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
I_Am_Mod
Posts: 13214 - Karma: 3,753
threads for when i get home, i <3 science discussions, especially the ones in NSG :)
Nov 25 2011 9:43AM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I don't get what you mean by that either. Light travels the same speed regardless of the frame of reference. It is one of the basic principles behind special relativity. If you turn your headlights on while traveling near the speed of light, the beam will travel away from you at the speed of light.

In a lightless environment, what if you threw a sound emitting device greater than the speed of sound? you could analyze the sound waves (due to doppler shift) to learn that it has a velocity greater than the speed of sound. Furthermore if you shot someone with a gun, they would be hit before the sound reached them which would violate causation if sound was thought to be the universal speed limit. I really don't see where you are going with this.
Nov 25 2011 11:58AM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
oops I obviously meant violate casualty, not "causation" I need a coffee
Nov 25 2011 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
little1337
Posts: 8241 - Karma: 47,861
no, mass is added to matter exponentially by the speed it travels until it can't travel faster.
Nov 25 2011 12:34PM
0 0
profile picture
T.DUB
Posts: 343 - Karma: 36

started interesting but then essentially turned into:

it cant go faster than light because einstein says nothing can, with modern technology this "law" can now be broken and if it has been, then many more "laws" behind physics could also be reduced to theories. there must be some explanation as to why it was possible but what must happen is what happened with einstein, someone must theorize until their theories can no longer be proven wrong, this is simply a an experiment that busted the theory.

Nov 25 2011 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
You have a misunderstanding of what laws and theories are. A law can not be "reduced to a theory".
Nov 25 2011 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
huge-go
Posts: 1451 - Karma: 33
What the dude above said. I'm not saying Einstein was wrong, but as anyone who knows the slightest thing about science knows, science is knowledge, not fact or truth. Relativity is a THEORY. Not law. It has simply withstood all testing up until this point. But it is fully possible that relativity will go the way of classical mechanics. It will still be accurate on most scales, and will still be used, the same way classical mechanics is still used and applied despite the fact we know it's wrong, but is accurate on most scales relevant to us. If something ACTUALLY travels the speed of light, science will have to come up with a way to describe why. "This doesn't fit our current theories, so we're gonna say it's wrong" is not science. I personally am fascinated by the implications particles that travel faster than the speed of light would have on physics.
Nov 25 2011 2:31PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
yes. However I am still very skeptical of these results since relativity is so well understood and backed by observations.

Of course the theory could fail. If they can show that a particle is traveling faster than light then it will. I just think that more likely than not there can be an explanation for the results of this experiment without disproving relativity.
Nov 25 2011 2:58PM
0 0
profile picture
dbstar
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 20
look at all this aspiring young physicists! so cute!
Nov 25 2011 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Re-read and think again. I'm not going to type it out again right now. I'll clarify later if I need to.


And in our frame of reference means that we don't have anything faster than light, so light is essentially the "speed limit", It's trippy shit, and if you try to think about it using "common sense" you won't get anywhere.
Nov 26 2011 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
DutchhGutss
Posts: 896 - Karma: 124
It really is.. like for instance guys study problems with more then 3 dimensions, like 10 or more dimensions, but us only as humans can see and understand only 3, it doesnt mean 3 dimensions are the only ones that exist, its the only ones we as humans can determine.
Nov 26 2011 6:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
Meh you wont get far with that. Anything is justifibale with this idea.
Nov 26 2011 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
We can theorize about many more than 3, but can only observe 3 at any given point in time. I wonder if our perception of the dimensions is limited by intelligence, or something far different.
Nov 26 2011 9:00PM
0 0
profile picture
ScubaSteveFather
Posts: 555 - Karma: 574
Imagining the tenth dimension video.

Just thought you guys might enjoy this. Pretty cool :-)

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Check it out
Nov 27 2011 4:52AM
0 0
profile picture
ScubaSteveFather
Posts: 555 - Karma: 574
Let's try this


Nov 27 2011 4:53AM
0 0
profile picture
JayMeZZy
Posts: 423 - Karma: 510
Nov 27 2011 5:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Nufity
Posts: 993 - Karma: 171
Or or or or maybe einstein was wrong?
Nov 27 2011 5:54AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Gaga
Posts: 2021 - Karma: 542

LOLLL (btw if you read c it means speed of light)

And even if they are right, since about 1850 we know speed of light is around 3*10^8. More and more recent experience helped increse the precision of this value. Between 1926-1943 c was 299 796 ± 4 km/s. Since 1983 c was 299 792,45898 ± 0,0002 km/s.

It's nothing like neutrinos travell at twice the speed of light... The say it travells at 299 799,9 ± 1,7 km/s. Notice the precision is nothing compared to the one of c we have since 1983... and it's still only 0,002% faster then light. The ±1,7 km/s precision they have... thats about precision we had for speed of light in 1926 (and in 1926 speed of light was estimated around 4 km/s faster then now.. mey they not have also over-estimated the speed of neutrinos??).

And it's the results from 1 experience... they will prbly do it egan in 6 month and realise they did a mistake. And yeah... all this big media talking is prbly just a good way to get publicity for their research.

**English is second language for me and it's some scientific stuff so there are prbly some grammar mistakes sorry and info is all on Wikipedia.

Nov 27 2011 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
No. The neutrinos were moving faster than the light released from the same place at the same time. The only measurement they took in their experiment was time. The neutrinos got there first, making them faster. (Unless the light was hindered by something along the way, which could be possible)
Nov 27 2011 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Gaga
Posts: 2021 - Karma: 542
I don't think they did a race between light and neutrinos....?
Nov 28 2011 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
THAT-GUY
Posts: 141 - Karma: 11
your right, they did not. The neutrinos were shot through solid rock and they were timed. Comparatively the neutrinos went some 60Bth's of a second faster
Nov 28 2011 1:31AM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
I read the article and they said the neutrinos arrived "first", implying that there was a "race", Maybe the article was just poorly worded. If so, disregard my last post.
Nov 28 2011 9:03AM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
you can't shoot light through 720km of granite.
Nov 28 2011 1:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Stickity
Posts: 7750 - Karma: 769
don't say mass, say inertial qualities
Nov 28 2011 1:26PM
0 0
profile picture
.SillyGoose
Posts: 345 - Karma: 96
Dem neutrinos be tuff bitches. They so hood they dont obey the speed limit.
Nov 28 2011 2:02PM
0 0
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
Space time does have ripples but they are so many orders of magnitude smaller than a neutrino they would not interact like that. You're thinking over it in too much of a planar sense, its more that the ripples (eventually) make up the neutrino. Not that the neutrino is propagating over them.
Nov 28 2011 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
you mean being very far away moving away at very high speed right?
Nov 28 2011 5:33PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
came from me. theres posibilities of gravitational waves etc. but my main thing is that information represents reality, and information/reality propagates at the speed of light.

if the sun explodes we wont know about it for 8 minutes, but in our reality on earth, 4 minutes after the sun has exploded in its location, our TRUE REALITY on earth is that the sun still exists. this os how i came to concieve 4d spacetime. reality can only be defined at a point, in other words, reality depends on where you are.

so faster than light travel destroys the whole concept of reality because spacetime has been proven to be like a sheet that you can only move up and down to send waves through at the speed of light.

saying that mesagges containg meaningful information can travel faster than the speed of light is like saying that i can look in a far away mirror and get an indication from the mirror that i will begin brushing my teeth in a few seconds. this would of course give me the option of saying fuck you reality, im gonna smoke a bowl instead.... so you can see the paradox.  faster than light information travel would mean that you could find out what the deterministic universe has in store for you, and disobey it. ill try to think of a better examplr of how paridoxical this is
Nov 28 2011 6:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
like i said. i love this shit.
Nov 28 2011 6:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Crispy.
Posts: 6109 - Karma: 7,683
Nov 28 2011 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
im skeptical on dark mater. i personally believe that theres a fuck fuckin fuck freakincocksucking motherfucking shitload of dormant black ho;es throughout the galaxies
Nov 28 2011 6:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
that actually makes some sense, but for there to be that many black holes causing that much force and shit, the number of massive stars would have been unbelievable. don't feel like crunching the numbers, but it seems to me that it's unreasonable
Nov 28 2011 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
i thought obout boats, and their wakes,representing the information, for example the size and the speed of the boat. the wake you can consider travelling at the speed of light. the farther you are away from the boat, the longer it takes for its information to reach you. reality traveling at the speed of light was something i thought of high on hydros that is consistent with einsteins 4d spacetime, so it helps me visualize space and spacetime in the context of what reality is
Nov 28 2011 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
wow dude youre really dumb
Nov 28 2011 7:11PM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
yeah i dont dislike dark matter, but i prefer simpler explanations that blow peoples minds like with gamma ray bursts. my professor had an hour program devoted to his dicovery on the science channel
Nov 28 2011 7:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Trawltopilot
Posts: 545 - Karma: 95
what did he leave out
Feb 5 2012 3:54AM
0 0
profile picture
JamesR
Posts: 3396 - Karma: -12
I didn't read thoroughly, so just in case someone didn't say it already. Neutrinos don't move faster than the speed of light. Experimental error. The case is closed on that one. It's impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light.
Feb 5 2012 8:35AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Turtle
Posts: 3690 - Karma: 96
fuck off john.stossel
Feb 5 2012 8:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,128
not sure if this is relevant... but I agree that some of the top physicists of their time may have been wron there is always a possibility.  also did any of you hear about the science team that managed to teleport information 10 miles?
http://news.discovery.com/tech/teleportation-quantum-mechanics.html
Feb 5 2012 9:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Trawltopilot
Posts: 545 - Karma: 95
i know what he means. if you got a so called neutrino mirror next to the light mirror, the neutrino mirror would show you brushing your teath while the light mirror would show you smoking a bowl.

