Possible breaking of the speed of light at CERN (physics, calendar, error)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My feeling is there is some error the scientists in question haven't realized yet. If not, they say this could change everything. What specifically do you forecast could occur if this turns out to be a legitimate discovery?
Not everyone is convinced by this second test. However, if it ultimately proves to be factual, then it would suggest that the speed of light isn't the limit, nor is it infinite. It seems to me that it's been pretty well determined that galaxies near the horizon of the observable universe are thought to be moving away at speeds faster than light, or more accurately, that the expansion of space is accelerating faster. It's not that such galaxies are seen moving faster than light speed, but since the light reaching us now is billions of years old and highly red-shifted billions of years ago, it's likely the speed is faster than light following the billions of years which have already passed.
Makes me wonder about the particles. How do they manage to travel faster than light? Could they be taking some kind of shortcut? How do they know the neutrinos at the destination are the same as those that were launched? Could it involve quantum entanglement? Could they be somehow bypassing space-time?
Lots of questions to be answered to better understand exactly what's taking place in these experiments.
Not everyone is convinced by this second test. However, if it ultimately proves to be factual, then it would suggest that the speed of light isn't the limit, nor is it infinite. It seems to me that it's been pretty well determined that galaxies near the horizon of the observable universe are thought to be moving away at speeds faster than light, or more accurately, that the expansion of space is accelerating faster. It's not that such galaxies are seen moving faster than light speed, but since the light reaching us now is billions of years old and highly red-shifted billions of years ago, it's likely the speed is faster than light following the billions of years which have already passed.
Makes me wonder about the particles. How do they manage to travel faster than light? Could they be taking some kind of shortcut? How do they know the neutrinos at the destination are the same as those that were launched? Could it involve quantum entanglement? Could they be somehow bypassing space-time?
Lots of questions to be answered to better understand exactly what's taking place in these experiments.
Have you ever thought about questioning the whole 'red shift = expansion' theory? Galaxies are moving away from us, wait space itself is expanding, wait it is also accelerating, etc., etc. I know science progresses - but this is just getting ridonkulous. I am sure you are familiar with Arp's. There are others as well. I think we should be questioning the whole lot of it - that is the expanding Bing Bang Model.
Have you ever thought about questioning the whole 'red shift = expansion' theory? Galaxies are moving away from us, wait space itself is expanding, wait it is also accelerating, etc., etc. I know science progresses - but this is just getting ridonkulous. I am sure you are familiar with Arp's. There are others as well. I think we should be questioning the whole lot of it - that is the expanding Bing Bang Model.
Nothing wrong with questioning things. My point was that there are those who are not yet convinced that the experiment with neutrinos (showing they are traveling faster than light speed) is free from errors. Frankly, I don't know if they are or not. More research is required to confirm or deny the results. I'm all in favor of that, which boils down to questioning the results.
Why should speed of light be the maximum limit within the universe? There's no real reason why the universe itself has to be limited by it, even if structures and matter withiin it are. If the redshifting of galaxies are not related to distance or speed, then I suppose one could say the universe isn't as old as thought and space is not accelerating. If that's true, then James Ussher's view that the universe was created on Sunday, the night before October 23, 4004 BCE (based on the Julian calendar) could be as plausible as any. Okay, that's a bit extreme.
The real question then boils down to whether the universe is expanding or not. If it isn't, then Sir Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory of the universe is plausible, and that the universe has always existed. Hoyle never did agree with the Big Bang theory (which was coined by him as sarcasm).
Sure, there are points that question whether redshifting really shows that space is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion, and that redshifting is a poor form of measurement. If it isn't, then can you suggest a better alternative? Can you suggest a better alternative to the Big Bang model?
