CERN team claims measurement of neutrino speed >cby turbo Tags: anisotropy, cern, ftl, gps, new math books 

#721
Feb2412, 02:23 PM

P: 83

"Sorry, i dont want to be rude, but IMHO, they shouldnt have cared about theory of relativity in the first place, if they had shared this mentality."
Quite the contrary. It is because we are primarily concerned the theory of relativity, since "c" is a universal constant (not just speed of light but the foundation of our understanding of spacetime). Any experiment, asserting the existence of another fundamental constant of the spacetime turns our entire understanding of the world. I should add that this was not in the history of science and all previous discoveries have been built into the system of knowledge. 



#722
Feb2512, 06:47 AM

P: 104

I do understand it.
I wanted to express, that in the time of Einstein, even many scientists refused the idea, that there can be any wrong with the good Newtonian image of the world. But even if those neutrinos were happen to travel, or jump FTL (it is still hard to believe, CERN team really committed SUCH an error, they knew they might become a joke like the unconnected cable guys...) that wouldnt mean obligatory, we should throw away everything. GPS would still work with relativistic time corrections for example. E=mc2, that could still remain, with maybe the exception of a 'ghost' particle. Maybe everything could remain the same in three dimension, but it could have proved brane theories. 



#723
Feb2512, 02:55 PM

P: 1,235

I could as well say that adding dimensions is like adding epicycles to the Ptolemaic system. If the OPERA results were true, it could be a terrible crisis as well as nice discovery. We don't know. For the moment, it's only a media story. In addition, I strongly believe that their experiment is flawed, but I won't joke about this. In the OPERA experiment, there is no reliable way to check the "zero delay". It fully relies on a perfect knowledge of two chains of measurements: the GPS and the neutino beam. Therefore, their error bar calculation is meaningless. Systematic errors are the weak point, as their latest announcement proves. It is a very nice experiment, but it can't prove anything except the skills of their team. 



#724
Feb2512, 07:51 PM

P: 6

This seems to be more a confirmation of superstring theory extra spatial dimensions than a blow to the structure of relativity theory. and even if the neutrinoes weren't entering impossibletodetect miniature spatial dimensions on their way to the finishline (which would mean that they weren't going >c), i would bet my considerable (not) savings on systematic error.




#725
Feb2512, 09:30 PM

P: 30





#726
Feb2612, 03:33 AM

P: 88

Much information can also be found at
http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02...essomesense/ According to a German OPERA member, the cable error might be up to 100ns, and the (opposite) oscillator error might be smaller than the first effect. Both errors collectively could explained the 60ns, and their focus is on the cable error. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...uminalne.html 



#727
Feb2612, 05:42 PM

P: 83

"...in the time of Einstein, even many scientists refused the idea, that there can be any wrong with the good Newtonian
image of the world." Again, not quite right. Even before the Einstein's birth the relativity theory already implicitly existed. The Lorentz transformations were already existed in Maxwell equations but nobody knew about it. Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein and Minkowski made a huge impact by showing this and explained how our spacetime is constructed and that Newtonian mechanics is a particular case of the relativistic theory. Now let consider "...that wouldnt mean obligatory, we should throw away everything." FTL means first and foremost the violation of causality principle. This is such a thing without which GR, QM, QED, QCD, SM, GUT etc. .... (all the theories containing 4D psedoeucledian metric) will collapse. 5th, 6th etc dimensions does not help in that case. Moreover, with the violation of causality principle, there are a hundreds new effects should exist. But in reality they don't! The Cherenkov's radiaton of neutrinos is the first lieing on the surface, but think about spin's effects which are mostly due to the relativity and a lot of such. All formulas contained "c" should be revised somehow. You may see it's a totally different story in comparison with SR. 



#728
Feb2612, 08:06 PM

P: 1,011





#729
Feb2612, 08:27 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#730
Feb2612, 08:45 PM

P: 1,011





#731
Feb2612, 08:54 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466

This discussion is not really appropriate for this thread. We have had a very long recent thread on this topic: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=554741 



#732
Feb2612, 09:00 PM

P: 1,011

To broaden my point, and to put LET itself under possible question, the discovery of FTL travel could be interpreted as: 1) A violation of causality, and thus a violation of the physics of SR (which assumes causality). 2) A Lorentz violation, and thus a violation of SR, LET, and other Lorentzian theories. I will concede though that, yes, you could say that Lorentz transforms, and not so much the idea of spacetime, is responsible for the notion that FTL travel implies causality violation. I still don't agree with In the name of Ockham's razor, I would give up "Lorentzian physics" before I give up causality. 



#733
Feb2612, 09:16 PM

P: 1,011





#734
Feb2612, 09:23 PM

P: 30





#735
Feb2612, 09:36 PM

P: 1,011

I think the issue comes from the fact that FTL travel would violate the standard physical interpretation of the mathematics of SR, as opposed to the mathematics of SR in of itself. Thus, the "physics" of relativity would change if FTL travel was discovered, but that doesn't mean that much of the math goes away. Scientists would likely use the mathematics of Lorentz transformations (being the "convenient" mathematical tool that it is) even after discovering FTL travel, and thus, in response to such a discovery, they would grab onto the "fantastic" notion that backwards time travel is somehow validated, rather than to the idea that Lorentzian physics is violated, for the latter does not in an obvious way offer an "exciting" hope to inspire the imagination of adventurers. 



#736
Feb2712, 01:09 AM

PF Gold
P: 472





#737
Feb2712, 04:42 AM

P: 2,889





#738
Feb2712, 09:03 AM

Mentor
P: 16,466

If you wish to continue that then I encourage you to start a new thread on the topic and I will participate. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
CERN, speed of light...  Special & General Relativity  6  
does neutrino oscillation from electron neutrino to muon neutrino conserve energy?  High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics  4  
Avg Speed of Relay team (x and t are not given)  Introductory Physics Homework  1 