Doco on Faster Than Speed of Light

[avandonk]

This documentary gives a bit of the background and implications for the faster than light neutrino experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY3CVZd5b1g

Bert

[bartman]

Thanks Bert1
I enjoyed that and got some useful information out of it to boot!
Apart from the good stuff I thought this was funny ( in this context of course):
A barman says " sorry but we dont serve neutrinos here" , then a neutrino walks in.......
Cheers
Bartman

[avandonk]

I used to frequent a bar many years ago and the barman would draw my beer when he saw my car go past. All the other patrons thought he was psychic. He was just very observant!

Bert

[renormalised]

Here's a thing....what if the whole notion of causality that physicists have been mulling over for years is a load of poppycock. Meaning, their equations which say if you do travel faster than light, then you're able to arrive before you leave, are wrong. No if's or buts. The whole idea of effect preceding cause in this fashion has never, and I mean never, been verified via any experiment. It is all theory and speculation which has come from them accepting their calculations as gospel. So despite their complete and utter confidence in what they believe is the case, they have no empirical evidence to back themselves up!!!!. It doesn't matter what is said in debate for the veracity of their science, if you go by the strict covenants of the scientific method, until you have done the experiments to test the idea and have either verified or rejected it, then it has no currency or weight to which it can pin itself. As Craig would've so elegantly put it...."it's not real"....whatever real actually is.

All the theorists on the planet can be sceptical of the results from OPERA and there should be a healthy scepticism in any case. It needs testing. However, there will be some who outright reject the results just because it doesn't fit into their accepted notions of what is "correct" and "real". However, in testing it, having one or two negative results, or even ten doesn't mean that what they saw at OPERA didn't occur. This needs testing till their ideas and brains fall out onto the floor of the labs. But that will all depend on funding and time, both of which may never eventuate. So it remains a mystery. But, I feel they're onto something here and it should be looked at, no matter how long it takes. Who knows what else may turn up in the search. That's science.

[avandonk]

So the billions of neutrinos passing through my body know what I am about to do? Around here we call that a wife!

Bert

[renormalised]

Wives do travel faster than light.....or at least think along those lines. How often do you see a girlfriend/wife figure out what their partner is going to do well before he's even figured it out for himself....all the time!!!:):P

Then they make their move before you're even ready to contemplate doing what you were going to do :):P

[Robh]

Thanks Bert.

Interesting, well presented and informative.
Hints of multi-dimensions.
Nice analogy with the loaf of bread (the bulk) and the slices being the branes.

Regards, Rob

[renormalised]

Should've called it the "loaf"....sounds much better and more in tune with their bread analogy:):)

[Bassnut]

Geez, I really don't know, but I sort of understood neutrinos were a bundle of energy that had a leading and trailing edge, kind of bell curve. If the measurement at entry of a medium was at the peak of the curve, it was possible for the leading edge of the curve to have already have exited the medium at the time of measuring the entry peak. If the exit measurement was of the leading edge due to distortion of the curve, then it appeared as though the exit was before the entry. Is that all wrong and simplistic ?.

[Robh]

If the neutrinos are getting there 60 nanoseconds faster then this is equivalent to a distance roughly of 300000 x 0.00000006 = 0.018km = 1.8m, which is way bigger than any neutrino might be.

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

Bassnut that curve was a profile of the proton bunch or group in the LHC. You must take this into account when measuring time of flight.

Bert

[Karls48]

What if there is an other kind of time that runs in Universe. Such a time would not be affected by motion, acceleration gravity in other words it would be non relativistic time. Maximum possible speed would be then instantness(from the point of view relativistic time). Causality or sequentiality would be still preserved, but there would not be any relativistic time interval between the action and reaction. Couple possible pointers to existence of non relativistic time are Big Bang ( effect without cause and even without possible cause as time did not existed until BB) and quantum entanglement.
Can you imagine quantum entanglement telescope that would let you see where the stars and galaxies accentually are right now,:P

[bartman]

And have an open mind I believe................ ( also said in the doco).

I had a bit of a think about it ( as to why the neutrinos possibly arrived earlier) and thought that maybe it could be yet another particle that we dont know about ( i guess now we do), that is somewhat like a header particle. A particle that arrives an instant before all other particles and either tells the arriving particles where to assemble or is the particle that is like the cornerstone for the rest of the other particles to form upon.
meh.....just my imagination ....mmmmm going to have a look at Carls post on 'New Terms' to see if I fit in one of them :thumbsup:
Cheers
Bartman

[avandonk]

We men are very predictable as we are made of only three particles a brain cell, a willy and a stomach. We only have enough energy/volume in our blood to supply two of these at once.

Bert

[avandonk]

I wonder if quantum entanglement is somehow a linkage outside the 'brane'.

The two particles in question are just manefestations of the one particle penetrating the brane from the 'bulk'?

Bert

[renormalised]

That could be a likely scenario, for sure. It would help to explain the timing anomaly. It could all depend on how quickly any given particle was able to manifest itself in both places.

[tonybarry]

Still need a good explanation for the neutrino surge observed with SN1987a. It's a difficult one to explain. From the Astrophysics Spectator:-

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/supernovae/CoreCollapseNeutrinos1987a.html

There were four detectors which recorded the SN1987a neutrino impulse - measuring 12, 8, and 5 neutrino detections respectively. The fourth detector (LVD, under Mont Blanc) saw 5 neutrino events, five hours before the other detectors ...

So I await the results of the LHC with considerable interest.

Regards,
TB

[avandonk]

No the particle is at both positions in our Universe or Brane and there is no time delay. Is spin a property that is outside our dimensions and time?

Perhaps neutrinos are somewhere in between where the majority are flung out of our Brane when their production is fairly local to their ultimate detection a few tens of km's away.

Let us assume that the only neutrinos that are detected only have a small 'angle' compared to our brane that means they are only outside the brane for a very short time if at all. All the rest are forever undetectable as they do not re-enter our brane.

The fact that the neutrinos from SN1987a got here at the same time as the light means all the others are not detectable at this distance as they have left our brane forever.

This is at least consistent in a hand waving sort of way

Bert

[renormalised]

No, what I meant is that the neutrino did it's thing slightly faster, still, than the photons. I do know how quantum entanglement works:):P

Your idea of leaving the brane only temporarily and not very far, would accord with that. The photons may drift off the brane further than the neutrinos, for some reason.

[bartman]

....off the brane and into another one?. If so than "we" should see similar occurrences in our brane...from photons from other branes appearing in ours....right???
:question:
Just thinking out aloud
Bartman

[renormalised]

Particles whose strings form closed loops are the only ones which can drift across branes....like gravity. Photons can't because they have open ended strings, same as the neutrinos. One end is attached to the brane. What's happened is that the open end of the string for the neutrino and photon have detached and are "waving" about in higher space. However, maybe the neutrino doesn't wave about so far from the brane or only waves about for a shorter time than the photon.

[bartman]

Thanks Carl.

"One end is attached to the brane. What's happened is that the open end of the string for the neutrino and photon have detached and are "waving" about in higher space. However, maybe the neutrino doesn't wave about so far from the brane or only waves about for a shorter time than the photon. "

Could it be that the 'open ended' string of the neutrino/photon in 'higher space' waving about, have( heheheh "had"/"have been") been disturbed by something - in higher space- to cause them to accelerate/decelerate, interact with our brane and therefore produce the time differences?
Or is that what has been said B4?

[renormalised]

Who knows, Bart. We haven't really done enough with String Theory to say what actually happens. In any case, we have no experimental confirmation of anything that String Theory postulates, so until we do it's merely educated speculation. Even the stuff that I mentioned is only what they think is occurring. In any case if it's also involving quantum entanglement (as Bert mentioned), then they will have to define how QE is accounted for in String Theory. Right now, I'm not up on the nitty gritty of the theory so I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely what's the go, but it wouldn't take too long to find out :).

[bartman]

Thanks Carl,
I have no knowledge of QE and QM etc apart from trying to watch Leonard Susskind's lectures on the Stanford youtube channel.
I think I have come to a limit of understanding of what he is saying in the QM tutorials. QE is the next bit that I will watch ( and try and comprehend.....).

I like to express my thoughts sometimes when I think I have have a glimpse of understanding what you( et al ) discuss in these forums......

"I'm not up on the nitty gritty of the theory so I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely what's the go, but it wouldn't take too long to find out http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/../vbiis/images/smilies/happy19.gif."

Too True!!!! :)
Thats why I ask and put forward questions......in the hope it might stir some minds that have more knowledge on these facts :)
Thanks Carl ( and Bert)
Bartman

[Omaroo]

Thank you for the link Bert. Fascinating :)

Branes and bulks - to come up with these, one had to be human. :thumbsup:

[avandonk]

We are a very crazy inventive lot are we not. You are stopping some fine calculators from going to silicon heaven

here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4wqAJTu19o


Bert

[Peter Ward]

Interesting Doco... though I groaned when he made the analogy between a solar system and its planets vs atoms and electrons.

I like the notion that particles might be created while travelling at faster than light speeds i.e that some neutrinos may be tachyonic in nature

[avandonk]

At least he did not mention the raisin bun version of atomic structure!

Yes one day even young children will say it seems so quaint that our ancestors could not comprehend particles or matter existing outside our Universe that could momentarily visit and befuddle the best scientists of the day.

Just Google Casimir Effect. It is a real measure of the existence of 'virtual particles'. Also see Hawking Radiation from black holes.

The origin of the big bang is in here somewhere. That is everything from nothing! Unlike our big banks the cosmological ledger is quite happy as long as the books balance as far as energy is concerned. We are tending back to zero energy according to current best evidence.


Bert

[Shark Bait]

At 30:00 minutes:

"A Barman says, sorry we don't serve Neutrinos."

A Neutrino walks into a bar. :lol: :lol: :rofl:

The fact that I find this funny must mean that I am a bit of a nerd.....COOL! :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

What is a string anyways?

From what I have read my interpretation is a string is a way we can describe the movement of a particle.

How can we describe such movement? well we can visualise the area a particle moves around / within etc like a string it seems..This interpretation suggests there is no string but we can think of the movement of a particle as string like because it scibes out a string like pattern if we can take a looong look at what it does over time....is there an actual string? or is the string the path of travel of a single particle?

To me its seems that a "string" seems to be the region of space the particle scribes out or the region it is limited to travel in space..so although we seek to presumably describe a particle ..a single point or miniscule descrete particle.. it then becomes a string it would seem.

Is a string the path a particle scibes out or do I miss something and are these little strings are the fabric of space (and time presumably)...are we not just taling about particles???

Is this correct? Can anyone help with a simple explanation of presumably a most complex matter?

Is a string not a string at all but a humans attempt to describe the movement of a single descrete particle?

My point is when we talk about a string are we only talking about one particles movement and the region its travel scribes out?

Is a vibrating string no more than our description of the path of a single particle?

alex:):):)

[bartman]

Hehehhe you sound like Leonard Susskind.......He likes putting a 's' after some of his words......


I guess we/they need to have some description of how things work. Just like trying to describe what is beyond the edge of our expanding universe.
I think I have asked b4....."what makes the string vibrate? ", " what energy does it use to do so?"
I do like those ponderings though Alex:D
Bartman

[Rodstar]

Bert,

I read this very thoughtful post of yours to SWMBO. She wishes to dispute your assertion. It is her eminent opinion that our blood volume is only sufficient to service one of the aforementioned three male particles. As I am about to eat something, I am presently unable to think through the implications of this.

[avandonk]

I am afraid I was just boasting! It is only one!

Bert

[avandonk]

Alex here is a couple of videos that may bring some insight into all this multi dimensional and multi universe conjecture.

It also brings some insight into what infinity is and infinities inside infinities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts&feature=player_embedded#!


http://www.youtube.com/user/10thdim?feature=relchannel


Watch them in order. Remember it is only slickly produced conjecture.

I forgot to say that reality is far more complicated!

Bert

[avandonk]

If you have about twenty hours to spare here is a set of lectures on an introduction to String Theory and M-Theory from Stanford University by Leonard Susskind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25haxRuZQUk&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SPA2FDCCBC7956448F

It is hard going but it gives you an idea how Physicists interpret experimental data to attempt to produce some sort of self consistent theory.
Bert

[xelasnave]

Hi Bartman.
My years in law and constant regard to proper gramma and spellen:D makes me suspicious of those who are not prepared to forget the rules of all such things... or now that I am so very very old I dont give a fig;)

I have taken in most all of Suskins lectures at Stanford U via utube:D..what a great thing to be able to find out what someone who says he knows what he is talking about explain physics.
I am so happy to get to see him and others.

Thanks Bert.
It is wonderful all the information that is out there.
I do think reality is one of the most difficult things one can seek to describe.
We each have a personal reality so even if we think we gain some grasp we must remember that such has had to pass thru our personal filter of what has been presented to us.
Thanks again.
alex:):):)
:)

[bartman]

Alex, I hope you didn't take it the wrong way:P.
I too have waded through a fair few of those lectures and think they are great. Love the way he goes about explaining it all. If I dont understand something I'll just keep on listening cause in the end.....it sort of comes together. Bits and pieces that I pick up in one lecture helps me understand stuff in some of his other lectures!
:thumbsup:
Bartman

[xelasnave]

Bartman I never take things the wrong way, or rather I never take offence even if such was intended. Things just "are" it is up to ourselves to qualify them as good or bad, a simple choice as such creates our reality. Mine is..its all good;)

Yes what else can one do but keep on reading and trying to learn more.
I notice so many folk get stuck in a world where they now know everything and so enquire no more about anything.

AND really the more you learn the more the realization presents that we know so very little relative to what must still be unknown.

regards

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I had covered these.
However although I think I grasp the approach I do think it may not reflect reality ..whatever that may be...Personally I think someone took a wrong turn a long time ago and all have followed and not withstanding the repair needed to the road all declare the road is good and is leading them somewhere. Still on my call I say it must do some good if only to keep many occupied in speculation and hopefully reasearch.
I think all this must present a situation that there is such an animal as "scientific belief" even though science says such can not be true when opperating from a scientific base...speculation does not seem absent from anything I have read.

alex:):):)

[avandonk]

Alex there is no such thing as 'scientific belief' along the same lines of religious dogma. If anything it is pedantry generally voiced by the scientifically illiterate. Reality is almost always counterintuitive.

Most practicing scientists are well aware of the problems due to our lack of perfect knowledge. We can only deal with the mathematical models that seem to work in the real world that we currently have.

If you have some evidence to show the current paradigm is 'wrong' then by all means publish the evidence. That is how science works.

Without speculation or 'gedunken' experiments we stay at our current level of ignorance.

Even Einstein disliked or preferred that Quantum Physics was a temporary aberration. He was completely wrong.

The harmonic oscillator has been used in Physics for a long time. It mathematically mimics reality where the springs are the forces between tiny particles of arbitrary mass. You may as well say that our written words convey no REAL meaning as they are not based in any REALity. They are just chicken scratchings in the sand.

The alternative is to go back to simple stimulus and reaction lives just like bacteria. Hungry then eat. Scared then kill or run. Horny then procreate. Or you could be scared of your young so just kill and eat them. Tabloid 'journalism' thrives on this drivel. This just will not lead to a symphony or lyric or image.

Do not make the mistake that one delusional individual or many is proof that all or part of science is wrong.

We live in a world where uneducated morons think that creationism should have equal time with evolution in science classes. Global warming is a religion rather than evidence based fact. These same twits are now saying that atheism is a religion. Next all of science will be a religion.

These uneducated morons are using something called projection where they think that all other people are just as deluded as themselves. Where without any evidence or any real thought they believe the most preposterous of stories that amounts to no more than fairy tales.

Without a good understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity our modern world would not exist. This is just the pinnacle of our understanding from fifty years ago turned into a practical use. Yet 99.99% of humanity does NOT know how it all works. They sit in their airliner fiddling with their laptop or smartphone and take it all for granted. These are the same twits who then get all emotional when something goes wrong!

A good current case is the dam engineers who caused the Queensland floods! I reckon it was the excess water that fell as rain.

I have been a part of the structural biological revolution. You would not believe what we are capable of even now let alone into the near the future.

Bert

[bartman]

Alles goed dan:thumbsup::lol:
Bartje

[bartman]

I'm not sure if 'someone' took a wrong turn, but maybe 'an approach' that "best fit" the knowledge at that time. "lets go this direction and see where it leads us...." ......and there were enough like minded people( with scientific back up) to follow and corroborate. Thats not to say that that direction needed pot hole fixing.
I have wondered sometime ( after watching some of the docos....thaars thee anchor to this thread...:) ) that some of the theory ( not that i comprehend it all like you two;)) can and could be debunked over the next few years as they have said, due to experiments not producing the results they/we are expecting.
I lie in bed pondering sometimes after watching SH,LS, BC, BG, LK or NdT et al video lectures/talks and wonder if soooon there will be another ground breaking theory that will stun the scientific world, if they dont come up with the results they expected.
One of these people ( or me ....:eyepop::thumbsup: yeah right:rofl:) will come up with a new theory of how we will get to the number 42......
I, for one, believe ( no, not have a belief) someone will....if not me....
mwahahah mwahahaha mwahahaaaaaa:einstein::scared:
Cheers
Bartman

[Dave2042]

I'll add my 2 cents to this.

If I'm understanding the point correctly (apologies if not), it is that what we currently think we understand in science could turn out to depend on an old and fundamental error, and at any point someone could come up with a theory or experiment that requires large sections of science to be re-written. I've encountered this view quite a few times, often attached to a dislike of the inherent randomness / unreality of quantum mechanics.

In principle, I don't disagree at all. Keeping an open mind is important, and scientists do actually revisit 'established' truths from time to time. A classic example is the occasional repetition of the Eotvos experiment, showing that inertial and gravitational mass are empirically equal (somthing largely undisputed). Of course some people then turn around and accuse these scientists of 'wasting their time' 'proving the obvious' (can't win, can you).

BUT

Too open a mind ignores a couple of points that I think are often not realised by non-scientists (being often poorly communicated by scientists). (Not all scientists have this top-of-mind, either.)

Firstly, science is an integrated body of knowledge. That is, almost all the bits of science are connected to almost all the other bits, and then through to engineering. For example, physics and chemistry are fundamentally connected through quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics. That means that each understood thing in chemistry supports corresponding understood things in physics. Conversely, if you are going to question one of those things in physics, you have to accept that you are questioning the chemistry too. Further, they all connect to stuff that actually works in practical engineered applications. The huge extent to which this is the case across science means that the idea that the accepted fundamentals might wrong, while not 'disproved', is extremely difficult to give much credence.

Secondly, some physicists have done a lot of very profound mathematics on some of these fundamentals. I'm thinking Hawking/Penrose on relativity, Bell on quantum mechanics and Emmy Nother on symmetry and conservation laws. Again, these don't necessarily 'disprove' the possibility that we might have something wrong, however they narrow down the wiggle-room to very little indeed.

The fact that we really are so certain of so much is actually (IMO) why testing the remaining stuff (that we don't) is so difficult and expensive. It's because of the level and breadth of certainty about QM and particle physics generally that we need the LHC to create situations extreme enough that we don't already understand them.

[xelasnave]

Sorry everyone I was fishing to see if Craig was still with us;).I thought the bait was very tempting...

My words re taking the wrong path etc were non specific designed to let the reader thereof interprete them as they may:D. but in truth they were meaningless ..if I had pointed to a specific ie the road and perhaps the wrong turn meaning could be taken but the beauty of non specific metaphor is that folk can read into it what they want.

AND what wonderful wisdom from all thereafter was the outcome:thumbsup:.
Still no Craig. I do hope he is OK.


alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

AND Bert I can not disagree with anything you say all seems most reasonable:thumbsup:.

Thank you always for your guidence I regard myself as very priveledged to be privy to your views and comment.

AS to publishing and upsetting anything I decline I have neither the capability or inclination...moreover just between you and me I like the way it is all going;).

Hopefully the current knowledge will need little more than expansion and "tweeking" (perhaps). AND one would like to think that "we" are on the right track (certainly in respect of the current models. I can not imagine the standard model as being wrong for it would mean I have lived in an age less perfect than I think it should be... Anyways I think we do well from science describing the Universe rather than the Pope and devil dogers generally citing their authority from you know where.

I have a friend who "knows" there is a hereafter etc..why because he "has a gut instinct about it"...who becomes upset if I say well that is your belief but it is not mine.

Why do these folk want you to think their way? beats me. I dont push any view (thesedays:D) and would enjoy the same from others.

Anyways you have no doubt had a taste of them as well.

alex:):):)