Neutrinos faster than the speed of light?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Magical Realist, Nov 1, 2013.

  1. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi Trapped.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Lol, yeah, it does sound a bit like 'too much star trek', doesn't it. Any similarity to the star trek 'script staples' purely coincidental, and no scifi script writers were harmed in using the above terminology in this particular context.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In any case, please note that the context for reading the passage containing that 'phrase' also included the explicit understanding in parentheses, to the effect that (as bolded now by me):

    I trust the unfortunate 'star trekiness' connotations of that phrase doesn't distract too much from the serious matter/question which included it in this science discussion context? Cheers Trapped, and thanks for your chuckle-inducing observation there! I quite enjoyed it. See/read you round, mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    There is no terminology accepted in mainstream considering factors of any warp speed. The name ''warp'' comes from the deformation of space and time. Some of us know how to mathematically form this.

    Just say propulsion system, then none of us will get concerned about any misconceptions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    None of what we think we know of the first second of time is chiseled in stone or cast in concrete. The particle accelerators are an attempt to study the physics of the first few microseconds. It is a simulation, an artifice, a trick to concentrate so much power into such little bits of matter because that is the only way to simulate those power levels. The reality we are trying to study(high energy density)was the whole of whatever the Universe was, it was not relativistic to itself(IE ALL of space(every point)saw itself as stationary with everything else expanding outward from it at MANY times lightspeed). Relativistic rules didn't apply yet, there was no spacetime as we know it today. The Inflation ended when gravity "froze out" of the mix and spacetime rules as we know them started to apply. My OPINION is that what erupted was pure Dark Energy(whatever it turns out to be), that, unrestrained by gravity or the lightspeed restriction, "pushed" hard and fast. That occurred within the first few picoseconds but at the end of Inflation our Universe was already huge. Expansion due to momentum is now countered(or it used to be)by gravity and events in spacetime are limited by lightspeed. But we still see ourselves as stationary and the entire Universe looks like it is expanding away from us in the center. And we live in a Universe where time is a distance in our perception. We can see all points in time at various points in space all the way back to 13.7 billion years ago in all directions. Yes, what we see is no longer at the point we see them at, and the things we see far away have changed, evolved. But if a Quasar lit up that threatened life on Earth, you could cry "But that happened 100,000 years ago!" all you like, you would still be frying today. The Inflation era is still in the Theoretical(though the math looks good, I understand), we don't even know if what we learn from tiny relativistic matter collisions even remotely applies to the same energy levels in non-relativistic high energy EVERYTHING(except there was no matter at that time and for several thousand years thereafter, energy levels too high). And Particle physics is a bonus as well.

    The BB started with conditions not like those we have now. When you approach infinities in energy density you are not in our Universe anymore. I do not know what the conditions were on the other side of the Big Bang, but they were different. Perhaps Inflation was the injection of those conditions into our Universe and as the energy density fell the four forces "broke symmetry" and became separate forces instead of the single force that caused Inflation. Inflation happened before spacetime or it's rules started operating, before gravity existed. We are talking about a couple of milliseconds at the very beginning of time. But the CMB is extremely smooth, so smooth that it has to have all been in contact at the beginning to be so even in temperature over such vast distances. It had to inflate instantly from a singularity to spread those "unnaturally even" temperatures over billions of lightyears when any changes would be limited by lightspeed(after the first second). The Inflationary model came directly from the requirements that the CMB's smoothness indicates have to be true, just like Relativity comes from the requirements a constant speed of light requires. The Inflationary model is not as solid as Relativity, but we think we are on the right track. If polarization gives us a view earlier than 380,000 years maybe we will know more in a few years.

    Trapped

    Michio Kaku is a Carl Sagan wanabe who is willing to sensationalize to stir interest. I've caught him stretching the truth quite often. I'm not impressed.

    In that he is correct. There are no faster than light phenomena known and finding one would mean Relativity was wrong. Tachyons got forgotten long ago and Star Trek is fiction.

    Er, yes, such particles are forbidden in spacetime as we know it. Light travels AT lightspeed, nothing else can do anything but come close, and then only with tremendous energy expended.

    A photon(packet of energy)travels AT lightspeed in vacuum. period. It's called a constant for a reason(hint, it's always the same speed, constantly, in all circumstances, whatever).

    Is there some kind of convention in town?

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    So many problems, the woo has taken it out.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The logic of the conspiracy meme is to question everything the ‘establishment'—be it government or scientists—says or does, even on the most hypothetical and speculative grounds, and to demand immediate, comprehensive and definitive answers to all questions. A failure to give convincing answers is then used as proof of conspiratorial deception. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists offer their own alternative theories with the flimsiest of evidence, challenging the authorities to prove them wrong.


    see post 143 in the '"The Big Bang and Magnetic fields " thread......
     
  9. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058

    That is where you are wrong; A conspiracy does not need to rely on 'establishment' in fact... there is no establishment.
     
  10. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    And no, lack of proof is not always evidence. The real evidence lies in facts.... what is factual?
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You seem to miss the point of the little extract.
    I believe it to be completely right.


    Other pertinent and relevant points in the lengthy article are highlighted here......



    By
    Ted Goertzel retired as professor in the Sociology Department at Rutgers University in Camden, N.J..


    Invoking the word conspiracy also implies that something is secret and hidden. Pigden (2006) defines a conspiracy as “a secret plan on the part of a group to influence events in part by covert action”

    A conspiracy theory gives believers someone tangible to blame for their perceived predicament, instead of blaming it on impersonal or abstract social forces


    Historians and social scientists are generally sceptical of conspiracy theories because they believe that most conspiracies fail and that historical events can be better understood without recourse to unverifiable speculation

    Conspiracy theories appeal to people who are discontented with the established institutions of their society and especially with elites in that society. They are likely to believe that conditions are worsening for people like themselves and that the authorities do not care about them. A conspiracy theory gives believers someone tangible to blame for their perceived predicament, instead of blaming it on impersonal or abstract social forces. The meme becomes a habit of thought: the more people believe in one conspiracy, the more likely they are to believe in others


    The logic of the conspiracy meme is to question everything the ‘establishment'—be it government or scientists—says or does, even on the most hypothetical and speculative grounds, and to demand immediate, comprehensive and definitive answers to all questions. A failure to give convincing answers is then used as proof of conspiratorial deception. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists offer their own alternative theories with the flimsiest of evidence, challenging the authorities to prove them wrong

    Many of these theories are clearly absurd, but some have a veneer of possibility. How can we distinguish between the amusing eccentrics, the honestly misguided, the avaricious litigants and the serious sceptics questioning a premature consensus?


    One valuable guideline is to look for cascade logic in conspiracy arguments (Susstein & Vermeule, 2008). This occurs when defenders of one conspiracy theory find it necessary to implicate more and more people whose failure to discover or reveal the conspiracy can only be explained by their alleged complicity. Another guideline is to look for exaggerated claims about the power of the conspirators: claims that are needed to explain how they were able to intimidate so many people and cover their tracks so well. The more vast and more powerful the alleged conspiracy, the less likely that it could have remained undiscovered.

    For example, the claim that the moon landing in 1969 was a hoax implies the complicity of thousands of American scientists and technicians as well as of Soviet astronomers and others around the world who tracked the event. It is incredibly implausible that such a conspiracy could have held together.


    Even if a conspiracy theory is implausible, it can be used as a rhetorical device to appeal to the emotions of a significant public. The conspiracy meme flourishes best in politics, religion and journalism, in which practitioners can succeed by attracting followers from the general public. These practitioners might actually believe the conspiracy theory, or they might simply use it to win public support


    Dissenters from mainstream science often invoke a meme that there are two sides to every question and each side is entitled to equal time to present its case. George W. Bush famously suggested that students be taught both evolution and “intelligent design” theories so that they could judge which had the most convincing argument (Baker & Slevin, 2005). Similarly, climate change ‘sceptics' demand equal air time for their side of the argument and, at least in the beginning, the media were more than willing to grant it in the interest of ‘balance'. If these dissenters or ‘revisionists' succeed in getting an opportunity to present their case, they hammer away at any gaps or contradictions in the evidence presented by mainstream researchers, using rhetoric that questions their motivations, while avoiding any hint of weakness or bias in their own case


    . It does not work well for scientists because there are objective right and wrong answers to most scientific questions. US Admiral William Leahy might have won a classroom debate in 1945 with his famous statement that “the [atomic] bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert on explosives”
    Nevertheless, in deciding to pursue the atomic bomb project, US President Harry Truman relied on scientific evidence

    Conspiracy theorists typically overlook lapses by their supporters but are quick to pounce on any flaw on the part of their opponents


    Scientists do change their ideas in response to new evidence, perhaps more often than people in most walks of life

    …allowing the conspiracy theorists to dominate the public debate can have tragic consequences


    Conspiracists often seem to believe that they can prove a scientific theory wrong by finding a flaw or gap in its evidence. Then they claim conspiracy when scientists endeavour to fix the flaw or fill the gap, or even persist in their work on the assumption that a solution will be found. In fact, the occasions when an entire scientific theory is overthrown by a negative finding are few and far between. This is especially true in fields that depend on statistical modelling of complex phenomena, in which there are often several models that are roughly equally good (or bad), and where the choice of a data set and decisions about data set filtering are often critical. The more important test of a research programme is whether progress is being made over a period of time, and whether better progress could be made with an alternative approach. Progress can be measured by the accumulation of a solid, verifiable body of knowledge with a very high probability of being correct


    much more at.....
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897118/
     
  12. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    I think his problem is that he just tries to hard to make physics interesting. If you get down to the basics of what is known science, I think he can be a reliable source of information. He was a teacher at New York University for some time in the field.

    The problem would be if neutrinos traveled faster than light then they would be more like a tachyon. Then a tachyon wouldn't obey the normal rules of time, but the tachyon has not been officially discovered.

    From what I have read in the past, there is no clear cut way where the reason why light cannot escape a black hole can be clearly explained. It is a problem most physics authors have to dance around. If it was true that the speed of light slowed down near a source of gravity, then that explanation would be easy. You could just say that gravity just slowed down the photon till it could not get out. But, it really is not that simple, and more recently they have tried to explain it away by saying that space itself actually moves in at a speed faster than light as if the photon has to travel through space like some kind of aether. I don't know any writer that would be so bold in their claims. It would seem like one would have to assume that space is an actual thing along with time. To me, officially, it still remains sort of a mystery.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    I quite like Michio, along with Neil De-Grasse Tyson, Brian Greene, and Brian Cox.......
    All in my opnion give a good account on the subject matter being debated.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    The escape velocity of Earth is 12/kms sec.
    The escape velocity at the EH of a BH is 300,000 odd kms/sec.
    And there we have it.
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I am not quite sure what these "we" you speak of, think that they "have".
    But, I am quite sure that whatever these "we" you speak of "have", is not "it".

    The speed of light on Earth is really close to 299,792,458 meters per second.
    The velocity of light leaving Earth is really close to 299,792,458 meters per second.
    The escape velocity at the EH of a BH is really close to 299,792,458 meters per second.

    And there, you can have that.
     
  16. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    I think it would be nice if it was really that simple. Then light has little or no mass. Then the speed of light is a constant. It doesn't slow down like a rocket due to a gravitational influence, like everyone here has been saying.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It really is that simple Layman.
    BH's were first theorised to exist in around the late 1700's, by a physicist named John Mitchell.
    He simply realised this using basic Newtonian mechanics and studying stellar mass and density.
    Simply put, he Imagined a star so dense, and gravity so strong, that not even light could escape it. Unlike the BH's predicted by GR, these were called Dark Stars and had a surface just below where the light was turned back on itself.

    GR took the concept of BH's further and it was found that once any mass had collapsed to where the surface escape velocity exceeded "c", which was called the Schwarzchild radius and being where the EH was, further collapse to Singularity status was compulsory.
    This is why any dormant BH [one not feeding] is nothing more then critically curved space/time, other then for the Singularity at the center.

    Only three factors are known about a BH....Mass, Spin and Charge...the simplest variety just has mass.
    This is called the "No Hair Theorem" first expressed by John Wheeler.


    [Physicists do have a sense of humour]


    The first probable BH discovered was much later in 1971.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    For the kiddies [well for the troll at least

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] ....The escape velocity on Earth is 12 kms/sec.
    Used of course to illustrate that a BH is black because the escape velocity at the EH reaches "c" so just as anyone/thing leaving the earth's surface must first obtain 12kms/sec to go beyond Earth orbit, so too anything leaving the EH of a BH, must exceed "c"...As that is not possible, even for light, we have a BH.

    "c " = speed of light in a vacuum, close enough to 300,000kms/sec, or 186,000 Miles/sec.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2013
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    To illustrate it with a analogy.....Space/time can be said to be falling into a BH, much as a fast flowing river flows to the sea.....Light/photons are analogous to a fish swimming upstream......
    At what we call the EH, that speed of space/time equals "ç"........inside the EH, space/time flows faster then "c"
    So light emitted at just at the EH, will be turned back on itself, with the exception of any light/photons emitted directly radially away.
    Then in that same photons FoR, it will be seen to hover forever at the EH, never quite secumbing and never quite getting away.
     
  20. nimbus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    129
    It’ just seems so odd that we are to take pmb’s cites of people, of which he make’s a point of calling them GR pro’s, and yet, when I gave him a quote from one of those same pro’s, Rindler, about no force in the curved spacetime model, pmb say’s there is a force in that model. So, pmb is now disagreeing with his own GR pro.
    I have read most of Hawking’s, and still dip into them for his easy to grasp explanations of things.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    I've just skimmed through the last few pages of this thread.

    It seems to me that the problem here could well be that the debaters on opposite sides are talking at cross purposes.

    I think we can all agree that locally the speed of light is always constant (agree, pmb?). But if you're looking at the Shapiro delay of light passing near the Sun, then you're looking at things non-locally. In that case, if you're using asymptotically flat coordinates then it will indeed appear as if the speed of light passing near the Sun has been slowed, and you can calculate by how much. General relativity, of course, explains this apparent slowing by means of the "extra space" near the Sun due to the spacetime curvature there. Since in this picture light has further to travel than in a flat space, it appears slower (from our observation point out here on Earth).

    So does light slow down as it passes the Sun or doesn't it? Taking into account the curvature of spacetime, no it doesn't. But if you didn't know about the curvature, then it certainly acts like it slowed down.

    Does that help?
     
  22. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    I don't think that would be a good analogy. Michelson & Morley discovered that there was no aether, that the speed of light did not change because of the motions of the Earth. With that being said, there would then be no reason to justify saying that the speed of light would be observed to travel at a different speed due to the motions of space itself. If this was happening then it would mean that the Earth would have to drag space with it as it was in orbit. Then there is no real theory that describes this kind of circumstance. Also, it would be wrong to say that the photon would end up just hovering in place. If it stopped to just hover in one spot, then it would not be traveling the speed of light! It would always travel at "c" in one direction or the other.

    Personally, I have thought that since an observer inside of a black hole would have their time dilated, so much that in an instance all of time could pass by looking at everything else outside the black hole. If the universe ended in a big crunch, then an observer inside the black hole would be able to observe this the moment they passed the event horizon. If time stops for someone in a black hole then everything outside of it would go by really fast. Then after this happened from their frame of reference inside the black hole, there would be no outside of the black hole. By the time it would cross the event horizon it would be too late and everything would already have been sucked inside of it. So basically it could be due to there just being no "outside" the black hole from the frame of reference inside of it. There just isn't enough lifetime of the universe for it to be able to cross that boundary. But, then this explanation is hard for me to truly accept without any doubt, because light wouldn't really experience time to begin with due to it traveling the speed of light already...

    In a way, I think it is due to the same reason why Einstein said that there is a limit to the visible universe that is not the same size as the entire universe. There just isn't enough time in order for it to reach that far, but it would require extra physics that could describe how time dilated to effect something that already had it's time dilated to the minimum value.
     
  23. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    paddoboy

    Brian Greene pushes the flowing river analogy, but I'm not sure I buy it because while time and space are real, they are not "corporal", they do not act like matter. The way I was taught was to consider the vectors of individual photons travelling through spacetime. Spacetime is curved by mass and at the Event Horizon the curve becomes circular, with no vectors to the outside of that radius, no flowing spacetime necessary. Bent spacetime, but not flowing spacetime is the correct paradigm, as far as I'm concerned. What Layman is saying about spacetime acting like aether is probably correct and therefore spacetime can not flow.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page