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 (Bart)]

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 (Carl)]

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 (Carl)]

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!!!

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

[Robh (Rob)]

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 (Carl)]

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

[Bassnut (Fred)]

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by 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 ?.

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 (Karl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

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,

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

All the theorists on the planet can be sceptical of the results from OPERA and there should be a healthy scepticism in any case.

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
Cheers
Bartman

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

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

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

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

Bert

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 (Tony)]

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...inos1987a.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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Carl)]

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

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 (Bart)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The photons may drift off the brane further than the neutrinos, for some reason.

....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???

Just thinking out aloud
Bartman