The speed of light may have been broken.

AN, are you still working on your reply to me as to why MD's box is incorrect? It sure is taking you a while.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The second link provides a pretty good lay explanation of the situation.

I am not personnally fond of the fundamental concepts in the first. To me it is like saying well neutrinos can use hyperspace to travel from one place to another so they just look faster. But then as I said that's a personnal bias.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speed of light ~ 300,000 km/s
Diameter of our sun ~ 1,390,000 km
Diameter of our sun ~ 4.6 light seconds

Diameter of earth IS about 100 less than sun... but that puts it at about 0.046 light seconds

The process of pair-production takes a few seconds?!?!?! Why is that? If they were all generated within 2 seconds of each other in an area 2 light seconds across and all travelled at the same speed we should have seen a 4 second spread on this end... not a 13 second spread. Still, this isn't exactly a large discrepancy is it? How does this compare with evidence that more energetic neutrinos travel faster than less energetic neutrinos? Were all the neutrinos from this supernova produced at the same energy level to some extreme level of precision?!?!?! If so that's amazing in and of itself to me... but maybe to an expert in this field that's exactly what they'd expect...

If we weren't talking about neutrinos I would agree. You see a burst of particles that close together from that distance away, you have to assume they were basically going the same speed.

Neutrinos, however, are strange. They change from one type to another. They are very hard to detect. Etc. What if this process of changing from one type of neutrino to another somehow sheds excess energy and speed so that regardless of what sort of neutrinos you started with, after a few seconds they are all travelling very close to the the speed of light? This could explain why the beam CERN is looking at shows this discrepency while the neutrino's from a far away supernova does not (you couldn't possibly know if the neutrino's from that event were 60 ns early). It would be interesting to repeat this experiment at different distances.

Time and distance are going to be the first thing every one of those 200 scientists checked, and rechecked and then checked again.... several times.... over and over.... repeatedly.... using multiple mehtods.... I'll be utterly shocked if that's where the error is (and by time here I mean the measured interval between when the protons were generated and the neutrinos were detected and not the calculated correction factors discussed in the paper to account for delays in the detection mechanism, etc.).

The accuracy is not going to be off by 60 feet because of weather. And you can bet this measurement was done repeatedly in all types of weather. They probably have graphs of exactly how much it deviates over time at this point... and it won't be 60 feet!

Also, if you disagree with something in a paper it's helpful to demonstrate that you understand what they wrote before you interject your own theory. If you don't people are going to assume you didn't read it or you don't understand it.

Good surverying equipment is better than +/- 1 meter (as you've referenced above). 200 professional experimentalists who are far better at this than you or I feel that they've got the distance measurement down to +/- 0.2 meters. I might not know every detail in how they did that, but I'm going to go with them on this one.

I skimmed the paper but I assumed those values, or at least some of them, WERE the standard deviations... in which case you wouldn't just add them.... as that would require a very statistically unlikely event to get the absolute worst case for all the measured events.... but perhaps I misread that portion. Still... I do think an error here is more likely than in the distance or interval measurements.

And waiting for more experiments is always a safe approach in science.

If I had $100 to bet, I'd put it all on an error introduced at some point. But if I had to bet that $100 on where the error would be, the distance measurement would be at the bottom of my list and the interval measurement would not be far above it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then why did you bring it up when you were contesting what relativity says? You claimed I was mistaken about what relativity says about light spheres and rather than retort my explicit demonstration relativity says precisely what I claimed you brought up your box.

So are you now admitting that your box doesnt counter what I said?

It is refutable if you're using it to say 'relativity doesn't say that', which is what you tried. As for irrefutable you have yet to demonstrate it actually reflects reality, all you have unverified qualitative arm waving. Science demands a little more.

it's easy to come up with self consistent concepts, it doesn't make them right. You disagree with Newton and Einstein, their works are consistent but you don't think they are right. You don't seem to understand how science works. Can you provide a working, experimentally justified model? Being self consistent is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. Unless you can do that whining about it being consistent is immaterial and hypocritical when you dismiss other self consistent models.

 

This is a very interesting take on the situation and one I think has some merit or at least bears keeping in mind as the experiment is reproduced. One thing that does seem to remain an issue relative to the speed of light and the neutrino, would be that even if the high energy neutrinos shed some of that energy in the first few seconds (and the exact time frame would be up to further exploration) that would leave neutrinos with mass traveling at c, rather than just close to c.

Would this not still require some further rethinking as to the existence of a massive particle moving at c, and/or whether the photon itself actually has some small mass? Or could it be that high energy neutrinos might exceed c for a very short time and actually continue to lose velocity as they travel.., indefinitely or at least to some stable velocity less than c?

Earlier I suggested that perhaps the neutrinos were able to slip under some texture threshold of inertia. The energy loss/decay suggested above would or could replace that thought with inertia being the defining aspect resulting in the loss/decay.

 

Sorry but I'm on holiday at the moment and spending it listening to you isn't my idea of relaxation. You aren't the centre of my universe and you don't shake anyone's views of relativity, only my faith in humanity.

I told you in another thread, when you can demonstrate my explanation about what relativity says about light spheres is incorrect, as you claimed, then I'll discuss your box with you. Until then I don't see why anyone should be expected to address your posts when you don't address ours. Fairs fair and you clearly have no intention of playing fair.

 

Saint, so far as everything we have observed up to this time c is a speed limit, even for electrons. Depending on your source their mass is between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times the mass of a neutrino. We have tried and they are even more difficult to deal with than protons and neutrons. The current neutrino debate is the first situation I am aware of that challenges the limitations on anything exceeding the speed of light and it will be a while yet before any final verdict can be made, on even the current results.

 

No, I am saying my box refutes what you said. Under Einstein's relativity, my box is not possible, as if you were in the box frame, light would have to reach each detector in the same amount of time, meaning the light sphere is a sphere in the box, regardless of the velocity of the box. MD's box refutes that concept, as MD's box travels in the absolute frame, and IF the box has an absolute velocity in the absolute frame, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light sphere to contact all the receivers at the center of the walls of the box in the same amount of time. As a matter of fact, the only way the light sphere can contact the receivers in the same amount of time is IF the box has an absolute ZERO velocity. In other words, Einstein's second postulate is wrong, as the only way light can be measured to be c in the box, in any direction, is IF the box has an absolute zero velocity. If the box is in motion in the absolute frame, it is impossible for light to measured at c in the box.

I am saying relativity is wrong and inconsistent, in that the second postulate is wrong.

There is only one possible way to measure distance and time accurately in the box, and that is shown in MD's box. You CAN NOT come up with another way of measuring light in the box and be self consistent. SR is inconsistent in that the second postulate is wrong, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure the speed of light to be c in a box in motion.

You have avoided addressing the box directly. Why is that, AN? You, the serious mathematician that you are can surely find a flaw in it, can't you??? Show me the inconsistency! Show me Einstein's version of the box in motion with a light sphere. I'd really like to see it.

You know why nobody has ever been able to measure the velocity of a box from within the box (until now)? Because nobody has found the absolute frame until now. MD's box measures the velocity of the box from within the box, without reference to an outside object. Absolute motion in an absolute frame!!!

 

Yeah, no doubt that you'd have to think long and hard as to how you can refute the box. I'll just take note that you have plenty of time to waste on meaningless other responses to other matters on the forum, but you don't have time to spend on the box. That's uncharacteristic of you, AN, as normally you'd go to great lengths to post lengthy mathematical responses to other gibberish you feel you can refute with your math. In this case though, you simply don't have time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting discussion, maybe off topic, but I'm not having a problem with that. So I would like to comment about the applicaition of absolute space as I think it applies to MD's box.

MD is describing an event that happens at a point in space and a point in time that is not being considered to be within a set of coordinates in spacetime, but a fixed point in space at a given point in time. The point in space and time becomes fixed at the instant of the event in MD's operative coordinate system. IMHO, MD's box is not being described in general relativity or spacetime, but in a different coordinate system and never the twain shall meet, lol.

 

This is entirely immaterial.

Yes, it's possible to construct systems which don't have the same transformation properties as relativity. So? There's infinitely many such systems, all of them consistent. So?

Even if you have come up with something internally consistent the fact it disagrees with Einstein is neither here nor there. Newton disagrees with Einstein, but both are consistent.

And you didn't respond to what I said. In another thread I said "Relativity says...." and you said "No it doesn't". I proved it did and then you brought up the box thing, which doesn't have anything to do with what relativity says. Can you now admit you bringing that up was irrelevant to your attempt to show I was wrong about what relativity says?

