sheya joie Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Or maybe the Doctor gave the neutrinos a lift aboard the TARDIS, just to freak people out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 What I do not see is why going through matter counts. A neutrino that reaches its final destination is assumed not to have interacted with matter. For the neutrino matter is indistinguishable from vacuum, since it cannot be affected by electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Sorry viole, I'm not following something. How do they measure it's speed if the neutrino doesn't interact with matter? I thought it was done from measuring the rare interactions with matter - or is that what you mean? That it's assumed that they didn't interact with anything before they were measured, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the measuring point? Am I totally off, and if so do you know how is this done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Getting back on topic - How does observing neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light challenge Einstein's theory? If we take relativity equations at face value, then we have the following effect: - imagine you are a particle - start traveling very fast - the faster you travel the slower time looks to pass outside of your frame (it will look like everybody else is moving in slow motion) - when you reach speed of light, time outside your frame will freeze - if you surpass speed of light, time outside your frame will run in reverse My question then is, would this still be true if we assume a privileged observer were present? Doesn't special relativity assume verificationism - that the perceptions of time are indistinguishable from the reality of time? If this is the case, and there were a privileged observer, then could time still be assumed to be relative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 Or maybe the Doctor gave the neutrinos a lift aboard the TARDIS, just to freak people out... Bout time someone mentioned him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 28, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 Here's a little something: Neutrinos: Everything you need to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 28, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 28, 2011 We cannot postulate the existence of something whose non-existence is a postulate of the whole theory. The non-existence of a priviliged coordinate frame is also a foundation of Galilean and Newtonian physics, so it is not new. The non-existence is an assumption that has no empirical evidence though. The question isn’t whether this is new but, if it were to exist what would be the implication on special relativity? I find no use with things like verificationism, perceptions and reality of time. They smell like philosophy, not science. Sorry but even though the non-existence of the privileged believer is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one, the answer affects the approach to science. There is no escaping the philosophy of science in establishing the assumptions through which the empirical evidence is interpreted. In fact by assuming the non-existence of a privileged observer, as you do (which is a philosophical assumption not an empirical conclusion), you're very much accepting the a priori philosophical assumptions of verificationism and with it the inherent implications on perceptions and reality of time. This is actually a really good example of how ontology effects the way we interpret data, demonstrating unequivocally how absolutely and resolutely the atheist subscribes to a priori assumptions through philosophical bias. The difference between Einsteinian relativity and Lorenztian relativity has nothing to do with the data. If two bodies are travelling in exactly the same direction at exactly the same rate with no external reference points then to those on either body in motion it would appear that they are stationary – am I correct so far? According to Einstein’s relativity then, this is the same as them being stationary, since such relative motion would be unidentifiable, but Lorenztian relativity permits the possibility of an privileged observer, acknowledging the possibility of an objective reality of the situation (that the bodies are in motion) that is beyond the scope of the perceptions of those on the bodies, right? The data is all exactly the same, and the calculations are all exactly the same, but both philosophical approaches (Einsteinian vs. Lorentzian relativity) make assumptions on how we should interpret the data that smuggle in ontological implications (biases) that are unavoidable. So it's not a matter of what science says, but what philsophical assumptions we adopt in our approach to science. So the question remains - what if the assumption of special relativity was wrong? Would that mean that the existence of a privileged observer would negate the assumption that travelling faster than light enables time travel – or are you saying you’re not sure since this delves into the area of the philosophy of science which isn’t your area of expertise? Ditto. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Ditto means 'that goes for me too', so I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly. Are you saying that there would still be a reason to suppose that by surpassing the speed of light there would be some physical reason to suppose that we would necessarily also surpass the direction of time? Just from an intuitive reaction to the findings, doesn't it seem like the Neutrinos didn't time travel but simply arrived faster than light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 28, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 28, 2011 Another interesting application is that we can forecast the wheather in 200,000 years LOL Great! So when will they learn to be able to forecast the weather in the next week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 29, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2011 You are coming to a gunfight with a knife. True, but I'm lethal with a knife and your texas sharpshooting doesn't bring down a live target, so if I choose to fight to the death, I'm still gonna win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 29, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2011 When you say "traveling" and "direction" or "rate of movement" you implicitely assume the existence of another reference frame in which the two objects move and their rate of movement can be measured. That's only true if you presuppose the verificationism that's in question though, otherwise the truth of the movement would be established irrespective of the reference point... but let's not travel down this debate road now. I imagine it'll link back where it usually does so let's just rewind back to me asking questions - sound good? You said that a neutrino can be both a partical or a wave - can you expand on that for me please? Reaching way back into my brain archives, I thought it was a pretty special characteristic of light that it could be both. Do we know more about it now? The Lorentz transformations of space and time between observers are the same. I do not see how you can avoid superluminal neutrinos going back in (our) time even with the Lorentzian interpretation. Ok great, that's what I was wondering. Just from an intuitive reaction to the findings, doesn't it seem like the Neutrinos didn't time travel but simply arrived faster than light? Yes. But if relativity is true and they travelled faster than light (barely), then they travelled back in time (barely). So we have the following: if that was not a measurement error then ----->if the equations of relativity are still valid ------>then --------------->travel in time is possible ---->end if end if Interesting, thanks. One thing's for sure, this finding is exciting. Hey viole, undoubtedly you'll win, but just for fun... KP4. Your move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 30, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 30, 2011 I am not sure what do you mean with "now". The duality wave/particle is a foundation of quantum mechanics and it applies to all particles (or waves). Light is nothing more than photons which are also objects that present this duality. The same is valid for electrons, neutrinos, muons, etc. Photons are the objects responsible for the electromagnetic force. When two electrons get close, they exchange photons, and the emission and absorsion of said photons affects the movement of the electrons and this is what we sense as force. In quantum physics, all forces are reduceable to exchange of particles. The duality means that these objects behave as particles or waves depending on the experiment. If ONE electron can possibly follow two paths (equally probable) during an experiment, than it will not go through one of them chosen randomly but through both (strange but true) and then it will interfere with itself, thereby behaving like a wave. If we put sensors on both paths to see which path it chooses than it will go through one path like a particle. If you do not observe its course of action but only its arrival at destination, it will follow all possible paths at once to get there, if you do, it chooses only one. Google "double slit experiment" to see what is meant with this duality. Hmm interesting. Thanks! Do you mean e4 (I understand only algebraic notation)? Ok, then c5. c4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts