Neutrinos measured traveling faster than light

les3547 · 09-25-2011, 08:36 AM

I just see the time travel thing as science types wanting some exciting stuff to ponder. The concrete thing relativity indicates (and the only thing confirmed experimentally) is that the rate of time varies with movement and gravity/acceleration. If you could live on Jupiter, for instance, your clock would constantly run slower than clocks on Earth.

I've never seen how one extrapolates the possibility of time "travel" from the fact that movement/gravity slows down physics. Consider a gravitational singularity, an event of infinite gravity, and which the Big Bang supposedly was. If anything should make time go backward that should . . . but how would expansion from the singularity (as the universe did) ever take place since its infinite gravity would cause the singularity to keep preceding itself!

Past is function of human consciousness, our memory. Raw physics has no such thing. Future is also a function of human conscious, our imagination, and physics doesn't have that either.

Mike Cash · 09-27-2011, 07:18 PM

Now I find myself with thoughts of a confection. Something ooey-gooey rich-n-chewy inside, tender tasty golden flaky outside. Alas, all I can so is dream of it.

BillM · 09-27-2011, 11:35 PM

Being a product of mid-western pragmatics,going to stick with the fact
I can see a quark with my eyes closed.

RioRico · 09-28-2011, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by BillM

I can see a quark with my eyes closed.

Is it naked?

BillM · 09-28-2011, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Is it naked?

OK Rico,you got me.I spend lots of time at work,talking with wife, etc.,
and am accused of not paying attention when theres nothing further from
truth.That truth being,I spend a HUGE amount of time looking for one.
And yeah,I havent seen it [yet],is supposed to be a flash when it happens.
With that thought in mind, it has to be naked.

jolepp · 10-19-2011, 03:18 AM

A boffin suggests that the different frames of reference of the OPERA experiment and the GPS satelites used as a 'clock' might explain why the neutrions seemed to be a bit fast (/ arrive before expected / the distance on Earth having shrunk a bit):

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v3.pdf

**boriscleto** · 10-19-2011, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by jolepp

A boffin suggests that the different frames of reference of the OPERA experiment and the GPS satelites used as a 'clock' might explain why the neutrions seemed to be a bit fast (/ arrive before expected / the distance on Earth having shrunk a bit):

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v3.pdf

So CERN spent all their money on instruments and didn't hire anyone good at orbital mechanics

straightshooter · 10-20-2011, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Because we exist. People screw-up stuff. If travel into the past was possible, some human would have traveled as far back as possible, back to The Big Bang. And being human, they would have screwed it up, and we wouldn't exist. Thus is travel into the past impossible, QED. Whew! I can stop worrying about the Grandfather Paradox.

Yes, but is your existence today the same as it was yesterday? For that matter, did you even exist yesterday in another reality? Ray Bradbury may have been on to something when he wrote "A Sound of Thunder."

Quote:

Well since the Mayan's believed that there calander would end on Dec. 21 2012,

Nah, they just ran out of space on the rock.

G, D & R,
CW

bossa · 10-20-2011, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by les3547

I just see the time travel thing as science types wanting some exciting stuff to ponder. The concrete thing relativity indicates (and the only thing confirmed experimentally) is that the rate of time varies with movement and gravity/acceleration. If you could live on Jupiter, for instance, your clock would constantly run slower than clocks on Earth.

I've never seen how one extrapolates the possibility of time "travel" from the fact that movement/gravity slows down physics. Consider a gravitational singularity, an event of infinite gravity, and which the Big Bang supposedly was. If anything should make time go backward that should . . . but how would expansion from the singularity (as the universe did) ever take place since its infinite gravity would cause the singularity to keep preceding itself!

Past is function of human consciousness, our memory. Raw physics has no such thing. Future is also a function of human conscious, our imagination, and physics doesn't have that either.

I have agreed with your posts and it's refreshing to be reminded of what is going on here.

I wonder if the expansion of the Universe might not be a measure of it's decay. Our perception of the expansion may only be the way we interpret infinite collapse down/inwards - everything being equal and relative.

RioRico · 10-20-2011, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by straightshooter

Yes, but is your existence today the same as it was yesterday? For that matter, did you even exist yesterday in another reality? Ray Bradbury may have been on to something when he wrote "A Sound of Thunder."

Bradbury was overly optimistic. People f*ck much worse than just squashing the wrong bug. A more intriguing take is the short loop in Heinlein's ALL YOU ZOMBIES.

Quote:

Well since the Mayan's believed that there calander would end on Dec. 21 2012,

Nah, they just ran out of space on the rock.