In relation to neutrinos breaking the speed of light, it appears that there is still no solid agreement on the results, including the second test. The question is important because it would bring into question Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity regarding the speed of light, and is thought would put quite an impact on physics. If it does, I don't think it would necessarily cause all of physics to collapse. It would however mean that at least some things can move faster than the speed of light. The example of the acceleration of space in the universe at speeds faster than light was only an example to suggest that light speed might not be a maximum limit after all. Einstein was very brilliant, but not infallible. Nor was Edwin Hubble. Hubble had to sit on the crapper like anyone else creating his own Big Bangs. So does Halton Arp. That reminds me, I'm getting an urge to do a little redshifting.
I have no idea how the general consensus about the experiments will turn out, whether flaws or errors will be found or not. Time will tell. In any case, I try to keep an open mind about the whole thing, but I'm okay with current models until such time something better comes along to change those views. It's all part of the process of learning.
Have you ever thought about questioning the whole 'red shift = expansion' theory? Galaxies are moving away from us, wait space itself is expanding, wait it is also accelerating, etc., etc. I know science progresses - but this is just getting ridonkulous. I am sure you are familiar with Arp's. There are others as well. I think we should be questioning the whole lot of it - that is the expanding Bing Bang Model.
I agree that there have been assumptions stacked on assumptions, riding on more assumptions. We observe that red-shifts correspond with distance, and have determined that there is an acceleration of expansion. But, we are seeing these highly red-shifted galaxies as they existed 14 billion years ago. In the period after the big bang, of course galaxies would have been flying away from our position at a high velocity......could that be what we are seeing? Maybe expansion has been slowing. Perhaps it has stopped somewhere outside of the observable universe.
IF the speed of light isn't the ultimate speed limit, then is it the speed of neutrinos? Do these neutrinos, which react so weakly with gravity and matter, interact with quantum level wormholes or slightly compress space in front of them? So many questions!
Nothing wrong with questioning things. My point was that there are those who are not yet convinced that the experiment with neutrinos (showing they are traveling faster than light speed) is free from errors. Frankly, I don't know if they are or not. More research is required to confirm or deny the results. I'm all in favor of that, which boils down to questioning the results.
Why should speed of light be the maximum limit within the universe? There's no real reason why the universe itself has to be limited by it, even if structures and matter withiin it are. If the redshifting of galaxies are not related to distance or speed, then I suppose one could say the universe isn't as old as thought and space is not accelerating. If that's true, then James Ussher's view that the universe was created on Sunday, the night before October 23, 4004 BCE (based on the Julian calendar) could be as plausible as any. Okay, that's a bit extreme.
The real question then boils down to whether the universe is expanding or not. If it isn't, then Sir Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory of the universe is plausible, and that the universe has always existed. Hoyle never did agree with the Big Bang theory (which was coined by him as sarcasm).
Sure, there are points that question whether redshifting really shows that space is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion, and that redshifting is a poor form of measurement. If it isn't, then can you suggest a better alternative? Can you suggest a better alternative to the Big Bang model?
In relation to neutrinos breaking the speed of light, it appears that there is still no solid agreement on the results, including the second test. The question is important because it would bring into question Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity regarding the speed of light, and is thought would put quite an impact on physics. If it does, I don't think it would necessarily cause all of physics to collapse. It would however mean that at least some things can move faster than the speed of light. The example of the acceleration of space in the universe at speeds faster than light was only an example to suggest that light speed might not be a maximum limit after all. Einstein was very brilliant, but not infallible. Nor was Edwin Hubble. Hubble had to sit on the crapper like anyone else creating his own Big Bangs. So does Halton Arp. That reminds me, I'm getting an urge to do a little redshifting.
I have no idea how the general consensus about the experiments will turn out, whether flaws or errors will be found or not. Time will tell. In any case, I try to keep an open mind about the whole thing, but I'm okay with current models until such time something better comes along to change those views. It's all part of the process of learning.
I agree, before we toss out Einstein's conclusions several things must happen.
1. The experiment must be reproduced in different labs.
2. The nature of neutrino travel has to be determined. If they are beating light by compressing space or interacting with the quantum level wormholes that are theorized to pop in and out of existence, then the rules still stand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
