Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[SteveA]

Yes, cool man. I think I have to look more into it, to answer your ideas.

I'm happy you enjoyed the read and found some ideas worth pursuing.

But there is still one thing I wanted to say; I think the problem with quantumtheory is you use something extremely big (like a measuring device for example) to measure something extremely small (like a subatomic particle for example); I think the key problem is that you can't measure something extremely small, using something 'extremely big' (like a measuring device) without influencing it; hence causing the quantumeffects.

I've made the same comment as well. It seems almost inevitable that whatever properties subatomic particles are perceived to possess would be inevitably tied to the methods by which their existence is derived and properties of equipment used to observe them.

In order to see something as small, don't you need a large quantity of something else to determine that, in a relative sense, something else is small ... the manners in which those larger quantities are constructed, or believed to have been constructed could be seen similar to an inverse transformation of what properties a 'unit' observed relative to it would appear as.

For example, in order for something to be 1/2 of something else, you really need to have at least 2 (and more generally an even number) of something else. Well what processes could be used in constructing even quantities that are subdivisible into equal halves? You can then consider those processes constructing even quantities as being inversely related to the properties of what 1/2 of something is (and I'd assume it gets more complex if we're suppose to witness both quantities simultaneously).

I also don't think that the EPR-effect is an explanation for telepathy, because random subatomic uncertainty differs greatly from the use of free will by an acting person.

Actually, that's not a bad point though would that deny two or more people/entities who share some aspects of their decisions in common from also sharing some form of coordination in those? I don't think so ... free will doesn't inherently require that choices be different or that actions have nothing shared in common ... that should be optional correct?

If everything exists, then I'd assume as well that there would be a subset of things that at any moment could be considered to be changing in manners related to each other (effectively sharing a degree of freedom in common with an observer - this wouldn't appear to require any explicit coordination at all, though that could require an ability to make passive observations ... the "workload" for any capabilities required of that would then be on the observer side).

I see if I can look in to it.

Have fun.

[SteveA]

Another thought regarding equivalent faster than light possibilities:

Consider a wave function spanning around a black hole instead of a photon traveling through one. The shortest distance in time between two points could, as Einstein said, be a curved path in space.

[Meem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/sc...tists-say.html

Scientists Report Second Sighting of Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos

Two months after scientists reported that they had clocked subatomic particles known as neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, to the astonishment and vocal disbelief of most of the world’s physicists, the same group of scientists, known as Opera, said on Friday that it had performed a second experiment that confirmed its first results and eliminated one possible explanation for how the experiment could have gone wrong.

But the group admitted that many questions remain. “This is not the end of the story,” said Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern in Switzerland, the spokesman for the collaboration, explaining that physicists would not accept the result that neutrinos could go faster than light until other experiments had come up with the same conclusion. “We are convinced, but that is not enough in science,” he said.

[spacedout]

We all know that the speed of light is not constant except for special conditions. I believe plotting points one step after another makes our universe (x,y,z)(0,0,0)(-1,0,0)(-1,0,1) ----- on and on, a finite number of steps and then back, but one step from the start.

Steps are the time, energy and distance all in one are perfect measures of each the fastes thing in existance and never changes. This also makes the world interconnected as one step over and over walks down a time-line path

I also believe that like a clock tick is linear but grouped to make 3-D. This would explain how 3-D can exist and what it is.

[SteveA]

I'd assume there's some fundamental form of space filling, like the multidimensional counting you mentioned, though the number of dimensions should grow as well otherwise how could quantities larger than one of some property be described? That expansion could be present in terms of qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia and the manner in which expansion could be experienced would be in breaking superpositions of them.

For example, a specific hue could be considered to be created from a spectrum of different wavelengths. An ability to distinguish between two similar hues that might have otherwise been unnoticed would be increasing the visual information content of an image and increasing the equivalent "possible volume" of visually unique objects. In a similar sense, being somewhere where previous experiences are associated with it increases the surrounding context and available information that's related to it that arises from memories/associations etc. with it.

A house could be a "regular" house to one person, though to someone else, be a home with lots of additional knowledge regarding it from prior experience.

[spacedout]

..............|______________
..............|........|...............|
..............|........|...............|
..............|........|...............|
..............|........|...............|
_______|_____________ |
|............|.........|___c____|
|............|
|______ |_____________
.............|.......................|
.............|.......................|
.............|.......................|
.............|.......................|
.............|_____________|
..............______x______
The drawing above shows a large square area C divided the area y^2 and
x^2 the right section of c^2 shown. note that the x lengths put upright in the x area of the c^2 area. This gives x/c ratio that is a cosine function found by experiment in for correlation in the EPR experiments. Analyzer is stationary while analyzer B is rotated. Correlation is the opening of the x axis.

[spacedout]

The only space filling would be steps along a path one after another. I think there is a misconseption about space; only steps exist and distance, time and energy are nothing like we see, just linear something (?) and there isn't any empty space.