As I mentioned above, I've been to the site of the oldest-known of those rock calendars. It's in Chiapa de Corzo [chee-AP-ah day COR-zoh], Chiapas Mexico. Dang, I love Chiapas! Guatemala too; many fine old stelae there. Anyway, plenty of room on the rock.

BTW Chiapa de Corzo, near the state capitol of Tuxtla Gutierrez [TOOSH-tlah goo-tee-AIR-ess] which has a world-class zoo, is on the Rio Grijalva just upstream from Sumidero Canyon. I *highly* recommend visiting there, taking a boat tour through the vertical canyon, dodging crocodiles and flamingos. Then ride up to the canyon rim and look straight down at the boaters a kilometer below. Awesome place. Too bad it's flooded with neutrinos.

jolepp · 11-04-2011, 04:10 AM

related: Can general relativity explain the OPERA neutrino result? ? The Register

jolepp · 02-23-2012, 06:07 AM

BBC News - Faster-than-light neutrinos could be down to bad wiring

RioRico · 02-29-2012, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by jolepp

BBC News - Faster-than-light neutrinos could be down to bad wiring

This won't change the minds of all the tabloid-readers who absorbed EINSTEIN IS WRONG headlines, alas.

Rupert · 02-29-2012, 10:35 PM

Otis asked...."what does this mean for Squirrels"....not much Otis, not much.

Ratmagiclady · 03-01-2012, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

So CERN spent all their money on instruments and didn't hire anyone good at orbital mechanics

Basics, basics, basics.

I'm still not convinced something like that appearing 'faster-than-light' *can't happen,* (My understanding of relativistic physics is kind of more like 'c' is the 'speed of still' so I don't think it necessarily takes massive energies or whatnot to make things map out that way,) ..but the simple fact is you couldn't find any such thing if you don't calibrate your instruments to begin with. Neutrinos interact weakly with our physical instruments as it is, and they're still considered part of our reality, so ..maybe too much was made of this to begin with, indeed. Kind of a sensationalized non-result.

09-28-2011, 12:52 AM	#35
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	Originally posted by RioRico Is it naked? OK Rico,you got me.I spend lots of time at work,talking with wife, etc., and am accused of not paying attention when theres nothing further from truth.That truth being,I spend a HUGE amount of time looking for one. And yeah,I havent seen it [yet],is supposed to be a flash when it happens. With that thought in mind, it has to be naked. Last edited by BillM; 09-28-2011 at 01:02 AM.

10-20-2011, 01:51 PM	#38
straightshooter Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: Forest Park, Georgia/Jacksonville, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 633	Originally posted by RioRico Because we exist. People screw-up stuff. If travel into the past was possible, some human would have traveled as far back as possible, back to The Big Bang. And being human, they would have screwed it up, and we wouldn't exist. Thus is travel into the past impossible, QED. Whew! I can stop worrying about the Grandfather Paradox. Yes, but is your existence today the same as it was yesterday? For that matter, did you even exist yesterday in another reality? Ray Bradbury may have been on to something when he wrote "A Sound of Thunder." Quote: Well since the Mayan's believed that there calander would end on Dec. 21 2012, Nah, they just ran out of space on the rock. G, D & R, CW Last edited by straightshooter; 10-20-2011 at 01:57 PM.

10-20-2011, 02:10 PM	#39
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	On The Money! Originally posted by les3547 I just see the time travel thing as science types wanting some exciting stuff to ponder. The concrete thing relativity indicates (and the only thing confirmed experimentally) is that the rate of time varies with movement and gravity/acceleration. If you could live on Jupiter, for instance, your clock would constantly run slower than clocks on Earth. I've never seen how one extrapolates the possibility of time "travel" from the fact that movement/gravity slows down physics. Consider a gravitational singularity, an event of infinite gravity, and which the Big Bang supposedly was. If anything should make time go backward that should . . . but how would expansion from the singularity (as the universe did) ever take place since its infinite gravity would cause the singularity to keep preceding itself! Past is function of human consciousness, our memory. Raw physics has no such thing. Future is also a function of human conscious, our imagination, and physics doesn't have that either. I have agreed with your posts and it's refreshing to be reminded of what is going on here. I wonder if the expansion of the Universe might not be a measure of it's decay. Our perception of the expansion may only be the way we interpret infinite collapse down/inwards - everything being equal and relative.

10-20-2011, 05:03 PM	#40
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by straightshooter Yes, but is your existence today the same as it was yesterday? For that matter, did you even exist yesterday in another reality? Ray Bradbury may have been on to something when he wrote "A Sound of Thunder." Bradbury was overly optimistic. People fck much worse than just squashing the wrong bug. A more intriguing take is the short loop in Heinlein's ALL YOU ZOMBIES. Quote: Quote: Well since the Mayan's believed that there calander would end on Dec. 21 2012, Nah, they just ran out of space on the rock. As I mentioned above, I've been to the site of the oldest-known of those rock calendars. It's in Chiapa de Corzo [chee-AP-ah day COR-zoh], Chiapas Mexico. Dang, I love Chiapas! Guatemala too; many fine old stelae there. Anyway, plenty of room on the rock. BTW Chiapa de Corzo, near the state capitol of Tuxtla Gutierrez [TOOSH-tlah goo-tee-AIR-ess] which has a world-class zoo, is on the Rio Grijalva just upstream from Sumidero Canyon. I highly* recommend visiting there, taking a boat tour through the vertical canyon, dodging crocodiles and flamingos. Then ride up to the canyon rim and look straight down at the boaters a kilometer below. Awesome place. Too bad it's flooded with neutrinos.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best lens combination for traveling with K-7	ardentartichoke	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	04-01-2011 07:38 PM
Traveling and Finally Joined	wizardsnoop	Welcomes and Introductions	3	01-20-2011 02:11 PM
Travel Traveling with my Sigma 10-20mm	sealonsf	Post Your Photos!	5	10-06-2010 02:39 PM
Traveling with the K-x and DA Ltd.	GeneV	Pentax DSLR Discussion	56	08-27-2010 09:00 AM
Good traveling lens recommendations?	silentwolf11	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	05-01-2010 04:07 PM

09-25-2011, 08:36 AM	#31
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	I just see the time travel thing as science types wanting some exciting stuff to ponder. The concrete thing relativity indicates (and the only thing confirmed experimentally) is that the rate of time varies with movement and gravity/acceleration. If you could live on Jupiter, for instance, your clock would constantly run slower than clocks on Earth. I've never seen how one extrapolates the possibility of time "travel" from the fact that movement/gravity slows down physics. Consider a gravitational singularity, an event of infinite gravity, and which the Big Bang supposedly was. If anything should make time go backward that should . . . but how would expansion from the singularity (as the universe did) ever take place since its infinite gravity would cause the singularity to keep preceding itself! Past is function of human consciousness, our memory. Raw physics has no such thing. Future is also a function of human conscious, our imagination, and physics doesn't have that either.

09-27-2011, 07:18 PM	#32
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Now I find myself with thoughts of a confection. Something ooey-gooey rich-n-chewy inside, tender tasty golden flaky outside. Alas, all I can so is dream of it.

09-27-2011, 11:35 PM	#33
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	Being a product of mid-western pragmatics,going to stick with the fact I can see a quark with my eyes closed.

09-28-2011, 12:33 AM	#34
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by BillM I can see a quark with my eyes closed. Is it naked?

10-19-2011, 03:18 AM	#36
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	A boffin suggests that the different frames of reference of the OPERA experiment and the GPS satelites used as a 'clock' might explain why the neutrions seemed to be a bit fast (/ arrive before expected / the distance on Earth having shrunk a bit): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v3.pdf

10-19-2011, 07:02 AM	#37
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475 Original Poster	Originally posted by jolepp A boffin suggests that the different frames of reference of the OPERA experiment and the GPS satelites used as a 'clock' might explain why the neutrions seemed to be a bit fast (/ arrive before expected / the distance on Earth having shrunk a bit): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v3.pdf So CERN spent all their money on instruments and didn't hire anyone good at orbital mechanics

11-04-2011, 04:10 AM	#41
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	related: Can general relativity explain the OPERA neutrino result? ? The Register

02-23-2012, 06:07 AM	#42
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	BBC News - Faster-than-light neutrinos could be down to bad wiring

02-29-2012, 08:50 AM	#43
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by jolepp BBC News - Faster-than-light neutrinos could be down to bad wiring This won't change the minds of all the tabloid-readers who absorbed EINSTEIN IS WRONG headlines, alas.

02-29-2012, 10:35 PM	#44
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Otis asked...."what does this mean for Squirrels"....not much Otis, not much.

03-01-2012, 01:17 PM	#45
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by boriscleto So CERN spent all their money on instruments and didn't hire anyone good at orbital mechanics Basics, basics, basics. I'm still not convinced something like that appearing 'faster-than-light' can't happen, (My understanding of relativistic physics is kind of more like 'c' is the 'speed of still' so I don't think it necessarily takes massive energies or whatnot to make things map out that way,) ..but the simple fact is you couldn't find any such thing if you don't calibrate your instruments to begin with. Neutrinos interact weakly with our physical instruments as it is, and they're still considered part of our reality, so ..maybe too much was made of this to begin with, indeed. Kind of a sensationalized non-result.