ZAZ: The general relativistic time measurement argument,

That's the last I read on this topic. Was there something else that called this explanation into question as well?

According to sensors it might reflect the presence of a stable wormhole.

It might not be what they think it is,
something else might be going on here...


discrepancy is sometimes a leader to the twist.

/you can be right and wrong at the same time...depends on the definition.

They almost certainly aren't. We've had two experiments using the same equipment that got the same results. That's interesting, certainly, but hardly clinching.

ZAZ: Superluminal neutrinos require new physics so I don't accept "old physics says ___ would happen" as a counter-proof..

Done in one.

Einstein FTW!

the opposite of charity is justice: ZAZ: Superluminal neutrinos require new physics so I don't accept "old physics says ___ would happen" as a counter-proof..

Done in one.

And your understanding of SPECIAL relativity is clearly posted in these two posts.

Here's a thought of mine on the subject.

Could it be possible the the fabric of space-time is warped differently then we think it is near the Earth's center?

I'm not familiar with the mathematics involved, but if space-time is warped just a little differently then we think deep within the Earth then the neutrinos took a slightly shorter path, resulting in the appearance of traveling faster then light.

When they say faster than light, do they mean light in a line from origin to destination, or do they mean the collective energy transitions? Because if it's the former, they're dumb to think nothing travels faster than a ray of light. If its the later then they're just wrong but on the right track.

Non-evil Monkey: Could it be possible the the fabric of space-time is warped differently then we think it is near the Earth's center?

These neutrinos went no where near the center of the Earth. It's far more likely there's an error in their equipment.

noit: When they say faster than light

They mean c, the speed of light in vacuum, which is a constant. Nothing travels faster than that speed.

Your neutrinos are drifting....

Non-evil Monkey: Here's a thought of mine on the subject.

Could it be possible the the fabric of space-time is warped differently then we think it is near the Earth's center?

I'm not familiar with the mathematics involved, but if space-time is warped just a little differently then we think deep within the Earth then the neutrinos took a slightly shorter path, resulting in the appearance of traveling faster then light.

That, or they passed through your mom.

t3knomanser: Non-evil Monkey: Could it be possible the the fabric of space-time is warped differently then we think it is near the Earth's center?

These neutrinos went no where near the center of the Earth. It's far more likely there's an error in their equipment.

noit: When they say faster than light

They mean c, the speed of light in vacuum, which is a constant. Nothing travels faster than that speed.

Prove it.

RedVentrue: Prove it

Einstein did a better job than I could possibly hope to do. I'll just point you to all physics since 1905.

t3knomanser: RedVentrue: Prove it

Einstein did a better job than I could possibly hope to do. I'll just point you to all physics since 1905.

That doesn't say nothing can travel faster than c. It says nothing can accelerate past c.

Subtle difference.

Rent Party: That doesn't say nothing can travel faster than c.

It says that, no matter where you are, light is always passing you at c. You literally cannot go faster than light within your own reference frame, and as a side effect, you can't go faster than it relative to anybody else's, either. You also can't accelerate there, but you also can't be there anyway.

Things like wormholes and alcubierre drives are all tricks that let you travel long distances faster than light could, but they're not actually letting you cross those distances faster than light. In the case of a wormhole, you've just topologically connected two unconnected points in spacetime- you've really just changed the distance between those two points.

t3knomanser: Rent Party: That doesn't say nothing can travel faster than c.

It says that, no matter where you are, light is always passing you at c.

That is correct, from either side of the light cone. You can't pass it. The math doesn't prevent anything from traveling faster than c, it only prevents you from accelerating past c. It's a problem of energy and mass.

ZAZ: Rent Party

Quantum field theory is designed to prevent real particles from traveling faster than light, and it does a very good job of explaining the universe.

Alternately, you do not so good a job at understanding it. Relativity does not require any quantum theory at all. It can be described in purely Newtonian terms.

It is about acceleration, not velocity.

Forget simply a better headline, I submitted this with a better article.
Link (new window)

I don't get what the problem is.

Put an emitter on one side of the room and a receiver on the other.
Shoot neutrinos at the target, measure, and compare with the speed of light.

If the target get hit before light could have hit it, you'll know.

/Wheres my Nobel prize?

way south: Put an emitter on one side of the room and a receiver on the other.
Shoot neutrinos at the target, measure, and compare with the speed of light.

We don't have anything that can measure time accurately enough to do that, unless by "room" you mean "Europe".

t3knomanser: They mean c, the speed of light in vacuum, which is a constant. Nothing travels faster than that speed.

Not even 3D printed warp drive Galaxy-colonizing species ships? Come on, I just bought real estate on Frzazz from Hawking Realty. Think I got took?

t3knomanser: way south: Put an emitter on one side of the room and a receiver on the other.
Shoot neutrinos at the target, measure, and compare with the speed of light.

We don't have anything that can measure time accurately enough to do that, unless by "room" you mean "Europe".

And that's pretty much what they did (across Italy). The counter study is basically saying that the energy levels of the detected neutrinos are commensurate with what they would expect them to be if they traveled at light speed. If they had traveled faster, they would have a different energy level.

Therefore conventional physics is saying that they can't go faster than light and energy readings are saying that were not...therefore it's likely that the time reading that is showing faster than light travel may just be experimental error.

There is a new study however that is validating the original findings and Fermilab is going to throw its hat in the ring. We'll see some more data soon.

I'm not saying they're tachyons... but they're tachyons.

yogaFLAME: Lord Dimwit: BarbadoSlim: According to sensors it might reflect the presence of a stable wormhole.

A stable wormhole only happens with inverse neutrino fields. Unless this team reversed the polarity of the main deflector at CERN, I don't think we're getting anything near a stable wormhole.

Like putting too much air in a balloon!

I see you two also took the course on "The Mathematics of Quantum Neutrino Fields" with Prof. Farnsworth

I want to believe...

Rent Party: It is about acceleration, not velocity.

It's about both. Relativity applies to accelerating reference frames, but Lorentz factors are derived from velocity. You get imaginary results when you use velocities greater than c for velocity.

t3knomanser:
Relativity applies to accelerating reference frames, but Lorentz factors are derived from velocity. You get imaginary results when you use velocities greater than c for velocity.

Cool!
Can I get a Unicorn?
Please?

t3knomanser: Rent Party: It is about acceleration, not velocity.

It's about both. Relativity applies to accelerating reference frames, but Lorentz factors are derived from velocity. You get imaginary results when you use velocities greater than c for velocity.

If the speed of light is insufficient to escape the gravity of a black hole, explain Hawking radiation.

Depends. Is it an African or a European neutrino?

RedVentrue: If the speed of light is insufficient to escape the gravity of a black hole, explain Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation occurs when a pair of virtual particles appears near the event horizon. One particle falls into the black hole, one particle doesn't. Nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole.

traylor: Depends. Is it an African or a European neutrino?

Win

t3knomanser: RedVentrue: If the speed of light is insufficient to escape the gravity of a black hole, explain Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation occurs when a pair of virtual particles appears near the event horizon. One particle falls into the black hole, one particle doesn't. Nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole.

I thought Hawking radiation was the reason that black holes will eventually die? At least that was what was on the Science Channel.

RedVentrue: t3knomanser: RedVentrue: If the speed of light is insufficient to escape the gravity of a black hole, explain Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation occurs when a pair of virtual particles appears near the event horizon. One particle falls into the black hole, one particle doesn't. Nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole.

I thought Hawking radiation was the reason that black holes will eventually die? At least that was what was on the Science Channel.

The excess energy of the emitted particle is taken away from the black hole, in yes, it is that too.

RedVentrue: I thought Hawking radiation was the reason that black holes will eventually die?

Virtual particles aren't "real", and normally they self-destruct. Black holes break that rule, and someone has to pay the price- and it's the black hole.

Isn't the primary argument against the findings, the "energy wasn't low enough, therefore c" argument, itself a theoretical argument and, thus, not really useful as a direct counterargument?

/yes, this stuff is way out of my league

Did they account for the spin of the earth....is the recieving apparatus to the east or west of the sending apparatus?

t3knomanser: RedVentrue: I thought Hawking radiation was the reason that black holes will eventually die?

Virtual particles aren't "real", and normally they self-destruct. Black holes break that rule, and someone has to pay the price- and it's the black hole.

If the mass of the virtual particle falls into the black hole, the black hole would gain that mass, not lose mass? Seems to me that if a virtual particle emits real radiation, then the virtual particle is not so virtual is it?

Dear science journalists : SHUT THE FARK UP WITH MISLEADING AND OVERBLOWN HEADLINES.

That is all.

I'm looking at you, Nature News.

t3knomanser: RedVentrue: I thought Hawking radiation was the reason that black holes will eventually die?

Virtual particles aren't "real", and normally they self-destruct. Black holes break that rule, and someone has to pay the price- and it's the black hole.

"As anyone who's ever had to pay a phone bill can attest, information does not travel for free." -Stevie the Hawk

RedVentrue: If the mass of the virtual particle falls into the black hole, the black hole would gain that mass, not lose mass?

You'd think, except for the fact that the conservation of matter and energy still holds. You can't just have new particles leaping into existence- somebody has to pay that tab. In the case of Hawking radiation, it's the black hole that has to pay that tab. Half the time, the particle that falls into the black hole is antimatter, which destroys the matter in the black hole and reduces its mass. The other half of the time, the particle is matter- but there's an extra bit of anti-matter floating out there, so the black hole "covers the tab", so to speak- it gives up mass equal to the antimatter particle (and equal to the particle it absorbs, meaning the mass of the black hole doesn't change). All in all, Hawking radiation reduces the mass of the black hole.

t3knomanser: RedVentrue: If the mass of the virtual particle falls into the black hole, the black hole would gain that mass, not lose mass?

You'd think, except for the fact that the conservation of matter and energy still holds. You can't just have new particles leaping into existence- somebody has to pay that tab. In the case of Hawking radiation, it's the black hole that has to pay that tab. Half the time, the particle that falls into the black hole is antimatter, which destroys the matter in the black hole and reduces its mass. The other half of the time, the particle is matter- but there's an extra bit of anti-matter floating out there, so the black hole "covers the tab", so to speak- it gives up mass equal to the antimatter particle (and equal to the particle it absorbs, meaning the mass of the black hole doesn't change). All in all, Hawking radiation reduces the mass of the black hole.

If conservation of matter and energy still holds, there would be no expansion of the universe. Something is created every day. Space.