Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2nd test affirms faster-than-light particles
CBSnews.com ^ | November 18, 2011 | Brian Vastag

Posted on 11/18/2011 11:53:59 AM PST by TN4Liberty

A second experiment at the European facility that reported subatomic particles zooming faster than the speed of light -- stunning the world of physics -- has reached the same result, scientists said late Thursday.

The "positive outcome of the [second] test makes us more confident in the result," said Fernando Ferroni, president of the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, in a statement released late Thursday. Ferroni is one of 160 physicists involved in the international collaboration known as OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking Apparatus) that performed the experiment.

While the second experiment "has made an important test of consistency of its result," Ferroni added, "a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."

That is, more tests are needed, and on other experimental setups. There is still a large crowd of skeptical physicists who suspect that the original measurement done in September was an error.

CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light Video: Faster-than-light measurement shocks physicists God Particle riddle could be solved "by 2012"

Should the results stand, they would upend more than a century of modern physics.

In the first round of experiments, a massive detector buried in a mountain in Gran Sasso, Italy, recorded neutrinos generated at the CERN particle accelerator on the French-Swiss border arriving 60 nanoseconds sooner than expected. CERN is the French acronym for European Council for Nuclear Research.

A chorus of critiques from physicists soon followed. Among other possible errors, some suggested that the neutrinos generated at CERN were smeared into bunches too wide to measure precisely.

So in recent weeks, the OPERA team tightened the packets of neutrinos that CERN sent sailing toward Italy. Such tightening removed some uncertainty in the neutrinos' speed.

The detector still saw neutrinos moving faster than light.

"One of the eventual systematic errors is now out of the way," said Jacques Martino, director of the National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics in France, in a statement.

But the faster-than-light drama is far from over, Martino added. The OPERA team is discussing more cross-checks, he added, including possibly running a fiber the 454 miles between the sites.

For more than a century, the speed of light has been locked in as the universe's ultimate speed limit. No experiment had seen anything moving faster than light, which zips along at 186,000 miles per second.

Much of modern physics -- including Albert Einstein's famous theory of relativity -- is built on that ultimate speed limit.

Should Einstein be worried?

The scientific world stopped and gaped in September when the OPERA team announced it had seen neutrinos moving just a hint faster than light.

"If it's correct, it's phenomenal," said Rob Plunkett, a scientist at Fermilab, the Department of Energy physics laboratory in Illinois, in September. "We'd be looking at a whole new set of rules" for how the universe works.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: physics; speedoflight; stringtheory; warpspeed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last
To: OldNavyVet
the ability to see things that happened in the past.

Revise that to read ... The ability to see things faster, but never before they happen.

51 posted on 11/18/2011 12:54:24 PM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

Warp 2, Mr. Sulu.


52 posted on 11/18/2011 12:56:24 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
what makes light travel at any given speed . .

This arose from an earlier question, when it was not assumed that the speed of light is a fixed value. The question, colloquially stated, was: If light waves . . what waves?

There is compelling information (diffraction patterns, etc.) that light behaves like a wave. Yet there was no known way for waves to propogate without a medium - something to 'wave' or carry the energy. A substance called 'the ether' was postulated as a medium to carry the wave energy of light. If the ether were a property of space, then the measured velocity of light would change based on how the observer was moving relative to the fixed ether. In other words, if you were travelling along with the ether, you'd measure a lower speed for light, and if you were travelling against it, you'd measure a higher speed.

Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to prove this. But what they found was that the measured speed of light was independent of our own motion - it was always a constant.

Einstein - among others - explained this in various analyses including the theories of relativity - which provided very elegant, testable, and accurate ways to show they were consistent with all observed data. Maxwell's equations provide very elegant, testable, and accurate ways to calculate electric and magnetic effects, and the constant speed of light is integral to them. In essence, light waves are interchanging electric and magnetic fields, and Einstein showed that at one particular speed, these are self-sustaining even in a vacuum.

But, the speed of light is not really a constant. It is a constant in any medium, and it is fastest in a vacuum. The speed of light is inversely proportional to the index of refraction for the medium - which means the speed of light inside a diamond is less than half of what it is in a vaccum.

This new experiment measures the elasped time for neutrinos to travel a known distance - and compares it to a calculated time for light to travel that same distance. Neutrinos are funny things, and there may be interactions at a level where the strong and weak nuclear forces have a greater effect than electro-magnetic forces. So I'm not saying that neutrinos can't travel faster than light in the particular conditions of this experiment.

However, when the difference is measured in nano-seconds, it is on the same order as the accuracy of the measurements - and those are always questionable. Frankly, I think the answer will turn out to be an error in their analysis of their setup, but that's what a proper scientific method is all about - make a prediction, check it experimentally, and scrub your answer until no other answer (like missed analysis of timing, or of distance, or of something else) can explain the observed results as well as your answer.

Oh, and as another poster responded, electrons don't really orbit atomic nuclei. That's not really relevant to this.
53 posted on 11/18/2011 12:58:49 PM PST by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
My 15yo daughter told me about this when I picked her up from school today. Apparently her and her "Indian friend who is sort of a nerd" found the article on his cell phone during lunch.

A dad could have worse problems than having to discuss neutrinos with his teenager on the ride home from school. :)
54 posted on 11/18/2011 12:59:16 PM PST by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

Isn’t that velocity?


55 posted on 11/18/2011 12:59:53 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Well, there’s been evidence before of things moving faster than light.

Look up action at a distance. It’s something that Newton assumed was true, and Einstein needed it to be false for special relativity.

If Gravity works as an action at a distance, then this is just huge, absolutely huge. It means no gravitons, etc.


56 posted on 11/18/2011 1:10:09 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Have they accounted for the GPS errors?

They say they did.

57 posted on 11/18/2011 1:14:01 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

He still doesn’t care.

But it is an interesting theory. I wonder if we could come up with a thought experiment about how that would work? And what he would mean for society if it were proven?


58 posted on 11/18/2011 1:18:43 PM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

Electrons dont really orbit. They have probabilities of being in any particular place in their electron shell. It is hard to grasp. See this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc


59 posted on 11/18/2011 1:19:47 PM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 6ppc
I take 85 south out of the city. If you're doing the speed limit it's safest to be on the shoulder with your hazard lights on.
60 posted on 11/18/2011 1:22:13 PM PST by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Well said!


61 posted on 11/18/2011 1:24:18 PM PST by my small voice (A biased media and an uneducated populace is the biggest threat to our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

At East Anglia University, it was deliberate fraud, not just error, or insufficiency.

A misunderstanding of physical laws is not a criminal act.


62 posted on 11/18/2011 1:30:31 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

Laws of Physics are made to be broken.


63 posted on 11/18/2011 1:33:36 PM PST by gitmo (Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle.-Ralph Peters NY Post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

Whoa!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2809549/posts?page=12#12


64 posted on 11/18/2011 1:39:38 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Thank you for reminding me of Rep. Muskrat’s name. Yeah, he was crooked. But no more so than 90% of the Democrats in office. And waaay more entertaining.


65 posted on 11/18/2011 1:41:44 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

[ I’ve never believed in the light-speed limit. Ever. ]

What if.. a photon was resting not moving at all..
Would that be called a photograph?.. or just a photo?..


66 posted on 11/18/2011 1:43:04 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

http://www.physics.umn.edu/outreach/soudan/tour/

If any of you ever get up to Ely, MN be sure to take the tour of the Soudan Mine. Going down in one of the ore cars stuffed in there with everyone else is a ride in itself. But not for the claustrophobic. I do wish we had arrived an hr earlier so we could have toured the lab, but we were to late. Oh well.


67 posted on 11/18/2011 1:45:31 PM PST by tickles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
faster-than-light particles

....definitely can't be tracked by a flashlight.

68 posted on 11/18/2011 1:46:28 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking Apparatus)

Shouldn't that be "OPETA"?

69 posted on 11/18/2011 1:51:14 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Simple time versus distance.


70 posted on 11/18/2011 1:52:30 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

So, does E still = mC^2, or does E=m*speed of neutrinos^2?


71 posted on 11/18/2011 1:52:33 PM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Bookmark along with a big WTH (H stands for heck, BTW).

Wonder what time and distance has to say about all of this?

72 posted on 11/18/2011 1:52:52 PM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Rush, Hannity......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

What if, all this time, we have been moving at the speed of light and light itself has just been sitting there stationary?

Heavy, man.

But then, according to Zeno’s paradox, nothing can actually move anyway.


73 posted on 11/18/2011 1:55:16 PM PST by Drawsing (The fool shows his annoyance at once. The prudent man overlooks an insult. (Proverbs 12:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

But the measuring instruments only run as fast as light (electrons) so how could it measure something faster?


74 posted on 11/18/2011 1:56:29 PM PST by SkyDancer ('If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Drawsing

So when I turn on a flashlight, we all get propelled backward at 186K mps?

Cool!


75 posted on 11/18/2011 1:56:55 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Although we call the limit "The Speed of Light", thats not really what it is, its just that Light, in a vacuum, travels at that speed. Its nothing really to do with light itself. It has to do with the maximum speed at which information can travel, the max wave speed.

I happen to suspect that there is something of an ether, something within space-time that determines this speed, perhaps due to the granularity of the universe and Planck's constant.

76 posted on 11/18/2011 1:58:55 PM PST by Paradox (The rich SHOULD be paying more taxes, and they WOULD, if they could make more money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
That article disputes the findings of van Elburg .

However, the article in Nature , goes on to say

OPERA expects the new result to rule out uncertainties due to the long timescale of the proton pulses. But concerns about the experiment’s use of the Global Positioning System to synchronize clocks at each end of the neutrino beam are unlikely to be as easily allayed, The use of GPS is novel in the field of high energy and particle physics and the same system was used for both the original experiment and the new run. Hagner also adds that she’d like to see the time measurement checked using another part of the detector, to increase confidence further.

So, apparently the Special Relativistic error in GPS may not have been accounted for. My question is simple ... why not just shoot a normal, everyday beam of light from a laser, measure that and get a baseline. If you have consistent error in your measurements, then you have something to work with. Then, try the 'magic' pulse and see if the result is the same. I like things to be simple and nearly foolproof. But, I'm just an engineer; not a physisist.

The fact that the calculated error on the pulse is 32ns, and the "faster than the speed of light" measurement is 64ns (2x the calculated error) is too close to the actual difference to be pure random chance.

77 posted on 11/18/2011 2:01:31 PM PST by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

It isn’t a race between the two. We can measure light by bouncing it off the moon or between two distant points.


78 posted on 11/18/2011 2:05:41 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

If a soul has mass then it is bound by the speed of light. If not, then it isn’t.


79 posted on 11/18/2011 2:06:48 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I should have used “calculate” instead of “run” as in a race as you thought.


80 posted on 11/18/2011 2:08:44 PM PST by SkyDancer ('If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

One of about 20 fundamental constants of the universe. No one has a clue why they are what they are. But we know if any one of them were even slightly different we wouldn’t be here.


81 posted on 11/18/2011 2:09:40 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mylife
"Einstein’s gonna be pissed."

I know you're saying that tongue in cheek, but Einstein would be anything but upset to have his theory disproven. He was the ultimate scientist, to whom nothing was ever etched in stone, but rather was only "not disproven." We could really use someone like him in the "Global Warming" debate right now.

82 posted on 11/18/2011 2:10:32 PM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LS

Random thoughts (but related):

Einstein eventually known solely as a purveyor of bagels.

My other car is a neutrino.

They can’t define the validity of cold fusion, but they can do this?


83 posted on 11/18/2011 2:20:39 PM PST by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer
A substance called 'the ether' was postulated as a medium to carry the wave energy of light.

Nova had a show on string theory this week. Told a story I had never heard before.

Said a physicist in the 20s (no one I'd ever heard of before) postulated that there was a 5th dimension through which electromagnetic waves propagated. Said Einstein himself bought into it for a while. Was the first time anyone thought of the idea there were more than 4 dimensions.

84 posted on 11/18/2011 2:23:10 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

BTTT


85 posted on 11/18/2011 2:39:18 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine; editor-surveyor
"Superluminal speeds just ain’t what they used to be! "

I can vouch for that!
At least my wife of 52-years can...{:-(

86 posted on 11/18/2011 3:11:31 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

We all know that the only thing faster than the speed of light is gossip. But is gossip faster than a neutrino?


87 posted on 11/18/2011 3:13:52 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

Yup


88 posted on 11/18/2011 3:36:04 PM PST by numberonepal (I'm on the Cain Train. The Herman Cain Train!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

What if consciousness is only bound by the body through the fixation of the mind on fears and attachments and is actually free to be anywhere instantly even while maintaining a connection to a living body?


89 posted on 11/18/2011 4:11:40 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty; decimon; Captain Beyond; ShadowAce; AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ...

Thanks TN4Liberty.


· String Theory Ping List ·
Bitch Slap, nope, Newton, Third Law
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·


90 posted on 11/18/2011 7:44:39 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
This following is referring to a set of experiments done over ten years ago:

“Einstein argued that [the phenomenon of nonlocality] violated both common sense and his own theory of special relativity, which prohibits the propagation of effects faster than the speed of light; quantum mechanics must therefore be an incomplete theory. In 1980, however, a group of French physicists carried out a version of the EPR experiment and showed that it did indeed give rise to spooky actions. (The reason that the experiment does not violate special relativity is that one cannot exploit nonlocality to transmit information.)”-The End of Science, p. 86, John Horgan

Both Einstein and the writer of the paragraph above are wrong. Their error stems from their misunderstanding of what constitutes language. If one simply says that no thing can travel faster than light, they may be correct, granted both the light and whatever ‘thing’ are moving within the same space and that the ‘thing’ is not gravity. However, language is not a thing that is transmitted across space between two people. It is shared symbolism based on common experience that allows members to assign the same or similar meaning to a phenomenon common to both of them (either ‘exterior’, objective, or ‘interior’, subjective, and common to both of them either through experience or language). Sometimes that phenomenon is produced by one, sometimes by the other, sometimes by a third person. That phenomenon could be something as ‘simple’ as a raised middle finger or a circled forefinger and thumb. The phenomenon may or may not be common to everyone’s perception (the blind or the deaf) or experience (someone who doesn’t understand sign language or Braille). If, however, meaning is attributed to the phenomenon, the meaning already resides inside those who perceive it by means of the phenomenon.

As a simple example, in the United States we use the circled thumb and forefinger with the remaining fingers spread and splayed to indicate ‘okay!’. We speak of the meaning of the sign being ‘conveyed’ or ‘transmitted’ or ‘moving’ between the two parties, but that’s just a misleading metaphor reinforced by our common experience of hearing a shout from down the block or receiving a letter in the mail we know to have come from halfway around the world in two weeks. The only thing moving, however, between the two individuals making and receiving the hand sign are the light waves being reflected from the circled thumb and forefinger of the one into the eyes of the other. There is literally no transmission of ‘meaning’ or ‘information’.

To demonstrate this, have an American signal ‘okay’ to a Brazilian and then ask each what meaning was ‘transmitted’. The American will say that he was transmitting ‘okay’ to the Brazilian. The Brazilian will say he was receiving from the American the invitation to ‘Eff me’ or ‘Eff you’, depending on what he considered the context to be. The meaning didn’t mysteriously transmute from one to the other message somewhere in the air between the two people. There was no meaning being transmitted at all. The meaning was separately attributed by each party to the sign based, in this case, on dissimilar symbolism sharing a common physical referent.

The same is true whether the means of conveying meaning (again, the metaphor of “convey” misleads) is through the symbolic means of written language, spoken language, signed language; or a more abstract level of symbolism such as smoke signals, flags, bent twigs; or the merely mechano/electrical or electronic or photographic transduction and transmittal from one place to another of the ‘stuff’ used to represent language.

The ‘stuff’, whether sight or sound, is shaped by language and is presented to the senses. It is thus available to be received and meaningfully interpreted by another who has the sufficient experience and linguistic ability to make sense of it. This is true whether it is one first grader talking to another about Barney or a philologist working to decipher an unknown language by referring to his existing knowledge of language. In the case of all these media, it is probably true that none of them can be moved faster than light. In this sense there can be no faster than light communication, not because information can’t travel faster than light, not because it isn’t possible that one person in one location could communicate with another person in another location in less time than it takes for light to travel between the two locations, but because these means used to make perceptible the language cannot be conveyed faster than light.

Now, given a means that is capable of instantaneous effects at a distance, such communication would be possible. Not only is it possible, it has already happened. In the French experiment Horgan referred to above, the experimenters needed a means to determine that the experiment had indeed been successful. The means was not the experimental device, but a set of criteria they chose based on their understanding of the phenomenon they were attempting to manipulate. They chose a set of criteria that would give them an unambiguous answer to their question. They all began with a shared set of expectations of what would or would not constitute a successful experiment, then they manipulated (so to speak) the medium and looked for an effect.

Again, the experimenters already knew what to look for which would confirm to them that the experiment was successful. If they didn’t have this shared understanding they would have been even worse off than two people using the okay sign without either knowing the nationality of the other. In that case, at least, each thinks he knows what the other is attempting to communicate. But if one person causes something to happen and another records and perceives the effect and both look at that record and separately arrive at the same unambiguous conclusion based on their prior shared understanding, then nonlocalization was used to ‘convey’ information.

Furthermore, it would be possible for one experimenter to know what to look for and what it would mean and yet keep the other in the dark and still be convinced that the experiment was successful based merely on the observations of the second experimenter who knew neither but could describe what he saw, just as someone could accurately record the sequence of puffs of smoke in a smoke signal system with no idea of what they were being used to signify. In this case there would have been no communication between the two. There was no prior understanding shared that when you see ‘this’ I mean ‘that’, that when you see the photon move in this direction, it’s because I caused its twin to be deflected in that direction. Although there was no communication, the first experimenter could look at the results recorded by the second experimenter and be sure that what he intended to send was what he actually did send. Everything necessary for communication at superluminal speed was there except for the second experimenter’s ability to interpret it.

But when one experimenter can influence one particle and the other particle at a distance is seen by another experimenter to act in a consistent and predictable manner according to an agreed-upon criterion, then communication has taken place and has done so via the experimental device. In this particular case the device does not happen to be limited by distance and time in its effects. If I can cause a photon to move at will left, left, right, or up, up, down, or to appear green, green, red--whatever, then I have in place the basis for communication; all I have to do is arrange a commonly shared meaning to be assigned to whatever permutations of the effect I want to cause.

Whatever problems there may be in developing and using the technology, violating special relativity is not one of them.
91 posted on 11/19/2011 5:02:27 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 6ppc
No, that was Schrödinger ;^)

Schrödinger owes me ten bucks.

Think I'll ever see it?

92 posted on 11/19/2011 5:51:09 AM PST by Eaker (Nothing even remotely praising Romney should be posted because one should stick to the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cicero2k

LOL. How about a cold fusion nutrino? (Sounds like an energy drink).


93 posted on 11/19/2011 6:12:40 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Bingo

One of many "family secrets" the Scienceists don't like to talk about for very long before changing the subject is the near total non-detection of "gravity waves." And they've been looking, looking, looking for a long time, in some very clever ways. Like you, it's occurred to me also that entanglement may be hold the answer to that very inconvenient problem. The attraction all mass hold to all other mass (with a strength proportional to the inverse square of it's distance - to the present limit of our ability to detect - see "The Pioneer Anomaly) might well be a remnant of some quantum state that existed in the primordial singularity.

94 posted on 11/19/2011 7:02:40 AM PST by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

Oy. Bump fer later, when my one-man personal geek squad is handy....


95 posted on 11/19/2011 8:17:45 AM PST by mewzilla (Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Note to the OPERA team: Go for the fiber thing, guys :-)


96 posted on 11/19/2011 8:24:57 AM PST by mewzilla (Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

If we can look back on the past, that is going to have some very significant and serious social consequences.


97 posted on 11/19/2011 10:43:13 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Given more thought, I changed my mind ... everything we see happens before we see it. See post 51.


98 posted on 11/19/2011 12:04:21 PM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I agree that such would be a coverup of extreme proportions, and unlikely, but, yet to be determined. Please stand by....


99 posted on 11/19/2011 1:39:01 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Your essay is correct, but then falls apart in the last sentence.
Here’s why.

QM-wise, here is a bit of what’s going on.

Imagine two particles come into existence at the same time as a result of some quantum state change.

This kind of thing happens all the time, it’s part of the background ZPE field.

Now particles can be said to have a property called spin. Now spin is a quantum property and as such, can be said to not exist in a real sense UNTIL IT IS MEASURED.

In this case, because we are talking about conjugated particles (they were both “birthed” by the same event at the same time), the total amount of spin is zero. If we measure one and find the spin is “up”, then the other will, if/when it is measured, have a spin “down”.

What Bells inequality says is basically IF this state of affairs it true, THEN Einsteins ideas of locality break down.

The experiments you talk of are the Aspect experiments. They were able to successfully show that once the spin of one particle was measured, the other particle ALWAYS shows the right spin.

People look at it and think about it and then think well, thats no big deal. If I pull a sock out of my sock drawer and it’s a right footed sock, then I KNOW the other sock left is a left footed sock.

But that’s not how QM works. The spin isn’t there before we measure it. It can be said to be there BECAUSE we measure it.

Imagine you had a bag that had two pairs of sunglasses in it. One was red and the other blue(lens-wise)

Somewhere away from you there was a person wearing a pair of sunglasses that were designed so that what you saw when you put on a pair, he would see.

So you can reach in the bag and pull out a pair and put them on and then see everything red and they would see the same. Or blue, if you saw blue.

But here’s the kicker, and this is why the last sentence of your essay fails:
Your choice of sunglasses is totally random. You CAN’T control which color you pick.

You do know that IF you see red, the other person will also see red, but you have no way of setting up any kind of messaging system because you cannot pick what you will see.

Mathematically, Bells theorem is quite easy to understand. But it implies something beyond Einsteins limited spacetime view of the universe.


100 posted on 11/19/2011 2:19:51 PM PST by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson