• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Just my thought, and I am happy to be wrong.

Although both places will have the same angular velocity, their linear miles per hour covered would vary - Gran Sasso, Italy traveling faster, being closer to the equator.

Based on my limited understanding of Einstein i.e. that for a faster moving object, time slows. Could that difference in speed have the resulting effect of a 'time lapse'?
 
Gate2501 said:
It has been a few years since I read a textbook on SR--or posted here for that matter--, but I was explaining this to a friend yesterday, and realized(perhaps incorrectly, since no one in these articles seems to be saying this) that a c violation wouldn't look like this at all?
Click to expand...
Do we have any rational basis for saying what a "c violation" would look like since all the theories we have assume it can't happen?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Do we have any rational basis for saying what a "c violation" would look like since all the theories we have assume it can't happen?
Click to expand...

My point, was that we do know what would happen, or rather, as you said why it can't happen; a bunch of paradoxes and nonsense ensue. The theories we have which assume it can't happen are rock-solid.

I can't think of any reason why it would just be a faster version of c--a new cosmic speed limit--unless special relativity is completely and fundamentally wrong(in which case, it has to be wrong in a way that completely overturns the theory, yet still allows for how well it has served us thus far in our machines, calculations, etc. which all have all been proven repeatedly to be accurate and successful), or there is some unaccounted for effect that let these neutrinos "skip" forward through spacetime to some degree that still preserves SR.

It's a win-win situation though, at least. If this has overturned the known laws of the universe, I'll be looking forward to my ansible broadband internet access.
 
MattusMaximus said:
What live stream?

So... no.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried to post the link more than a couple of times so people could see it in real time from Cern, the authors presented their findings in detail today to other scientists at Cern. It also included a great Q&A session where the scientists in audience tried to find possible flaws, you can watch the whole thing later from here:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486

...but it was really interesting watching it live. The presenter was very good.
 
Last edited:
edd said:
The speed of light is a lot more than just the speed light goes at. It's the speed of gravity for example.

It really is a fundamental speed limit for anything.
Click to expand...
Has the speed of gravity ever been determined? I don't recall it has a speed. Space time is warped. If you move an object with gravity through space time, it warps things at the speed the object moves. Unless we measure the speed of gravity when new mass is formed, for all intents and purposes gravity does not have a speed.

Just my understanding, not saying I know.
 
I occurs to me that one can account for the OPERA results very simply - the either the leading or trailing edge of the proton pulse tends to generate more neutrinos than the other edge (because the lead changes temperature, or something in the electronic warms up, or who knows), then their fitting procedure will generate a false delta t shift.

The experiment needs to be redone with a nanosecond (or few nanoseconds) proton pulse, rather than a 10,000 nanosecond pulse.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
I occurs to me that one can account for the OPERA results very simply - the either the leading or trailing edge of the proton pulse tends to generate more neutrinos than the other edge (because the lead changes temperature, or something in the electronic warms up, or who knows), then their fitting procedure will generate a false delta t shift.

The experiment needs to be redone with a nanosecond (or few nanoseconds) proton pulse, rather than a 10,000 nanosecond pulse.
Click to expand...

I think this post wins the thread :) Did nothing like this come up in the Q&A? It seems (with hindsight!) rather an obvious potential problem.
 
jsfisher said:
How are all the gravitational effects calculated, especially with the Alps sitting above the path?
Click to expand...
And the Appeninians. It's basically only the Po Valley that's not mountains.

And since CERN has been around since 1954, I think that they know their gravitational effects. It wouldn't surprise me if they're calibrating after the amounts of snow on the mountains.
subvicepresident said:
Anybody else wondering when will we see the first crackpot thread that claims this validates their crazy 'theory'?
Click to expand...
Already seen it. It's more like "since FTL is possible", then we've must be visited by ETs on a regular basis." (ETs that uses James Cameron's slow FTL.)

But no youtube nor homepages yet.
edd said:
You're right. This is in fact the second violation of causality at the LHC this year. The first one is coming up in December.
Click to expand...
Better note that down... :D
 
icerat said:
know what time they left, know what time they arrived, know how far they traveled. calculate speed.
Click to expand...

The source know what time they left according to the source, the destination know what time they arrived according to the destination but how do the source and destination agree?
 
Christian Klippel said:
Hu? How so? If they find out that some things can travel faster than light, than it means just that. Of course that also means that everything that uses the speed of light as absolute maximum speed needs to be changed/adapted as well.

So, if any given formula gives "time travel" results or anything like what you said, based on using the speed of light as maximum, it follows that such a formula needs to use the new maximum speed instead.

Of course it's also possible that any such maximum would just not depend on the speed of anything at all, but would turn out to be some constant instead, and we simply used something else instead because it was close enough.

Or am i missing something?

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

I have always wondered about this as well. If the "speed-of-light" is "broken", doesn't that just mean the speed of light is a little faster than we previously thought?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom