Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Why the neutrinos arent travelling faster than light.

profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
this is just my opinion, but it may very well be true so i want to put this out first so i get street credirs for it.

from everything i here about buetrinos, they go straight. straight straight straght. strait through pretty much anything. strait through the earth.

my hypothesis is that space time mae have tiny ripples in it, like little waves on the surface of a pond. and light has to stay on the surface of these ripples because light remains in the universe. but if a truly straight path necesistates going out of and then then back into and then out and back in, than a neutrino travelling near c may be able to shortcut while light has to stay in 4d spacetime.

think of the neutrinos as taking the tunnel under a mountain at 99 miles an hour, and light having to travel over the top of the mountain at 100 miles per hour.

thats the only reasonable i can think of for the neutrinos getting there first but i  still think there is an experimental error. either way, nothing with mass travels as fast as light while remaining in the universe.

this pisses me off though because in information theory, according to my own philosophy, reality travels at the speed of light. so neutrinos must not be able to violate this.
any ideas how faster than light neutrinos can exist without being able to send information faster than light?
Nov 24 2011 6:18PM
0 0
profile picture
huge-go
Posts: 1451 - Karma: 33
Einstein could have been wrong
Nov 24 2011 6:20PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
reason*
Nov 24 2011 6:21PM
0 0
profile picture
WakeBakeFapNap
Posts: 258 - Karma: 28
i understand what your saying but im not sure i completly agree
Nov 24 2011 6:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25

All science is, in the end, still based on faith:

Nov 24 2011 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
tds103
Posts: 679 - Karma: 74
if things go faster than the speed of light, we can just adjust special reality; there can be exceptions.
Nov 24 2011 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
First, a neutrino has mass. By relativity, an object holding mass cannot take more energy to attain the speed of light. Only forces and energy can travel around 300,000km/s in a perfect vacuum. Neutrinos are funny because it is in the family of WIMP (weakly Interacting massive particle) so they can go through matter like there is nothing there.

Here is why things cant go faster than light. Its known as the latent image paradox.  Basically you see the consequence before observing the cause. Here is why:
Image there are 3 guys doing a revolver dual. On 10 guy 1 shoots guy 2. A small amount of time passed between the gun and the bullet wound, so guy 1 POV is consistant. Guy 2 is dead on the impact.
Now, say you are observing this from away. You will see guy 2 fall before you see the bullet hit him...causality is inversed through the image (light).

So the speed of light has to be the speed limit, or else the entire universe will be one time fractured space...
Nov 24 2011 6:48PM
0 0
profile picture
84891jnf92048
Posts: 11552 - Karma: 2,550
but perhaps the speed of light is not the speed limit.
Nov 24 2011 6:58PM
0 0
profile picture
ScubaSteveFather
Posts: 555 - Karma: 574
The scientists that measured the neutrinos traveling at speeds faster than 3.0*10^8 m/s were wrong. (experimental error)

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Faster-Than-Light-Neutrinos-Do-Not-Exist-235690.shtml
Nov 24 2011 7:01PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
well yes the speed limit has to be light. Light is what defines an image, what you see.

If some "things" moved faster than its own projection how can it exist?
Nov 24 2011 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25

Light defines an imagine yes, but does light define true substance? By your arguement the true substance of something is its image. Do you have enough faith in that to stand by it?

Nov 24 2011 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
spacetime probably does get all "ripply" at a quantum scale. I can't really follow the rest of your hypothesis though.

Click for larger image
Nov 24 2011 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
FerrisBueller
Posts: 8280 - Karma: 5,173
i agree that your hypothesis is pretty well thought out, but the reason i believe they traveled faster than light is that as the universe has been expanding the speed of light has been changing, because as space gets bigger than time must get 'longer' with it and therefore velocities through space time must change to cope with the expansion. just my thoughts but anyones idea is good as anyone elses at this point.
Nov 24 2011 7:28PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
Light is energy...or a form of it. It does not bring reality to substances. Atoms make substances. "Macro" sized objects can be perceived is by the light reflection from the surface of the object. The object does not radiate light, it simply passes it on.

Ill give another situation!
Say a huge star blows up in another galaxy. We perceive this action because of the light emitted from the explosion. Then we wait and see the remains of the star through telescope. Say this explosion takes out another star also...just for the fun of it. If objects can travel faster than light, the remains will not form a sphere, but an irregular shape. Also Star 2 should be affected by the explosion BEFORE star 1 blew up.
It doesnt make sense...reaction can only travel as fast as light!

I dont cancel the possibility of exotic particles going faster than light...but then I should not cancel the possibility of 11 dimensions and the millions of papers on hypothetical physics.

When I do physics, I draw a line: If I can see it, than I can confirm it. If I can measure it, than it exists.
Nov 24 2011 7:38PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Doesn't the whole "the speed of light is the universal speed limit" statement imply that the universe is limited by the observer? Since the speed of light/electromagnetic waves is the fastest speed if anything that we as humans can detect, we are unaware of anything that moves faster.


Think about it like this: We as humans might be "blind" to one or more aspects of the universe. Blind cave fish don't know what sight it. Deaf people have never heard sound, and wouldn't know that it exists save for the fact that people who can hear tell them about it. As of now, we may be oblivious to a lot of different things. We don't know that they exist, we don't know their properties, so we don't look for them. If we could ever measure what we don't know exists, it could change the way we think about the universe(s).
Nov 24 2011 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
squibble
Posts: 4569 - Karma: 104
its not about him being wrong, its all the shit thats been done based on his stuff.

interesting theory, i dont know nearly enough physics to respond properly, are they measuring average velocity, or instantaneous?

where did this rippling spacetime idea come from?
Nov 24 2011 8:31PM
0 0
profile picture
FerrisBueller
Posts: 8280 - Karma: 5,173
mind=fucked

think of all the posibilites we could be blind to!??!1
Nov 24 2011 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
well put

But we have managed to eliminate the observer in the 21st century. How? Computers and sensors! We know what we are observing because we have developed mechanical means to detect and measure what we can and cant observe. What we experience is what is outside. We live in reality with a subjective touch!

Believe it or not your microwave that you use at home works at the speed of light! Everything you experience is under wavelength. Your radio, sounds, light, UV, and gamma ray have in common? They are all wave lengths...but at different frequencies. Microwaves are no difference... you can even measure the speed of light! Try this:

1.Put a bar of chocolate 1/2inch wide 3 inches long in the microwaves. you can use a plate
2.Activate microwave until the bar begins to get soft and take it out
3.Put toothpicks where the chocolate got soft and measure the average of the distances and convert to miles (or km if metric). (6cm or 2.38 in)
4. Calculate the speed of light by multiplying the frequency by the length. 2450 000 000hz
5. Convert to km/s or miles/s
6. solve and be amazed
Nov 24 2011 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
LittleFoot
Posts: 1667 - Karma: 57
I don't get it but if you build a time machine you ever build a time machine you should let ns member us it for free
Nov 24 2011 9:10PM
0 0
profile picture
dave44
Posts: 11052 - Karma: 113
My threads... I will let the physics majors battle this out.
Nov 24 2011 9:13PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
don't ruin this... shame on you. i have nothing to contribute, just a high school physics student here, but its all really fascinating stuff.
Nov 24 2011 9:15PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Not exactly. We can only use computers and sensors to observe what they can see. Like we can be blind to stuff, our computers and sensors can be blind to stuff. My camera sensor measures light, but can't sense smell or taste. Our sensors could detect things like neutrinos and gravity but not X, because we don't have anything to measure for it, and have no idea that it exists.


That being said, if we don't know it exists, it doesn't really matter at this point. 1000 years ago we didn't have any idea that a neutrino existed, and it didn't really affect us. We didn't need to know it was there for our understanding of the universe at that time to make sense. I think eventually our understanding of physics and the universe will become so complex and detailed, that we won't be able to explain it using current explanations. What we have now "works" now, but all the questions that we have that aren't solved yet are going to change our view.
Nov 24 2011 9:17PM
0 0
profile picture
dubtwo
Posts: 590 - Karma: 114
you cant see dark matter...
Nov 24 2011 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
120494435941
Posts: 0 - Karma: 37
im not ruining shit..... at first i thought the error could be a miscalculation in maybe like how long it took the recieve to tell the computer that they had arrived or something like that but thousands of physic majors are looking to find the mistake so i assume this would not be the case.
Nov 24 2011 9:23PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
We cant see it...directly.

What we look are signs of a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. Basically they look at the distortion in the light and image. We can also calculate the effects on matter:
red is matter, blue is dark matter

Click for larger image
Nov 24 2011 9:30PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
sooo whats with the picture?
Nov 24 2011 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
dave44
Posts: 11052 - Karma: 113
That picture was completely irrelevant and unnecessary...
Nov 24 2011 9:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Wolffy
Posts: 949 - Karma: 131
there are things in this world, that humans will never understand in our existence. the human goal is to learn and learn and learn about the everything in the universe, but sometimes you gotta say," WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING, THIS SHIT IS WAY OVER OUR HEAD. WE NEED TO LIVE OUR FUCKING LIVES"
Nov 24 2011 10:02PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
well until you put your mind into trying to rationalize the world you are living in, you will be a prisoner of your ignorence
Nov 24 2011 10:37PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Exactly. I don't think that in our lifetimes, in anyone's lifetimes maybe, we'll be able to 100% understand the world. Until you try though, you're missing out on a lot in life. Maybe I'm different than a lot of people, but to me figuring out how shit works and why it works is fun. I couldn't live without doing it.
Nov 24 2011 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
.R-Lohin
Posts: 1686 - Karma: 117
Im sorry OP, your a fucking dumb-ass. Numbers don't lie, they tested it multiple times and its all came out the same answer.

But if this is true, it totally changes everything as we know it today.
Nov 24 2011 10:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
i love this shit
Nov 24 2011 10:48PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
No I think I understand what he is saying. I don't think it's right, but I don't think he is anywhere close to being a dumbass.




From my understanding of this, the neutrinos are jumping time/space. I'm going to guess that this takes a shit ton of energy, and is only possible because neutrinos have so little. I doubt this will fuck up are concept of cause and effect, because neutrinos don't affect anything. If it were protons or something with much higher mass moving faster than the speed of light, then, as mentioned, we could see effects of things before they are caused. I don't think we see this phenomenon with other particles because they have more mass, and would require obscene amounts of energy to make this jump.
Nov 24 2011 10:54PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
What the fuck man, we're trying to discuss some science here.
Nov 24 2011 10:55PM
0 0
profile picture
StreetsOfRage
Posts: 1180 - Karma: 4
I love reading all these theories and Ideas everyone is putting out here. We really have a wide variety of people that can and do put out opinions that I would have never thought of. Great job to everyone in this thread.
Nov 24 2011 11:05PM
0 0
profile picture
LeadThug420
Posts: 869 - Karma: 26

Perception can also be defined by sound.  By your logic, nothing can exist that moves faster than the speed of sound in a lightless environment.  Obviously that's not true. 

gtfo n00b.

Nov 24 2011 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Curb.
Posts: 370 - Karma: 91
I second
Nov 24 2011 11:18PM
0 0
profile picture
THAT-GUY
Posts: 141 - Karma: 11
Alright, I'll be the first to say I did not read the thread so if someone else beat me to it, credit them.

My physics professor doesn't believe that neutrinos can go faster than the speed of light simply because when a star super novas billions of light years away, the neutrinos and the light reach us at the exact same time.
Nov 24 2011 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Light is a particle and an electromagnetic (transverse) wave. Sound is a compressional wave.


That is a fundamental difference between the 2.
Nov 24 2011 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
THAT-GUY
Posts: 141 - Karma: 11
another thing, If they can travel faster than the speed of light we will be able to send information back through time. Which is a paradox, because it would have happened already
Nov 24 2011 11:25PM
0 0
profile picture
Curb.
Posts: 370 - Karma: 91
MEEEEAAAAWWWWWWW
Nov 24 2011 11:25PM
0 0
profile picture
LeadThug420
Posts: 869 - Karma: 26

And your point is? 

Nov 24 2011 11:26PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Light can act as a particle and sound can't, so different rules apply. When was the last time sound was bent by gravity?



But I could be wrong. Highschool students with minimal knowledge of physics FTW!!
Nov 24 2011 11:34PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
this is the first thing i really thought when I read it.
Nov 24 2011 11:36PM
0 0
profile picture
LeadThug420
Posts: 869 - Karma: 26

"so different rules apply."

You still haven't proved my argument wrong yet fuckwit.  You're about as stupid as the chair I'm sitting on.  Your intellectual capacities are so small that I can't even discern the difference between you and a cat walking randomly on the keyboard.  You might as well just copy+paste your argument from Harry Potter because you aren't going to produce anything more intelligent on your own.

Nov 24 2011 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Spinoza
Posts: 12763 - Karma: 3,846
is this true?

otherwise i think you have a cool idea.   i am not a physicist so who knows maybe its dumb.  w,e +k
Nov 24 2011 11:41PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
oh shit. my mind was just blown
Nov 24 2011 11:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Gaga
Posts: 2021 - Karma: 542
Hmm it's been a while since i checked those things but didn't Einstein compute the theorical speed of light with some theorical relation between mass and energy (the big ending of this relation is the well known E= mc²)(*c is speed of light, m mass, E energie). And he said nothing could be faster then light becose of I don't know why exacly... your mass would become energy and it's impossible or something like that. I'll check that. Threads!
Nov 25 2011 1:12AM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
What are you talking about? Sound is not an electromagnetic wave. Sound does not exhibit wave particle duality. Light does. I'm saying that could have an effect on whether the speed of light can be exceeded or not IN OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE. You're comparing 2 unlike things-sound and light-when talking about perception. If we were in a dark room with only sound, nothing could travel faster than sound, because nothing exists to travel faster than sound. If there is no light, and sound is the next fastest thing, then yes, you are limited by the speed of sound. If particle X that can move faster than light does not exist in this universe, or has not been discovered nor is observable by humans, then we are limited by the speed of light.

Please stop with you're pitiful attempts at insulting me, and go smoke more weed, if all you intend to do is turn this discussion into an argument.
Nov 25 2011 1:47AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
i would go out on a limb and say that relativity might not be the end of the line. maybe another theory comes in and destroys certain aspects.

and op, your wormhole thingy doesnt change the fact that i could fuck up space time and bet on the intergalactic alpha centauri horse race. i could watch the race there and then go through my wormhole and bet on earth on it.

idk what you like more. time travel or above-c neutrinos?
Nov 25 2011 8:59AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)