question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

The article rightly questions the validity of the superluminal neutrino results, but as far as I could read there was no attempt to explain what happens regarding time at those velocities. That question is still completely open. I certainly didn't read any "debunking".

 

Amovie just starts up on project rainbow, battleship Eldridge experiment that became invisible and was seen 600 km away at the same ttime, hm strange story, its in color, lets see..

 

that was in bed last night and now looking up the philidelphia experiment witch probably was a hoax
according to wiki, like the preview i saw on tv that was gone when i turned my head

 

FTL travel with a flashlight?

I hope it's not possible to be cooked by one's own flashlight in that case. Talk about being blinded with science, hehehehe.

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/qanda.html

For those interested in Astronomy, and about why fiction writers feel the steam is stolen from their FTL writings, check out the two links above. The first shoots down many writers time after time every time they try to come up with being stealthy or having the jump on an enemy...

 

More news in on this topic. It's been repeated!

VERY EXCITING!

Can't wait to see how it turns out.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/201...el-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/?hpt=hp_bn2

 

I'm not holding my breath yet. The experiment has been repeated with some of the objections incorporated, but there are still plenty of possible falsifications that need to be put to rest before the scientific community will accept this - quite rightly. I recently spoke to John Clauser, who is credited with the first experimental physics to show quantum entanglement, and he says he still thinks there's room for distance calculation errors. My own assessment is that frame dragging hasn't been quite eliminated from the calculations.

 

"The saga of those Einstein-defying neutrinos appeared to take a dramatic turn today, with a flood of news stories reporting that a second experiment in the same lab showed that the subatomic particles are obeying the speed limit after all."

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/11/neutrino-fever-produces-media.html

One pertinent comment :-

"...... another piece of evidence against this being true is the neutrino signal obtained from the star (1987A) that went supernova. If the neutrinos had travelled faster than the light signal then they would have arrived 3 years earlier. The observation showed the two signals appearing at the same time."

 

That seems very pertinent. How could that tidbit be missed by those so closely connected to the CERN experiment? The latest string theorist suppose that ALL matter is composed, at the sub atomic level, of little bundles of energy. Light is energy. Neutrinos are energy. hmmm?

 

Does anyone know of a site with some details of how the experiment was conducted? There are a number of things about this story that bug me.

Neutrinos travel in straight lines and do not reflect or refract. To get between two places on the surface of the Earth they must travel underground, several miles down in this case. A neutrino has a very small chance of interacting with material and if it does it is absorbed rather than losing energy, so most of them arrive at the other end unaffected in any way; or so we are assured. I have always found this hard to accept since the velocity of a low frequency radio beam penetrating the ground is reduced by the ground's dielectric constant.

Ideally the experiment would be performed with a common path control in the form of a beam of light. However, since the dielectric constant of the air would introduce a variable delay of around 0.6 uS an evacuated and perfectly straight tunnel would be required. Therefore timing must rely on a pair of synchronized atomic clocks. Presumably one was moved in a manner that would not result in relativistic errors.

With a reported discrepancy of only 60 nS, the distance must be measured to within a few feet. I doubt GPS can be trusted since its signals travel through the atmosphere which is variable and has a depth of the same order as the baseline of the experiment, and the effect of the dielectric constant of the air over the baseline is several orders greater than the discrepancy being measured. So the distance measurement is presumably performed by astronomical observation. If a fixed star was used the calculation requires knowing with sufficient accuracy the distances of both places from the center of rotation of the Earth, which is affected by the Moon among other things; there seems a lot of scope for tiny errors to creep in. Alternatively I suppose a pair of laser beams could be bounced off the Moon, two such beams hopefully allowing one to measure the angle with sufficient accuracy by interference, but again they have to pass through the variable atmosphere in both directions.

I think you can see what is worrying me. There are so many potential sources of error in both the distance and time-of-flight measurements and the discrepancy is tiny, ten times less than the effect of air on a light signal and tens of thousands of times smaller than the time-of-flight. Great care, and thorough peer evaluation of the proposed method, are required to have any confidence at all in the results. I would like to know, at the very least, that such was the case.

IMHO the probability is great that this will all go away and end up attributed to some oversight that, over time will come to be regarded as laughable at this level of work.

 

If the photons from the supernova 1987A and the neutrinos arrived a the same time it would also violate Einsteins theory. As far as I remember (and also according to Wikipedia), the neutrino has a small but non-zero mass and should not be able to move with the speed of light. After some more Googling I found an article from Physics World May 2002 that states that the neutrinos from supernova 1987A arrived 3 hours before the light. That sounds like faster than light to me, and definitely measureable. Not bad when you have mass.

Erik

 

I don't know if the neutrinos and the light were emitted at the same time. I doubt anyone knows for sure since observing a supernova close-up hasn't been done yet, fortunately. However based on the CERN reported result, a 3 hour lead would put the supernova a tiny fraction of a light-year from the Earth which is obviously incorrect since there is still life here. Thus there is no confirmation of either report . . . if the report is true it sounds more like a relativistic effect due to differences in the responses of light and neutrinos to variations in the 4-dimensional characteristics of the intervening space.

 

Which could be just what happens here on Earth in this experiment, though I wouldn't call spacetime 4D, except in units.

 

This information is definitely NOT lost on the OPERA team. They are couching the results of their experiments extremely carefully, in the light of such a violation of known physics, and looking for possible falsifications. But because some totally different experiments disagree, they can't ignore the existing experimental results, which may be showing an effect not understood yet. For example (and I'm not advocating this), what if the superluminal neutrinos that were ejected in the supernova observations changed their state during transit? Then they would only have observed Einsteinian results.

 

Could you please provide the link ? I couldn't find that article.