ICEINSPACE
|
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waxing Crescent 20.5%
|
|
23-09-2011, 01:19 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
If the postulate for GR is wrong what happens then?
Anyways before we get too excited let the dust settle  .
alex 
|
23-09-2011, 01:23 PM
|
 |
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,097
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
If the postulate for GR is wrong what happens then?
Anyways before we get too excited let the dust settle .
alex |
Don't hold you breath Alex.. yet
|
23-09-2011, 01:23 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
|
It maybe a dodgy result. However, don't discount it on the basis that it upsets the current paradigm. Wouldn't be the first time scientists missed something just because they thought differently, only to find out years later they were wrong about their initial assumptions.
Only time and more experiments are going to resolve this little problem. Unless, of course, the Gran Sasso team have overlooked something or made a mistake somewhere along the way.
|
23-09-2011, 01:24 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
If the postulate for GR is wrong what happens then?
Anyways before we get too excited let the dust settle .
alex |
SR...not GR.
|
23-09-2011, 01:26 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Don't hold you breath Alex.. yet |
Why not....they were supremely confident in Newton's laws for over 250 years before they began to slowly realise that they weren't entirely accurate. Same can be said of SR (and GR, even). Theories are not immutable...even the best of them.
|
23-09-2011, 01:28 PM
|
|
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
|
Who left this fridge magnet on my detector?!!!
alex
|
23-09-2011, 01:56 PM
|
|
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
SR...not GR.
|
Yes SR ..the postulate is nothing faster than C therefore etc...
It would seem a worry I would have thought if the postulate of SR is incorrect even if everything else works according to the theory.
Anyways someone will explain it all to the satisfaction of everyone and realise they were wrong about being wrong if they are right about their opinion about being wrong..
alex
|
23-09-2011, 02:00 PM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
The paper has turned up on arXiv .. here it is.
Cheers
|
23-09-2011, 02:08 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
|
Aha … they've compared the distribution at the emitter point with the distribution at the detector point (730km away). The clocks at the emitter and receiver are GPS-synchronised to a precision of 2ns, so the 60ns detected is much larger than any systematic error.
The distribution arrives at the detector 60ns earlier than the light propagating in a vacuum.
Interesting …
Cheers
|
23-09-2011, 02:20 PM
|
|
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,097
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Why not....they were supremely confident in Newton's laws for over 250 years before they began to slowly realise that they weren't entirely accurate. Same can be said of SR (and GR, even). Theories are not immutable...even the best of them.
|
That's why I said "yet".
Holding breath for another 250 years may prove to be lethal for Alex  .
|
23-09-2011, 02:24 PM
|
|
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Don't hold you breath Alex.. yet |
Hi Bojan...As Carl pointed out I was barking up the wrong tree. SR not GR.
But I have had my doubts about GR's postulate relating to equivalence in the past as you well know . 
If they can exceed C they fit a requirement of nature why should this be so?
alex
|
23-09-2011, 02:38 PM
|
|
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,097
|
|
|
Alex,
let them first confirm their results (that means somebody else must repeat the result of the measurement) .
Then we shall see what happens next.
As far as speed of light in vacuum is concerned, no-one said it is the highest speed.. it is just a constant.
Particle with any rest mass greater that 0 can't be accelerated to c ( because for that we need to apply infinite amount of energy...) but if "particle" has imaginary mass (tachyon), it can travel with speed higher than c and no postulate is violated (OK, Carl, you can shoot me now)
Last edited by bojan; 23-09-2011 at 02:49 PM.
|
23-09-2011, 02:43 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
|
Read the report.
The percentage change of muon neutrino velocity against the speed of light is 0.000248%.
This seems suspiciously too close to the speed of the light despite the 6 sigma level.
Perhaps there is an unknown systematic error occurring here.
Regards
Steven
|
23-09-2011, 02:48 PM
|
|
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
MMM... the big problem for me with the push idea for gravity was the need for particles that travelled faster than C  ... I felt they (N's) could be the particle that could replace the graviton and the HB really ...even responsible for slowing the space craft in interstella space  ... but their sheer numbers is interesting ..they have mass apparently and yet can break the rules... we need infinite energy to make the smallest mass reach C let alone exceed it...it could be a breaking the sound barrier type moment in history maybe.
There must be a mechanism behind action at a distance and/or quantum entanglement which would work well if particles exist that are not required to obey the speed rules..this may suggest that there are other partcles that can exceed C...maybe there will be particles that can not travel slower than a speed well above C... regions of space different to our expectations.
This is alittle confronting it is not as though some one from a nutter fringe believed such may be possible these results are from folk who know what they are doing and to have all wondering can this result be the way it really is...a new door may be openning.
alex
|
23-09-2011, 02:48 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
As far as speed of light in vacuum is concerned, no-one said it is the highest speed.. it is just a constant.
Particle with any mass greater that 0 can't be accelerated to c ( because for that we need to apply infinite amount of energy... but if "particle" has imaginary mass (tachyon), it can travel with speed higher than c and no postulate is violated (OK, Carl, you can shoot me now)
|
Leaving aside the Quantum Field theory considerations tachyons don't violate SR. Tachyons form a symmetrical theory of SR where the speed of light is a lower limit instead of an upper limit.
Regards
Steven
|
23-09-2011, 03:13 PM
|
|
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Alex,
let them first confirm their results (that means somebody else must repeat the result of the measurement) .
Then we shall see what happens next.
As far as speed of light in vacuum is concerned, no-one said it is the highest speed.. it is just a constant.
Particle with any rest mass greater that 0 can't be accelerated to c ( because for that we need to apply infinite amount of energy...) but if "particle" has imaginary mass (tachyon), it can travel with speed higher than c and no postulate is violated (OK, Carl, you can shoot me now)
|
Firstly I typed the last post before seeing your post Bojan.
It will be a storm in a tea cup maybe...but I do like to think one may be witnessing a moment of history...the prospect of something new etc...
BUT faster than c and if they have mass that would be news.
alex
|
23-09-2011, 03:14 PM
|
 |
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,974
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Why not....they were supremely confident in Newton's laws for over 250 years before they began to slowly realise that they weren't entirely accurate. Same can be said of SR (and GR, even). Theories are not immutable...even the best of them.
|
That's exactly right. Newton's laws weren't proven wrong and thrown out, they're just as valid and accurate today as the were when Newton formulated them. What has changed is our understanding of the assumptions and constraints under which they are valid.
The same has happened and will continue to happen with everything we "know", at some point we will realise and understand it as a special case of something more general.
Cheers
Steffen.
|
23-09-2011, 03:24 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
|
Good onya Steffen !
I can see the dreamers in this world already going ballistic ie: around the web, today … with this news !
At the very least, the guys who made this announcement are responsible for what happens as a result of the way they've announced it … which seems pretty cavalier, IMHO.
Cheers
|
23-09-2011, 03:48 PM
|
 |
Senior Citizen
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bribie Island
Posts: 5,068
|
|
|
|
23-09-2011, 04:49 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Para Hills, South Australia
Posts: 3,622
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Seems we get this story from time to time - another funding ploy or ....
|
Justifying CERN maybe after possibly losing the Higgs Boson.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:22 AM.
|
|