[spacedout]

Maybe time, distance and energy is just linear in time and empty space doesn't exist but is a leap across time.

[spacedout]

Maybe time, distance and energy is just linear in time and empty space doesn't exist but is a leap across time.

If a step is the time piece of the universe and c^2 means that for every s number of side steps one step in the future is the speed of light. S could be thousands of step in across the side of a square and therefore would be thousands of times faster than the speed of light. De Broglie thought that the bulls eye pattern when light passed through two holes deffraction occured between Pilot waves---I think he was correct.

[SteveA]

If a step is the time piece of the universe and c^2 means that for every s number of side steps one step in the future is the speed of light. S could be thousands of step in across the side of a square and therefore would be thousands of times faster than the speed of light. De Broglie thought that the bulls eye pattern when light passed through two holes deffraction occured between Pilot waves---I think he was correct.

I believe such pilot waves exist also and similarly think they could act in manners that are arbitrarily larger factors of the speed of light, but in another sense they're already a contextual component when measuring the speed of light in determining where a photon is located.

As an analogy along similar lines, how many vertices does it take to recognize an n-gon?

If I started listing off vertices A, B, C ... there's no way to determine how many it has until some repetition occurs that indicates a complete cycle around it has occurred. In the case of a triangle, if we listed A, B and C as the vertices there's really an implicit context surrounding them that states they're in a set but another way of doing that as a temporal process is to construct a finite set when a repetition of an element occurs in which case listing A, B, C, A would imply traveling around the vertices of a triangle because we came back to the origin. I believe that's similar to strings in theory and the pilot waves you mentioned (in space time).

SIDENOTE: I'd assume that in a fundamental sense, nothing repeats identically and so the apparent repetition of A in that example would actually be equivalent to some property D which would be mapped to an appearance of A in some respect, but also with something else making it distinct (such as knowledge that this is a second repetition of A).

[spacedout]

I believe such pilot waves exist also and similarly think they could act in manners that are arbitrarily larger factors of the speed of light, but in another sense they're already a contextual component when measuring the speed of light in determining where a photon is located.

As an analogy along similar lines, how many vertices does it take to recognize an n-gon?

If I started listing off vertices A, B, C ... there's no way to determine how many it has until some repetition occurs that indicates a complete cycle around it has occurred. In the case of a triangle, if we listed A, B and C as the vertices there's really an implicit context surrounding them that states they're in a set but another way of doing that as a temporal process is to construct a finite set when a repetition of an element occurs in which case listing A, B, C, A would imply traveling around the vertices of a triangle because we came back to the origin. I believe that's similar to strings in theory and the pilot waves you mentioned (in space time).

SIDENOTE: I'd assume that in a fundamental sense, nothing repeats identically and so the apparent repetition of A in that example would actually be equivalent to some property D which would be mapped to an appearance of A in some respect, but also with something else making it distinct (such as knowledge that this is a second repetition of A).

Hi Steve---thanks for your thoughts. That A,B,C,A of a triangle that rotates the apexes---I didn't think of that I see a single universal looped path that has x aligned steps moving in one direction forcing y and z to move outward then y would move inward forcing the other two ourward and then z would next move inward forming a salient xyz spin. The entire space would be filled with quantum boxes with 4 apexes rotation clockwise and the other 4 counter clockwise. I should have stated that opposite sides come together x then y then z all the boxes are bonded by the vortexes as and the vacuum and pressure of the sides of the boxes. These Planck boxes are interrconnected and have no external charge or spin and form the neutral field of space.

[spacedout]

A magnet will have a given spin or a counter spin; the spin will lock into the correct spin of the neutral space boxes and form a line-of-force. An electric field will align with neutral space charges of the boxes and likewise reach out into space and return to the source of the charge. The electric charge is the vacuum and pressure due to chains moving into the boxes making a pressure and then retreating as a vacuum.

[stephentuck25]

Yes many thanks for the link Robert,I also saw it on yahoo this morning,looks very interesting,was Einstein wrong then?


regards michael.

Einstein wasn't wrong. My equation (the Tuck-Einstein Equation) completes Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and also forms the base equation of the true Theory of Everything (which expands into the Equation of Everything that mathematically unites all the fundamental forces and physical laws of the universe). Of course, nobody knew that the Theory of Special Relativity was incomplete until I theorized that matter falling into a black hole converts into space, causing the accellerated expansion of the universe (Dark Energy) and then combined E=mc^2 with the Lorentz transformations of Mass-Increase and Time-Dilation. All dimensions of the universe are defined by this equation and it can be mathematically proven by Dimensional Analysis (developed by James Clerk Maxwell). This is not a baffling result to me since the mass of a particle itself is a variable in the speed-of-light. Perhaps Theoretical Physicists will eventually match my knowledge of the universe and figure out that nutrinos are gluons. Of course, that would require them to determine the substructure of quarks. Although, when they do they will begin to understand subspace and why certain particles are released in particle collisions. Physicists are still trying to understand what a black hole is and my scientific research is well beyond that. However, what would I know since I have never been to college and I am just an OTR truck driver? People in this world need to realize that a mind is greater than any instuitution of knowledge. This world has been so destroyed by greed and corruption that it has little use for the successor of Einstein!

"Strength of Mind and Strength of Heart; Question Everything and Trust No-one" - Stephen Tuck

[spacedout]

A neutrino has a core of 3 faces having a + 1/6 charge and 3 faces with a -1/6 negative charge giving the core a zero charge. The time-line is neither taunt or compacted but has ambient compaction of space---this means that it has little mass and acts like De Brogglies matter waves having a momentum mc; mc = Mv the Mv; v >c giving the neutrino a slightly higher velocity than light. Light is a cross chain wave leaps from Planck volume to Planck volume in boxes fixed in the fabric of space.

Particles and antiparticles weigh the same because a lower density of the time-line stretches the chains causing more in-line movements that stop relocation of the path. A positive particle is move compacted that ambient space and this causes more in-line movements that stop relocation of the path.

[David Maes]

A neutrino is a subatomic particle that has no mass or extremely little mass; I don’t know which.
It is important for radioactivity.

A nucleus with too many neutrons is unstable, and a neutron decays into a proton,an electron and a neutrino. The protons resulting from this decay stay in the nucleus; the electrons and neutrinos don’t, they are emitted.

Neutrinos are extremely difficult to detect. They can move straight through the earth and appear without a single collision on the other side.

Electrons are easy to detect and are called bèta rays.

[Graybeard]

I love irony such as this. Science throwing it's very foundation into question, yet that is precisely what is required of the scientific method, and precisely why THERE ARE NO "TRUTHS", merely the best hypothesis we have at any given time.

Speaking of 'time', that becomes another question now, does it not?

There have been persons who have long queried whether the speed of light was the greatest speed attainable.

Star Trek, the original series, comes to mind.

Don't get too excited .... probably just a bad connection somewhere.

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

This struck me as too good not to share:

[Graybeard]

This struck me as too good not to share:

Likewise ..... rotflmao ....

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results
by Edwin Cartlidge on 22 February 2012, 1:45 PM
It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.
Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.
According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection (OMFG ... can you beleeef it ?) and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Don't fret .... The Higgs particle is running out of hiding places too. It should be found at less than 1.0 TEV ... and this year the LHC will run at 0.8 TEV.

cool bananas ... greggy

[labelwench]

The following article may be of interest to those who are following this thread. Hubby spied it and sent me the link.

Both CDF and LHCb have been looking at the process by which sub-atomic particles called D-mesons decay - or transform - into other ones. For example, D mesons are made up of particles known as charm quarks, and can decay into kaons and pions.
Our best understanding of physics so far, known as the Standard Model, suggests the complicated cascades of decay of D-mesons into other particles should be very nearly the same - within less than 0.1% - as a similar chain of antimatter decays.
But the LHCb team reported a difference of about 0.8%, and the team from CDF have now presented data showing a difference of 0.62%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17200308

[stephentuck25]

The following article may be of interest to those who are following this thread. Hubby spied it and sent me the link.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17200308

That is interesting Labelwench. I would take the time to look at the decay process since I know the substructure of quarks (that make up protons and neutrons) and electrons probably better than anyone and have some knowledge of subspace. However, I believe that their efforts are guided to better understand the substructure whereas I already have that knowledge. That's not to say that this process might not present some complexity. I've really only focused somewhat on particle collisions rather than decay processes. It might be difficult to model such small variance and this would definitely require mathematical tools. The most important objective to me is to derive the Equation of Everything. Although, such an equation would likely work on a particle-level. It might be well worth the efforts to further break-down the equation into the particle substructure. I think that the best chance I have at solving this (among other things) is to finish my equation work. I am very close to understanding and integrating the true gravitational field equation with my equation of Special Relativity (the Tuck-Einstein Equation). I had some major breakthroughs today, but didn't have the time to fully address the matter due to having to perform my job duties. Then I quickly found myself exhausted beyond the capacity to accomplish any significant intellectual functions (especially concerning mathematics). Anyways, it seems like I never run out of work on the Theory of Everything. I seem only to get to a place where I believe that I can't go much further and then something else grabs my attention and leads to further insights and understanding into the nature of the universe. There is no telling what Einstein could have accomplished in the last 30+ years of his life if he hadn't run into such an impassible roadblock. However, I wouldn't have my opportunity to accomplish such things had they already been done by geniuses of the past. In that regard, I suppose I'm lucky because it gives my life great meaning, purpose, and fulfillment (even in my miserable, heartbroken, and depressed existence)!