at your location, that would mean there were two realities.  taking things such as faster than light information propagation to theoretical extremes will lead you to defenseless paradoxes like this.


Feb 6 2012 12:04AM
0 0
profile picture
ObiWanKablowme
Posts: 421 - Karma: 539
your own thoughts or the most recent findings at the super collider in Europe?
Feb 6 2012 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Trawltopilot
Posts: 545 - Karma: 95
yo ill give you a simple example why entanglement does not send information faster than the speed of light.

imagine that you make an encrypted message that can be sent in morse code across the english channel INSTANTANEOUSLY, faster than the speed of light.   you will still have to sail across the english channel and give your allies on the other side the KEY to the other side. so the whole process will be much slower than the speed of light.

the same goes for entanglement experiments. the information will be meaningless unless decoded. and since decoding will always take longer than a simple radio wave message travelling at the speed of light, determinism and causality will be preserved.

the true electromagnetic information about what the instantaneous information transfer that is apparently acheived through quantum entanglement will always beat the entangled info transfer to the punch.

true messages that beat the speed of light would make for a paradox shitshow about spacetime
Feb 7 2012 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5675 - Karma: 4,268
Bumped? And can't they measure and account for decoding time?
Feb 7 2012 9:24PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
I still don't like this whole causality concept. It makes perfect sense, but something about it doesn't feel right...
Feb 7 2012 9:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Trawltopilot
Posts: 545 - Karma: 95
if you really want a headspin, i can show you how, using effective instantaneous information transfer, i could make a star appear in the night sky and then dissapear a few seconds later.
and in this hypothetical case the star really did exist for a few seconds, and then disappear, and that would be REALITY and not a trick.  so unless you believe that humans could make a star come into existence and then dissapear, you would understand the issues instantaneous info transfer brings with it.

i can give a simple thought experiment to show why entanglement cannot violate causality
Feb 7 2012 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Trawltopilot
Posts: 545 - Karma: 95
causality simply means cause leads to effect. a violation of causality would be a light switch turning itself on without someone there turning it on, in other words an event that has no cause.

simple example, a rock wont move unless you move it
Feb 7 2012 9:49PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
No I get that. My problem with the idea is the concept of human perception, Just because we believe that something occurs before something else occurs doesn't convince me that what we're seeing is all there is to be seen. Hard to explain but the picture of it makes perfect sense in my head. I just can't put it into words.
Feb 8 2012 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
No I get that. My problem with the idea is the concept of human perception, Just because we believe that something occurs before something else occurs doesn't convince me that what we're seeing is all there is to be seen. Hard to explain but the picture of it makes perfect sense in my head. I just can't put it into words.
Feb 8 2012 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
No I get that. My problem with the idea is the concept of human perception, Just because we believe that something occurs before something else occurs doesn't convince me that what we're seeing is all there is to be seen. Hard to explain but the picture of it makes perfect sense in my head. I just can't put it into words.
Feb 8 2012 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
JamesR
Posts: 3396 - Karma: -12
Human "error" of perception would be our inability to perceive relativity in our daily lives. So yep, our perception of time is much different than it actually is. However, our scientific perception of time is accurate.
Feb 8 2012 10:29AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)