Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

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


regards michael.

Thanks Robert. This does not surprise me at all. The Speed of light is the speed of light. The speed that is reached in the core of particle or even in the dynamo core of a proton could go higher then the speed of light. Maybe the speed of light is the treashhold for the escape from these cores. Just a thought anyway

Thanks for the link, Robert.

There are many assumptions regarding physical mechanics at work made in the definition of light speed but when you dig in, the definitions used to distance, velocity and time are cyclically defined - v=d/t or d=t*v or t=v/d, yet only a single constant is defined: v.

Too many variables to solve for a single unknown. (The speed of a photon isn't required by the definitions to be the same as the speed of light - light is defined by a statistical collection of photons.)

For example, how many photons does it take to establish a meter length with some statistically acceptable level of confidence (could there be a precise standard possible for determining what's a common

Here's the NIST definition http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

But what's a second?

Once again: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

That would appear to require, at a minimum, BOTH an ability to isolate Cesium 133 from an environment (which would appear to require an ability to perceive various physical qualities in an environment in order to differentiate it from other atomic properties) as well as an ability to construct a (linear, which implies assumptions regarding inertial motions and accumulation of distances) length/distance of 9,192,631,770 of these ... assuming photon detections are statistically distributed then we'd need some quantity of photon detections (including an ability to distinguish between diverse possible positions at which they can be detected and remember/count/integrate/accumulate them). Little of any of this appears to be something that would be considered in a precise sense as non-subjective/impersonal/objective.

... or consider this - supposedly we've measured distances of billions of light years over what historical period of time? Once again, lots of assumptions are being made as to the mechanics of "motion" for light.

What makes light that is used to view the position of a piece of experimental equipment different from light emitted by it? One is treated with a different context than the other, but that context isn't something physically measurable. We can see the "color" black and converse about its properties, but in another sense, physically it doesn't exist - there's no measurable energy associated with it. The same is true of many other properties of experience that appear to be simply taken for granted with various (largely common) assumptions made regarding the properties, but if people are talking about a common object that has no direct physically measurable energy associated with it, then I'd assume the physical sciences are "cheating" in some respects from being something purely 'objective' and impersonal.

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.

Originally Posted by Labelwench

THERE ARE NO "TRUTHS"

Is that true?

If I shine a light out into "dark" space, as the light rays travels through space is gets larger. If the light ray traverses a distance of 10 light years and is communicated to a reflective plane( or aether)....once its light rays are "attached" to the surface of the plane ( and perhaps subsequently refracting the light) then at any time the reflective plane will act( represent light) according to the quality and speed of the light ray.

Could The 'speed' of light, (as "squared") actually be sugesting that one light source is being communicated from one point in space to another point in space via the principles of reflection?

If this were so and a/the 'relative observer" were vewing both points without any cognizance of the "relationship shared" then they would conclude that something is traveling the "speed of light squared."

The speed of a neutrino being faster than light doesn't suprise me---they are composed differently. Light has internal c movement back and forth for each step forward; if all the steps moved in one direction at 2c all the steps would be in the direction of travel leaving no identity for the particle. A neutrino has a weak core of 3 faces negative and 3 faces positive leaving a zero vector field charge --- the (+ and -) field charges fall into the core and dissapper as random aether, slightly compacted. The different manifolds of the photon and neutrino cause the slight difference in speed.

I believe that there are two basic plus and minus field charges that come and go in space and that the a single looped and tangled xyz time-line propagates waves much like sound does. Crossed chains of perpendicular strands form row of steps that equal the number of rows. The longer the steps the more time is taken to move the crossed chain wave. There are many different sizes of crossed chain propagations --- 1^2...2^2...3^2.....n^2 enough to form the components that direct a photon in any direction at a constant speed. The speed of light is slow compared with the xyz components which travel faster than the speed of light.

Nature as is light is truly immeasurable.

=

I am not wondering about the result of this experiment. The discovery of faster-than-light neutrinos by CERN scientists is another fact which shows that the speed of light in vacuum (299,792,458 m/sec), denoted by “c”, is not the maximum speed. “c” is a quantum variable and therefore is not a fundamental physical constant which itself leads us to discover and formulate the quantum behavior of gravity. The mathematical analysis of this topic can be found in this article: “Exact Planck Length Unveils Quantum Gravity“.

I am not really sure wether the result will remain or not; some say it isn't peer review.
Also, the experiment has to be done over by other scientists to see if they get te same result.
If true, then the impact would be great.

Normally I wouldn't expect the result to be true; but in fundamental physics you have to be careful, you never know.
So let's see what the future brings.

Originally Posted by MJA

Nature as is light is truly immeasurable.

=

I agree MJA how can one really measure light? Can you measure life? We need to rethink this through again and understand that we just do not really understand!

regards michael.

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

I agree MJA how can one really measure light? Can you measure life? We need to rethink this through again and understand that we just do not really understand!

regards michael.

Once One understands the flaw is maeasure,
And removes it from One's life,
One's understanding becomes crystal clear.
It works for One,
It works for me.
Best wishes Mike,

=
MJA

Originally Posted by MJA

Once One understands the flaw is maeasure,
And removes it from One's life,
One's understanding becomes crystal clear.
It works for One,
It works for me.
Best wishes Mike,

=
MJA

Thanks MJA.I will try that and see what happens!

regards michael.

There is however something which makes me doubt about this speed of light thing.

On the one hand there is theory of relativity, explaining so well everthing in nature; for example relativity itself and electromagnetism. The beauty of theory of relativity.

On the other hand, there is quantumphysics. Think about the EPR-paradox, entangled photons. Remember what Einstein said, he called it 'spooky action at a distance'; no signal can move faster than light.
Remember Bell's inequality; and what Alain Aspect did in 1982.

In 2004, B. Blinov and his collegues of the University of Michigan, have entangled a photon and an ion!

So basically, I'm not sure what to think of all that. I don't quit understand it.

About the speed-of-light experiment at Cern, I remain in the position that I'm not sure whether the result will remain or not. Let's see what the future brings.

Yes, they could show that, by definition, everything still worked out fine and met NIST definitions but that would simply continue the trend of having physics become a disconnected patchwork of observations of diverse phenomenon without predictive power between them.

I think a better way of looking at, as pointed out above, is that realistically light speed is variable and is dependent upon information to determine but information is potentially subjective:



If the Hubble telescope can image an object at 13 billion light years in less than a week, either it's seeing >675 billion times faster than light or someone's playing things a bit loose and not using a consistent set of rules, or actually using Tachyons

A larger and more precisely (defined/constructed) telescope can see "faster" than smaller and less precise ones ... yes, I can hear the groaning now, but then again it seems this image could easily be interpreted to imply that:

Like all theories, the General Theory of Relativity will evolve. This evolution will surprise us and then like the end of Newtonian Physics, the era of Einstein will end. But in all probabbility, the new era will not be dedicated to any individual, but to a theory or an Idea...

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Like all theories, the General Theory of Relativity will evolve. This evolution will surprise us and then like the end of Newtonian Physics, the era of Einstein will end. But in all probabbility, the new era will not be dedicated to any individual, but to a theory or an Idea...

Yes Dipayankar I agree,this new era will be made in a combination of various disciplines coming together and forming a base line for new discoveries to be made.

regards michael.

SteveA, I just don't manage getting the dancer turning clockwise.

Anyway, I don't find entangled photons an excuse for telepathy or meaningful coincidences.

First of all, they happen at Planck-length, so I think they commonly get lost in the macroworld.

Secondly, quantumcorrelations are very vulnerable; quantumentanglement gets lost when one of the photons hits something else (which I think commonly happens, except in very special experimental circumstances).

For me, it is not 'the observator influences the observation'; cause you don't need an observator; all you need is a measuring device.

Also, the EPR-effect is actually not forbidden by special relativity; they are correlations; correlations are not forbidden by special relativity.

Quantumphysics is actually nothing more than a representation in the minds of physicists of mathematical relationships which connect their observations.

How to 'visualize' the quantumworld; I consider more to be a philosophical issue. The problem with the interpretation of quantumtheory is that the theory only tells something about the result of measurements, but doesn't tell anything about the microworld.
Some people say that the quantumworld really has this strang behaviour.
Others think that other theories are hidden 'behind' quantumtheory.

I don't know really what from those both possibilities to chose from.

Quantumtheory is an experimental very right theory; but as to the interpretation, I'm doubting whether we should actually really believe the theory.

Originally Posted by David Maes

SteveA, I just don't manage getting the dancer turning clockwise.

Try not focusing on the direction she's turning and then look again with few expectations and do it a few times to see if you can see her rotating the other direction. She was rotating consistently in one direction initially for me as well though I managed to see it the other direction and with a little practice it can be easier and even saw her 'bouncing' back and forth over 180 degree angle.

An interesting thought is that she should also be rotating in both as well as neither direction. There's actually no depth information in the image itself, so the perception of a 3-D rotation is already subjective and dependent upon familiarity with the image.

Anyway, I don't find entangled photons an excuse for telepathy or meaningful coincidences.

Well, consider this - if quantum mechanics describes events that are statistical, that also means multiple results are possible. If an observer only sees one of those possible results, and objects in an environment have at least some relationships between them such that physical laws exist, then this could easily imply that degrees of freedom present in those observations are shared in common and that's what the results of those experiments imply.

First of all, they happen at Planck-length, so I think they commonly get lost in the macroworld.

Let's say I agree with that and take it to the extreme and were to state that it should be completely impossible for someone to detect anything regarding Planck scale interactions.

Now if we were to operate under that assumption, then how would such (assumed to exist) Planck scale events be seen as anything real or influencial in life? If they're too small to be detected and we wrote it off as that, then we might as well be talking about almost cliche, invisible unicorns.

Now if you're going to say that on large enough scales, collections of Planck scale events influence macroscopic views then you'd basically be referring to entanglement as it would now be the collective influence of some quantity of these that as a(n entangled) whole influenced an observation.

If we integrate science, with a need for observation and rational thought processes then I'd say Planck scale events are better described as having subtle influences on experiences and are not specifically small in a physical sense. If you look at the Uncertainty Principle, it says something similar in that there is not actually a specific "length" involved p(except in some equivalent abstract multidimensional entropy space), but instead statistical correlations with tradeoffs between quantities of energy, distance, time etc.

Secondly, quantumcorrelations are very vulnerable; quantumentanglement gets lost when one of the photons hits something else (which I think commonly happens, except in very special experimental circumstances).

Once again, if that were the case, then quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to anyones day-today life and we should be able to write it off as non-influencial, but that doesn't appear to the be the case either.

For me, it is not 'the observator influences the observation'; cause you don't need an observator; all you need is a measuring device.

How do you know something is measuring anything? I personally don't have the capability to verify whether or not a supposed measuring device is actually measuring anything unless I'm either able to interact with it or make random/virtual/hypothetical assumptions about what it could be doing elsewhere ... sorry, that's just one of my limits.

If people have freedom of speech, then they could say anything, but it doesn't mean everything should be taken literal (except that something was said). Science relies upon observation to acquire information and rational thought processes to integrate things into a coherent and non-conflicting whole ... that's simply my interpretation from personal experiences/observations but, once again, I don't have anything else to use in constructing those.

Also, the EPR-effect is actually not forbidden by special relativity; they are correlations; correlations are not forbidden by special relativity.

What determines whether or not a correlation is present? If I roll two dice and they both come up 2, is that a correlation? Did the dice rolls say anything other than they came up as 2s?

What's uniting the information regarding the die rolls and making comparisons between them and determining whether or not correlations may or may not be present and at what equivalent physical velocities could such determinations be made?

Quantumphysics is actually nothing more than a representation in the minds of physicists of mathematical relationships which connect their observations.

Exactly, and I believe there's a lot of evidence that such relationships are applicable to experience, the difficulty (or even impossibilities in some respects?) is in seeing/understanding the transformations between an abstract informational/mathematical realm and that of day-to-day life.

How to 'visualize' the quantumworld; I consider more to be a philosophical issue. The problem with the interpretation of quantumtheory is that the theory only tells something about the result of measurements, but doesn't tell anything about the microworld.
Some people say that the quantumworld really has this strang behaviour.
Others think that other theories are hidden 'behind' quantumtheory.

Actually, I've become inclined to believe the 'strangeness' of the quantum/mathematical/abstract realms of information is closer to how things really are and that the, on the surface, apparently normal/intuitive Newtonian/Euclidean macroscale view is just one possible transformation.

I don't know really what from those both possibilities to chose from.

Could be they fit together beautifully. Keep 'em both.

On the other hand, if you have to have something provably true and solid, I'd say it'll be the microscale view, but if you can work with time/uncertainty/growth and not having all degrees of freedom constrained, then the macroscale view could be a good way of integrating microscale features together and I'd hazard a guess that integration is where the beauty's at.

Quantumtheory is an experimental very right theory; but as to the interpretation, I'm doubting whether we should actually really believe the theory.

Maybe everything's true including that nothing has to be true ... as soon as anything is put into a precise form, there are automatically lots of properties associated with that.

A decent ToE could potentially connect every dot on any map simply by looking at how maps are constructed - yes, the maps I'm referring to are extremely abstract, but given "everything", what properties are already present regard any ol' arbitrary thing in the first place? It's fundamentally about information (the source(s) of which, I don't think can themselves be described as things - if something appears as a constraint or limit, then it's once again a thing with some specific property(ies) that interact(s) with other things and not truly a limit, but once again a property of the "map" and not the map making, which would logically seem impossible to define and though there's no way to truly contain time/change/uncertainty/the unknown in a bottle, when it's applied or measured relative to a finite context then it inherits discrete/finite spectrums of energy/entropy/selections - entangled wavefunctions) and all the manners in which it can be transformed. If the transformations are themselves things too, then once again you have things, though those can be combined with/applied to other things etc. and the results are always things. If you want something provable, then you need to have them result in things that are defined as proofs or evidence etc.

Yes, it can sound like that's too abstract a view to work with, but in individual terms I don't believe it is. Which form of a ToE would be most useful - one that's constrained to what we can "objectively" communicate about using symbolic references or one that's inclusive of the rest of life experiences. In many ways there's no difference - for example, it could be said that the internet conveys binary information in terms of electrical or optical energies and doesn't directly convey emotions or thoughts etc. behind them, but in any case the context within which those "energies" are known/experienced/recognized/perceived etc. include them.

Consider this - if this was truly a binary image, shouldn't it be describable as simply either black or white or 1 or 0 or yes or no? How much information is really conveyed and in what forms and what property/quality allows for a collection of things to be integrated (within some abstract space) into experiences at any moment?



As a sidenote, it might normally be said that a lot of the raw information of that image isn't visually seen - for example, someone couldn't necessarily reconstruct from memory the position of every point in that image (unless maybe it's someone with extremely accurate photographic memory), but if things are considered from a more 'wholistic' perspective inclusive of various 'subtle' impressions, emotions etc. then there's more information involved than simply what visual form is recognized and how much information might it take to describe an emotion?

Could it be that such a view figuratively doesn't come up with missing mass and dark energy or matter and that everything is conserved in one form or another?

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

I think the problem with quantum theory 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 quantum effects.

I also have to remark I 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.


I see if I can look in to it.