If you claim they aren't irrelevant then you should respond to what I actually said, about how \(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = (ct)^{2}\) Lorentz transforms into \(X^{2}+Y^{2}+Z^{2}=(cT)^{2}\), thus light sphere to light sphere. It really is as simple as that, no need to consider specific cases or boxes, it's using the definition of a Lorentz transform on the definition of a sphere. You never replied and yet you complain I don't reply to you? What a joke you are.

You cannot prove SR wrong by doing a thought experiment with your box, any more than you can prove SR wrong by doing a thought experiment using Newton's work.

Whether it is inconsistent with experiments is a matter of doing the experiments. If all you're considering is your box concept then you aren't actually justifying your claims about SR. Your box model is not SR, so saying "My box says...." is independent of what SR says.

The question is not whether SR is consistent internally but whether it is consistent with reality and to answer that you need experiments. Your box is irrelevant to that.

This is simply false and rather than you addressing what SR says you invent something else. It's just straw man after straw man.

I've already been though how SR deals with light spheres. You never responded. Now you complain I don't address something you've come up with? How hypocritical!

All you have constructed is a convoluted version of a flash light on a moving train. The fact it's a box and 2d sphere is immaterial, you can reduce it to just a 1+1 dimensional setup involving x and t and you get the usual thought experiments covered in any standard textbook. In one frame the light hits both sides of the box simultaneously, in another it hits the left before the right. And? Should I be worried you don't recognize a canonical textbook example? Yes, that is worrying given how much you whine about SR. Should I be worried you've broken SR? Not in the slightest.

Besides, people like Rpenner have already addressed it. People have discussed it and you take no notice. I don't see why I need to beat a dead horse. You have demonstrated you're unwilling to discuss things properly with them and you obviously have no issue being less than intellectually honest with me.

Why don't you write up your work and send it to a journal? If you're so sure why are you wallowing on forums whining to us?

A prime example of you misrepresenting people. Where did I say I didn't have the time? I said I'm on holiday and you aren't the centre of my universe. Read my posts again.

You refused to answer my questions yet now you demand I jump through hoops for you? People like Rpenner have addressed it with you and you didn't discuss things honestly with them. I reply to posts I wish to reply to. When someone demands my attention, like you have, it's usually a sign they are trolling and have no intention of entering into honest discussion. Just as q_w on his recent behaviour.

I gave some mathematics earlier today, why don't you address that if you want some mathematics. If SR is internally inconsistent then why are rotations okay, since Lorentz transforms are just rotations in a different kind of space. If you think SR is internally inconsistent you're basically saying you think geometry and group theory is inconsistent, because SR is nothing but those mathematical areas with a few physical labels.

Actually I regularly also say that its difficult to nail **** to the wall. It's easier to refute incorrect coherent physics than gibberish because at least the former has logical structure and the person enters into honest discussion. You've already shown in the last page of discussion you aren't above misrepresenting me and trying to taunt me.

Besides, if we're talking about time on our hands why are you on a forum? Why haven't you, at some point in the last 5~10 YEARS sent your work to a journal for review? Obviously they aren't above entertaining the notion relativity might be wrong, so you can't use that excuse. You obviously have the time and you believe you're right, you really have no excuse.

 

AN, Instead of wasting your precious vacation time on petty responses that don't address the real issue, how about your next reply be the direct rebuttal to MD's box? Let's cut to the chase!

BTW, Newton's way is not any more consistent than Einstein's, they are both inconsistent. You don't seem to understand what the absolute frame is. Newton's ways do not correctly address the box anymore than Einstein's do. Neither understands what the absolute frame is.

Why don't I submit my work for review? Because I don't have the skills to do so. I understand concepts, which is entirely different than being skilled enough to present a properly formatted paper.

Plus, I do this for fun, like you do, remember? You happen to also do it for a living.

I'm retired, I like the outdoors, and I spend my time bass fishing and bow hunting whitetail deer.

 

I see, so you believe that the length of a meter is not defined in the terms of the speed of light.

You also believe that the length of a meter is defined in the terms of the speed of light.

What is hard to understand? It guess it is simple, if you are insane...

 

We can reduce this to 1+1d, the box is just a bar of length 2L in its rest frame. We set c=1.

Box rest frame :

Coordinates at (t,x). Ends of box at \(x = \pm L\). A light sphere is emitted at t=0 from x=0 and thus has equation \(x^{2}=t^{2}\). The LHS end is reached when x=-t=-L, ie t = L. The RHS end is reached when x=t=L, ie t=L.

Frame where box is moving to the right with speed v :

Coordinates are (T,X). Relativity says emissions of light sphere at X=0, so equation is \(X^{2} = T^{2}\). Box moves in positive X direction at speed v so is Lorentz transformed to be of length \(\frac{L}{\gamma}\). Ends of box are thus at \(X = \pm \frac{L}{\gamma} + vT\) where - is left hand side, + is right hand side. LHS is reached when \(X = -\frac{L}{\gamma}+vT = -T\) so \(T = \frac{L}{\gamma(1+v)}\) and thus \(X = -\frac{L}{\gamma(1+v)}\). RHS is reached when \(X = +\frac{L}{\gamma}+vT = +T\) so \(T = \frac{L}{\gamma(1-v)}\) and so \(X = \frac{L}{\gamma(1-v)}\).

Summary so far :

So by just doing simple geometry we have in the rest frame the LHS is reached when (t,x) = L(1,-1) and the RHS when (t,x) = L(1,1). In the moving frame we have the LHS at \((T,X) = \frac{L}{\gamma(1+v)}(1,-1)\) and the RHS at \((T,X) = \frac{L}{\gamma(1-v)}(1,1)\).

We can clear this up a bit by defining the Doppler shift \(D(v) = \sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1-v}}\) and using \(\gamma^{-1} = \sqrt{1-v}\sqrt{1+v}\) we get the LHS at \((T,X) = L\,D(-v)(1,-1)\) and the RHS at \((T,X) = L\,D(v)(1,1)\).

Lorentz Transforms :

To go from (t,x) to (T,X) we have boosted by a speed of -v in the x axis (hence why the box goes to the right in the moving case), thus the transformations are

\(T = \gamma(t+vx)\) and \(X = \gamma(x+vt)\)

ie what you get on Wiki but with a negative v. So let's apply these to the rest frame coordinates.

LHS :
\((t,x) = L(1,-1) \to (T,X) = \gamma ( L - vL , -L+vL ) = \gamma L (1-v) (1,-1) = L \, D(-v)(1,-1)\)
RHS :
\((t,x) = L(1,1) \to (T,X) = \gamma ( L + vL , L+vL ) = \gamma L (1+v) (1,1) = L \, D(v)(1,1)\)

Precisely as we had from doing each frame by simple "When do these two things meet?", the Lorentz transforms indeed give the required answer. And this used the \(x^{2} = t^{2} \to X^{2} = T^{2}\) property of relativity which maps light spheres to light spheres.

I haven't had to put in any numbers, this is a completely general case. So, what's the contradiction MD? Relativity agrees with itself, it has not been inconsistent as you claimed.

Now how about you answering my question, if you're so damn sure you're right and you've got so much time on your hands and you've known this for years why are you still whining about it on forums?

 

You don't know how to nicely format a report? Have you never written any kind of formal letter in your life? Jesus, they teach that stuff in school to kids.

If you've read any relativity you know the style books and papers take, it's surely not beyond you to copy such a style? Look on www.arxiv.org and see how the papers are written.

Come on, you must see that is such a laughable excuse. You're claiming to understand stuff professional physicists and mathematicians cant but it's beyond you to write a coherent overview of your own work? Talk about a pathetic and transparent excuse!

 

How is the real issue MD's box?
You two are carrying on some old argument and using this thread to do it.
Go back to whatever thread you started this on, the pair of you!

 

You asked and I honestly answered, and now you are not accepting my answer? What would be an acceptable reason as to why someone would not submit to be reviewed, whilst being correct, as far as you're concerned? You think somehow it makes someone wrong because they don't submit a paper. So according to you, unless someone submits a paper they are a crank??

I couldn't care less if science accepts my views as correct or not. I understand it, and I'm sorry you don't. I am here to help you understand what the correct way to measure distance and time is. You can lead a horse to water....

I shot a record book buck several years ago but didn't submit it to Pope and Young. Does that mean it doesn't score 125" or better? No, it just means I never submitted it to the record book. I have it on the wall, and I know what it scores, and that's all that matters.

 

Correct.

No, it's not. That's the basis of special relativity; the physical laws (like the speed of light) are invariant within any inertial frame. This has been proven literally hundreds of times.

Not true at all. We have regularly done the above experiment and the light does indeed reach the edges of the box (in terms of the experiment, two equally spaced detectors) regardless of the speed of the inertial frame.

Not at all. It's done all the time.

So do the experiment and let us know what your results are. I think you might learn something.

 

MD brought up the box thing of his, claiming its something to do with the neutrino experiment and the speed of light. I commented he'd brought it up erroneously before and refused to discuss relevant things. Hopefully now his proclamation it's irrefutable has been proven true he'll move onto something else to whine about.

I've proven you aren't correct about it showing relativity wrong. You skipped over that post.

Furthermore, I wouldn't dismiss all answers, I just find yours laughable. You can't write a coherent explanation of your thoughts? You don't know how to give sections titles? It's beyond your wit to read other papers and copy their style of overview, body of work, summary, bibliography?

You're basically saying it's beyond your ability to write a short review, like a book review a child might do. Seriously?

Again, you misrepresent me. Where did I say that? How many times are you going to misrepresent me MD?

I asked you why you hadn't submitted, as clearly you think you're right. If you can devote time into making pictures and posts for forums, why can't you do the same for a journal and get your work to the scientific community? Clearly you want people to know, else you'd not be here. Why go the hard way when the quicker, more efficient way is to let a journal know? Your claims simply don't stack up.

There's plenty of major works which aren't in journals, people just wrote up their work in a neat, well formatted manner and got it out into the community. Some physicists refuse to submit to journals on the grounds journals make money off the backs of academics. But their work stands on its merits. Some of the highest cited papers on ArXiv never were submitted to journals.

What makes you a crank and plenty of other people who whine about their work on forums is that you're mistaken, ignorant and dishonest. You've shown in this thread and others I've recently encountered you in you'll misrepresent people, ie me, you don't know what relativity says and you proclaim easily falsified work irrefutable (nothing in my refutation was beyond 1st year undergrad stuff).

Don't get me wrong, everyone produces incorrect work from time to time. I've had plenty of ideas shot down but I took it gracefully and accepted when I was proven false. You and other hacks here never accept that, you just reword your claims and repeat them.

If you don't care if anyone accepts you why are you here? Why endlessly go on about it? Why interject it into threads? Why spend years and years pushing it? Sorry, you can't play the "I don't care if anyone knows" card, else you'd not be pushing it so hard. You obviously want people to accept it.

As for leading a horse to water, I just demonstrated using stuff undergrads learn their first term in university that you were mistaken about there being an inconsistency in your setup in SR. That would tell a rational person that perhaps their claims about SR aren't as concrete as they thought, that perhaps their understanding is a little weak, that perhaps they should do more learning. You'll just reword your complaint and repeat it.

You've not proven anything inconsistent but your own behaviour.

 

Welcome to sciforums.

Yep, you're right, I was going from memory on the transit time of the sun by light, and had it wrong. Same with Earth at 1/100th the diameter. Thanks for the correction.

Also, further reading shows that the core of the 1987A collapse was closer to about 50 km, so even smaller for the volume that I guesstimated in my earlier post. Thus, it is not a factor in the arrival time.

Also, further reading reveals that the arrival time had a 40% bunch in the first second, and the remaining 60% over the course of the next 12 seconds. That increases the order of magnitude by 1 for how close together (those first 40%, from the initial 'cooling' phase) they were traveling at the same speed.

You're right about the physics of neutrinos not being well known. But I'd be very surprised if they 'shed energy' to where they all ended up traveling at the same speed to within 13 orders of magnitude, and having their speed at the speed of light to within 1 part per 500,000,000 as observed. But even if they did so, that would be at odds with the CERN data, which has a speed in excess of c to about 1 part per 40,000. Other observations, such as at Fermilab's neutrino experiment, are consistent with SN1987A and at odds with CERN's data. And Fermilab's is also a short distance through earth, not an astronomical distance as 1987A

Also, I agree with your assessment. Of course, the distance measurement would be the one they'd check and re-check. But, because they did not discuss it, it might be the weather they overlooked, but probably unlikely and weird, since they would likely have checked it again and again as you suggested.

So, the error is likely in the timings. Yes, the various errors might be the standard deviations, which is how they totaled it to about 1/3 of the total value. But it should not require another 'experiment' to find their error. They simply need to reveal more detail so others can find it for them.

Or, they could do as I suggested earlier - drill a hole from the sender to the receiver and shoot a laser beam. That'd settle it.

And, I'd not take you up on your 100$ bet. It seems sound to me.

Thanks for your post. I'll be starting a separate thread suggesting that neutrinos travel at c, not sub-luminal, and there must be another theory to accommodate their flavor oscillation in transit from the sun to earth.