question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

[daiquiri]

But these neutrinos did not travel back in time. They have arrived to the destination AFTER they were shot, just were a bit faster then expected.

[RayThackeray]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

But these neutrinos did not travel back in time. They have arrived to the destination AFTER they were shot, just were a bit faster then expected.

But one interpretation of relativity is that if something exceeds the speed of light, then it starts to go back in time. As neutrinos are arriving EARLIER than is possible in Einsteinian space-time, then effectively they may be going back in time. My corollary question is whether these neutrinos are increasing their mass and therefore could be enough to explain the missing dark energy? Time will tell (har har!)

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

But one interpretation of relativity is that if something exceeds the speed of light, then it starts to go back in time. As neutrinos are arriving EARLIER than is possible in Einsteinian space-time, then effectively they may be going back in time.

Earlier than possible according to the theory. But in reality they have arrived in a correct and usual time-wise sequence of events: first they have been shot, and then (after a positive and measured time lapse) they have been detected at the point of arrival.

[RayThackeray]

No, you're missing the point. The neutrinos, apparently, are arriving slightly earlier than they SHOULD. Exceeding c plays serious tricks with causality and gets into interpretations of relativity not yet understood, one of which is that the particle travels back in time. In this case, the few nanoseconds shorter time could, in effect, indicate time travel. In no way do they need to arrive earlier (in our time-frame) than they are transmitted to still demonstrate a reversal. Even such a small variation is enough to trigger some super-relativistic effect that needs more work to understand.

[l_henderson]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

No, you're missing the point. The neutrinos, apparently, are arriving slightly earlier than they SHOULD. Exceeding c plays serious tricks with causality and gets into interpretations of relativity not yet understood, one of which is that the particle travels back in time. In this case, the few nanoseconds shorter time could, in effect, indicate time travel. In no way do they need to arrive earlier (in our time-frame) than they are transmitted to still demonstrate a reversal. Even such a small variation is enough to trigger some super-relativistic effect that needs more work to understand.

The neutrinos that exceeded c would be younger, they did not age as fast as their cohorts who did not exceed c, however, they are still older than when they were shot. Time is still not negative.

[RayThackeray]

l_henderson: Which one is it - they would be younger, or didn't age as fast as other particles at relativistic velocities, or older when shot? This doesn't make sense.

Actually, anything travelling at c, theoretically, doesn't age at all. Look, I can certainly understand the confusion when looking at things from a "common sense" standpoint, but frankly when you actually look at Einstein's relativity equations, things get very strange at super-relativistic velocities - and the best scientists are confused too - but the point that these neutrinos may be travelling BACKWARDS in time is a very valid interpretation. Their actual position in our space-time frame isn't so relevent.

[CatBuilder]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

Rubbish. People need to up their game and learn about the scientific method. And the media need to do so as well. While inveterate climate deniers ignore established facts because of their predetermined belief bias (which seems to be mostly confined to the USA btw), I personally hope that most of the world has a more rational view, and frankly, apart from nutcases, I have a better opinion of people's ability to understand that scientific enquiry is intended to continue to improve...

Thank you for this post. I nearly posted something identical way back in the thread.

I cringe when people talk about scientists as if they were some sort of political special interest group looking out for themselves, taking grant money and supporting whatever the payer tells them to.

It is actually impossible for scientists to do this. The scientific method is at the very foundation of the way a scientist (or rational person) thinks. To deviate from it or violate ethical standards is death for a scientific career. Your scientific peers would eat you alive.

That predetermined belief bias really freaks me out. I saw a lot of it on that thread I started about those protesters being sprayed with OC spray. You see the act happen, but many just scoured the video and web to try to find anything and everything to change reality by putting a "spin" on it to support a pre-determined belief. Never mind what actually happened, let's just find some way to make it seem like the event never happened or was justified. Yikes.

Scientists cannot do this, since they are trained in critical thinking. It's the foundation of what being a scientist is all about. You are taught to question everything - always. You need proof. You accept reality, as it is observed. You do not go into any situation with bias. You go in open minded and come to a conclusion based on evidence.

It's frightening how many people do not have these critical thinking skills.

Though, I cannot agree with the climate debate stuff. I'm a trained scientist and I go into that one with no pre-conceived prejudice. My logical conclusions there are:

1) The world is getting hotter than it was in the recent past
2) The world has been much hotter and much cooler in the past
3) Due to the number of variables involved in global climate change, we have, at best, some theories and an experimental data set without a set of controls
4) If the world has been much hotter and much cooler in the past, who are we to say what the "correct" temperature for the planet is?

I often get a lot of flack from other trained scientists on that line of thought for some reason. I think this is one area where (despite what I said above), some trained scientists allow prejudice to creep in.

I'm very much against pollution and environmental damage, but there is no causality in the whole "humans are changing the temperature of the planet thing."

The rest of the post is great though.

[BATAAN]

Either it follows the rules, or it doesn't. If it should take X time to go Y distance by the rules, but takes X-minus whatever, then it has broken the rules and it's time to figure out new ones. This is less than rocket science, no matter how complicated the math.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

The neutrinos, apparently, are arriving slightly earlier than they SHOULD. Exceeding c plays serious tricks with causality and gets into interpretations of relativity not yet understood, one of which is that the particle travels back in time. In this case, the few nanoseconds shorter time could, in effect, indicate time travel. In no way do they need to arrive earlier (in our time-frame) than they are transmitted to still demonstrate a reversal. Even such a small variation is enough to trigger some super-relativistic effect that needs more work to understand.

Well, then it is also valid for me travelling from Milan to Verona in my car.
If I travel at the speed V and arrive after a time T, then if I travel at the speed V+dV and arrive after a time T-dT, I can conclude that I have traveled back in time by a quantity dT with respect to the first trip.

Or I could simply say (like I usually do) that I have traveled a bit faster during the second trip...

But I have to admit that the first version sounds really cool, and I believe that I'll start using that one from now on.

[BATAAN]

Originally Posted by CatBuilder

Thank you for this post. I nearly posted something identical way back in the thread.

I cringe when people talk about scientists as if they were some sort of political special interest group looking out for themselves, taking grant money and supporting whatever the payee tells them to.

It is actually impossible for scientists to do this. The scientific method is at the very foundation of the way a scientist (or rational person) thinks. To deviate from it or violate ethical standards is death for a scientific career.

That predetermined belief bias really freaks me out. I saw a lot of it on that thread I started about those protesters being sprayed with OC spray. You see the act happen, but many just scoured the video and web to try to find anything and everything to change reality by putting a "spin" on it to support a pre-determined belief.

Scientists cannot do this, since they are trained in critical thinking. It's the foundation of what being a scientist is all about. You are taught to question everything - always. You need proof. You accept reality, as it is observed. You do not go into any situation with bias. You go in open minded and come to a conclusion based on evidence.

It's frightening how many people do not have these critical thinking skills.

thank you Cat. Could not agree more strongly. Science and opinion are entirely different things, and honest scientific method separates scientists and those who think that way, from politicians and greed profiteers in general, who will sell their opinion to the highest bidder, and do so daily. Unfortunately Herr Goebbels taught well and profit triumphs reason, to the downfall of us all in the end.

[hoytedow]

Und Herr Goebbels was taught by the Wilsonians.

[l_henderson]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

l_henderson: Which one is it - they would be younger, or didn't age as fast as other particles at relativistic velocities, or older when shot? This doesn't make sense.

Actually, anything travelling at c, theoretically, doesn't age at all. Look, I can certainly understand the confusion when looking at things from a "common sense" standpoint, but frankly when you actually look at Einstein's relativity equations, things get very strange at super-relativistic velocities - and the best scientists are confused too - but the point that these neutrinos may be travelling BACKWARDS in time is a very valid interpretation. Their actual position in our space-time frame isn't so relevent.

If it traveled BACKWARDS in time, and time zero is when it was shot, then it would never get to target at all because it would always exist at a time before the shot. Being younger than its cohorts, not aging as fast as cohorts, and being older than when it was shot are not contridictions

[CatBuilder]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

Well, then it is also valid for me travelling from Milan to Verona in my car.
If I travel at the speed V and arrive after a time T, then if I travel at the speed V+dV and arrive after a time T-dT, I can conclude that I have traveled back in time by a quantity dT with respect to the first trip.

Or I could simply say (like I usually do) that I have traveled a bit faster during the second trip...

But I have to admit that the first version sounds really cool, and I believe that I'll start using that one from now on.

I don't know, Daiquiri... I've spent some time on the Autostrada. I think you guys always arrive in Verona before you leave Milano!

[p_smith]

Wow guys, great conversation!

How about a simple error, maybe overlooking the speed through space or rotation of the earth. I wonder if they would get the same results if they could launch them neutrinos the opposite direction? west to east vs east to west? Meaning that maybe their assumed distance is wrong despite hyper accurate gps whatsits numbers.
Maybe they need a gps satelite that is not in earth orbit

[Boston]

Originally Posted by DCockey

Given the small amount that the "speed of light" was exceeded, here is my guess of a possible explaination which does not require a complete tear-up of relativity.

c is not actually the speed of light but a limit which can be approached but not reached. The speed of light is very slightly slower. How close the speed of a "particle" can get to c depends in part on some property of the particle, perhaps related to mass, with some "particles" being able to get closer to c than others.

I've never been particularly interested in particle physics so the above could be completely out in the weeds.

not entirely out in the weeds but it did bring to mind something. The energy density of the universe has changed over time assuming that the universe is expanding; If this is true and if it also holds true that there isn't a uniform distribution of energy in the universe. which is pretty obvious. This may be what a gravity well is. Add all that up and you end up with varying light speed by varying location. Or at least that is what some theory predicts.

Another issue with energy density is the observation of Birkeland like currents in nebula. If it's got huge ears, an eight foot nose and weighs 10,000 lbs then its probably, got an electrical component. Pretty high energy as is the charged Schumann gap of our own atmosphere as well as the upper magnetosphere. deal is energy is clearly not evenly distributed in the universe. So light speed should vary.

another interesting thing about light speed is the gravitational lens effect, doesn't being sling shot around a gravity well result in a higher speed ? So if light gets slung around a gravity well then shouldn't it increase speed? If not then maybe alter its red shift a bit but either way its gaining energy and that energy's got to go somewhere. Enough energy later and how viable is that red shift in determining distance to source ? Or speed of source ? its kinda all the same under the present system.

the duality of existence shown by a photon is pretty well accepted, ( unless I missed something recent ) photo voltaic's wouldn't work if it was just a frequency and ( and I'm struggling to remember this part ) I think its wide angle diffraction which shows photons to be a wave rather than a particle, wouldn't happen if it was just a particle. So its gotta be both cause its expressing the characteristics of both