# Some problems with light speed barrier.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RawThinkTank, May 2, 2004.

?

## Do you belive in light speed barrier ?

51.0%

23.5%

13.7%

27.5%
1. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
<A HREF="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/lepton.html#c7">HyperPhysics</A> disagrees with you. The muon neutrino is one of the three neutrino's (light leptons). The muon is one of the three heavier leptons. They certainly do not combine to form the "muon neutrino".

Or is the standard model old physics aswel ?

Bye!

Crisp

3. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
I don't know, Crisp, neutrinos are a strange lot. Muon neutrinos can decay into muons.
Here is a cut & paste to help explain:
"WHAT ARE OSCILLATIONS?
Neutrino oscillations are a peculiar quantum mechanical effect, for which it is hard to find a good macroscopic analogy, as it has to do with the particle-wave duality of fundamental matter.

We only "know" or identify what a particle is by the way it is produced or interacts; that is how we name it. When a pion (a pi meson, composed of a quark-anti-quark pair, a particle produced abundantly in collisions of protons and nuclei) decays it results in a muon and a muon (anti)neutrino; when a neutron decays it results in a proton, an electron and an electron (anti)neutrino. When a muon is produced by a neutrino we know it was produced by a muon neutrino. And so on.

Another way to "know" or identify a particle is by weight, as expressed by speed given a certain amount of energy and also as it is attracted by gravity. This is the mass as in the famous F=ma, force equals mass times acceleration. Usually these identifications are the same for each particle: each particle with a given set of interaction signatures has a unique mass. Quarks do get a little confused about their identities, but not much. Muon neutrinos are apparently, from what we find, very mixed up.

We can make a muon neutrino beam at an accelerator for example, and, after passing the beam through a kilometer of earth and iron shielding to kill off all the charged particles, we see muons ocassionally produced in a detector, in the right direction and just after the particle beam pulse strikes the production target. Neutrinos are well known particles in this sense, and their interactions have been studied at the particle accelerators, underground and at reactors for more than 30 years.

The strange situation for neutrinos, different from all the other elementary particles, is that the state of the particle which we call the muon neutrino may not be the same as the particle mass state. Their identities are not the same: neutrinos are some sort of schizophrenic combination, a Dr.Jekyl and Mr. Hyde sort of affair. The muon neutrino is apparently composed of two different masses. Something like that never happens in macroscopic objects.

For example, the muon neutrino may be composed of half each of two states of slightly different mass. These massive neutrino states may be thought of as waves which have some specific periodicity for a given energy. The two mass states having different periodicities will oscillate in and out of phase with each other as they travel along (like the beats between to neighboring musical pitches). In one phase the pair may interact as a muon neutrino and when shifted by 90 degrees they may make a tau neutrino. In such a circumstance, if one could make a mono-energetic muon neutrino beam at an accelerator and had a moveable detector, then at first one would observe only muons being produced. Further one would see only taus. At twice the distance taus again, and so on. In between, one would see some fraction of each kind. (We find that the beat frequency of oscillation of muon neutrinos of one GeV energy is about a high D, if we could hear them!)

Experimentally we have not been able to do this at accelerators so far, because as it is turning out, the distance for oscillations has been too long to make a practical experiment (though new experiments are now being proposed based upon the information we are finding). With one GeV neutrinos one needs distances of hundreds of miles."
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html

5. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
You're misinterpreting the quote, 2inquisitive. While they say "muon" and "tau" in the second to last paragraph, they are just being sloppy. They're using those terms as shorthand for "muon neutrino" and "tau neutrino," and assuming the reader can follow. Neutrinos do not turn into muons.

- Warren

7. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
I admit that I don't know exactly what is happening here. Here is another quote from
a little earlier in the paper that led me to believe they were speaking of actual muons
instead of just shortning 'muon neutrino' into muon. A cut and paste:
"Most of the results we are discussing here are deduced from the cases (2/3 of the time) when a neutrino produces either a single electron or a single muon. The muon is the heavy brother of the electron. A short track from a neutrino interaction in the detector, typically several meters long, projects a ring of Cherenkov light onto the wall."

8. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
2inquisitive,
Muon and muon neutrino are two different kind of particles. You know there are three similar types of these particles (electron, muon and tau) and (electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino). Neutrinos were given three different name because they behave differently. Tau and muon decay into electron. It is only recently discovered that the three neutrinos could oscilate.

Neutrino doesn't leave track or generate Cherenkov radiation. It's neutral, move very fast (very close to the speed of light) and very rarely interact with matter particles. If it leaves track, it is not neutrino.

9. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
2inquisitive,
Some even thought that ghost is composed of neutrinos.

Assuming that you are correct that the particles speed are calculated, the calculation must give a correct speed or else you would end up unable to control where the particles supposed to collide with other particles.

You can think the pieces like time dilation, length contraction, kinetic energy, momentum etc. defined by SR as pieces in puzzle. When you put those pieces together, they fit perfectly one to another and you would know they are okay. Supposing you take one or two pieces out and change them with your own created pieces (MacM like to this), those new pieces won't fit into the puzzle; they may be too small or too large, etc. For instance, you say lenght contraction shouldn't be in SR, and you would find that the puzzle cannot be completed. You can't change SR in that fashion; you must either except it or reject it in whole, assuming you have an alternative theory to replace it.

10. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
I will look around a little when I have time, but I specifically remember reading in an
article that an energetic neutrino can reverse the process that created it. An energetic muon neutrino created from a muon decay can again produce another
muon.

by Paul T:
Some even thought that ghost is composed of neutrinos.
===========================================================

No, Paul T, this is not your daddy's old tachyon, this is a new neutrino tachyon they
will be searching for. Some of the most advanced research at particle accelerators
suggest SOME, not all, neutrinos may be tachyons, work carried out by the physicists
at the actual accelerators. There has been a slight question mark ever since the
neutrinos were detected one day before the EM radiation during the 1987 Supernova
event. It is serious research, not by ones you would deem 'quacks'.

11. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Perhaps I should add here, that from what I remember reading, the new muon is
produced by the interaction of the muon neutrino with a particle. That particle is
usually an oxygen molecule in the water of the detector. The muon neutrino is
thought to 'borrow' the additional energy to make the new muon from the molecule.
I believe the muon neutrino interacts with a quark in the neucleus of the oxygen
molecule, but I don't remember if all the additional energy comes from just the quark
or the whole molecule.

12. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
by Paul T:

"You can't change SR in that fashion; you must either except it or reject it in whole, assuming you have an alternative theory to replace it."
============================================================

I don't have an alternative theory to replace SR, but there IS work being done to
CHANGE it. Doubly Special Relativity has been worked on for awhile, but it is not
to SR, one to use after the Lorentz Transformations are applied. SR begins with
different FoRs for observers and the relativistly moving one. After the Lorentz transformations, the stationary observers' frame is assumed to be the true one.
DSR adds another frame, and I gather, eliminates the twin paradox and other
oddities of SR. It may also eliminate the FTL barrier. Work was begun on DSR after
the Ultra High Energy cosmic rays were thought to violate SR. And the UHE cosmic
rays have been detected arriving from all directions, indicating that they are not all
being produced within 100 light years inside the Milky Way.

13. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
Yes, you probably read it at the website of the Superkamiokande detector in Japan, where they detect neutrinos. The high-energetic neutrinos collide with the water that is stored in a high-energy tank, and photodetectors measure the Cherenkov radiation caused by the muon / electron that gets created in this high energy collision.

However, this is not the source of the muons we measure, simply because we can compare the intensities. The superkamiokande detector barely detects any muon -- neutrinos are very weakly interacting and hence this collision is very rare! The "direct muon" detection (i.e. point a detector upwards and measure them) gives you much higher intensities. I performed the experiment, as do many other students.

Bye!

Crisp

14. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
If you are in intergalactic space then you must have some record of your initial mass and all acceleration, hence velocity, history. You have the information of blue/red shift analyses available at any time. If you can communicate with the appraoching spaceship you both can exchange accelration and initial mass data red blue/ed information, etc. If you are truly out there in deep intergalactic space then by definition you have overcome any relativity constraints, which I conclude are mere psychological barriers, but for the more mainline attuned the technical limitations on the speed of light must have been ovecome in some manner.

I just now spotted your links, though I predict they contain 'relativity truth" excuse the cynicism, it is just a personality defect, a form of scientific tourettes's syndrome.(I will read immedaiiately after this post) I'll be getting help as soon as it is developed. The biggest problems in getting there are definable: Overcomong barriers require two necessary prerequisites: 1) A truly necessary imperative, or reason, and 2) economic ability.

The technical barriers will fall by the wayside as intense parctical motivations will effectivley cast aside all useless theoretical junk that, if followed, would prohibit the trip, if you get my drift.

I say, if simultaneity, as a derivation of relativity postulates fall so does relativity theory.

Hey everybody we're almost there, who wants to buy a ticket?

Yes you can tell if you are stopped from your accelration and drive impulse data. Mesage from the other ship can be analyzed for the blue/red condition etc. to determine absolute motion.

15. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
Fine, as long as the theory is not finished, not verified and peer-reviewed, it is nearly worthless (it might serve as something to entertain the thoughts with). Until that day, I think we'll all be happy with good ol' SR ...

Note that nobody has ever said here that GR/SR is the ultimate answer to all problems. I am pretty sure that sooner or later the theory will be replaced by a better theory, of which GR/SR is some sort of limiting case. But then again, that theory will also have its flaws, ... That is the difference between real scientists (who just accept the theory as a working model for all practical purposes) and philosophers, who try to find the "real mechanism behind". The difference is that one is a lucky guess, and that the other is repeatable through experiments

.

Bye!

Crisp

16. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
2inquisitive-
I have been promoting the decline and fall of simultaneity the "first concesquence' of relativity theory. I canot get away from the conclusion that simultaneity is a problem involving pure psychological events. One invariable sees the "the obsever in the moving frame determines . . ." or words to that effect. In being challenged I always bring up this point but no one has dealt with it head on. I may have a bite though. The opposition though is determined and dug in for the long haul. In any event my simple link here analyzes Einstein's gedunken where an observer passes the midpoint of two light sources just as the lights are pulsed on. The obsever sees the oncoming light before the trailing light, naturally, but AE concludes just from this, as far as I can determine, that simultaneity must be discarded as a meaningful concept.
the problem is trivial to analyze so take a look.

I started thinking along the lines that the moving observer could have thought, "two lights at different times. The lights could have been pulsed on simulaneously and I am not in the midpoint, Or I am moving and perhaps passed the midpoint, or even in terms of relativity theory or the lights were turned on at different times and reflected all over the place." To quit where AE quit is scienifically incompetence, say I. The problem is not technically difficult.

Assume briefly that my thesis is correct. The consequences are: As simultaneity was deived from fundamental postulates of RT either the derivation was in error or the postulates are in error, or a combination. But keep the "observers sees" current in the thinking which makes simultaneity and RT purely psychological as if the observer can cange the nature of simultaneous event by ovserving the processes while moving.

This is not far fetched as quntum theory went through the same quandry and isw still a viable concept for some. Meansing that observing the event changes the event, as opposed to merely measuring the event.

17. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
There is another way of looking at the problem that does not require an analysis of relativity theory. The onertia just discussed is rapidly osci;lating particles. We do not have to discard RT but we do look at the mathematics that stares us in the face and that is the 1/(1 - v>2)>1/2 term (for c = 1). Velocity being the limitation we need to take a good look at then we naturally focus on acceleration processes (universally ignored in RT analysisi-) and the effect of ever rapidly and ever increasing oscillating particles exchanging energy with the accelerating fiield. Using an "effieiciency of energy exchange" model rapidly oscillating particles could be driven to use more and more energy just to store the energy absorbed and less and less for velocity increases. The process of energy onloaded and energy used for velocity increases cannot occur instantly. Processes take time, but again, the concept is virtually ignored as everyone, literally confines their analysis to RT limitations.

Said another way, if you have a mass 1 particle oscillating back and forth at ever faster speeds then the partiles is going to spend more and mlore time at any one location in the space it is oscillating in. I don't know about weight or gravity attraction on such a particle but the fast ones have more inertia and momentum and force producing potential. In terms of accelerated resonance modulating the accelerating field may be the way to overcome velocity limitations.

Finally, there is an engineering term (at least this is how I became exposed to it) of specific impulse which is the measure of force/ mass/t in units of seconds )force divided by mass flow rate). it has an intuitive feel that the force term divided by the smallest mass term produces a higher specific impulse. Vacua would be ideal space travel fuel!.

i wpuld appreciate your input on the lnk at your convenience. I may have brought this up to you in the past, but i've forgotten the context.

In eadingt your post I saw the same concept you described in my post with the obvious angular variation.

Messages:
3,181

19. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
CRISP,

I have been on vacation since the 19th and just returned this evening. I don't intend to argue UniKEF with you but neither do I intend to allow your outlandish bullshit stand.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Until you show mathematically that UniKEF gravity is in error (currently verified at least in part by calculus - twice) then shut the hell up and knock off the personal put downs. ”

"Posted by Crisp: *Nothing* has been verified about the calculus, the ultimate conclusion was ... inconclusive. But this is typically your style Mac, we're getting used to it by now."

Speaking of styles, it is yours that is only to familiar.

1 - The original calculus was done by a physicist many times your superior. In contrast to your predictions and claims that I was a dumbass and that the UniKEF integration would not be inverse square, he said it indeed was.

2 - Further a member "Mathematician"; also your superior, I strongly suspect, actually looked at what Dr Allard did and also concluded that the integration was inverse square.

3 - So stuff your snide remarks where the sun doesn't shine. How many times do I have to prove you wrong before you shut the hell up?

"Posted by Crisp: And the real funny part is where you say "YOU show me MATHEMATICALLY". You don't understand a thing about the maths behind any decent theory anyway, so stop pretending that you do.

I have been forthright about my math skills but not being active is not the same as not having been mathematical. I have had some calculus but never used it. That is a far cry from the status you would have others believe. Again stuff it.

"Posted by Crisp: And surely stop asking us to do your work for you."

I haven't asked you do a damn thing. I can't help it that you know what the results of the math are and don't like the answer. My My. Afraid of the truth are we.

[Posted by Crisp: A theory is not "valid until proven otherwise", by definition you have to PROVE that it is valid. You have not done anything like that, so stop pretending that UniKEF is of any scientific significance whatsoever."

Gee and I thought James string was to prove me wrong "Invalidate" my mathematical claim and I claim it shows the opposite. Now as to what that means, perhaps just a bit more time but scientifically significant? You bet, a simple, logical theory that eliminates or mitigates Dark Matter, MOND and Dark Energy - I think it is significant. Once published I suggest many others will also. I really don't give a damn what Crisp thinks since you have already proven your inability to see past your preconcieved ideas. (Actually that is giving you to much credit. You haven't had any ideas, you just mimmick the text books and repeat what others before you figured out or tell you.)

“ Originally Posted by MacM
I don't see as you have made any predictions what-so-ever. I have made over a dozen which have been found true over these 50 years. There are some yet to be seen but NONE that have been falsified. ”

[Posted by Crisp: The same old phrase again. You predicted nothing Mac, you wouldn't even recognize a scientific prediction if it came in a 24-floor building with a flashing fluorescent sign hanging above the entrance saying "i am a scientific prediction" [/blackadder].

You saying so doesn't erase the recorded history of numerous predictions which I have made that have been found to be correct. Again I don't give a damn if you don't like it.

[Posted by Crisp: But I already know what your reply to this message is going to be... You will probably ignore me, saying that I have contributed nothing to the conversation (yeah, I gave up on you a long time ago already, as most of us have). Then you will say I am wrong, that indeed UniKEF has predicted loads of things, even though nowhere there exists a calculation saying "hence the slowing speed of space probes is v_{slowdown} = 10^{-10} m/s" or something along the lines of "a mass of 1kg. is attracted to the earth by a gravitational force of 9.81 m/s^2".

Guess what you are right, I never made the prediction about space probes but then again in 1954 just how many space probes had we launched. What I did predict was "Variable Distance" as a function of gravity of bodies. An issue which MAY be the answer to the space probe anomaly. That is all I have said so don't try to claim I have said otherwise.

"Posted by Crisp: Before you want to do science, better first learn what science is about. It is *not* about explaining the fundamental how's and why's. You are in the wrong business if you think that is what science can do for you, and anybody who claims otherwise makes the same mistake; if you want an answer to these questions, then go to the philosophy forum where they will gladly welcome you. "

The simple truth is asshole, I apparently am more scientific than yourself. I've done a lot of basic science in my days; including the gravity testing. Not conclusive but damn sure indicative and certainly more than you have even thought of doing much less have done. So suck it in, you are in second place running against me. Actually making you second is to generous, I can't imagine how far down the list you really are.

Last edited: May 26, 2004
20. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
Oh darn, and I was already playing with the thought that you had finally left us.

About your post: once again you seem to think that you are doing science. If you want to see some real science, then join me to work some day. I must warn you though, you won't like what you see... all these dull people scribbling these mathematical things on pieces of papers and blackboards. But yes, the mathematics is bad and evil and it is all abstract bullsh*t which leads nowhere and surely ain't physical. And you can be glad, you'll never understand a thing about that real science anyway, so nothing to worry about Dan.

Ouch, after all the patience that I had with you and all the attempts at explaining where you were wrong... Yes, that also happened once, but unfortunately you kept being a stubborn old fool who refused to learn what he was taught. People forget so fast... Well, at least now I know you didn't understand the math, so that kinda singles out where the problem lied back then, no ?

I sure hope this ignore option works well...

Last edited: May 26, 2004
21. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
??!!

A philosophical anal-ogy, but a wrong one. When probed, the simple truth gives amazing insight unlike asshole.

22. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Crisp,

“ Originally Posted by MacM
I have been on vacation since the 19th and just returned this evening. I don't intend to argue UniKEF with you but neither do I intend to allow your outlandish bullshit stand. ”

Oh darn, and I was already playing with the thought that you had finally left us.

Sorry to disappoint you.

About your post: once again you seem to think that you are doing science. If you want to see some real science, then join me to work some day. I must warn you though, you won't like what you see... all these dull people scribbling these mathematical things on pieces of papers and blackboards. But yes, the mathematics is bad and evil and it is all abstract bullsh*t which leads nowhere and surely ain't physical. And you can be glad, you'll never understand a thing about that real science anyway, so nothing to worry about Dan.

Actually I know quite well what I not only "am doing" but have already done. Unlike our off the wall assessment based on abolutely nothing but your verbal BS. When are you going to realize that what you say has very little meaning. What counts is what is accomplished and in that regard you are running well behind.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
The simple truth is asshole, I apparently am more scientific than yourself. I've done a lot of basic science in my days; including the gravity testing. Not conclusive but damn sure indicative and certainly more than you have even thought of doing much less have done. So suck it in, you are in second place running against me. Actually making you second is to generous, I can't imagine how far down the list you really are. ”

Ouch, after all the patience that I had with you and all the attempts at explaining where you were wrong... Yes, that also happened once, but unfortunately you kept being a stubborn old fool who refused to learn what he was taught. People forget so fast... Well, at least now I know you didn't understand the math, so that kinda singles out where the problem lied back then, no ?

I sure hope this ignore option works well...

I see you still prefer to not address the issues head on. Can you show Dr Allard or Shmoe's work is in error. Come-on you are supposedly such a great mathematician it should be a piece of cake to show I was wrong. Since you can't (nor can you ever admit I was right) then it is so much easier to just make crap up isn't it.

Last edited: May 27, 2004
23. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Everneo,

Still digesting your post unraveling its hidden messages. PS: Have you been able to find a mathematical flaw to my claim of inverse square? I thought not.