Re: The speed of light : Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:43 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Right now speed is fastest and time is linked to causality.

You mean light speed? Maybe - if you ignore phenomena such as particle entanglement, where entangled particles seem to instantly "know" the state of each other, despite the distance between them increasing. Sort of instant communication. makes the speed of light seem stationary.

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

You could have the mind blowing situation where the effect happens before the cause as just one example.

Yes, but we don't, which sort of chucks the bucket of cold water.

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

The latest thinking on it is that the Neutrinos are actually jumping between realities which is allowing them to take a short cut.

I like that, except (and with due respect to the scientists suggesting it) I favour the explanation that the neutrinos may enter another dimension for an instant before coming back to 'normal' dimensions. I think there's pretty incontrovertible evidence for a number of further dimensions, and it would make perfect sense if the reason entangled particles can "know" each other's state at a distance was because they are only apart in our normal dimensions, but are still together, or extremely close, in another dimension.

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Of course it could all be down to a fault in the sensors in Italy.

Sadly, I expect at the end of the day, that's what it'll be. I mean, it's not as if we don't already know all about the speed of neutrinos, from distant supernova explosions etc.; why should Italian neutrinos behave differently from the rest in the universe? Or maybe those whizzing by from interstellar space speed up a bit as they pass through Italy? Maybe they could try the same experiment in Holme Wood . . .

[tb]

Re: The speed of light : Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

why should Italian neutrinos behave differently from the rest in the universe?

I humbly suggest that the question answers itself

Re: The speed of light : Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:27 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You mean light speed? Maybe - if you ignore phenomena such as particle entanglement, where entangled particles seem to instantly "know" the state of each other, despite the distance between them increasing. Sort of instant communication. makes the speed of light seem stationary.

Yes I meant the speed of light or C.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Yes, but we don't, which sort of chucks the bucket of cold water.

Indeed

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I like that, except (and with due respect to the scientists suggesting it) I favour the explanation that the neutrinos may enter another dimension for an instant before coming back to 'normal' dimensions. I think there's pretty incontrovertible evidence for a number of further dimensions, and it would make perfect sense if the reason entangled particles can "know" each other's state at a distance was because they are only apart in our normal dimensions, but are still together, or extremely close, in another dimension.

TBH that was lazyness by me I did actually mean dimensions.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Sadly, I expect at the end of the day, that's what it'll be. I mean, it's not as if we don't already know all about the speed of neutrinos, from distant supernova explosions etc.; why should Italian neutrinos behave differently from the rest in the universe? Or maybe those whizzing by from interstellar space speed up a bit as they pass through Italy? Maybe they could try the same experiment in Holme Wood . . .

Agreed.

Re: The speed of light : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:43 pm  

vbfg wrote:

I'm on a super advanced spaceship. You're on a super advanced spaceship. We're having a super advanced spaceship duel. Let's pretend that the weapons we're using cross the distance instantaneously. The rules are that we fly for ten seconds and then shoot.

So we're flying away from each other at FTL speeds and you've counted ten seconds (fair minded person that you are) and you shoot at me. My time is dilated in your frame of reference, so when your clock says ten seconds mine says five. I become enraged and shoot back straight away, failing to count to ten seconds. Your time is dilated in my frame of reference, so when my clock says five seconds yours says 2 and a half. My shot, which is a reaction to your shot, kills you before you have fired your shot.

So the ramifications are that you're a fair minded soul who plays by the rules who is dead for being a cheating ba5tard.

I know there's a flaw in this but I'm REALLY struggling with it.

Maybe the rest of this bottle of wine will help. Best I can do is that as you're both fair minded gentlemen, ten seconds will pass equally on both ships, so both fire at exactly the same time (relative to each ship), and as both are doing the same speed, and have accelerated at the same rate, then to an external observer, both ships would fire and explode at exactly the same time, as both on-ship times will be identical to the external observer?

Re: The speed of light : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:50 pm  

Bloody RFL , can't even sort out the speed of light properly

Re: The speed of light : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:22 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote:

I know there's a flaw in this but I'm REALLY struggling with it.

Maybe the rest of this bottle of wine will help. Best I can do is that as you're both fair minded gentlemen, ten seconds will pass equally on both ships, so both fire at exactly the same time (relative to each ship), and as both are doing the same speed, and have accelerated at the same rate, then to an external observer, both ships would fire and explode at exactly the same time, as both on-ship times will be identical to the external observer?

This all relays on the value of C being maximum speed and value these findings possibly throw that and therefore the whole relitivity(Sp) basis into doubt.
That is the point.

Re: The speed of light : Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:31 am  

This reminds me of the value of education.
When I was younger, much younger, it was commonplace to see written in a public sh/thouse ... 'Kilroy was here'.

I once saw written in a sh/thouse in Doncaster Technical College ... 'Heisenberg might have been here'.
Now that is the benefit of education.

And in relation to these experiments on neutrinos, I would suggest that the scientists involved look closely at the transmitters, detectors, timing devices, the geology etc,etc, you name it, before they start trying to turn current theory on its head.
Which doesn't mean to say they are wrong, but they have got to have a bloody good case to overturn or at least amend what already appears to work.
Science is a continual refinement, so if they are right, we move on.

Re: The speed of light : Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:34 am  

Stand-Offish wrote:

This reminds me of the value of education.
When I was younger, much younger, it was commonplace to see written in a public sh/thouse ... 'Kilroy was here'.

I once saw written in a sh/thouse in Doncaster Technical College ... 'Heisenberg might have been here'.
Now that is the benefit of education.

And in relation to these experiments on neutrinos, I would suggest that the scientists involved look closely at the transmitters, detectors, timing devices, the geology etc,etc, you name it before they start trying to turn current theory on it's head.
Which doesn't mean to say they are wrong, but they have got to have a bloody good case to overturn or at least amend what already appears to work.
Science is a continual refinement, so if they are right, we move on.

Where to ?

Re: The speed of light : Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:39 am  

Starbug wrote:

Where to ?

A better understanding of the Universe and what makes things tick.

Re: The speed of light : Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:40 am  

Stand-Offish wrote:

This reminds me of the value of education.
When I was younger, much younger, it was commonplace to see written in a public sh/thouse ... 'Kilroy was here'.

I once saw written in a sh/thouse in Doncaster Technical College ... 'Heisenberg might have been here'.
Now that is the benefit of education.

And in relation to these experiments on neutrinos, I would suggest that the scientists involved look closely at the transmitters, detectors, timing devices, the geology etc,etc, you name it before they star turning current theory on it's head.
Which doesn't mean to say they are wrong, but they have got to have a bloody good case to overturn or at least amend what already appears to work.
Science is a continual refinement, so if they are right, we move on.

As far as I know, they scrutinised the experiment repeatedly in minute, intimate detail for a helluva long time, before publishing the results (together with reams of data) with an open request for the global scientific community to disprove them. So far, no-one has.

They aren't declaring "look everyone, we've achieved faster than light speeds", they're saying, "erm, our results are suggesting the theoretically impossible has taken place and we can't see how or why, and we're struggling to disprove it, can anyone help?"

As for the quote, I remember writing on the door of my university loo: "Vodka corrupts; Absolut Vodka corrupts absolutely".