Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Parry: on 4/30/12 at 11:20am UTC, wrote It just happened to be Russian, the one above says- The saddest dog...

Georgina Parry: on 4/30/12 at 4:03am UTC, wrote Tommy, RE your comment.. "I am a friend to all in this community who are...

Domenico Oricchio: on 4/11/12 at 19:03pm UTC, wrote We are all sorry, sad and dark now I hear the new now, but this not change...

Georgina Parry: on 4/2/12 at 8:47am UTC, wrote Paul, I am sorry if that post seemed somewhat unkind. It was in part an...

Anonymous: on 4/2/12 at 7:44am UTC, wrote "Though Big bang might seem to correspond nicely with "let there be light"...

Paul Reed: on 4/2/12 at 6:52am UTC, wrote Georgina “You have failed to see the big picture despite my attempts to...

Georgina Parry: on 3/30/12 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote Paul, your interrogation is over. I enjoy debate but when the argument...

Andy M: on 3/30/12 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote Prof Antonio Ereditato who oversaw the Opera project, which had reported...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joy Christian: "We have had some discussion about the "Quantum Cheshire Cat" here." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

John Merryman: "Tom, Possibly it might be better described as "anthropocentric," since..." in Why Quantum?

Zeeya Merali: "The latest edition of the podcast is up -- and you may notice there's a bit..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Thomas Ray: "John, I don't see any connection of the second question to the first." in Why Quantum?

dieu le: "The light pulse’s activity of reflecting back and forth between two..." in Alternative Models of...

Pentcho Valev: "Sabine Hossenfelder: "How is time-dilatation in a gravitational field less..." in Time Dilation Gets a...

Gyenge Valeria: "Congratulation to all this contest winners! Re: Tom's "Does anyone find..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Akinbo Ojo: "All the sources Tom referred me to say Earth spacetime is not flat. So how..." in Melting Spacetime


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?


FQXi BLOGS
September 1, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Neutrino Black Magic [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Stephon Alexander wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 13:12 GMT
While the recent measurement of superluminal propagation of muon neutrinos by the OPERA experiment needs independent confirmation, it is still enticing to imagine if it is at all possible to cook up a toy model to explain the faster than light effect, in the context of old ideas from cosmology (Varying Speed of Light (VSL) theories to solve the horizon problem). If indeed muon neutrinos can move faster than light, we will first need to explain why and how neutrinos can “move outside a light cone” without violating the sacred principles that apply for all of the other happy particles that enjoy causality. In other words, if neutrinos are endowed with some new physical super-duper properties, why aren’t massless gauge fields (such as photons) or other fermions (such as electrons and quarks) blessed with such superluminal powers? Moreover, since neutrinos are the cousins of charged leptons via weak interactions, shouldn’t we expect strange effects in weak induced transitions?

Some colleagues in the community have raised the contention that it is unlikely that neutrinos can propagate faster than the speed of light because it would contradict the arrival time of light emitted from Supernovae 1987. In particular, if the neutrinos were traveling a part in a million faster than light, they would arrive months before the light that was emitted from the Supernovae. The goal of this discussion is to be a theoretical dreamer and assume that we can overcome this contention. Three obvious loopholes are that the supernovae neutrinos were much lower in energy than the terrestrial ones that OPERA observed. Also, the distance scales between the Supernovae were orders of magnitudes apart. Finally, maybe muon neutrinos are different from their electron and tau siblings. Here goes our wish list of ingredients for a model to explain the OPERA effect:

1) OPERA neutrinos at high energies propagate superluminally at short distance scales (I refrain from choosing what this distance scale actually is—let’s assume that it’s a meter). Low energy propagating neutrinos are screened from this superluminal effect. I’ll say more about how this screening can come about.

2) In other words, neutrinos “couple” to space-time in a way such that they can move faster than light.

3) The neutrino superluminality is connected to the fact that neutrinos can undergo flavor oscillations. Therefore, other forms of matter that can’t undergo flavor changes (which is mostly everything else) will be excluded from superluminal powers.

Ideally, we would like a mechanism to tie in all these ingredients; something that I’ll refrain from in this post (and if I knew, I’d write a paper—hah). Given this wish list, let’s see how far we can go with a model. I want to be minimalistic and stay in four dimensions; I love Branes, but expect lots of papers on this perspective.

The first ingredient (superluminality) can be incorporated by using a cosmology idea that was implemented by my collaborator, Joao Magueijo, and I ten years ago (also see work by FQXi’s Amelino-Camelia, who has also just posted a paper on the Opera results, and Majid). The basic point was that the universe’s space-time was non-commutative (a fundamental uncertainty in the directions of space and time) and filled with radiation, which at low energies propagated at the speed of light. At high energy (early cosmic time), this radiation started to feel the granularity of space-time and the group velocity of the photons deviated from the speed of light. This effect is no different from what is observed in solid state physics with lattice vibrations (whose quanta are phonons). On distance scales larger than the lattice spacing, a phonon’s angular frequency (w) of vibration is linearly proportional to the wavevector (k). The phonon’s propagation speed will increase on scales proportional to the lattice spacing. Many approaches to quantum gravity (such as Loop Quantum Gravity, Dynamical Triangulations, String Theory) point to some granularity of space-time. However, we expect this “lattization” of space-time to be on the order of the Planck length (or perhaps a millimeter). But let’s say by fiat that similarly to the VSL effect, neutrinos speed up because they feel the discrete space-time and their dispersion relations are modified by a lattice effect that builds up coherently as they propagate. Then why don’t we see neutrino speed up on cosmological scales? In our model, we’ll have to counter this effect with some sort of suppression effect when the lattice looks smooth (we get back a classical space-time). I don’t know how to do this, but bear with me for the time being.

Now for the hard part: Why do only neutrinos see the space-time lattice? In this case, since neutrinos are quantum mechanical objects, we can only resort to quantum mechanics to rescue us. We know that symmetries can prevent quantum mechanical processes from happening (such as the selection effect in photon emission due to parity). So, what is special about neutrinos, symmetry wise? Well, their masses are so tiny (compared to the other fermions in nature) that they are helicity eigenstates. So, perhaps, if only neutrinos had helical (chiral) interactions with (discrete/lattice) gravity and were able to superluminally oscillate into each other then this might do the job. We can superselect chiral matter interactions to propagate with superluminal dispersion relations. This implies that gravity should know something about the weak force. A few years ago, Nesti-Percacci, Smolin, and I independently tried to exploit the Chiral nature of gravity by using the self dual Ashtekar-Sen gauge connection variables that break up into two SU(2) copies that commute. It was argued that it is possible to identify one copy to chiral gravity and the other to the weak interaction.

Maybe this, maybe that. This exciting prospect will tantalize theorists to translate their favorite theoretical conundrums into something coherent to explain the potentially ground breaking result that my generation has thirsted for since kindergarten.

Note: I thank Mark Gould for his feedback.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 14:18 GMT
Has anyone noticed the connection with the Earth's fly-by anomaly? Satellites get a mysterious acceleration around the planet's equatorial regions which is currently unexplainable and neutrinos get a 'mystery acceleration' as they approach the Earth's equator. Coincidence??

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 14:21 GMT
If indeed neutrinos can move faster than light, special relativity should be rejected: it predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to one observer and does not occur according to the other:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"

The solution to the *train in a tunnel* problem is on p. 57 in David Morin's text:

p. 57: "Yes, the bomb explodes. This is clear in the frame of the train... (...) We can, however, also look at things in the frame of the tunnel... (...) Therefore, the deactivation device gets triggered before the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel, so you might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear to have a paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the deactivation device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate itself. It takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of the train from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this transmission time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no matter how fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has the best chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c, so let's assume this is the case..."

It can be rigorously proved that, if the deactivation signal's speed is higher than c (e.g. neutrinos faster than light are used), the signal does get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel. So special relativity predicts that the bomb explodes in the frame of the train and does not explode in the frame of the tunnel.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
If neutrinos cannot move faster than light, will special relativity remain absurd? Of course it will - the absurdity comes from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ
/bugrivet.html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Consider an analogous situation in Big Brother's world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Oceania's scientists have long ago advanced the fundamental postulate (2 plus 2) = 5 and are now trying to resolve the following paradox:

3(2 plus 2) = 3*5 = 15

3(2 plus 2) = 3*2 plus 3*2 = 6 plus 6 = 12

Can the "paradox" be resolved? It can't of course. Oceania's scientists can only get rid of the false postulate (2 plus 2) = 5. Analogously, scientists who do not want to live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world any longer will have to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 04:30 GMT
Stephon Alexander wrote: "...a cosmology idea that was implemented by my collaborator, Joao Magueijo, and I ten years ago... (...) ...this radiation started to feel the granularity of space-time and the group velocity of the photons deviated from the speed of light."

OK but why does your collaborator Joao Magueijo teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Spec
ulation/dp/0738205257

Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

Your ideas of a variable speed of light should not be based on a lie. The Michelson-Morley experiment does not confirm the false light postulate. Rather, it confirms the equation c' = (c plus v) given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-H
offmann/dp/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
Alan/Pencho

There was of course an SR based prediction of this result in a certain finalist essay; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 But that is not to say that the mechanism wholly supported all the assumptions of SR. I know all the crazy theories and patches will now flood out, but I feel I should remind us all how the predictive DFM theory worked anyway.

Let us imagine that a system, say a train or fast flowing Fizeau stream, represents a physically real and spatially limited limited inertial frame. Within the train/stream, whatever its state of motion, neutrino's travel at c. If a nearby planets surface (inches, parsecs, whatever away) happens to be moving somewhere at v, the neutrino's do not give one jot and carry on at c with respect to the train or stream. The 'space' in the frame is one of Einstein's 'infinitely many spaces in relative motion' (1952). (remember that each 'system' is of course made up of particles).

If the neutrino stream has any similarities with any other kind of particle stream it is logical that it may have, to some small degree, a similar effect. Indeed the same effect which at least partially explains the apparent superluminal velocities of the core 'blobs' in the streams of ions in gas jets (see M87 etc. - or the above paper). Of course this would mean that no neutrino actually travelled faster than c (where it was travelling). Just like a light pulse in a fibre optic cable - in a train doing v. The pulse would do c/n with respect to the train, but apparent c/n plus v with respect to an observer on the platform. The word 'apparent' is important. Proper time is not used in it's derivation so it is not real. As Minkowski put it (1908); it is perfectly acceptable, just equivalent to 'imaginary'.

Indeed even Lorentz himself wasn't happy and expressed his reservation about disallowing observed velocity addition; c plus v! (1913)

Effectively then,; the neutrino's rather cheated as they did not use the Proper Time of the detectors (ECR) frame, they used their own Proper Time. Rather like your 'bomb in a train' Pencho, but with a logical explanation - the bomb can only be either in the train or in the tunnel's frame, not both.

The effects of such 'discrete fields'? Simultaneity becoming non paradoxical, a severe shortage of anomalies, and atomic scattering deriving Special and General relativity a priori.

Unfortunately the scenario requires a new way of thinking about ingrained assumptions. That is far from easy to achieve. I know you have done so Alan, but your training was, and thinking is, already different. I hope you may offer aid and support to anyone who wishes to try. But I'm sure plenty of simpler solutions far easier to grasp in terms of present beliefs will emerge.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 10:06 GMT
Peter, you said "Unfortunately the scenario requires a new way of thinking about ingrained assumptions. That is far from easy to achieve. I know you have done so Alan, but your training was, and thinking is, already different. I hope you may offer aid and support to anyone who wishes to try. But I'm sure plenty of simpler solutions far easier to grasp in terms of present beliefs will emerge."

Thank you for the recognition of where I'm coming from. If in the near future the "plenty of simpler solutions far easier to grasp" still don't bear fruit then I urge people to start from the first principle of an Archimedes screw model for a graviton. Also note that the general look of galaxies is one where the gravitational field appears stronger on the plane of rotation.

Very best wishes to you too,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 07:35 GMT
A Speculation: The OPERA people got it backwards, what is actually happening is that the neutrino is moving at the speed that is allowed by space-time, and what they think of as the speed of light is actually slower than the speed of space-time by a small amount. Yes the neutrino is moving faster than light, but so what, relativity still holds because the speed of importance is the speed that space-time allows (a little bit faster than the current value for c).

Here is what is happening: The neutrino is a particle and as such it has a Compton wavelength and a deBroglie wavelength. Over the Compton wavelength it moves at the speed of space-time. Over the deBroglie wavelength (much longer than the Compton wavelength) it moves slower than the speed of space-time, just like any particle.

The trick that the neutrino is performing is that its Compton wavelength is longer than the 730km distance of the OPERA experiment. This is because the mass of the neutrino is very small. At astronomical distances the neutrino will look more like light.

See the section on "spin" at www.digital wavetheory.com (still a work in progress).

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 15:53 GMT
The top of a tower of height h emits light towards the ground. An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be shifted in accordance with the equation f'=f(1 plus gh/c^2), an equation confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

two implications are conceivable:

(A) The speed of light is shifted in accordance with the equation c'=c(1 plus gh/c^2), an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light. The wavelength remains unchanged.

(B) The wavelength is shifted in accordance with the equation L'=L/(1 plus gh/c^2). The speed of light remains unchanged.

(A) is too dangerous for Einsteinana while (B) is too silly. So thoughts about the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (adopted even in Einstein's general relativity) are usually suppressed by crimestop:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 04:49 GMT
Frequency and speed of the wave (relative to the observer) change, wavelength remains unchanged: this is the conclusion from the *moving observer* scenario that refutes Einstein's special relativity:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_
3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 05:23 GMT
Pentcho,

P: "The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics, Stephan J.G. Gift: "For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c plus v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c plus v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years.""

"Sacred" and "physics" have nothing to do with each other; there is nothing sacred in physics.

You should take a look at the relativistic Doppler Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_eff
ect

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 08:04 GMT
Jason

How can the speed of light wrt the observer become c + v? The observer as a physically existent entity is moving towards the light, which is another physically existent entity (forget earth movement for now otherwise it gets too complicated, but the observer is on the earth, so its movement has an effect, but not on the light, because that has no connectivity with the earth).

Now, in terms of resultant observations, what you get is a range of data, eg conditions through which light 'travelled', relative spatial position of observer and event during that 'travelling', the duration involved, etc, from which you can deduce time of event (ie interaction between entity and light), actual speed of light in that particular circumstance.The observer cannot, of course, see the light, they receive a realisable image formed from the aforementioned interaction.

And before anybody jumps on me from a great height! I will stress the following. When we stipulate a speed, we are defining a difference. We can never know the 'actual' speed, but we certainly can know the difference. And those differences are real, not a function of individual perception. In simple language, we are not saying X IS travelling at Y speed. We are just using a measuring system with a common denominator, which is irrelevant, that just enables comparison. What we are really saying is, X IS travelling ten times faster than Y, which IS travelling a third the speed of Z, and so on.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 23:11 GMT
Thanks Alan

And thank you Pentcho for that wonderful Orwell quote which seems to sum up much scientific enquiry methodology.

In your scenario, we know well that frequencies are 'scattered' up and down by coupling interaction with media. New media, 'dark matter' or shock electrons scatter light at their own c not anyone elses! - including the incident medium.

As c = f lambda (wavelength) is a constant. When we find that a signal moving from the bary(helio)centric CMBR rest frame to the Earth's (ECRF) frame has a unchanged lambda but a changed frequency, and the light is now doing c wrt a different frame, what might that be telling us?

As an aid; What we find is that the Doppler shift is exactly what it would be if the light waves were compressed or expanded as they slowed or speed up to comply with the speed limit c on scattering at the frame transition - and that the change in frequency is also precisely proportional to the relative frame motion.

Why would that not mean an ontology for light signals changing 'speed' on frame transitions to maintain c locally? Precisely as we find in all ways?

Is it lack of intellect or 'Crimestop' that will prevent responses to this question?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 23:25 GMT
Hi Peter,

Long time to talk to. Good to hear from you.

P: "When we find that a signal moving from the bary(helio)centric CMBR rest frame to the Earth's (ECRF) frame has a unchanged lambda but a changed frequency, and the light is now doing c wrt a different frame, what might that be telling us?"

Let me get this straight. Your wavelength doesn't change, but your frequency does, and in both frames you multiply to get 3x10^8 m/s? Either your wavelength didn't change enough to move c outside of its upper and lower limits, or somebody made a multiplication mistake. Although, more likely, the wavelength is being subjected to length contraction in some obscure way.

From what I've heard about neutrinos moving faster than c, it's only by a very small amount, a few ppm. Have you heard that?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT
Hi Jason

Been very busy with some astrophysics. The solution gives precisely the difference in v as the difference in v between the inertial frames!

And light is found moving at exactly c within each frame.

And the conservation laws says c = f lambda = constant (= E).

There is thus another possible logical answer you have missed.

A clue; If one thing changes two things must always change to keep the third constant, but of course measurements depend on how fast we're moving when we measure them!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 01:32 GMT
Hi Peter,

Physicists don't like to discuss the actual implementation of physics. Since I'm not a physicist, I came up with this idea.

All massive particles emit photons (light) at c.

All massive particles observe (or absorb) photons (light) at c.

Emitters and observers can move with respect to each other at velocities from 0 up to .999...c. How is this possible.

Answer: Every massive particle is interconnected with every other massive particle. The interconnections FIX c for emitter and observer. Of course, c = lambda*f and the energy of a photon is E = hf. Both frequency and wavelength can change as the photon travels from emitter to observer; but their product must equal c.

How can every/any two particles be interconnected without getting hung up in a big know?

Answer: The interconnections are made out of space-time itself; in large enough quantities, this interconnecting cluster of fibers of space-time become the space-time continuum; alternatively, it becomes the quantum vacuum.

A photon's frequency can vary from 10^-4 Hz to 10^30Hz. 34 orders of magnitude, to a close approximiation, is an unlimited bandwidth. These interconnections between pairs of massive particles have an unlimited bandwidth available to them (or at least 34 orders of magnitude worth of bandwidth).

Solutions to the Schrodinger equation, called wave functions, are very often summations of complex exponentials a.k.a. cos x + i sinx. These interconnecting fibers with available bandwidth are described by wavefunctions.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 13:53 GMT
It would be an embarrassing OPERA buffa if they did not take into account that a distance on the surface of a sphere is larger than the shortest distance.

730 km correspond to about 0.057 + 0.057 rad = 3.2 + 3.2° and sinx/x can be approximated as 1 - x^2/6 + x^4/120 - + ... = 1 - 0.00054 + 0.000000087 - + = 0.99946.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 05:21 GMT
Eckard,

I like the way your observation fits. It just might be true. In many cases the obvious gets left out. If true a mistake of this magnitude would deserve an award of some kind.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
Hi Don L.,

Perhaps this case is not so easy. However, the reason for me to distrust OPERA was the reported synchrony of neutrinos and light from supernovae.

Since I at least twice experienced the need to arrange with ideologies that proved untenable, I am not a naive believer.

I am not ready to swallow some mystical tenets.

In mathematics I agree with Fraenkel on that Cantor's naive set theory is untenable. as well as in physics. See my last FQXi essay.

In physics I would like to question the interpretation of two key experiments:

Concerning Michelson/Morley I am interested in refutations of those like Shtyrkov, Gift, and Van Flandern. Incidentally, Albert Michelson himself admitted regretting that his experiment gave rise to the monster of SR.

Concerning the experiment by Stern and Gerlach, I uttered here that one cannot attribute a direction of spin to a rotating atom unless one can attribute a direction in space to it. Seen from one side it rotates left-handed, seen from the other side it rotates right-handed. So the observed effect must have an other reason, and I found a quite plausible one.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) replied on Oct. 2, 2011 @ 04:39 GMT
Hi Eckard,

Following your example here is a "plausible" explanation (IMHO). I did not like my first explanation a few posts back.

1. Cern sends a burst of neutrinos to Sasso.

2. This burst has some neutrinos in front and some in back.

3. These neutrino thingies change their mass in route (they oscillate)

4. When a individual neutrino goes from high mass to low mass it speeds up over the speed of light.

5. However this hopped up neutrino's average speed is at c because it was going slower before the boost.

6. The timing used to judge the speed of light by Cern was start the stopwatch at front of the pack and to stop the stopwatch at front of the pack. No individual neutrino was followed.

7. The distance from Cern to Sasso was not enough to even out the mass oscillations in the neutrinos!

8. On average the pack of neutrinos moves at c. But they are looking front of pack to front of pack and are not looking at a single neutrino. Yes, lies, dam lies and statistics! No single object went faster that the speed of light.

9. When looking at burst of neutrinos from sources that are astronomical distances away, The oscillations of the individual neutrinos (mass changes) even out and the front of burst start to front of burst stop is much closer to the speed c.

Thanks,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 09:05 GMT
I have just read this little paper. The explanation provided therein sounds far more plausible to me than any "black magic." Sorry Stephon!

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT
Joy

In terms of general thrust, even I could follow that.

Now, although the manifestation is delineated in terms of time, it is not time, as such, that is altering. This is a timing issue. The underlying proposition in the theory was that there is a relationship between movement and dimension in matter(ie if dimension has altered and no recognition is taken of that, then the timing expected will not be what actually occurs). Is there a common currently held view as to what this is. That is, does only changing velocity impact on dimension and different rates of constant velocity not? Is it the same order of effect for all matter?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:36 GMT
Joy,

Thanks for the link. It's a nice paper, indeed.

While it's always fun to read technical details of measurement schema (especially when so competently explained), I think that the theoretical considerations are not only more interesting, but more important. The simple question that the author implies -- does it take a particle traveling in a continuous path the same length of time to return to a point, as to reach its destination? -- is indispensable to classical analysis. What is there to learn from a one-way measurement? Even Kepler's orbits allow acceleration to live comfortably with conservation of time and angular momentum.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 12:17 GMT
Tom,

I agree, of course. It is however refreshing to see a clear, natural, and plausible explanation for the observed anomaly when so many fantastical ideas are being put forward to do the same. I am not a conservative type, but I think this one is a false alarm.

Joy

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 13:49 GMT
The good old days: Making career and money by questioning the unquestionable:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-
Theory-Science/dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Spe
culation/dp/0738205257

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity."

Do Magueijo and Smolin have the courage to renew their attacks on the principle of constancy of the speed of light now?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
Pentcho,

Because light and neutrinos are said to arrive simultaneously, I doubt that OPERA provides evidence for a velocity in excess of c.

When Magueijo and Smolin agreed on "THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY", they looked at the problem from one surface. The more often I read the 1905 original, the more obvious got to me how speculatively and eclectically the author cheated his readers who were confused by the null result of MM experiment.

Poinarè synchronization mingles past and future. I would really appreciate you commenting on Shtyrkov.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
Eckard, I did have a look at Shtyrkov:

http://bourabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf

but do not feel competent enough to comment on the technical aspects of the experiment. If he is right, special relativity is refuted but my pet emission theory will also be undermined. Still let me continue to stick to it, simply because, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does and I don't see how an ether theory could explain this.

Regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 22:28 GMT
Penchto,

Shtyrkov is perhaps more established than e.g. Gift and others. To me it looks as if they were not refuted but persistently ignored. The list of those who signed the petition is already impressive. Unfortunately Van Flandern passed away. Some details of GPS and the like are in the responsibility of military and subject to secretion.

I cannot at all comment on gravitation and Pound-Rebka. However, the behavior of electrons in experiments with an accelerator cannot be explained if they are considered like cannon balls. Very fast electrons rather behave like waves. Galileo relativity and transformation must strictly speaking not be applied for any waves.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Apparently, you never read Smolin's book. In fact, do you read any of these sources you cut and paste?

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 06:56 GMT
Eckard, the fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential is perhaps the greatest threat to Divine Albert's Divine Theory. See this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1317328206
/

EINSTEIN TAKES ANOTHER BLOW

Best regards, Pentcho

Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Shtyrkov is perhaps more established than e.g. Gift and others. To me it looks as if they were not refuted but persistently ignored. The list of those who signed the petition is already impressive. Unfortunately Van Flandern passed away. Some details of GPS and the like are in the responsibility of military and subject to secretion. I cannot at all comment on gravitation and Pound-Rebka. However, the behavior of electrons in experiments with an accelerator cannot be explained if they are considered like cannon balls. Very fast electrons rather behave like waves. Galileo relativity and transformation must strictly speaking not be applied for any waves."

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 09:12 GMT
Pentcho,

Velocity of sound in air is always understood relative to the medium. You are following Einstein and Ritz who considered the speed of light relative to observer and emitter, respectively. Shtyrkov has shown that the putatively constant speed of light RELATIVE TO AN OBSERVER deserves reconsideration.

Shtyrkov as well as Gift and also OPERA considered one-way propagation while most evidence in support of SR is based on two-way experiments that mingle past and future. Tense-less block universe, Hilbert's denial of the arrow of causality, and the laze Einstein's worry about the now are not by chance.

I appreciate your hint to one more confusion about a factor two.

Your hint to redshift might be valuable in an other context.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 4, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT
Pentcho,

I was very impressed with your fundamental way of thinking expressed in your site EINSTEIN TAKES ANOTHER BLOW e.g. Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

Have you ever considered Descartes' alternative view from Newton that magnetism is due to a mechanical screw concept? Descartes magnetic field. It can be extended to think of the gravitational force as a product of a spinning Archimedes screw as a model for the graviton. It would require an overhaul of physics from the bottom up as well as from the top down. I'm hooked on the concept. What do you think?

attachments: 3_Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Oct. 5, 2011 @ 07:23 GMT
Here is a graphical view of what I think is going on:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/41_Do_Neutrinos_Go_F
aster_than_Light.html

Very speculative, but some food for thought.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 7, 2011 @ 14:08 GMT
Common sense refutation of special relativity:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_
3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave."

If, as the observer is traveling in the same direction as the waves, they overtake him AT A SLOWER RATE, special relativity is obviously wrong (the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 7, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Neither "common sense" nor "refutation," this is just more nonsense from you and others of your cut and paste mentality who don't understand wave mechanics or relativity. Wave amplitude being independent of frequency, the observer's state of motion is also independent of the wave's amplitude (spacelike) and frequency (timelike) properties taken separately. Observer dependence is only meaningful in a continuum of spacetime, where clearly understood transformations unambiguously account for the invariance of speed in electromagnetic radiation.

It's just amazing that a hundred years after the completion of classical physics, that we still have to deal with such ignorance. Maybe we should start debating whether the Earth is really flat.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2011 @ 19:35 GMT
Common sense refutation of special relativity (if you move faster against the wavecrests, wavecrests move faster against you):

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c plus vO. (...) The motion of an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 8, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Incommensurable texts (that is, texts that would never be juxtaposed) in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html

"However, since a major paper by Andreas Albrecht and Jao Magueijo in 1999, and another one by John Barrow in the same issue of Physical Review D, the speed of light has come under increasing scrutiny as a physical quantity that may be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 8, 2011 @ 09:13 GMT
Pentcho,

Do you have any grievance with Newton or is it just Einstein who receives your blows?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 9, 2011 @ 08:12 GMT
The looming specter of Walther Ritz (no wormholes to hide, Einsteinians):

http://www.sps.ch/fr/artikel/geschichte_der_ph
ysik/walter_ritz_the_revolutionary_classical_physicist_2/

Jan
Lacki: "Ritz had no time to make his theory more elaborate. He died complaining that no one, even in Göttingen, was granting his views sufficient care. His emissionist views were submitted to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 9, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT
Thanks for the Einstein quote of 1954, that's exactly the situation we're in imo.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 07:38 GMT
Divine Albert's logic:

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html

Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Divine Albert's logic in the above text: In a gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position", that is, with the gravitational potential. Therefore, if the gravitational potential does not vary with position (if the field is zero), then the speed of light is constant. This can only mean that Divine Albert's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, absolutely true. The antithesis, the equation c'=(c plus v) given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, is false, absolutely false.

Initially, Divine Albert's logic makes believers fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" but in the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Oct. 9, 2011 @ 05:28 GMT
ONE WAVELENGTH TO MANY

I have given it another look (third time is a charm?) and have seen something interesting! and very simple.

I am now of the opinion that the OPERA experiment got a valid result. And with a new experiment can get neutrino speeds above 1.1c.

See: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/41_Do_Neutrinos_Go_Fast
er_than_Light.html

And relativity is intact.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT
Hi all,

I think you only need to read this paper, archive ref. below, to see that the OPERA result is almost certainly not correct!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562

Sheldon Glashow knows a thing or two about weak interactions and this 3 page disproof seems pretty convincing to me.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 09:09 GMT
Roy

Glashow's view is reminiscent of double Nobelist Pauling's view of quasi-crystals long ago; "there are no quasi crystals just quasi scientists."

The guy who claimed to have found them was ignored, dismissed, pillioried, called a crackpot, sacked from his post. The whole deal. The standard mainstream response to all scientific advance in fact.

He was however far more tenacious than most humans could ever be and ignored (ha!) the continuing insults from the ignorant Troglodytes. Eventually, now at 70, he's just been awarded the Nobel prize in Chemistry, as quasi crystals have moved science on inestimably.

How many others with less resolve?

The comment from the President of the American Chemical Society?; "this is how science is done."



Is mainstream belief and complacency earth shatteringly unacceptable or what!?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 09:18 GMT
Interesting snippet Peter, thanks for sharing.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 20:15 GMT
Nobel win for crystal discovery- BBC

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 10:17 GMT
Einsteiniana: Mind-bending and brainwashing:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/i
d/217926/

"Trying to explain the mind-bending nature of reality that the Theory of Relativity reveals, the two UND physicists asked the audience to imagine a car roaring down the road at half the speed of light. When the driver turns on the headlights, common sense suggests that he would see a beam of photons - the particles that light is made of - shoot out ahead of him at, well, light speed. Common sense further suggests that a pedestrian standing still by the road should see the photons fly by her at 1.5 times light speed followed shortly by the car. William Schwalm, one of the physicists, told the audience last Tuesday that the driver sees the photons moving away from him at light speed. But the pedestrian, who is not moving, sees the photons moving away from her at light speed as well."

Yet, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the pedestrian sees a different light - she measures the frequency to be greater than the frequency the driver measures (Doppler effect). And now the problem: the pedestrian lives in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world but has not been brainwashed yet. So she applies the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and comes to the conclusion that the increase in frequency she measures can only be the result of the increase in the speed of light relative to her. "No I don't want to live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world" says the pedestrian and looks around but there is no other world. In a year or two she will be brainwashed and the serenity in her life will be restored:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-cern-colliding-theories.
html

Lawrence Krauss: "It's equally important that the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit has been tested numerous times in many situations over the last century, and it has held up."

Recently this "ultimate speed limit" has become the most important red herring in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. The essence...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 07:15 GMT
Divine Albert wrestles with the "moving observer" problem:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-r
elativity.htm

John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Divine Albert and Honest Albert:

http://bartleby.net/173/14.html

Divine Albert: "Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the other hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered equal to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates we obtained the law of transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the processes of nature. In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, the Lorentz transformation."

An imaginary creature called "Honest Albert" would have written:

Honest Albert: "In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment should have led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the other hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, equal to c plus v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the observer. By uniting these two postulates we can obtain the law of transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the processes of nature. In this connection we should have confirmed the Galilei transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, we established the Lorentz transformation."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT
Peter,

I am not saying (neither is Glashow)that superluminal phenomena cannot exist. Only that *in this particular experiment* with *this particular particle species* the claimed velocities are ruled out by known electroweak processes.

Heck, there is a whole velocity space between "c" and "instantanaeity" that, whilst causally pathological to our current theoretical models, are not ruled out by any other principals, not even by relativity itself. We already know that General Relativity is at best incomplete, so there is no reason why the whole relativity paradigm, including the Lorentz symmetry basis, might not need modification at some previously unknown limit.

The potential for error in Glashow's proof is really negligible by comparison to the potential for error in the OPERA experimental setup, which includes a whole range of geodesy and timing parameters that have to be accurate to an incredible degree as well as the validity and accuracy of the wave form matching process to determine group velocities and actual neutrino emission timings.

FTL? Bring it on!! I just don't think it has happened here.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 23:24 GMT
Roy,

You said, "Heck, there is a whole velocity space between "c" and "instantanaeity" that, whilst causally pathological to our current theoretical models, are not ruled out by any other principals, not even by relativity itself. We already know that General Relativity is at best incomplete, so there is no reason why the whole relativity paradigm, including the Lorentz symmetry basis, might not need modification at some previously unknown limit. FTL? Bring it on!! I just don't think it has happened here."

Are you a professional physicist?

I happen to agree with you that faster-than-light phenomena is permissible by nature. However, that doesn't give you the ability to violate causality. But you are allowed to transmit signals signals superluminally back and forth between the earth and another solar system. Such a communication system could not be used to go back into the past. Do you agree?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 21:52 GMT
Roy,

"Group velocities"? Weren't they responsible for Nimtz' mistake?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Oct. 12, 2011 @ 07:53 GMT
Hi All,

Please check out:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/41_Do_Neutrinos_Go_
Faster_than_Light.html

The story is getting better. It even has a plot!

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 12, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
Roy

OK, time Erwin and Irwin's cat's were out of the bag. It's a conspiracy. A game of bluff, double and treble bluff between the west, Russia and China.

All three know how it basically works really, and also know the others know, but the final missing link is still missing (CSL wrt receivers) so the old game is not quite dead and buried.

However, most of those involved are. Professor R H Dicke was almost exemplary, particularly at the 5th Texas Relativistic Astrophysics convention keeping most of the lid on the big con about the Venus radar results. But other speakers value truth more.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I believe it's mostly ineptitude and misguidedness, , but check out this later summary; Wallis B. G., Farce of Physics. Ch.5. Light Lunacy. http://bourabai.kz/wallace/farce06.htm

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 12, 2011 @ 13:06 GMT
FYI

(Excerpt from my TV channel viewing guide)

Next Wednesday BBC2 19th Oct at 9.00pm, "Faster Than The Speed Of Light? Marcus du Sautoy explores..(blah..blah..blah)..host of new possibilities - from time travel to parallel universes". No! No! No!...old habits die hard I guess. I actually Marcus and his style of delivery, but the end of that write-up is just plain wrong, yet again. I hope it's only the researcher who assumes this, but I'm not holding my breath.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 09:22 GMT
Great programme last night Marcus. The Archimedes screw/thread hypothesis is still holding strong:

GPS *clocks* run slower, *not* 'time'

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 13, 2011 @ 06:46 GMT
Deduction and Dead Science:

The neutrino hysteria is almost over but the crucial question has not been asked, at least by official science: Which of the postulates of special relativity is (are) false? The principle of relativity? Perhaps some absolute reference frame exists? Or the speed of light simply does depend on the speed of the light source? No such question - mainstream scientists...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 13, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
In 1905 Divine Albert "resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 13, 2011 @ 14:22 GMT
Pentcho,

You've done an excellent job in showing that "Divine Einstein" didn't get it quite right, to say the least. But do you have an alternate solution to the anomalous precession of Mercury, which got the great man thinking in the first place?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 13, 2011 @ 14:31 GMT
All Pentcho has done is to exhibit a facility for cutting and pasting.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 06:51 GMT
Alan,

Einstein, Besso and Grossmann went through a long and painful equation-fudging procedure before they could match the "theory" to the pre-established value for the anomalous precession of Mercury. The standard glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory is much easier - Einsteinians just fudge the experimental...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 09:05 GMT
Thanks for the information Pentcho, I seem to remember from Wikipedia that the calculated estimates were not quite perfect matches with observations. I've copied the table and recreated it below:

*Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury*

Amount (arcsec/Julian century) Cause

5025.64 ±0.50[4] General precession (Julian century, 1850)

531.63 ±0.69[4] Gravitational tugs of the other planets

0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)

42.98 ±0.04[5][6] General relativity

5600.27 ±0.85 Total

5599.74 ±0.41[4] Observed

My earlier statement about the possibility of 'dark matter' comets having a higher impact concentration around the equatorial regions of planets is very relevant if one looks at the table. The value for the "Gravitational tugs of the other planets" is now open to question, with a higher value now being plausible. Not only that, but the elevation of the planets w.r.t one another is also a possible factor. Do you see what I'm getting at Pentcho?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT
Anyone?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
Experiments and special relativity:

http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N44/cern.html

"MIT Physics Professor Scott A. Hughes said, "Carl Sagan had this saying, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not extraordinary evidence." (...) Despite concerns, the neutrino results have been a great teaching opportunity for many professors. In Hughes's 8.033 (Relativity) class, he discussed the concept of the experiment in lecture and asked students to think carefully about whether they believed that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. "In the hands of someone who can discuss this well, and the ears of students open to listening, it's a great topic," Hughes said."

Hughes could have asked students to think carefully about whether they believed in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed a speed of light independent of the speed of the light source as predicted by the ether theory (and later adopted in special relativity), or a speed of light varying with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. "In the hands of someone who can discuss this well, and the ears of students open to listening", this would be the end of special relativity (the OPERA experiment would prove superfluous).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
It appears that time of flight measurements of photons were not properly accounted for:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

LC

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 17:23 GMT
The author, Ronald A.J. van Elburg, claims that:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v1.pd
f

Ronald A.J. van Elburg: "The Michelson and Morley experiment demonstrated the speed of light is the same in all inertial frame of reference and on this axiom Einstein built special relativity."

Is that true?

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh
-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 18:22 GMT
"It appears that time of flight measurements of photons were not properly accounted for:"

Yep. I remain amazed that someone didn't think of the value of two-way measurement ("Does it take a particle the same length of time to return, as to reach its measured destination?") before releasing these results. Seems that hardly anyone considers the importance of time-reverse symmetry these days unless it has some "time travel" connotation attached to it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
I'm sure they thought of it (two way measurements), but neutrino detectors don't come cheap.

report post as inappropriate


E. Canessa wrote on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT
Your wrote: "We can superselect chiral matter interactions to propagate with superluminal dispersion relations". Besides, it has been also recently pinpointed how a subatomic particle with non-zero mass may attain, in principle, velocities faster-than-light by travelling in helical motion in the limit of very large momentum and sourced by distorted regions of spacetime -see arXiv: 1110.0245

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 13:35 GMT
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 13:42 GMT
Ah, I see you are the author. My [link=http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/868]2-page competition essay should interest you.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

I believe that you are making a number of excellent points.

First, your emphasis on Shtyrkov position that: "the hypotheses of light speed constancy WITH RESPECT TO THE OBSERVER to be revised". If the photon is in any way an electromagnetic 'wave' in a medium, then after being 'emitted' it will travel at the speed of light as determined by the medium. But this cannot be affected by some other observer with arbitrary velocity and position. It must be with respect to the medium, which I am becoming ever more convinced is the local gravitational field.

Second, your observation: "I only wonder how neutral particles can be further accelerated except for maybe by a inhomogeneous field."

Massive neutral particles do NOT travel as waves in media, (at least not in the de Broglie model that is indicated by the most recent experiments.) Therefore any acceleration must be due to an inhomogeneity. I have worked out such a solution as a possible explanation for OPERA and was close to publishing it, but I think I'll wait to see the verdict on the "flight measurements of photons" that Lawrence Crowell has noted. It's hard enough to get a new theory to be taken seriously without rushing to disprove Special Relativity. Nevertheless, if the OPERA result holds up, I am sure the explanation will be inhomogeneous fields.

I have enjoyed most of your recent remarks on these blogs. Thank you.

Dear Roy Johnstone,

I am curious about remarks you made above, re Sheldon Glashow.

You acknowledge that "General Relativity is at best incomplete" but you seem to imply that "known electroweak processes" are infallible. Does this assume that the Higgs exists and just hasn't been found, or do you assume that even with no Higgs (or SUSY) electroweak theory is infallible?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 12:10 GMT
"I only wonder how neutral particles can be further accelerated except for maybe by a inhomogeneous field."

Equivalent to the dark matter comet hypothesis or just consistent?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
Edwin

You say; "But this cannot be affected by some other observer with arbitrary velocity and position. It must be with respect to the medium, which I am becoming ever more convinced is the local gravitational field".

I agree, although believe a better term than 'is' is required. Something perhaps like; The gravitational mass (particles) constituting the gravitational field will interact (atomic scattering) with the EM signals, which process controls propagation speed.."

In other words, light propagation in a medium or EM field may be considered akin to a sequence of collisions (with apologies to Paul) which is what derives Faraday Rotation (and the Interstellar version IFR).

Would you also consider this;

You as the observer, whatever your state of motion, have a gravitational mass therefore field. If you are correct, then light reaching you the observer, will propagate through your field at c with respect to your field, i.e. your state of motion. As your mass moves with you (I'd hope!) May we therefore perhaps call your field, or indeed any EM field locally 'discrete' with regard to it's state of motion?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT
Hi Peter,

As you may recall from my earlier paper on 'GEM and the Constant Speed of Light' the momentum of a photon induces a C-field circulation analogous to the magnetic circulation that is induced by charge current. This applies also to the momentum of a neutrino.

You propose that: "The gravitational mass (particles) constituting the gravitational field will interact (atomic scattering) with the EM signals, which process controls propagation speed.."

It is not apparent that neutrino's, being uncharged, interact with EM signals except through this induced circulation. What is common to both, charged and uncharged, is the medium of the gravitational field, which general relativity assumes has the speed of light as the maximum rate of physical change in the field.

What I am assuming here is that photons, as undulations in the medium, have a maximum velocity that is established by the characteristics of the medium. Neutrinos, as massive particles propagate not as undulations but as particles, and are subject to a propagation law that, in my theory, appears to allow the possibility of superluminal speed, given the right circumstances, which appear to be present in the OPERA case. I am not claiming this happens, only that it seems possible according to the equations in my theory.

It relates, as I mentioned above to the inhomogeneities that Eckard references.

I have written this up and am trying to convince myself that I have made no obvious mistakes.

Good to hear from you, my friend

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT
Peter

I am just deploying the word not-collision, to try and emphasise why light is always, at the point of emission, at the same velocity (ie the speed of the source is irrelevant). This was my translation of your explanation to me ages ago of atomic shattering/new light.

But then, as you know, I would have to disagree with this notion of c wrt to observer motion. Light is an entity, it ‘travels’, its speed/direction, being influenced by the specific circumstance. We live in a closed system, so we do not need this ‘extra layer’ of wrt. Indeed, gravity is omnipresent, so again we do not need it. Differences in speed are real (absolute) to us, they do not need to be caveated by wrt.

The issue is one of timing, different observers have a different spatial relationship with the event, when comparing point of time of event with point of time of receipt of light based information about event. This begs the question as to why the innate concern about types of motion. And the answer is, because they believed changing velocity caused length alteration. It is not about observer frames, it’s about ensuring that one is comparing apples to apples, and not, inadvertently, apples to squashed (or extended) apples.

They may, of course, have been wrong. But that needs to be sorted out first, rather than treating observer differential as a surrogate for length alteration.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 12:33 GMT
Paul

wrt is not an 'extra layer' but fundamental. There is no 'speed' without something for it to be related to. Speed is distance x time. if no reference point exists there can be no distance so no 'speed'.

The confusion is only as you have mis-'translated', the resolution lies elsewhere. Speed is always c wrt what we might term 'the instruments of last scattering'. As we know, free electrons are the most efficient scatterers around, with refractive index n=1, but also high coupling co-efficient. They also happen to be (as plasma) the most common form of matter, surrounding all 'mass'.

It takes mental dexterity to see it but; Emitters emit at c within their own 'sphere of influence' (Boscovich), it scatters to c wrt the local background frame (sphere of influence (SoI) of the galaxy or cluster etc.), then may enter the SoI of lens, (n= approx 1.3 - 1.5) and does c wrt that. That is the 'discrete field' model. Simple really, but don't expect it to be anything like mainstream science, as MS does not seem to so logically or fully explain observation.

let me know if you still struggle.

best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT
Peter

Not so. And of course we have had this exchange many times over in NPA.

As I have just posted over in Entropy Topic (Thread Ray 8/10 14.55). In reality (ie no observation), we can only know differences, but, given that we live within a limited reality, these differences are, of themselves, absolute. As far as we are concerned (and reality is: 'as far as we are concerned'-there is no other)A is travelling at x (obviously the calculation of this difference involves another entity and a duration and a timing). It does not need any further condition (wrt).

Now, when it comes to observation of reality, that is another matter. We have observers receiving information via light (which itself 'travels').

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 13:02 GMT
Peter

If your sentence about 'resolution lies elsewhere' refers to my continuing attempts to raise the point about length alteration, this is not the point, that is an entirely different matter. And I cannot be responsible for what they most definitely said. I have posted the most relevant quotes on at least two occasions, so will refrain from doing so again. This was their theory, not mine. I have no idea whether it is right or wrong, either in logical substance, or specifics.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 18:32 GMT
Paul

"(obviously the calculation of this difference involves another entity and a duration and a timing)".

Precisely. There is no 'speed' without 'another entity.' .e. wrt 'something'. No more, no less. Again you were not absorbing what was actually written!

My; "resolution lies elsewhere" referred to the next few sentences which provided the full resolution (which you may not have noticed!).

You may have forgotten, but I also agreed with length contraction and showed how it may be derived a priori and ontologically from acceleration.

Consider Zeno's arrow paradox; There is no paradox if the observer also accelerates into the same rest frame as the arrow. Current physics has not yet seen it in that way.

Now consider an arrow which is slightly compressible. On shooting it, it will length contract yes? on hitting the target...? it will also length contract, yes? Now we will learn something important about time and interaction between energy and matter.;

If the bow was used backwards and the string hooked onto the arrow head, the arrow would lengthen (dilate) yes?

And if it has string attached so it was stopped before the tip interacted with any mass? .. it would 'dilate' again yes..??

Breach of parity?! No. Asymmetry?? No.

In those relationships a far better and entirely new view may be gained of the effects of acceleration and interaction.

I have few preconceptions which may be termed 'beliefs' but I do believe that mainstream desperately needs that better view to clear up the current hopeless confusion.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 08:45 GMT
Peter

You said: "Precisely. There is no 'speed' without 'another entity.' .e. wrt 'something'. No more, no less. Again you were not absorbing what was actually written!"

This is the crux of it. The speeds (which are differences)are all just the result of a comparison of any one thing, with any other thing. We are locked in to a closed system. So, when considering an all-pervading attribute, all one can do is compare everything with everything else and work in terms of differences. But within that boundary those differences are absolutes. So it does not matter which thing is chosen as the reference point. The speeds are all the same, just 'inverted'. And I presume that for the purposes of scientific endeavour, measurements are all related to the same thing. Or the reference point is overtly stated so that a conversion can be effected.

A is travelling at x. B is travelling at 2x. C at 6x. D at 10x.

From the perspective of C, A is travelling at one sixth x, D 1.6'x, etc, etc

From the perspective of D, A is travelling one tenth x, etc, etc

This is reality, entity vis a vis entity.

Then, and only then, we have observation. Which occurs as a result of light conveying 'images' to various observers who are most likely in a differing spatial; relationship with the reality.

Re: length contraction. I have not forgotten what you said. Indeed I mentioned it in a post on here. It was also interesting to note that Edwin did not find the fundamental concept a problem. Neither do I really, as a 'gut-feeling'. But this is not the point. They assumed it as a real factor. It was given a value. By way of illustration Lorentz worked it out for the earth, 6cm. We cannot just say: 'yeah, some level of contraction/expansion seems OK, it might work this or that way, then ignore it'. It was an integral, if not fundamental driver of their theory.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
Pentcho,

Earlier you asked "The neutrino hysteria is almost over but the crucial question has not been asked, at least by official science: Which of the postulates of special relativity is (are) false?". It's something that I have been thinking about. My conclusion is that it's the Equivalence Principle. I'm still getting my head around it, but I making progress with the Archimedes screw/thread imagery. Gravity not only accelerates a body as a whole, but it accelerates the quantum particles composed within it. Hence an atomic clock in orbit will run slower relative to the same type of atomic clock on the Earth's surface.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
"Schiff's conjecture suggests that the weak equivalence principle actually implies the Einstein equivalence principle, but it has not been proven. Nonetheless, the two principles are tested with very different kinds of experiments. The Einstein equivalence principle has been criticized as imprecise, because there is no universally accepted way to distinguish gravitational from non-gravitational experiments (see for instance Hadley[46] and Durand[47])." Quotes from Wikipedia.

"The weak equivalence principle, also known as the universality of free fall or the Galilean equivalence principle can be stated in many ways.

(i)The trajectory of a point mass in a gravitational field depends only on its initial position and velocity, and is independent of its composition."

This simply doesn't ring true when one has the imagery of the Archimedes screw/thread as the force carrier. The human experience may be "independent of its composition" but the quantum effects of a gravitational field on a body are *not* independent of it's composition.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
In August 2010, researchers from the School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Australia; the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; and the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, United Kingdom; published the paper "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant", whose tentative conclusion is that, "qualitatively, [the] results suggest a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very large or infinite universe, within which our `local' Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction."[49]

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 09:42 GMT
Dr Bertolucci, the director of research at Cern, explains how Michelson and Morley managed to publish:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-154711
18

"Dr Bertolucci called this study "elegant", but added: "An experimentalist has to prove that a measurement is either right or wrong. If you interpret every new measurement with older theories, you will never get a new theory. "More than a century ago, Michelson and Morley measured the speed of light in the direction Earth was moving and in the opposite direction. They found the speed was equal in both directions." This result helped to spur the development of the radical new theory of special relativity. "If they had interpreted it using classical, Newtonian theory they would never have published," said Dr Bertolucci."

If Michelson and Morley had interpreted their experiment in terms of Newton's emission theory of light, Divine Albert would have thought twice before plagiarizing Poincaré:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh
-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 15:35 GMT
Interesting quote: "Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." The whole caboodle needs redoing imo.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT
Maximum honesty in universities (moving beyond this maximum would mean the end of the career):

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html

Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 06:50 GMT
Einsteinians are going to wait and see what happens:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-que
stions-flu-shot-effectiveness

TOMMY: If time slows down and theoretically stops at the speed of light, with the neutrinos that go faster than the speed of light, would time travel not be possible now?

BRIAN GREENE: Well, that's why most of us don't believe the results about the neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. Because you're right, if indeed, we take Einstein's idea seriously, and the data that these recent experiments suggest showing that neutrinos go faster than the speed of light, there would be a crack in time. In a sense, we would be able to send signals to the past. So most of us believe that those experiments are probably not going to stand up to scrutiny. Even the experimenters themselves put it out as something that they want the physics community and the rest of the world to try to poke holes in to see what they did wrong. As yet, nobody has done that, but you need independent confirmation of such a wild possibility of going faster than the speed of light. We're going to wait and see what happens.

Don't wait, Brian Greene. You are a theoretician, this science is DEDUCTIVE and therefore if-clauses, not future experimental results, should in the first place prompt your deep thoughts. For instance:

Are time dilation, length contraction and other miracles legitimate concepts IF the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments have confirmed, in some insignificant but still valid way, Newton's emission theory of light (apart from gloriously confirming Divine Albert's Divine Theory):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf

"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
The dodgiest Einsteinians are not waiting for independent confirmation of the OPERA experiment - they just abandoned Divine Albert's Divine Theory some time ago:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAA
AAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

http://www.edge.org/
q2008/q08_5.html

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
Subtle ways of leaving the sinking ship:

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-dis
cover-emc2.html

Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 07:29 GMT
Einsteiniana's mythology:

http://askphysics.com/

"When a medium enters a denser medium from a rarer medium, it bends towards the normal. This is the observation we have in hand and this phenomenon is called refraction. Sir Isaac Newton tried to explain the phenomenon of refraction using his particle theory. He said that the particles of the denser medium attracts the particles with stronger force towards it which makes it bend towards the normal. If there is such a force of attraction, then the speed of light would increase inside a denser medium. When the velocity of light in different media was determined by Foucault and other scientists, it was found that the velocity of light in denser medium is less than that in a rarer medium. So, Newton's explanation of refraction was proved wrong."

I am not sure if the argument:

"If there is such a force of attraction, then the speed of light would increase inside a denser medium"

was Newton's but even if it had been, it is quite silly so Einsteinians should not have used it in their fight against Newton's emission theory of light (at least the world should not have believed them). The force of attraction can only increase the speed locally, at the surface of the denser medium, but then inside the denser medium this force is effectively zero and the slower speed is determined by other factors.

Divine Albert was ready to succumb to Newton's emission theory of light in 1909, perhaps intimidated by the genius of Walter Ritz, but Ritz died the same year and the immoral mediocrity spilt all over the world:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_o
n_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation

The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 14:39 GMT
Divine Albert and the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf


John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

It is true that "later writers" (that is, Einsteiniana's professors) almost universally teach the lie that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the light postulate. However it is a myth that Divine Albert was more honest than his sycophants. In fact, Divine Albert devised the lie in the first place:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFD
D113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked.

He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold.

Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 08:43 GMT
Divine Albert lying blatantly (believers fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

In fact, Section XII in Divine Albert's book does not contain any results explaining why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers - either observer sees the other observer's clock running SLOW. The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

Forbidden logic in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, an observer "sitting eccentrically" on the periphery of the rotating disc sees a clock at rest situated outside the disc running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks fixed on the periphery. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, a virtually inertial clock fixed on the rotating periphery will be seen, by an observer at rest outside the disc, running SLOWER. Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 11:13 GMT
I suppose you'll go on polluting the site with this ignorant crap. But as you demonstrate, if one doesn't even know what "clock" means in relativity, one has a VERY long way to go to actually comprehend the theory.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 11:38 GMT
Pentcho

May I offer an alternative conclusion to the one you suggest.

While I agree with your logic, I suggest you then make a leap of SR proportions to assuming CSL is false without eliminating other possibilities.

Let us return to observer rest frame K and consider 'Proper Time', which is time in the SAME inertial frame as the time signals emitted. K is in the same inertial frame as the clock at the centre of rotating frame K'. K will therefore agree with the rate of time he observes from that clock.

The clock rotating with the outer rim of K' is in a different reference frame. Proper time cannot therefore be used, so the rate of arrival of the clocks signals at K is arbitrary, depending entirely on the relative motion of the clock and K. In each case relative frame velocity v will have to be added to c to obtain the 'concrete' reality (a la Georgina) of the clock's time. In all cases however, the signals from the clock do c locally in the frame they are in!!

There may be infinitely many clocks at various radii and infinitely many observers on infinitely many vectors wrt the disc, but none can use 'proper time' unless they are at rest wrt the clock, so all must add or subtract relative velocity c. However, the speed they see is only an APPARENT speed, not any real speed.

It's exactly the same as you being zapped by a police radar doing 100 when you're only doing 50. Pointing out to the 'mainstream' judge that the police car was doing 50 in the opposite direction would not, at present, get you off. Once we realise that inertial frames are different, as are cars, and use proper time properly, we will solve the problem. But the problem is not that the CSL postulate is false. That doesn't solve the problem and is anyway a dead duck astronomically. The problem is in an assumption made for simultaneity.

This is going beyond just criticism and offering the reality based solution. But. ..Are you yourself able to show that you can do what you are asking the mainstream judges to do, and abandon prior beliefs for objective logic? I suspect you may now find that it's a very big ask.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS; If you would like to see a little more of the discrete field model check out essay 803; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 13:59 GMT
Tom

Agreed. So why am I bothering either!!

This is one of the few paragraphs where Einstein talks overtly in terms of observation, rather than using the words 'reference body' and 'relatively to it'. And, as you say, refers to, literally, clocks. It is a paragraph from section 23 (1916 SR & GR). While one could argue for greater clarity in the writing, that does not invalidate the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 12:50 GMT
Peter,

I am using the setup described on p. 12 in Chapter 11 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press

The conclusion is that either observer - the inertial one standing in the vicinity of the moving periphery of the disc and the virtually inertial one sitting on the moving periphery - measures the clock of the other to run slow. Note that in this setup Einstein's 1905 light postulate is the only premise so if the conclusion is absurd, the premise is false.

In any case, Einstein's claim that the clock moving with the periphery runs slow while the one at rest runs fast is unjustifiable.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Pentcho

Can you please read the entirety of his writing, rather than bits and pieces. It is not well written admittedly, but then, and only then, will you understand what he is saying. Whether he was right or wrong is a different matter.

As far as Einstein (and his colleagues) were concerned, reality is somewhat amorphous, due to forces (the last candidate was gravitation)which change (somehow) momentum and length dimension. This also affects light, further complicating matters from the perspective of observation. So, the normal rules of measurement and depicting reality are not appropriate. In this type of world, one has to be very careful to ensure that like is being compared with like. Relativity (principle) being about testing whether laws hold in all circumstances.

It is not about clocks running. This is a really poor analogy for 'explaining'the consequential effect on timing. Clocks are just matter and are subject (supposedly) to contraction/expansion, just like all other matter. The simple fact is that if there is a dimension alteration, and one does not take that into account, then your predicted ETA, or duration estimated to travel a certain distance, will be incorret if you have not factored this effect into your calculations.

SR (and remember it was only re-labelled such on the advent of GR)is an unreal circumstance where the variables are played out. There is no gravitation, light travels in straight lines at c in vacuo, and the only motion being considered is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary. In a word, it is 'special'! His theory is about the electrodynamics of moving bodies. It is not about light, and it is not about observation.

Paul

Paul

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 14:54 GMT
Paul,

You are correct. Pentcho's fundamental error is allowing a privileged frame of reference, common among those who have not studied relativity (though this rarely seems to deter them from holding forth on it).

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 15:06 GMT
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity
.html

What is wrong with relativity? G. BURNISTON BROWN, Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.71-77: "A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as "monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation calculated:

(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.

(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes but genuine contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore untenable as a physical theory."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
I meant to post this before, but anyway, just in case you didn't know Cern to repeat light-speed experiment:

Quote: Now the team will rerun their experiment with some alterations which they hope will rule out many of the supposed flaws in their findings. Some critics have argued that the timing measurements, which represent an average figure for a beam of particles rather than direct measurements, may have been misread. Dr Sergio Bertolucci, director of research at Cern, said using shorter pulses would resolve this problem. He told the BBC: "In the last few days we have started to send a different time structure of the beam to Gran Sasso. "For every neutrino event at Gran Sasso, you can connect it unambiguously with the batch of protons at Cern." Prof Matt Strassler of Rutgers University, who identified possible flaws in the original experiment, said the new test would help clarify the data. He wrote on his blog: "It's like sending a series of loud and isolated clicks instead of a long blast on a horn; in the latter case you have to figure out exactly when the horn starts and stops, but in the former you just hear each click and then it's already over."

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT
Pentcho

Whilst logical monotonicity of both clocks running slow certainly never existed with the assumptions used, so the premise may be false, it is equally not logical that the conclusion you arrive at is the only one possible. This takes some deeper consideration, but first consider;

The obvious alternative, emission theory, is the apparent lifeboat almost all dissenters have dived into as it has always seemed the only one available. It has however always been a bottomless shaft into a mine of fools gold. No more answers have arises from it than they ever did since Roemer. It directly conflicts with the logic of all empirical evidence. i.e. Spectroscopy gives an excellent temporal 'map' of stellar emissions. Fast rotating binaries do NOT send light to Earth faster when moving towards us than when moving away. Probes orbiting other planets send radio signals at precisely the same speed whatever orbital direction. Simple emission theory has always failed. But it is NOT the only alternative!!

There is a logical construct which matches all observation, yet also agrees in concept with the SR and QED postulates that electrons re emit absorbed light at c with respect to, effectively, the emitting electron. This also brings a slight adjusted understanding of SR in line with a slightly different interpretation of QFT, so nature is consistently described. Unfortunately you were correct with crimestop. The solution is under our noses and obvious, but slightly out of focus so it cannot be seen by most.

If now you read my above post again, perhaps a little more slowly, and perhaps the essay on the DFM, (and the comments), then I hope you may catch a first glimpse of the real gold.

And consider this proposition;. Only observer frames where Proper Time can be used can see motion in proper time. In all other frames it will appear dilated or contracted.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
Peter

"Only observer frames where Proper Time can be used can see motion in proper time. In all other frames it will appear dilated or contracted".

There is no such thing as Proper Time, dilation, etc. It is about timing. There is no such thing as time, it is frequency of change in any given entity in respect of any given attribute.

The reality Einstein depicted (rightly or wrongly, being another matter) was one where matter is somewhat amorphous. Gravitation causes a change in momentum and dimension, AND it affects light (which is what enables us to observe). In that reality, time and place are not going to be where you expect, if you do not factor this into your calculations, or indeed if you use standard measurement techniques which assume a fixed length/time. When comparing one thing to another, one therefore has to ensure that like is being compared with like.

It is not all about observer frames, most of the time Einstein uses words such as 'reference body' and 'relatively to that'. He is just comparing things, sometimes it is obsevation, he is not saying that the variances are al associated with observation.

What subsequently became re-labelled SR is just a special, unreal circumstance (ie no gravitation)where the variables are played out.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
Peter,

"emission theory, is the apparent lifeboat almost all dissenters have dived into as it has always seemed the only one available." You are certainly correct in that there are other alternatives, too, e.g. the GPS expert Ronald Hatch favors MLET.

Let's accept that Pentcho's pet is emission theory for what reason ever. Maybe he considers Feynman a trustworthy authority. While I prefer looking for elements of an alternative among diverse ether theories, I nonetheless appreciate the variety of open questions that Pentcho tries to make us aware of. Maybe we should add some more moot points. For instance, I wonder why no pertaining report is available if the experiment by M&M was meanwhile repeated in a space-lab.

What do you expect from a rerun OPERA experiment?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
Eckard wrote: "Let's accept that Pentcho's pet is emission theory for what reason ever. Maybe he considers Feynman a trustworthy authority."

Not at all. The Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments, on close inspection, UNEQUIVOCALLY confirm the emission theory and refute any alternative.

Best regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 13:28 GMT
Paul

There you go again. Any value here is from communication. Which means listening as well as talking! A Statement that 'There is no such thing as 'Proper Time, dilation etc." only shows you haven't been doing one or the other (I'll let you decide yourself) and responding to the points made.

It also flies in the face of the little sound established physics we have!

Let's try looking at it differently.

Imagine yourself looking from the windows of one of 3 spacecraft, each doing 33% of the speed of light with respect to a nearby planet. Each has a large clock attached externally.

Case 1 You are moving in the opposite direction to Spacecraft 1, so have a relative speed of 66% c. Would you expect to observe the other clock clicking over the seconds at the same rate as yours? Or Faster? Or slower?

Case 2. You and spacecraft 2 are moving towards each other, so at relative velocity 66% c. Same question?

If after some thought you conclude that each may APPEAR to you to be running at a different speed to yours, then you may be able to start to understand the concept of 'Proper Time'. It is the apparent rate of passage of time of a clock in the same inertial frame as the observer.

By definition this also allows different APPARENT rates of time from infinitely many other clocks or 'reference bodies' in different 'states of motion'. Once this simple fact becomes clear you may like to consider that all different 'states of motion' represent, by definition different 'inertial frames.

And please don't confuse yourself with gravitation or semantics until the simple basic foundational dynamics of this are clear.

And yes, I did carefully read what you wrote, and it you will eventually find how hopelessly off track and confused it may be when the basic foundations of perceived reality become clear.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 19:59 GMT
Peter Jackson wrote: "There is a logical construct which matches all observation, yet also agrees in concept with the SR and QED postulates that electrons re emit absorbed light at c with respect to, effectively, the emitting electron. This also brings a slight adjusted understanding of SR in line with a slightly different interpretation of QFT, so nature is consistently described. Unfortunately you were correct with crimestop. The solution is under our noses and obvious, but slightly out of focus so it cannot be seen by most. If now you read my above post again, perhaps a little more slowly, and perhaps the essay on the DFM, (and the comments), then I hope you may catch a first glimpse of the real gold."

Peter,

I find this unnecessarily enigmatic. If "the real gold" is "a logical construct", why don't you explicitly give the axioms (postulates)? Why should I "catch a first glimpse" by reading "slowly" various writings? Your postulates are perhaps SR postulates plus... what?

Best regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 11:11 GMT
Peter

Einstein

The simple answer to your assertion that I am not "listening", is to ask you to provide quotes from Eistein et al, that prove that what I am depicting as being their stance is wrong.

Your spaceships

The ‘ticking’ of the clock does not change. Or at least one must assume that any effect on the molecular structure of the clock resulting from force...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 11:22 GMT
Pentcho

The only logical construct which matches all observation ( indeed all perception) is one which uses the following reference points:

In reality (ie as exists): individual entity

In perception: sensory information received by individual organism

Because organisms sense reality, which exists independently of them. Any theory which contravenes that fundamental logic of the reality we inhabit, is flawed.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 12:53 GMT
Paul

In the last quote the term rigid is moot. I have proposed ontologically, what AE accepted in the non ontological terms of contraction and dilation, that no such thing as an entirely 'rigid' body exists. Yet the more rigid the less propensity to change (as we all know take for granted without analysing).

It seems you have indeed picked up understood and adopted some of what has...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 13:22 GMT
Peter

We certainly have to be careful not to interpret on the basis of one quote. But we really cannot state that his reference to rigid in SR & GR section 28,(or indeed elsewhere) is "moot" or some form of "ontology". It is a real effect, just as there is another real effect on light rays. One cannot just ignore this, or turn it into something else. Well, obviously one can as a different theory, but not as a correct representation of what Einstein said. This was, rightly or wrongly, their theory. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Version 1 (1905) Version 2 (1916).

The weight of evidence overwhemingly demonstrates that (ie it has nothing to do with my view, I cannot mis-represent pages upon pages of quotes):

-matter changes dimension when a force is applied that also changes momentum

-SR is a particular, unreal, hypothecated circumstance (ie special). There is one theory GR, which incorporates material from 1905.

Just as important as the quotes, per se, is the fact that this then makes the theory internally rational, ie all the statements which seem awkward/incorrect, etc, take on one homogeneous meaning.

It depends what the real chasm is between Relativity and QM. I am not sure what my comment about 'what we have is change, and we are comparing frequency of change, by timing it', has to do with that, or indeed the way you have interpreted my explanation of time.

You then quote a string of quotes which are, for the most part from much later times, but more importantly, do not seem to be conveying any overall point. If he had clearly stated in 1916, or indeed later, that his assumption on length alteration was incorrect, and presented a new set of equations, well, fair enough.

In one sense, as I keep on saying, all this is irrelevant. What we really want to know is how does it all work, which may or may not correlate with what Einstein actually said over 100 years ago.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Daniel L. Burnstein replied on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 00:09 GMT
Here is what I believe:

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/blog/?p=77

and


http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/blog/?p=81

Which I believe is a simpler explanation and one that is consistent with observation.

Daniel

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT
Anon. Peter J., Daniel Burnstein, and Paul,

- Well I share the view that a perfectly rigid body is an ideal fiction that restricts Galileo's relativity.

- If you claims having predicted neutrinos to travel faster than light then you should be able to reveal evidence for QUANTITATIVE agreement with predicted values in comparison not just with OPERA but also MINOS, T2K, etc.

- Bourbaki claimed set theory the basis of mathematics. Declaring GR the basis of all physics including SR just as a special case of it might also be inappropriate.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
This 'result' may be about to disappear:

Error undoes FTL Neutrino Results

Sigh...

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 00:21 GMT
Hi Ray,

As an electronics technician, I can tell you that "bad connections" are all too familiar. However, I don't think we should give up the search for FTL phenomena.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 11:01 GMT
Revelation of an error that affected a carefully performed measurement is encouraging news for those who are tough enough as to question putatively compelling experimental results.

Fortunately it is unlikely that similar measurements in Fermilab or T2K might be affected from the same bug. A common conceptual mistake would be worse. For instance, all round-trip experiments of Michelson-Morley type were yielding a null result and will most likely continue to do so.

Nonetheless they might be misleading because their interpretation seems to be based on a wrong assumption, cf. Marmet.

Therefore I see it premature to interpret the revelation of a bug behind the OPERA experiment a confirmation of Einstein's theory.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 03:54 GMT
Hi Ray, Jason,

It may or may not be the end of it. In one article I read:

"Two separate issues were identified with the GPS system that was used to time the arrival of neutrinos at an underground lab in Italy...One could have caused the speed to be overestimated, the other could have caused it to be underestimated."

"The bottom line is that we will not know until more measurements are done later this year," Gillies told The Associated Press."

I'm still hoping it's true. I certainly don't require it in my theory, but I think I can explain it. 2012 is going to be an exciting year.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 04:32 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I admire your enthusiasm. I still believe that faster than light travel is permissible by nature (once we figure out how). But I think that slightly faster neutrinos would be an awkward predicament.

I still say that light (photons) are the space-time continuum's favorites. It's the only particle without a rest mass because photons never rest; E=hf. Conservation of energy might just be another manifestation of "it's a nothin' for nothin' universe". I like to think that the space-time continuum is something that can cough up some energy at the expense of some gravity. In other words, it should be possible to create a "really tiny bang", in effect, creating some energy by inducing a very tiny curvature in the space-time continuum.

I still think there exists a way to expose new physics phenomena by radiating a frequency ramp, f(t) = f_0 * t, over a very short interval. If the frequency ramp (or transmitted redshift) is convincing enough to the space-time continuum, it will induce a temporary gravity field. After all, it is conservation of energy that induces gravitational redshift in the presence of a gravity field. There should be a way to create new energy using gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
Jason

"because photons never rest". does anything 'rest'? Or is it really a case of: some things do not rest as much as other things do not rest (to mangle a well known phrase).

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT
Paul,

Particles with mass have rest mass. Rest mass means the particle will just sit there while I measure it's mass. Photons don't just sit there. Photons move at the speed of light with respect to everything.

Sigh... I don't think the physics community will ever discover gravity drives. A gravity drive is a machine that can generate a gravity field. A gravity drive conflicts with conservation of energy. But physicists haven't gotten that far yet; they haven't even thought about this problem. Which means they haven't considered the solution; that energy comes from space time curvature. Theoretically, I should be able to wave a magic wand and create fresh new energy; it comes from curving space-time.

Gravity fields (space-time curvature) cause light to redshift (or blue shift). What happens if we synthesize, and emit, a redshift across a wide frequency spectrum, from 100THz to 200THz? If the beam is emitted inside of one millisecond, and every frequency between 100THz to 200THz is emitted, it will curve space-time.

These kinds of experiments will prove that our knowledge of physics is very incomplete.

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Jason

“Rest mass means the particle will just sit there while I measure it's mass”.

But does anything “just sit there”? Is another way of expressing my point. In reality, isn’t everything not at rest? And all that is happening is that we are deeming any given thing to be ‘at rest’ by invoking it as the reference point for measuring puposes. This is the very definition of measuring, ie comparison (which necessitates a reference point) to identify difference. We are not stating that x is at rest, literally (because we cannot know anyway), just that deeming x to be at rest, y is travelling at n wrt x.

Now, the difference with photons is that they (or at least an effect in them) enables us to see. In reality, both they and the effect, are no different to any other entity. They have a physical existence, and they travel. The problem is measuring the speed at which a certain ‘light’ did travel, in respect of a specific distance in a specific circumstance. And then there is the problem of getting it to “just sit there”, since we see with it, in order to establish whether or not this particle has the attribute which is referred to as mass.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 28, 2012 @ 13:19 GMT
still FQXi, check your members, they check my pc and this platform with bizare methods. Brendan Foster, Why I can not see the post of Tustin Toyota ? I can accept many things dear moderators but frankly, don't play with my kindness. Mr Aguire and Mr Tegmark, take your responsabilities please !We are not in a circus here but on a rational platform. And please also , focus on foundamentals and forget a little the ocean of subjectivities without real foundamental meaning.

And sort your members with universality. This platform must be well moderated, and at my knowlege it is not the case when I see my pc !!!I know who are these persons, I can forgive. But they myust understand that my faith is enormous and that never I will stop. The only solution to stop me is to kill me !I wait here in belgium, the judgement for my probelms due to bad people. In all the cases I will close the book. And after I am free to travel. I was obliged to be at home with my mother during these very very difficult years. But be sure my friends, that you do not really know me. You have just an idea. And you are going to see what is my intrinsic energy when I focus to create this international sciences center. I was at home, and soon I will be free to show my theory to the world and you know where I am going to go ? In usa my friends, the country of the democracy and the freedom. I will explain my theory and its applications. I will improve your country dear friends. I will utilize my recognizings to change this world, with humility of course and with rationality. I will show what is the universal sphere. I am soon free, And the picture that you have from me is just a subjective interpretation. I am going to laugh !!! I repeat the only solution is to kill me , and you know what, just to show you my crazzyness, even when I will be dead, I will continue ....viva el crazzyness and the Spherization Theory, The only one.

I am not parano it is God who says me that !

:)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
Check several persons making the team, you know their names !!!

Don't be in this team dear FQXi , Mr Aguire and Mr Tegmark.

Don't forget that soon I am in your country and we shall speak in total transparence. The diffamations and calomnias are punishables and it is well like that. USA is the country of the freedom, I will speak in total freedom.

I repeat but your only solution is to kill me !!! So take your hormons and your vanity and take also some spiritual books !!! I know that some pseudos have a big vanity and like monney. But I will show them what is the road of sciences.

The strategies of discriminations are ruin of soul and you shall see this evidence !!! be sure dear hormonial pseudos !!!

perimeter institute I arrive , and New york I arrive, California I arrive !!! take a gun or pay somebody to kill me, be sure .Or take very good advocates, me I DONT NEED ADVOCATES AHAHAHAH.

vanity of vanities...more monney more hormons more "not skilling for the generality" more stupidities = pseudo scientists , strategists.

Solution :Buy better books and learn the generality !

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Wow, that is a shocking comment, Steve D. Just know that you are not alone: I am a friend to all in this community who are not members (as well as one who wishes to be friends with the members--and to be one ultimately).

These professionals in here are like SuperMen who do not know their own strength. They mean to gently pat you on the back, and usually snap you in two, intellectually. And when we lowly Bachelors of Science get out of our depth of experience and understanding, we are quickly reduced to strident pleas and feel we are "alone". You are not alone, either in your contributions here or in your faith. Please don't forget that!

Please edit your comment and remove the lethal hyperbole. Not only is it dangerous to those who feel (and maybe are) isolated in here, but it makes me worry about your own state of mind.

I actually logged on today to delete a comment I made last night about this exact subject matter, but went too far and could possible blow my chances at future membership. So I came to delete the comment, but instead came across this rather surprising comment by Mr. Duforney. You guys better not be picking on him too much fqxi members! For I am an expert in Rhetoric, and I will defend his position, whatever it is. And you all know the device in general in Rhetoric, which Aristotle found so distasteful, the method applied correctly obfuscates your own points in an arguement, while reducing your opponent to sputtering and defending. It is a false method, and trickery of speech. But it's still used in every courtroom, everyday. I will bring those tools to bear, if this sort of comment is seeing the light of day.

BTW: nice crazy-laugh in your comment "AHAHAHAH"! Gives me goose-chills. fqxi, please consult tumblr.com for their new policy against self-harm blogs. You should update your policy to support this concept. Please see my blog there "Time's Conscience" for the one entitled "The Internet has Fluidic Morality. This is Absolutely a Bad Thing", for a better elucidation on this point.

Take care, and feel free to Follow my blog and post there all! There is some spiralling out of control going on here?

The dagger of wordplay stings most in those with an education.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Hi Tommy, Interesting comment.

You know what ? I fuck the death , and I will continue to share my theory of spherization.I do not fear to die and I do not fear to continue, even with a team against me.I am alone and I am proud of my works.

I will be soon in USA and be sure we are going to laugh.Their only one solution, to kill me, and I have no fear. Their strategies are strtegies of pseudo scientists. Their only one solution is the pseudo sciences and the business. Their invent false sciences and the bussinessmen think they are right. Ahahaha so ironical and stupid.

I know who they are and why they make that. And also I eat their maths at my breakfast. Even a programm of maths I can not put it in my pc.They block all my pc.They fear of my sciences. And they discriminate me and they try to steal me and my works. I will pray for these pseudos souls.

ps I am happy to have friends, I am happy that you say "you are not alone" I like to have friends. REAL FRIENDS, UNIVERSAL AND RATIONAL AND SINCERE. It is important !

My parano is enormous but I beleive in humans with love and universality. Like said Rouddeau, l'homme naît bon et c'est cette société qui le corrompt....The man born good and it is this society which corrupts him !!! I think that the well is stronger than the bad, fortunally furthermore ....Confusius said, the vengeance is like a stupidity,it is like to dig two tombs ....like what only the universal love is essential and relevant. I have no hate ! I forgive but the kindness has its limits at my humble opinion.

Spherically yours

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 06:33 GMT
Hello Community, I was wondering if somebody expert in quantum mechanics could help me with a specific derivation I can't quite figure out?

In The Principles of Quantum Mechanics by PAM Dirac, the generalization of (forgive me this is a little clunky because I don't have latext equations): 1) Sum over all E' of E'ket E'bra equals 1 (where E' are discrete eigenvalues, and the basic kets are normalized). And 2) The integral over all E'' of E''ket dE'' E''bra equals 1 (continuous eigenvalues of E'').

So the equation I can't derive and need help with is the generalization of 1) and 2), i.e.

(Sum over all E' of [E'ket E'bra]) + (The integral over all E'' of [E''ket dE'' E''bra] = 1

However, from 1) and 2), doesn't this equation equal 1+1=1 (an incorrect equation)? Can somebody shed some light on this?

Thanks. One fantastic benefit of this community is there is noplace better to ask this question and get the right answer!

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 06:26 GMT editOh yes, one last thing about this equation, just in case the answer is obvious. Feel free to trounce me if i'm mistaken, but any basic vector can be multiplied by a number and the resulting vector is the same?

So in this case the equation 1+1=1 would be correct, since if we multiply this equation by E' ket we get

E'ket+E'ket=E'ket

or

2E'ket=E'ket

So in this case the generalization I'm asking about would be correct. Am I on the right track here, and/or have I answered my own query?

Please help!!!

FYI: I posted this same question on another blog, so hopefull I can get two different responses, and thereby can learn more by contrasting the answers. Thanks again!

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 07:48 GMT
Tommy,

When you are dealing with only discrete states, the first sum over states is normalized to one. When you are dealing with only continuous states, the integral over all continuous states is normalized. If you have to deal with both discrete and continuous states, then the entire left side is normalized, since the probability of being in one of the possible states (discrete or continuous) is certainty, that is, 1.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
Anon (Tommy)

In reality, as opposed to mathematical function, how can a 'state' be 'continuous', ie as opposed to discrete. To be a 'state', it must be discrete, albeit that can be one in a continuously changing sequence of states.

I appreciate this is slightly at a tangent, but ultimately, even if that 'settles' the maths issue, the question becomes, what relevance is a mathematical representation of reality if it does not reflect the fundamental logic thereof?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Paul,

Don't you ever get tired of being in over your head? Go away, learn something, then come back.

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 00:35 GMT
Anonymous: Thanxs that's a great answer! So just for my own grokking:

The equation 1+1=1 is always true in the case of that general equation because on the left-hand side, one of the "1"'s is actually 0.

Discrete case: 1+0=1

Continuous case: 0+1=1

Both discrete and continuous: 1+0 or 0+1=1

And 1+1=1 is never true, because the eigenvalues are never discrete AND continuous at the same time. Thx again!

Also to Paul: "In reality, as opposed to mathematical function, how can a 'state' be 'continuous', ie as opposed to discrete. To be a 'state', it must be discrete, albeit that can be one in a continuously changing sequence of states."

The state is represented by eigenvectors, which are labelled by the eigenvalues they are eigenstates of, and hence since the eigenvalues can be discrete or continuous, so the states (or the vectors which represent them) can be too. In reality, we can only measure the eigenvalues of these observables, not the observables themselves, so what we measure, in reality, are discrete or continuous eigensstates... So the whole question of whether an actual (objectively real experiments observation/measurement) state is discrete or continuous is the same as asking what happens to a photon between one state (measurement) and the next. That question is not in the domain of quantum mechanics... So you are right only because you are speaking of Meta-Physics. And so (now I'm over my head a bit), the only actual experiment going on that could shed some light on the issue is C. Hogans ongoing experiment to measure whether space is digital...

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 08:16 GMT
Tommy

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Anon, or indeed others....

"The state is represented by eigenvectors..." Yes, but my point is, is this (or any other) representation valid. Does it correspond to a physical phenomenon and how that occurs (not what actually nanifests). In this particular respect, given that there must be discreteness. Only one state, in any given sequence, can be existent at a time. Put another way around, one cannot have change (difference) to something, unless one has something in the first place. And the 'different something' must similarly be something, otherwise, in reverse, one would not be able to identify the difference. The practicalities of what we can and cannot measure are another matter.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
@Ray, yes I am Dutch , but I live in France, so both sides are neighbours of Belgium, I am agreat admirer of Belgium beer, but I don't have and not want to have any influence on my neighbours in the way of a psychiater because I am not, the only way that I like to influence is with my thoughts, and maybe some thinkers are sometimes in landscapes that makes them fearfull and paranoia, we are not all yoga masters...

about the black magic : you are right there are still so many questions that need answers, so we are reacting like the people from the middle ages and naming it black magic (don't want to offend you Ray!!!). Once we go on with our research both terms disappear, but for now they are still there.

think free (and have fun)

Wilhelmus wilhelpus

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 8, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
He ho Wilhelmus the pseudo, first return at school and second you know where you can put it the psychiater. Thinking free pseudo thinker !

I will help you to be an universalist .I will help you to see the generality but apparently you do not see it !

Wilhelmus one day we shall speak face to face about the spherization of course.

DIFFAMATIONS AND CALOMNIAS......PUNISHABLE!!!

and of course thinking rational instead of your subjective stupidities but it is just a suggestion of course, now your vanity uis going to increase, logic for the pseudos! In fact like james , write philosophical books and forget the physics !Thanks for your understanding of free thinking.

Now I am goin,g to take my meds and contin ue to class my maths and my taxonomy of animals.You want courses , I class all since the age of 16 !!!

To you ^pseudo !!and spherically yours in 3D of course It is you who is going to beed a psychiater , be sure !

And still one think, I don't invent about my pc, perhaps it is you Whilhelmus the pseudo ! Epileptic, asperger and crazzy about the revolution, the real universal revolution, you are jealous in fact because you you are not able to ponder this kind of works, learn my works instead of being in these stupidities, subjective and irrational. Learn Whilhelmus !

Whilhelmus will not help the generality, that, it is sure !

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 10:51 GMT
I have a Theory of the nature of Dark Matter. I'll be posting it on my blog at tumbler.com and then start to data-mine existing publications to see if it's new, and then use it to answer some of the Observed properties of DM.

The reasoning that led me to this theory is interesting, so here it is (it won't make sense until you read the blogs--not written yet): Aristotle: The mean is...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 16:18 GMT
Tommy, you introduce that 5% of the kinown material (byrionic) is the same as the 95% we just do not know. All fruits are not apples... Singulairities are mathematical entities that in my humble opinion are not existing in our 3+1 Universe, which is limited in length and time.

Futhermore I think that humanity is able to think in the future by SF writers, but these "models" of the future are paralel universes (that are existing!) but we are not sure that in our causal universe we will arrive there.

think free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Hello W:

I don' t wil teveel in hier openbaren: that' s voor later, dan kunnen zij mijn fatale gebreken van Theorieën opstapelen en vinden. Wil enkel zeggen dat de theorie enigszins meer geluid is dat ik beschreef: het is gebaseerd op de eerbiedwaardige vergelijking E=mc^2. Zeggen dat 95% van het heelal uit onbekende donkere kwestie/wordt samengesteld energie is het zelfde als zeggend deze vergelijking van toepassing is op het volledige heelal, en zo de gevolgtrekking die wij zijn hebben gemaakt wat wij nu goedkeuren: 95% van het materiaal in ons heelal is ' dark'. Mijn theorie ontkent dit door te beweren dat de factor c in deze vergelijking niet de algemeen aanvaarde constante van aard is, waar c altijd gelijk aan de snelheid van licht bij gebrek aan het gravitatiegebied is. De voorbeelden van veranderlijk c omvatten de snelheid van licht in andere media dan vrije ruimte, en in aanwezigheid van intense graviationalgebieden. Als oud licht, waar een foton over een periode van ongeveer tienduizendtaljaren filtert aangezien het it' maakt; s manier van het centrum van een ster aan it' s oppervlakte. c in dit geval is zeker geen constante in einstien' s vergelijking. Eens diep ik de theorie uit gebruikend deze nuance, I' vrij zeker m dat de vergelijking een verklaring zal houden in verband met waarom deze donkere kwestie van normale kwestie niet te onderscheiden is, wordt en het raadsel opgelost. Uitersten van kwestie: Aanwezigheid in klein genoeg volume=black gat/ruimte Absence=empty. Het gemiddelde: normale en zogenaamde " donkere matter". I' ve openbaarde teveel, en van de bovenkant van mijn hoofd geen minder. Neem zorg, denk duur!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 22:38 GMT
Hi Steve,

I recognize how certain you are about your ideas being correct. I haven't met anyone here yet who didn't feel the same about their ideas. My view is different:

"James, I am insisting, write books of philosophy."

Your advice is acknowledged to be intended as sincere guidance. However, you have it backwards. I am the person who particpates here who will not engage in philosophy. Since theoretical physics is well infiltrated with philosophy, I remove it. Physics improves greatly when freed of its theoretical imaginative 'properties'. That is the path I will be continuing to follow. It is the path of physics. Thank you anyway for sharing your opinion.

James

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT
Mr. Alexander states: "Some colleagues in the community have raised the contention that it is unlikely that neutrinos can propagate faster than the speed of light because it would contradict the arrival time of light emitted from Supernovae 1987. In particular, if the neutrinos were traveling a part in a million faster than light, they would arrive months before the light that was emitted from the Supernovae."

A correct theory of dark matter, stated somewhat (but purposefully obliquely) above, based on a variable value for c in the interior of stellar bodies, will possible explain the results above, and allow for a the results of this experiment to be correct...

It may also make the prediction that gamma-ray bursts are actually an indication of a change of state from 'dark' to 'normal' matter, as light escapes from the stellar body for the first time... etc. blah blah read my blog and find fatal inconsistencies later.

and to wilhelmus again, we cannot properly describe or speak of quantum singularities, so all metaphors are only educated guesses, as they are locations where modern physics breaks down and are undescribable currently. Physicist get around this issue by clothing them with black holes, and we can ignor the problem. But one thing we can state about a singularity is that whether it is the result of normal matter collapsing, or of dark matter collapsing, the singulariy, if naked would be indistingushable between the two (equally unknowable and identical in both cases). To say some matter is dark is to say that the singularity it produces is a dark singularity, as opposed to a 'normal' singularity. So you can't really speak about it's location being 'in' or 'parallel' or 'outside' our universe unless you allow a naked singularity, which is not allowed in modern physics.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
Tommy, Scientists have a lot of theories (I am not a professionnal scientist, and even I have a theory), all based upon assumption, in fact that an assumption on an assumption, mix that with mathematics and out come the formula's , that seem to deal with reality, but in fact are based on wishfull thinking. The same with "naked" singulairities this is a mathematical "idea", like the root of -1, in maths you can use it (I think) but not in the material world that has its own downside limits (untill now the Planck length and time) what comes after is always untestable so we can imagine what we want to (that is what I also do with the theory of Total Simultaneity) in order to find explications for questions that will once answered be the cause of a multitude of new questions. In my opinion gravity is an emerging "force" from the Total Simultaneity (a bit like my fellow countryman Eric Verlinde) but of course we cannot experiment with these thoughts. Dark matter , black holes, Big bangs, 10 dimensions, cosmological constants etc, our "reality" is still full of questions, and we are happy to be able to think about them freely.

I agree with you on the velocity of light, like the cosmological constant (which is not constant) it is an agreement that can be changed (the essay of Peter Jackson is very interesting thinking about that and the results). Faster then light is possible and when doing so you are catching up with photons that are emitted before the moment you started your engines so you can observe the past (if you stop, only for a specific time), but you cannot influence that past !

think free and have fun

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

there is ambiguity in the temporal language generally used. Which needs to be eliminated within physics. For example there is ambiguity because "the past" could mean- that which has happened unobserved or that which has been a present-now observation but is no longer.

According to the framework I have described and illustrated, data in the environment that will form the present-now of an observer under consideration but has not yet been received is a pre-written future, not "the past".

The actualisation that formed the data has existed but the data has not yet been received to form an observed, present-now manifestation. Actualisations always precede manifestations.

The past in this framework only exists in records of various kinds including memory. There is nothing ahead of the actualisations and the data in the environment (from which observations can be formed) which all exist at a single and only time in space, Uni-temporal Now. Receiving some data sooner when travelling is just altering the delay between data production and data receipt.

As the manifestation produced from the data and observed is not the actualisation that formed the data, the former actualisation can not be altered by observation. Actualisation and manifestation exist on different sides of the Reality interface.(Which agrees with your "but you can not influence that past!", but avoiding the ambiguous term "past")



Please think about the ambiguities and the solution offered. The linguistic/semantic issues may seem trivial but they are really important.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 11, 2012 @ 07:36 GMT
Georgina

I would suggest it is better to define the ‘present-now’ as at the point of existence, rather than define reality from the point of observation. Because, after all, the former is what we are trying to establish, and it only happens once (ie definite physically existent state at definite point in time (timing)). The result of that existence is many physically existent representations of it. Which are either sensed by any organism at a later point in time, or not.

Using existence as the base-line is ontologically correct, and clarifies the whole process in terms of how it occurs. Though the problem is, in practical terms, that we can only start from individual articulations of perceptions. However, irrespective of terminology, the logical structure is as you depict it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 11, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT
Dear Paul,

The way I have defined present-now or "The present" allows it to fit as a functional part within the explanatory framework that I have talked about at length and also represented in diagrammatic form a number of times on this site and elsewhere. Which does overcome numerous physics problems. However it can only do so with very precise understanding and application of the terminology within it. Our discussions have made it abundantly clear to me that there can't be flexibility about the definitions used as it leads to ambiguity and then the explanatory framework would cease to function.

The present-now which is experienced, observed and measured belongs to the space-time output reality from data processing according to the explanatory framework I have set out. The things that exist, the actualisations, and the sensory data from which observations are constructed are within Uni-temporal-Now which is not part of the space-time fabricated reality but the Source reality where the sensory data is formed. The present -now is different for each observer and there is non simultaneity. Uni-temporal -Now does not have non simultaneity as there is only one time throughout all of space. Both are needed for a complete and fully functional model of reality.

There are matters of fact, discovered by experiment and there are relationships of ideas. The truth of the matters of fact is in the correspondence with the external reality of nature. The truth of the relationship of the ideas depends upon the definitions of the words used. If the definition of the words is altered then something that was true can become untrue even though the words are the same. So the terms can not be substituted or redefined at will. I respect your preference for a different use of present-now but I can not accept that it is better. Also I am using the words for very specific explanatory purposes and for the framework to function those definitions have to be set.

As I said to Wilhelmus, the linguistic/semantic issues may seem trivial but they are really important.I hope you will come to understand why that is so.

Regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Uh huh! Thanks for your opinion W. Which has no real place in this Thread, and was not elicited by anyone, except perhaps Pentcho. Who will now because of you write about thirty comments from Einsteinia or whatever. Hey, go here (below website) and type "Green Lantern" in the Search bar and see what happens! 10^5 Costumes!

QuantumWidgets.com/Masquerade.html

Hi Georgina! Thanks for getting us back on track.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 11, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT
Hi Tommy,

thank you for posting on the blog threads. There have been very few different contributors for a long time. The site now seems a little revitalised. Your duck analogy was brilliant- but harsh. Its good to have a diversity of people all freely sharing their own ideas and opinions and whatever they think is important for physics. The more the merrier. Remember also that more people -are- reading the posts than contributing here.

report post as inappropriate


Google Gone Wild wrote on Mar. 11, 2012 @ 23:09 GMT
Greetings Donatello Dolce! Caio! Your Essay Abstract is intriguing and I want to read about your ideas further. Let's all be perfectly honest and admit that 250 essays in this contest was simply an embarrassment of riches, and we all couldn't quite get around to all of them, no?

Anyway, I will read your essay. Only one issue is at the forefront of my thinking before beginning your Essay, and that is this: If you postulate a cyclic universe as opposed to a Digital or Analogue World, don't you make the problem more complex. In other words: if a cyclic universe; then possiblities arise of a digital universe, followed in succession by another digital, and ad infinitem...

OR: if a cyclic universe; then a digital universe, followed in succession by an analogue one...

or infinitely more ...

The ultimate point being that in the end of the Grand Syllogism on the nature of the universe, by accepting the third Way as it were, and allowing aspect of the two apposite realities to commingle, then ultimately you may answer the same question as simply as positing a digital or analgue universe. However, then you must add an explanation on why the pattern of your succession of cyclic universes--sometimes sharing digital and analogue properties simultaneously in one Cycle of the Universe. So you must explain more to answer the question of the Universes Ultimate Nature. I look forward to seeing how you tackled this philosophical thorny point in your essay.

FYI: T.O.E.: QuantumWidgets.com

take care!

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 12, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Stephon,

I do not know if you are still watching this thread.If you are I would just like to say that I do not think the neutrinos can be travelling through space-time but foundational uni-temporal space. I consider space-time to represent the output reality produced by observers from received data. Not what exists independently of observers but a "higher level" fabrication. That way of thinking overcomes some of the theoretical barriers to superluminal travel.

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 13, 2012 @ 04:12 GMT
This is me, asking to be considered for a special session of Members, and to be possibly voted into Membership in this exalted and admired Community?!?

For those few of you Lucky ones with a mobile device, click on the following link to Call Advance AutoParts SuperStore Agents, who are standing by. Remember to say the code word "CC20" to get 20% off (it's recommended you wait until the end of your call lol)!

Cheapest Auto Parts in North America, 24/7, until 2014! Pick up order in an hour or have it shipped free (restrictions apply). Or order online on the Quantum Auto Parts Website.

888-606-6510

Quantum Auto Parts

"Prices. Like a Rock..."

For mobile devices, click the following link to Call. On the web, this link should take you to AAP's website, if on a moble device, this link will open up your phones dialer with the number already entered to call a auto parts agent...

888-606-6510

Plz share this with any and all interested parties! Also ask about their ongoing "Free Gas for a Year Contest". heard about it on the radio last week... this last sentence will be the only dated part of this comment. The rest stands as is, until 2014!

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
FYI: "Prices. Like a Rock...", our website philosophy now applies to services for writing essays, technical publications, term papers, theses, and research papers... for below is our new website affiliate, who already accomplishes this fantastic task for hundreds of millions of satisfied clients right now!

EssayREasy.net/

Look for further worldwide-exclusive discounts to their products on our site, via links! That's just how we roll.

Regards,

Homeless website CEO...

and what is this TED thing popping up everywhere? I just love it! for the record, if they haven't left already, I volunteer to go to the Moon on a mining expedition. please contact me via email. The talk i saw was from 2009, lol, so three years later, "I volunteer". And is the deal still that the TEam does not take return-fuel? We make it there. i'm in. already have the SECRET clearance and a couple thourough background checks. let's roll...

report post as inappropriate


Andy M wrote on Mar. 14, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Becuase Ray Munroe was very interested in the possible FTL neutrinos reported in this topic, I thought it an appropriate place for the following:

There was sad news concerning Ray Munroe reported here:

http://blog.vixra.org/2012/03/13/ray-munroe-1958-2012/

O
ne can read more about his life here:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tallahassee/obituary.a
spx?n=ray-b-munroe&pid=156453394&fhid=4646

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 14, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
I am deeply saddened by the news.

RIP, Ray, you will be here with us in our memories, and your words documented on these blogs are not going anywhere.

Some of you may remember that Ray and I had a long and spirited debate involving octonions and 7-sphere. Despite my strong resistance to his ideas, he ended up influencing mine. He inspired one of the figures in one of my recent papers, which will always remind me of him and our debates. He always remained gentlemanly and calm no matter how spirited the debates between us became. I appreciated that part of his personality very much.

With deep sadness,

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 14, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Oh, no. So sorry to hear the sad news.

We will miss you, Ray. Peace.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 14, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
Ray Munroe was highly intelligent, highly educated and highly cordial always. He would say his first hello and his first offer to be of assistance together. I never met him, but, reading his words was rich and personal enough that this hurts like losing a friend. God bless and keep you Ray Monroe.

James

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 22:29 GMT
Look for links to discounts on these products worldwide exclusively on QuantumWidgets.com

Industry Best Custom Writing Service

Offering Assistance With:

Term Papers

Essays

Case Studies

Research

500+ Expert Writers

240+ Subjects Covered

Personal Advisor 24/7

100% Satisfaction Guarantee

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Andy M wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
Prof Antonio Ereditato who oversaw the Opera project, which had reported preliminary data supporting faster than light neutrinos, has resigned.

Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.