the distance traveled or the time of travel must change depending on the gravitational field intensity.

Neutrinos have little or no interaction with gravity (they rarely react with other mass) and so its no surprise that they can outrun photons in a gravitational field.

Do the same tests in a low/zero gravity environment.



Neutrinos interact mostly through gravity and the weak force.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2012
Neutrinos interact mostly through gravity and the weak force.
We aren't even sure about the former. Or do you have some EXPERIMENTAL evidence of gravitational interaction of neutrinos?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
So, in conclusion, gravity slows the speed of light.


Yes, in order that the maximum speed c is not exceeded (and for most examples maintained).

Gravity alters the time component of 'spacetime'
The rate of flow for time is slower in a gravitational field. Therefore light 'slows down' to maintain the maximum speed (c).

Light bends around massive objects like stars and galaxies because time slows down in their vicinity. This is gravitational lensing.

Neutrinos have an extremely week interaction with Mass and as such the time dilation effects that gravitational fields impart on 'spacetime', allow Neutrinos to easily outrun a photon - in a gravitational field.

So what seems to be breaking the speed limit is in fact a demonstration that the rate of flow for time is not constant.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Photon says to Neutrino "hey dude, how did you get here faster than me, I was going at max speed?

Neutrino looks puzzled and replies "I was going at max speed too just like you"

They both check their clocks and stare at each other in amazement as they discover the difference is in time and not speed.

Photon looks at Neutrino and laughs, "I forgot, you don't feel gravitational effects". Neutrino replies sadly "No, I don't really feel much at all.
CardacianNeverid
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
Neutrinos have little or no interaction with gravity (they rarely react with other mass) and so its no surprise that they can outrun photons in a gravitational field -blueTard

Don't have a clue, do you? It sure came as a surprise to the scientific community, which is why they rechecked everything and found the flaw in their experiment. The take-home is still that nothing can outrun photons.

So, in conclusion, gravity slows the speed of light.

Yes, in order that the maximum speed c is not exceeded -blueMoron

Gravity does NOT slow the speed of light, as has been pointed out already.

Gravity alters the time component of 'spacetime'
The rate of flow for time is slower in a gravitational field. Therefore light 'slows down' to maintain the maximum speed (c) -blueDumbass

Again, NO IT DOES NOT. c is always c in all reference frames.
CardacianNeverid
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Light bends around massive objects like stars and galaxies because time slows down in their vicinity -blueTard

If you don't know physics, don't go around 'correcting' others. Light travels in straight lines which appear 'bent' around massive objects because massive objects warp spacetime around them. The path traced is called a geodesic.

Neutrinos have an extremely week interaction with Mass and as such the time dilation effects that gravitational fields impart on 'spacetime', allow Neutrinos to easily outrun a photon -blueTard

You really are a moron!

So what seems to be breaking the speed limit is in fact a demonstration that the rate of flow for time is not constant -blueCrank

/facepalm
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
..Light bends around massive objects like stars and galaxies because time slows down in their vicinity -blueTard .. Light travels in straight lines which appear 'bent' around massive objects because massive objects warp spacetime around them...
These paths don't 'appear bent', they're really bent. For example astronomers are using gravitational lens like real lens for magnification of images of distant galaxies. BTW The power of relativistic propaganda and religion is really impressive - even the intelligent people are willing to lie openly about quite apparent facts at public. And bTard is even right about slowing of time at the vicinity of massive objects - it's gravitational dilatation of time and it actually follows directly from general relativity, which you're trying to defend here.
You really are a moron!
And you've been reported..
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
These paths don't 'appear bent', they're really bent. For example astronomers are using gravitational lens like real lens for magnification of images of distant galaxies -Clappo

You clearly didn't understand what I said. Try again.

BTW The power of relativistic propaganda and religion is really impressive - even the intelligent people are willing to lie openly about quite apparent facts at public -Clappo

WTF? Holy non-sequitur Batman.

And bTard is even right about slowing of time at the vicinity of massive objects - it's gravitational dilatation of time and it actually follows directly from general relativity, which you're trying to defend here -Clappo

No shit. BlueTard's problem is that he knows some buzz words and concepts but not fully and misapplies them to reach the wrong conclusions.

And you've been reported -Clappo

Such irony coming from the crank sockpuppet extraordinaire!

SteveL
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
antialias_physorg:
He probably meant it as a helpful reminder that they should shut their collective traps before they understand what they are dealing with.
Being the righteous people that they are (and by nature impervious to logic) I suspect nothing short of a bullet to the brain will do so (and I'm not even sure that that would be enough)

I'm going to consider this post to simply be a harsh variance from your usually well-reasoned comments. If bullets to the brain were the answer to ignorance we would be extinct as a species. Learning is a process and for logic to prevail it has to be more forgiving of ignorance than history has shown religion to be. The reason logic has to be more forgiving is because every day we can learn new things we didn't know the day before. Religion is stuck to ancient methods and unchanging concepts based on faith, whereas science is tied to new and ever-changing concepts based on evidence. You can't solve ignorance with a bullet to the brain.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
The reason logic has to be more forgiving is because every day we can learn new things we didn't know the day before -SteveL

That's assuming people are open to logic and rationalism. This site clearly demonstrates that there are all too many individuals here that are impervious to logic and reason, and we all know all too well who they are (just read this thread as an example).
SteveL
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
Not all of us follow the same path or learn at the same pace. Having once been a very religious person I can assure you that change happens. What a still religious person may consider a fall from grace I found to be a process of freeing myself from an unnatural and boundary-filled perception of "reality". Still, I find good from some of what I learned from religion, of which compassion for others and "The Golden Rule" are examples. Any who have evolved as I have will find in their past a series of triggers leading to a disseminal moment that triggers the final seperation. The straw that breaks the camel's back, to use an analogy. For me it was when I actually listened to the lesson and thought of the consequences of the words in context to previous lessons, and found unsurpassable conflicts that required a suspension of reason and that could not be explained away. When you are raised a certain way, it isn't always easy to step away from that path, but change happens.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
I am known to get cranky with fools but in this case CN, i could not be bothered. OK, one last try - its the rate of flow for time that changes. Not max speed. um .. speed equals distance within time. So to get the same speed (max) over the same distance when the time is longer .. ya gotta go sort of slower BUT you still go at c cause time has changed.. simple really ok? ... and be careful if you oscillate cause you got more time to change states. Unless you are gonna radiate then you gotta change your wavelength, both into and out of a gravitational gradient. Too many buzz words again or did you simply not understand?

In any case Neutrinos could not care less. Pedal to the metal and flat out regardless of mass or its associated pal gravity.

antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2012
If bullets to the brain were the answer to ignorance we would be extinct as a species.

I don't advocate violence (and the comment wasn't meant to imply that - only as a strongly worded comment on the immutabilty of faith by argument from others)

But there are plenty of people currently trying that approach. Not least of which that 'most christian nation of all'.

Having once been a very religious person I

So was I (till about the age of six). as you say: the realization that stuff doesn't match up in religious doctrine has to come from oneself. The sad thing is that we even have to go through this crap in the first place.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
@ Vendi, the idea of a badly connected fibre optic connector introducing a delay is total tosh and you know it. Worst case would be a change in signal to noise ratio and that would be either an obvious hardware failure with an alert or corrected within software. Eat some meat, its good for you!
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
An Emu Baguette with bush herbs is an exotic treat.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
BlueTard's problem is that he knows some buzz words and concepts but not fully and misapplies them to reach the wrong conclusions.
His conclusions are right in this point: the light really spreads more slowly inside of gravitational lens, because the time is running more slowly there - and everyone who opposes it hasn't understood the relativity yet.

http://en.wikiped...dilation
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Highlighting the difference between science and religion yet again.

Science self-corrects yet another claim and knocks it down.

After 2,000 years, Religion has yet to make a single correction of any of it's science busting claims in it's only printed manual on the market.
rwinners
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
Aw, come on. The results haven't been proven. It's all up in the wind. Why this?
Billy_Madison
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Why does every thread on this website always end up talking about religion? For some people who don't believe in religion... you sure do seem to be infatuated with talking about it.

"An illogical man believes God created everything, an ignorant man believes science is the reasoning behind how everything came into being. The wise man agrees with both." -me

Btw, it's only a matter of time before we figure out the speed of light isn't the fastest you can travel.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
its the rate of flow for time that changes. Not max speed. um.. speed equals distance within time. So to get the same speed (max) over the same distance when the time is longer.. ya gotta go sort of slower BUT you still go at c cause time has changed.. simple really ok? -blueGanja

Not the way you 'explain' it

Unless you are gonna radiate then you gotta change your wavelength, both into and out of a gravitational gradient. Too many buzz words again or did you simply not understand? -blueGanja

Yes, buzz words strung together in a fuzzy narrative with a kernel of truth. I understand, but by knowing the subject matter and reading between the lines - a layman would not understand. But what does any of that have to do with what you say next?

In any case Neutrinos could not care less. Pedal to the metal and flat out regardless of mass or its associated pal gravity -blueTard

You're talking shit again as you're still implying that neutrinos can 'easily outrun photons'.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
His conclusions are right in this point: the light really spreads more slowly inside of gravitational lens, because the time is running more slowly there - and everyone who opposes it hasn't understood the relativity yet.

http://en.wikiped...dilation -ClippedIQ

Thanks for the link. Have you even read your own link? Especially the part where it says:

It is not possible to make the speed of light appear FASTER by approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear SLOWER by receding from the source at speed -wiki


ClippedIQ thinks that time slowing down in a gravity well is the same as light slowing down. I suggest you thoroughly read that wiki page and make sure you understand it before commenting about relativity again.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
Why does every thread on this website always end up talking about religion? -BillyBoy

Because religious trolls are tolerated by the admins. I know plenty of science sites where this is a non-issue because the admins ban these idiots from polluting their sites.

For some people who don't believe in religion... you sure do seem to be infatuated with talking about it -BillyBoy

Since the admins can't be relied to do their job, someone has to make fun of them by exposing their silly delusions.

"An illogical man believes God created everything, an ignorant man believes science is the reasoning behind how everything came into being. The wise man agrees with both." -me -BillyTard

That's plain stupid.

Btw, it's only a matter of time before we figure out the speed of light isn't the fastest you can travel -BillyBoy

On what basis do you say that? Relativity is against you.
Koen
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
The neutrino-faster-than c saga ("now that we know the cause of the FTL neutrino") is very nice pro-"constant c-based relativity theory" propaganda. Plenty of data of past experiments that simply disagrees with these outdated relativity theories, has disappeared as a consequence of "political correctness", such as Dayton Miller's lightspeed measurements, planet Venus radar reflection data, Arp's data of FTL cosmic objects (Arp was excommunicated from the "scientific" community), etc... The neutrino FTL effect was so small, that it was likely due to technical errors, so plagarist Einstein "triumphs" again, lol. What a joke this all is.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
The observations of Dayton Miller correspond the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR. Observing radar reflections from Mercury and Venus just before and after it will be eclipsed by the Sun gives agreement with general relativity theory at the 5% level. More recently, the Cassini probe has undertaken a similar experiment which gave agreement with general relativity at the 0.002% level. Halton Arp is a supporter of LeSage theory, which gives the same predictions, like the Newton's theory. I didn't understand, how Harp's observations of quasars imply the existence of FTL objects. Such objects wouldn't be observable at all.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
I'm supporter of neutrino FTL effect, but the OPERA experiment is so complex and dependent on many instruments, that it cannot compete the direct measurement of neutrino speed and cannot serve as a conclusive evidence of FTL neutrino. We could place the accelerator, nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb at the sufficient distance from Earth and measure the neutrino flux from it and compare their speed with light signal.
Billy_Madison
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
@cardacianneverlaid I just don't understand how you can call religious people delusional and idiots. That makes you look extremely ignorant. I.E. You criticize someone for believing in a deity, but at the same time you believe the computer your typing on is real. You could actually be in a padded room imagining this entire thread your posting on, and I could be one of your made up characters.

Relativity is based on space/time. I have a feeling before long we will discover particles and other things that aren't affected by space and time.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
I.E. You criticize someone for believing in a deity, but at the same time you believe the computer your typing on is real.

At least he has a computer which he can, if need be, show to you. Which he can leave with you and you can, without him doing anything, verify that it's real.

Now that doesn't work for gods. There's nothing to show. No independent verifiability.

How can you claim something is real when it's basically only dependent on say-so?

People chugging LSD wil tell you that the walls are breathing. Is there therefore a possibility that the wals ARE breathing? No. These people are delusional(and idiots).

Where, when you get right down to it, is the difference to religious people?

(The 'padded room' argument doesn't work, because it goes the other way, too. How do religious people know they're not in a padded room? Such arguments deliver zero information and hence are intrinsically worthless.)
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
@cardacianneverlaid I just don't understand how you can call religious people delusional and idiots. That makes you look extremely ignorant -BillyTard

Only to idiots.

I.E. You criticize someone for believing in a deity, but at the same time you believe the computer your typing on is real -BillyTard

I don't have to believe in my computer. If it wasn't real, you wouldn't be responding to my words of wisdom.

You could actually be in a padded room imagining this entire thread your posting on, and I could be one of your made up characters -BillyTard

I don't make up stupid characters.

Relativity is based on space/time- -BillyTard

It's based on theory and observation which lead to the notion of spacetime.

I have a feeling before long we will discover particles and other things that aren't affected by space and time -BillyTard

Again with your 'feelings'. Who gives a crap? What is your basis for this statement (for the second time)?
tkjtkj
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
Drunsk8 :

Beware of applying that 'Occam' (often: Ockham ..the name of his town) to any theory! Confirmation of the idea espoused by Lord Ockham is in the fact that he was not the person who presented the idea first! That honor lies in the personage of a Bishop .. yes, a religious theologin .
See: http://www.britan...Pourcain
That fellow had his own bias, did he not?? He might have said: Far, far simpler to say 'god did it' than to offer complicated explanations!' Further there is no satistical significance other than 'historics' giving credance to justify including Durandus oR Ockham statements in any scientific discussion. Further, it is merely a 'supposition', a 'proposal' too complicated to be condemned by the complex human mind: so it must be "god's law"!
Ie: Choose the simpleton's explanation before any others' !
Billy_Madison
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
I don't have to believe in my computer. If it wasn't real, you wouldn't be responding to my words of wisdom. -Kardasian


I'm a figment of your imagination.

People chugging LSD wil tell you that the walls are breathing. Is there therefore a possibility that the wals ARE breathing? No. These people are delusional(and idiots). -antisomething


Your comparing someone under the influence of hallucinogenics with individuals in sober state. Although in your mind this may seem like a completely relative analogy, it's not related at all.

In regards to my faster than light 'feelings':
http://math.ucr.e...FTL.html

Also, using words like "idiot" kind of remove the credibility of your statement. Be more professional, guys.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
Your comparing someone under the influence of hallucinogenics with individuals in sober state.

Listening to voices in your head is sober? Not in my book.

Be more professional, guys.

OK. My professional opinion is: You're a professional idiot.

There. Satisfied?

And I'll give you even a rationale why you're an idiot: You claim to know something you can't show - but ask others to pove that that which you can't show isn't real.

Now, if that is not idiocy at it's finest I don't know what is.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
ClippedIQ thinks that time slowing down...is the same as light slowing down.


Your lack of understanding of physical processes is showing through. Time and lightspeed are fully related. Distance/lightspeed equals time.

Einstein set light as the reference frame for his theory. What his theory means is that space is more dense around massive objects. So, even though it doesn't appear that way, distance becomes a larger number: distance/lightspeed equals time. More time passes close to a massive body than away from it because a massive body has more space around it.

By inversing Einsteins relativity space is set as invariant and lightspeed varies. It is just a question of reference frame.

If space is set as invariant it is perfectly acceptable to state: Light slows down around massive objects. Time literally runs different. Light is our measure of time, and distance. Relatively speaking either space or time can be set as invariant. Einstein set light as constant.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
Mistake: Relatively speaking either space or [time] can be set as invariant'.

Relatively speaking either space or [light] can be set as invariant. - fixed
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
Everyone can see, the vacuum is behaving like blob of dense jelly surrounding the massive objects and refracting the light. Such a dense vacuum slows down the spreading of every energy, not just light. But the more energetic bosons are slowed less, which leads into evaporation of matter in heavy gravity field of massive stars ("black holes") into accretion radiation.

But general relativity describes the dense vacuum from strictly intrinsic perspective, i.e. from perspective of observer, which is sitting inside of such dense vacuum, so that his measure of time and space dilate accordingly, so he cannot detect any change in speed of light. Of course, such perspective is strictly local and cannot be extended outside of gravity lens. The only reason, why mainstream physics doesn't alternate both perspectives freely is, the extrinsic perspective implies the dense aether model immediately.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
Distance/light equals time.

Starting values: 100/10 equals 10

Larger distance: 1000/10 equals 100

Slower lightspeed: 100/1 equals 100

It is just a question of interpretation.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
What this means is that time is seen as going slower in a higher gravity field because space density increases. Light propagates at the same speed but it has more space to get through per any given distance. The more dense the space the longer light takes to get through it, giving appearance of slower light propagation and therefore the slowing of time.

More time passes close to a massive body than away from it because a massive body has more space around it.
- this doesn't make sense without math. A high mass body of 1 cubic km volume retains light for longer than a low mass body of the same volume. Since light and time relate, a high mass body retains more time, not allowing it to pass as freely as a low mass body does. So high mass objects have more time than low mass objects.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2012
In regards to my faster than light 'feelings':
http://math.ucr.e...FTL.html -BillyTard

Was there anything specific there that would validate your 'feelings'? While that is a good resource, it hasn't been updated in 14 years, which means it can't list any recent developments that would make you think that FTL is just around the corner. And as for what's there re FTL...well nothing much at all.

Also, using words like "idiot" kind of remove the credibility of your statement -BillyTard

Depends on the context. I only used it advisedly.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2012
Your lack of understanding of physical processes is showing through -TurnipTard

Oh goody, I assume you'll show me how?

Time and lightspeed are fully related. Distance/lightspeed equals time -TurnipTard

Why do you bring up junior school physics? Strawman argument.

Einstein set light as the reference frame for his theory -TurnipTard

Wrong. Light is not a reference frame.

What his theory means is that space is more dense around massive objects -TurnipTard

Fail again tardboy. The rest of your rant is clearly based on incorrect assumptions so there is no point in further picking it apart. Back into your short shorts!

Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2012
In AWT based on dense aether model the neutrinos arent real tachyons, theyre just a solitons of longitudinal waves of vacuum (i.e. gravitational waves) and as such only slightly superluminal (you can imagine them as a Falaco solitons at the water surface, which are always moving slightly faster, than surface ripples) and they do represent the lightweight photinos of SUSY. Photons are supersymmetric bosons, theyre always spreading in lower speed than the light waves and they correspond the Russels solitons at the water surface. From this reason I do believe, the OPERA result is substantiated well and it will confirmed later in independent observations.