Amazement As Speed Of Light Is Broken... Was Einstein Wrong?

[Buck]

This was written a while ago, but it is a great overview touching on the general issues;

http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resour...nglement.shtml

[Mad Hatter]

I'm obviously wrong (as is so often the case ) but...

I was under the impression Einstein was talking the speed of light in a vacuum...thus to my mind this begs the qusetion how did they create a vacuum between CERN and Italy in order to conduct the experiment accurately???

just sayin....

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Buck (here)
That would apply here too- yes?

It sure could apply .

You're right that I was too derisive in my tone. Thanks for noticing!

I will go back now and see if I can improve the matter.

[Buck]

wow you are a fast learner! See? you can go back in time

[Fructedor]

Google & YouTube - Edward Witten on String Theory and multi-dimensional reality

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by The One (here)
Later, together with Bertrand Russell, Einstein signed the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, which highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons.

Thanks The One, I never knew these two teamed up. Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I have to ask if anyone knows why a Jewish physicist named Einstein was working with a well known eugenicist named Russell, who would later proudly proclaim something like this:

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing... War... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's... There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority...”
- Bertrand Russell, THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY 1953

Closer to subject, I hate to be a wet blanket here, but why are we so excited about what CERN is telling us? Why sould we even trust them for that matter? I've been assuming that this kind of technology has been around for quite some time now already in the black projects, and far superior to what they are supposedly so excited about...

Tesla had these kinds of things worked out a century ago. That's why he's never talked about, just guys like Marconi, Edison, and maybe even our old buddy Einstein. I won't dive down the rabbit hole of speculation here as to why CERN would be releasing something like this now, but it's worthy of consideration.

Just my take.

Cheers,
Fred

[MorningSong]

Here is an article explaing the Swiss CERN- Italian OPERA connection and this experiment...

Faster-than-light neutrino claim bolstered
21:15 23 September 2011 by Lisa Grossman

Representatives from the OPERA collaboration spoke in a seminar at CERN today, supporting their astonishing claim that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.

The result is conceptually simple: neutrinos travelling from a particle accelerator at CERN in Switzerland arrived 60 nanoseconds too early at a detector in the Gran Sasso cavern in Italy. And it relies on three conceptually simple measurements, explained Dario Autiero of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Lyon: the distance between the labs, the time the neutrinos left Switzerland, and the time they arrived in Italy.

But actually measuring those times and distances to the accuracy needed to detect differences of billionths of a second (1 nanosecond = 1 billionth of a second) is no easy task.
Details, details

"These are experiments where the devil is in the details – the details of how each piece of equipment works, and how it all goes together," said Rob Plunkett of Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois.

The detector in the Gran Sasso cavern is located 1400 metres underground. At that depth Earth's crust shields OPERA (which stands for Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) from noise-inducing cosmic rays, but also obscures its exact latitude and longitude. To pinpoint its position precisely, the researchers stopped traffic in one lane of a 10-kilometre long highway tunnel for a week to place GPS receivers on either side.

The GPS measurements, which were so accurate they could detect the crawling drift of the planet's tectonic plates, gave precise benchmarks for each side of the tunnel, allowing the researchers to triangulate the underground detector's position in the planet. Combining that with the known position of the neutrino source at CERN gave a distance of 730,534.61 metres, plus or minus 20 centimetres.

To determine exactly when the neutrinos left CERN and arrived at Gran Sasso, the team hooked both detectors to caesium clocks, which can measure time to an accuracy of one second in about 30 million years. That linked the labs' timekeepers to within one nanosecond.

"These kinds of techniques that we have been using are maybe unusual in high energy physics, but they are quite standard in metrology," Autiero said. Just to be sure, the collaboration had two independent metrology teams from Switzerland and Germany check their work. It all checked out.

The researchers also accounted for an odd feature of general relativity in which clocks at different heights keep different times.
A ‘beautiful experiment'

Other physicists are impressed."This is certainly very precise timing, more than you need to record for normal accelerator operations," Plunkett told New Scientist. His project, the MINOS experiment at Fermilab, has already requested an upgrade to their timing system so they can replicate the results, perhaps as soon as 2014.

"I want to congratulate you on this extremely beautiful experiment," said Nobel laureate Samuel Ting of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge during the question and answer session that followed Autiero's talk. "The experiment is very carefully done, and the systematic error carefully checked."

But only time will tell whether the result holds up to additional scrutiny, and whether it can be reproduced . There is still room for uncertainty in the neutrinos' departure time, Plunkett says, because there is no neutrino detector on CERN's end of the line. The only way to know when the neutrinos left is to extrapolate from data on the blob of protons used to produce them.

"Of course we need to approach it sceptically," he says. "I believe everyone will be pulling together to figure this out."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...bolstered.html

[MorningSong]

And here is another article discussing/questioning this experiment's results:

Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed
12:05 23 September 2011 by Lisa Grossman

A CERN experiment claims to have caught neutrinos breaking the universe's most fundamental speed limit. The ghostly subatomic particles seem to have zipped faster than light from the particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, to a detector in Italy.

Fish that physics textbook back out of the wastebasket, though: the new result contradicts previous measurements of neutrino speed that were based on a supernova explosion. What's more, there is still room for error in the departure time of the supposed speedsters. And even if the result is correct, thanks to theories that posit extra dimensions, it does not necessarily mean that the speed of light has been beaten.

"If it's true, it's fantastic. It will rock the foundation of physics," says Stephen Parke of Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois. "But we still have to confirm it."

Neutrinos are nearly massless subatomic particles that are notoriously shy of interacting with other forms of matter. An experiment called OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emusion tRacking Apparatus) sent beams of neutrinos from a particle accelerator at CERN to a detector in the Gran Sasso cavern in Italy, 730 kilometres away.

The neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds sooner than they would have if they had been travelling at the speed of light, the team says.
Supernova contradiction

If real, the finding will force a rewrite of Einstein's theory of special relativity, one of the cornerstones of modern physics (and a theory whose predictions are incorporated into the design of the accelerators at CERN). "It's not reasonable," says theorist Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.

One problem is that the CERN result busts the apparent speed limit of neutrinos seen when radiation from a supernova explosion reached Earth in February 1987.

Supernovae are exploding stars that are so bright they can briefly outshine their host galaxies. However, most of their energy actually streams out as neutrinos. Because neutrinos scarcely interact with matter, they should escape an exploding star almost immediately, while photons of light will take about 3 hours to get out. And in 1987, trillions of neutrinos arrived 3 hours before the dying star's light caught up, just as physicists would have expected.

The recent claim of a much higher neutrino speed just doesn't fit with this earlier measurement. "If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy," says Sher. "They didn't. The supernova contradicts this [new finding] by huge factors."
Fuzzy departure

It's possible that the neutrinos that sped to the Italian mine were a different type of neutrino from the ones streaming from the supernova, or had a different energy. Either of those could explain the difference, Sher admits. "But it's quite unlikely."

A measurement error in the recent neutrino experiment could also explain the contradiction.

"In principle it's a very easy experiment: you know the distance between A and B, you know how long it takes the neutrinos to get there, so you can calculate their speed," Parke says. "However, things are more complicated than that. There are subtle effects that make it much more difficult."

For instance, although the detectors in Italy can pinpoint the neutrinos' time of arrival to within nanoseconds, it's less clear when they left the accelerator at CERN. The neutrinos are produced by slamming protons into a bar-shaped target, sparking a cascade of subatomic particles. If the neutrinos were produced at one end of the bar rather than the other, it could obscure their time of flight.

Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct. Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the familiar four (three of space, one of time). It's possible that the speedy neutrinos tunnel through these extra dimensions, reducing the distance they have to travel to get to the target. This would explain the measurement without requiring the speed of light to be broken.

Antonio Ereditato with the OPERA collaboration declined to comment until after a seminar to be held at CERN today at 4 pm Geneva time.
Extraordinary evidence wanted

In the meantime, Parke is reserving judgement until the result can be confirmed by other experiments such as the MINOS experiment at Fermilab or the T2K experiment in Japan.

"There are a number of experiments that are online or coming online that could be upgraded to do this measurement," he says. "These are the kind of things that we have to follow through, and make sure that our prejudices don't get in the way of discovering something truly fantastic."

In 2007, the MINOS experiment searched for faster-than-light neutrinos but didn't see anything statistically significant.

Although sceptical, he is willing to give their colleagues at OPERA the benefit of the doubt. "They certainly didn't do anything that's obviously stupid, or they would have caught that," Parke says.

"They're smart people, these are not crackpots," Sher agrees. "But as the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is about as extraordinary as you get."

Reference: arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ght-speed.html

[Mad Hatter]

Mad Hatter dons his cynics cap...

Being a fan of the empirical approach I do realise proponents of the post modern paradigm might not agree with the following deconstruction.

As is usually the case with any new information we have open minds as exemplified by

"If it's true, it's fantastic. It will rock the foundation of physics," says Stephen Parke of Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois. "But we still have to confirm it."

and closed minds as exemplified in this case by

"It's not reasonable," says theorist Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.

Of course Mr Sher may be concerned that...

If real, the finding will force a rewrite of Einstein's theory of special relativity, one of the cornerstones of modern physics

and thus several lifetimes worth of endeavour will be invalidated and further funding for those lines of enquiry will not be forthcoming. The following platitude is served up to encourage preservation of the status quo...

Fish that physics textbook back out of the wastebasket, though: the new result contradicts previous measurements of neutrino speed that were based on a supernova explosion. What's more, there is still room for error in the departure time of the supposed speedsters. And even if the result is correct, thanks to theories that posit extra dimensions, it does not necessarily mean that the speed of light has been beaten.

Now this experimemnt ran from...

CERN to a detector in the Gran Sasso cavern in Italy, 730 kilometres away

measured using...

GPS measurements, which were so accurate they could detect the crawling drift of the planet's tectonic plates

and for timing...

hooked both detectors to caesium clocks, which can measure time to an accuracy of one second in about 30 million years.

but...but...but...says Sher...

One problem is that the CERN result busts the apparent speed limit of neutrinos seen when radiation from a supernova explosion reached Earth in February 1987...Because neutrinos scarcely interact with matter, they should escape an exploding star almost immediately, while photons of light will take about 3 hours to get out. And in 1987, trillions of neutrinos arrived 3 hours before the dying star's light caught up, just as physicists would have expected.

and the proof that physicists new when to start that measurement was based on neutrinos arriving on mass unexpectedly before the light identified the source as a supernova...??? Feel free to help me out here...

"If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy," says Sher. "They didn't. The supernova contradicts this [new finding] by huge factors."

and the GPS units and the caesium clock where placed whereabouts on the star that went supernova???

Neutrinos are nearly massless subatomic particles that are notoriously shy of interacting with other forms of matter

and as noted above escape an exploding star 3 hours before light can...
but...but...but...

The neutrinos are produced by slamming protons into a bar-shaped target, sparking a cascade of subatomic particles. If the neutrinos were produced at one end of the bar rather than the other, it could obscure their time of flight.

and just what mysterious substance is that bar made of to have such a slowing effect???

Perhaps in attempt to either cover all the bases or save face we get...

Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct. Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the familiar four (three of space, one of time). It's possible that the speedy neutrinos tunnel through these extra dimensions, reducing the distance they have to travel to get to the target. This would explain the measurement without requiring the speed of light to be broken.

And the proof that light only exists in these four dimensions is???
I'll leave you dear reader, to ponder what the results might have been if the neutrinos decided to to the long way through those other dimensions!!

lastly...

Although sceptical, he is willing to give their colleagues at OPERA the benefit of the doubt. "They certainly didn't do anything that's obviously stupid, or they would have caught that," Parke says.

"They're smart people, these are not crackpots," Sher agrees. "But as the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is about as extraordinary as you get."

Perhaps someone should point these two at the papers on quantum entanglement after they have recovered from the current bout of cognitive dissonance.
cheers

[Carmody]

I've mentioned this one story before, and I'll mention it again.

I Know of a guy with about, at last count..105 patents in the telecommunications industry.

He had made working, finished, beyond theory, beyond prototype to actual working finished manufactured hardware (ready for mass production)....for a telecommunications system that worked at 300x the speed of light, and had no 'limits' (worked through anything/unblockable).

He then started to talk about being watched and then he ended up getting cancer, in his brain. Then he died.



Source:

Direct, family. blood. They worked for the man, they were his friend. The man I'm speaking of was the head of a telecommunications technology development firm.

In essence, you, we , me, them, us, we are all being artificially --- held back. Held back as this sort of thing has been discovered HUNDREDS of times before. Hundreds. Evey kind of over unity technology and such that you can imagine, has been discovered and created, in total, finished applicable science and as an engineered solution. Every kind you can imagine, and more.

I could, if given the time and the minimal financial capacity to do so, could create a hundred different types of devices--of just about any type and kind (communication, energy, matter conversion, etc).

Once the concepts are understood it is actually, incredibly easy.

The problem is manifold.

--something is holding us back, by murder, death, butchery, coercion, guile, promise.... and any workable method that may suit the situation at hand.

--Can you handle technologies that can kill us all, if used improperly? Ie, do you trust the emotional integrity of the next door 16 year old very smart-- but angst and anger filled Kid?

You get both sides of the coin. You get infinite promise, infinite energy, but you also get......... infinite danger---all at the same time.

[<8>]

Hi guys..


I like the part in the Electric Universe Theory, about Gravity being instant, or else the stars and the planets in the universe would just float away.
It just make alot of sense to me.

If i remember right, in the accepted theory, they had to make up black holes to compensate for gravity losing strengt because of the distance..
Remember no one have seen a black hole yet..

This is by memory, so i might be wrong....

P.s i hear some talk about they are just using Gravity for traveling faster then light. Maybe im all wrong, or im right, who knows...

[araucaria]

If there is nothing faster than the speed of light, then what does it mean to state that energy is a function of the square of that speed? Either E=mc² is a mathematical, as opposed to a physics, equation, or faster-than-light speed is a given.

Astronomers presume that gravity is instantaneous, i.e that gravity is infinitely faster than light. More reasonable people think it is a little slower than that...

[Ernest]

If you want to check out the article where it this was announced you can find it here.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by araucaria (here)
If there is nothing faster than the speed of light, then what does it mean to state that energy is a function of the square of that speed? Either E=mc² is a mathematical, as opposed to a physics, equation, or faster-than-light speed is a given.

Astronomers presume that gravity is instantaneous, i.e that gravity is infinitely faster than light. More reasonable people think it is a little slower than that...

We still don't understand gravity at all ... no one wants to admit that though. Einsteins theories indicated that gravity operates like a wave that travels at the speed of light - but this has never been proven - it is just one way that may explain how gravity might work (bending space), but is still disputed.

[araucaria]

If memory serves, Tom van Flandern has discovered that the speed of gravity is at least two billion times the speed of light, and suggests that it is probably limited in its field of action. He returns to Laplace's old idea of gravitons - infinitesimal particles pressing down rather then sucking down. See his book Dark Planets...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by araucaria (here)
If memory serves, Tom van Flandern has discovered that the speed of gravity is at least two billion times the speed of light, and suggests that it is probably limited in its field of action. He returns to Laplace's old idea of gravitons - infinitesimal particles pressing down rather then sucking down. See his book Dark Planets...

That's pretty close to my personal belief on gravity as well ... sounds like an interesting read, thanks!

[Hervé]

Posted by Carmody (here)
[...]
He had made working, finished, beyond theory, beyond prototype to actual working finished manufactured hardware (ready for mass production)....for a telecommunications system that worked at 300x the speed of light, and had no 'limits' (worked through anything/unblockable).

[...]

The problem is manifold.

--something is holding us back, by murder, death, butchery, coercion, guile, promise.... and any workable method that may suit the situation at hand.

--Can you handle technologies that can kill us all, if used improperly? Ie, do you trust the emotional integrity of the next door 16 year old very smart-- but angst and anger filled Kid?

You get both sides of the coin. You get infinite promise, infinite energy, but you also get......... infinite danger---all at the same time.

Reminds me of something that Pete Peterson mentioned in his Camelot video interview: "How do you synchronize communication devices which work on no time?"

[Ilie Pandia]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Reminds me of something that Pete Peterson mentioned in his Camelot video interview: "How do you synchronize communication devices which work on no time?"

I'd ask him back: "What does synchronize mean if you have no time?"

[Davidallany]

Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's

This is one of the top two ignorant statements I've ever known, it's hypocritical and immoral.

[Carmody]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Carmody (here)
[...]
He had made working, finished, beyond theory, beyond prototype to actual working finished manufactured hardware (ready for mass production)....for a telecommunications system that worked at 300x the speed of light, and had no 'limits' (worked through anything/unblockable).

[...]

The problem is manifold.

--something is holding us back, by murder, death, butchery, coercion, guile, promise.... and any workable method that may suit the situation at hand.

--Can you handle technologies that can kill us all, if used improperly? Ie, do you trust the emotional integrity of the next door 16 year old very smart-- but angst and anger filled Kid?

You get both sides of the coin. You get infinite promise, infinite energy, but you also get......... infinite danger---all at the same time.

Reminds me of something that Pete Peterson mentioned in his Camelot video interview: "How do you synchronize communication devices which work on no time?"

You make all devices identical. You make a detection/firing system that is independent.

This device, this firing or timing creation device emits a signal that is also 'out of time'. It becomes the timing device that fires each one, as they each receive the timing signal.

There will still be errors, yes, unless the timing systems and the devices themselves are both of an 'out of time' nature, as devices go. Your errors will creep in, within the scope of the translation devices, the components that are standard electronics in nature.

I can't (won't) explain my solution but I've got half the solution done some years back. (the hard part, the detector/emitter) is done. Sort of.

I don't work in these areas, I just understand the problem, to some degree.

Basically, you have a hard limit, that is tied directly to the given standard electronics design and materials that may connected to said signal/detector/device.