question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

A big DITTO on that last sentence post 102 Frosty--that alone would be a warp drive forward--Geo.

 

The speed of gravity is yet unknown. I think the problem is measuring it. Unlike that of light, gravity can not be turned off.

 

Ray,

Or one may presume that they decided that no referee would allow it to go out over their signature and therefore decided to go arround the usual system. CERN can get away with this. If you or I tried it, we would never get published again. I am not questioning their integrity; merely saying that this doesn't much affect my opinion of it one way or another.

and in the language of relativity, photons do not have mass.

 

If a black hole has so much gravitational force that light can not escape then light photons must have mas

 

That ditty is one thing this experiment is all about. Either the ditty is NOT true or CERN made a mistake in their measurements.

Porta

 

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.

 

Henderson,

(edit I had originally adressed this response to the wrong person, sorry Ray)

you are free to describe motion this way if you want, but we normally don't because it is awkward to describe interactions. F=ma doesn't hold true. I know a couple places where this convention has been used when it provided some numerical advantages to problem solving. Telemetry calcs and such. In Cartesian xyz space where xyz are position, we hold acceleration constant and don't change signs when the travel direction changes. The evaluation of calculus integrals was developed with this convention and you would have to reinvent all of that to work in your world.

 

I am sorry, you are educated beyond me. I have driven both a Ford and Chevrolet in Cartesian xyz space and I assure you acceleration was never constant. Still no example of negative velocity or direction. OK to use calculus if it will help.

 

But you can't get away with just considering a photon as a wave function, photons exhibit a wave-particle duality, with both properties. This is something I struggled with while studying physics at university. Mass actually isn't needed to explain gravitational attraction by the way (look up stress-energy tensor), but as with anything in quantum mechanics, it's all pretty wierd. The mass is expressed as 0 <1×10−18 eV/c2 (when mass is considered).

 

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...

 

New ditty?

Here's ONE possible way to change the ditty IF the CERN experiments hold up:

There once was a lady name Rosie
who somehow at light speed could mosey
without breaking a sweat,
an impossible record she set
with help from a manifold universe subway!

http://larryhehn.com/2011/running-the-miles/

Porta

 

"Neutrino"

"Who's there?"

"Knock, knock"...

 

LOL!!

 

Gravitational radiation ("waves") were predicted by Einstein, now indirectly observed. Speed is accepted as = c.

 

Thackeray's Universal Mass-Time Balance Hypothesis

WARNING: unscientific flight of fancy ahead.

Let us suppose, for the moment, that these experimental results are correct (though I'm not buying it yet). Physics is pretty weird at the submolecular level but though in my first year of electronics I did study quantum mechanics, it all started to get beyond my ken. And I had some serious drinking to do in those years. However, as amateurs, let's think about what it could mean.

Now, Einstein's equations get very screwy at v > c, to the point where time flows backwards and other relativistic effects are reversed, including the Lorentz Contraction which means that the object travelling at that speed could have negative width (!), and v > c messes with other properties. Clearly, like when Einsteinian Relativity adjusted Newtonian understanding of the universe, there would need to be an adjustment, which is very exciting for the discipline and a hope for another leap forward.

Here's my theory in street-talk (you heard it here first!): Electricity has positive and negative potential. An action has an equal and opposite reaction. Could it be similar for time, which actually could flow both ways? Maybe the entire universe that we observe goes forward (as we perceive it), but there's an equal mass or energy going backward in reaction (neutrinos). This could also help solve the other great mystery of cosmology, dark matter, which is required to predict the universal expansion - could dark matter be neutrinos, going back in time, counterbalancing visible matter going forward?

I call this Thackeray's Universal Mass-Time Balance Hypothesis. :idea: