Faster than the Speed of Light?

[Ned Latham]

I saw a 2011 documentary on the web two days ago (2014/05/16) with
the name "Faster than the Speed of Light?", so I had a look at it.

Seems that in 2010 or 2011 an Italian experiment codenamed OPERA
detected neutrinoes from CERN some 60 naoseconds before they "should"
have got there, and despite months of investigation and testing they
couldn't find sufficient error to explain the measurements, so they
published. Not with a bang. but with a whimper.

"Pretty please, where did we go wrong?"

Well, scientists all over the world had ideas on that, but at the
time the docco was made, none of those had panned out. Still, they
remain skeptical. Nothing massive can exceed the speed of light.

Einstein said so.

(Actually, his formulae do *not* imply that: all they imply is that
nothing massive can travel *at* the speed of light. But never mind
that. Can't expect physicists and mathematicians to get something
like that right *every* time, can we?)

If massive objects could exceed the speed of light, they say (which
they can't, they say), that would fracture the sequential nature of
the relationship between cause and effect, they say; we would be
able to alter our past, they say; we would have time travel.

They say.

So of course there *has* to be something wrong with the data.

Funny, I was taoght that in scientific methodology, experimental
results call theory into question, not the other way around.

These results and the experimental process that produced them have
been squeezed, crunched and picked over in every way that physicists
and mathematicians all over the world can dream up, and no flaw can
be found. But still they don't accept them.

Is Theoretical Physics a science or a religion?

There is a simple explanation, of course: they just haven't thought
of it for the last three centuries.

http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/index.html

Ned

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Ned Latham
I saw a 2011 documentary on the web two days ago (2014/05/16) with
the name "Faster than the Speed of Light?", so I had a look at it.
Seems that in 2010 or 2011 an Italian experiment codenamed OPERA
detected neutrinoes from CERN some 60 naoseconds before they "should"
have got there, and despite months of investigation and testing they
couldn't find sufficient error to explain the measurements, so they
published. Not with a bang. but with a whimper.
"Pretty please, where did we go wrong?"
Well, scientists all over the world had ideas on that, but at the
time the docco was made, none of those had panned out. Still, they
remain skeptical. Nothing massive can exceed the speed of light.
Einstein said so.
(Actually, his formulae do *not* imply that: all they imply is that
nothing massive can travel *at* the speed of light. But never mind
that. Can't expect physicists and mathematicians to get something
like that right *every* time, can we?)
If massive objects could exceed the speed of light, they say (which
they can't, they say), that would fracture the sequential nature of
the relationship between cause and effect, they say; we would be
able to alter our past, they say; we would have time travel.
They say.
So of course there *has* to be something wrong with the data.
Funny, I was taoght that in scientific methodology, experimental
results call theory into question, not the other way around.
These results and the experimental process that produced them have
been squeezed, crunched and picked over in every way that physicists
and mathematicians all over the world can dream up, and no flaw can
be found. But still they don't accept them.
Is Theoretical Physics a science or a religion?
There is a simple explanation, of course: they just haven't thought
of it for the last three centuries.
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/index.html
Ned

The theory has stood up very well for over a century, and actual
faster-than-light movement would have raised quite fundamental problems
in the area of causality.

So the science world was not going to accept such a thing based on the
results of a single experiment. On the other hand, they weren't ignoring
it either. The process was in hand to seek to replicate the result.

In the event, the CERN researchers discovered a technical problem with
their experiment, and there was no faster than light movement seen after
all.

This was science working as it should do.

Sylvia.

[Ned Latham]

----snip----

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Ned Latham
So of course there *has* to be something wrong with the data.
Funny, I was taoght that in scientific methodology, experimental
results call theory into question, not the other way around.
These results and the experimental process that produced them have
been squeezed, crunched and picked over in every way that physicists
and mathematicians all over the world can dream up, and no flaw can
be found. But still they don't accept them.
Is Theoretical Physics a science or a religion?
There is a simple explanation, of course: they just haven't thought
of it for the last three centuries.
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/index.html

The theory has stood up very well for over a century,

Not really. The so-called verification of its ever-growing grab-bag of
postulates is flawed by two rather serious defects: many of the
experimental results are equally consistent with the alternative I
pointed you to; worse, many experiments and/oe the interpretations
of their resultsa assume the wave model and fall into circular
reasoning.

Post by Sylvia Else
and actual
faster-than-light movement would have raised quite fundamental problems
in the area of causality.

That's in the OP. Why repeast it?

Post by Sylvia Else
So the science world was not going to accept such a thing based on the
results of a single experiment. On the other hand, they weren't ignoring
it either. The process was in hand to seek to replicate the result.

Not for long. They have to repeat the experiment for that, and they
haven't done it, and show no sign of doing it.

Post by Sylvia Else
In the event, the CERN researchers discovered a technical problem with
their experiment, and there was no faster than light movement seen after
all.

I know about the "faulty cable". That's laughable.

Post by Sylvia Else
This was science working as it should do.

No, It's a refusal to accept the evidence: cultic dogmatism, not
science.

I note that you haven't followed the link I gave.

That's the spirit!

Ned

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Ned Latham
I note that you haven't followed the link I gave.

It appears that you can't read your log files properly, because I did
follow it but quickly concluded it had little to do the question at hand.

Sylvia.

[Ned Latham]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Ned Latham
I note that you haven't followed the link I gave.

It appears that you can't read your log files properly,

I'm not logging visits, Sylvia, As I said on the Home page (which
you have nit read), there is no executable content. That you had
Not followed the link at the yime I wrote is a deduction from what
you had written, which displayed ignorance of the site's content.

Post by Sylvia Else
because I did follow it but quickly concluded it had
little to do the question at hand.

And there you go again. It is the *subject* of the question at hand.

Ned

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Ned Latham

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Ned Latham
I note that you haven't followed the link I gave.

It appears that you can't read your log files properly,

I'm not logging visits, Sylvia, As I said on the Home page (which
you have nit read), there is no executable content.

Er, which means that there's no logging because....?

Post by Ned Latham
That you had
Not followed the link at the yime I wrote is a deduction from what
you had written, which displayed ignorance of the site's content.

Post by Sylvia Else
because I did follow it but quickly concluded it had
little to do the question at hand.

And there you go again. It is the *subject* of the question at hand.

The page is a crank-rant. It has nothing to do with anything.

Sylvia.

[Ned Latham]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Ned Latham

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Ned Latham
I note that you haven't followed the link I gave.

It appears that you can't read your log files properly,

I'm not logging visits, Sylvia, As I said on the Home page (which
you have nit read), there is no executable content.

Er, which means that there's no logging because....?

No javascript, no java, no CGI, etc. Just pure HTML, which doesn'tlog
visits.

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Ned Latham
That you had
Not followed the link at the yime I wrote is a deduction from what
you had written, which displayed ignorance of the site's content.

Post by Sylvia Else
because I did follow it but quickly concluded it had
little to do the question at hand.

And there you go again. It is the *subject* of the question at hand.

The page is a crank-rant. It has nothing to do with anything.

And there you go again. A vague slur that displays ignorance of
its content instills no confidence that you actually went there.

Ned

[g***@iinet.net.au]

hi -
I thought I might join this discussion.

We learnt in physics nothing could move faster than the speed of light. I was thinking that perhaps matter, not that we know of today is able to move in a way that can transverse large distances.

My hypothesis is that previous to matter we know today - e.g. protons , electrons, matter existed differently. So here (earth) to the sun could be traversed very quickly by large "forms" by existing in a type of fabric.

If anyone is interested to explore this idea let me know. Alternatively if there is a more suitable UseNet group for me to join. Please advise !!!

Thanks -

Gavin

[Sylvia Else]

hi - I thought I might join this discussion.
We learnt in physics nothing could move faster than the speed of
light. I was thinking that perhaps matter, not that we know of
today is able to move in a way that can transverse large distances.
My hypothesis is that previous to matter we know today - e.g. protons
, electrons, matter existed differently. So here (earth) to the
sun could be traversed very quickly by large "forms" by existing in
a type of fabric.
If anyone is interested to explore this idea let me know.
Alternatively if there is a more suitable UseNet group for me to
join. Please advise !!!
Thanks -
Gavin

For such matter to exist without creating very serious, and seemingly
intractable, causality problems, it would have to be fundamentally
incapable of being affected by any kind of apparatus. That precludes
even detecting it.

Matter that is inherently undetectable can have no observable consequences.

A theory of such matter would therefore make no testable predictions,
making it unfalsifiable.

Unfalsifiable theories are called religion, and have no place in science.

Sylvia.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

Interesting quote. And nice to have a reply.

Agree, that there are problems detecting new types of matter - especially very old matter.

If we entertain, very very old matter may exist in such a state that it exists within basic building block as atom (ignoring quarks etc. because I am not scientist).

I propose such matter may be of light or dark. The dark substance may be "metal like".

Agree that religion explains the unexplainable !! Then how did the big bang occur?

Gavin

[Sylvia Else]

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Interesting quote. And nice to have a reply.
Agree, that there are problems detecting new types of matter -
especially very old matter.

You miss the point, I think. If the matter is merely difficult to
detect, we'd detect it one day, and then the causality issues would
arise. If the matter is to move faster than light then it must not be
just difficult to detect, but impossible to detect - forever.

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
If we entertain, very very old matter may exist in such a state that
it exists within basic building block as atom (ignoring quarks etc.
because I am not scientist).
I propose such matter may be of light or dark. The dark substance may be "metal like".

What do these terms even mean?

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Agree that religion explains the unexplainable !!

Religion explains nothing.

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Then how did the
big bang occur?

Dunno. Science doesn't address how, never has, never will.

Sylvia.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Interesting quote. And nice to have a reply.
Agree, that there are problems detecting new types of matter -
especially very old matter.

You miss the point, I think. If the matter is merely difficult to
detect, we'd detect it one day, and then the causality issues would
arise. If the matter is to move faster than light then it must not be
just difficult to detect, but impossible to detect - forever.

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
If we entertain, very very old matter may exist in such a state that
it exists within basic building block as atom (ignoring quarks etc.
because I am not scientist).
I propose such matter may be of light or dark. The dark substance
may be "metal like".

What do these terms even mean?

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Agree that religion explains the unexplainable !!

Religion explains nothing.

haha..... sort of agree with you !!

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Then how did the
big bang occur?

Dunno. Science doesn't address how, never has, never will.
Sylvia.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

Looking at people's obsession with the speed of light. And Einstein equation E = mc2.

It appears that what people are looking for is a new substance or new theory to explain much of the universe.

For instance, if we are confined to the "speed of light" - something we know 3x10(8) it might create a lot of "mind boggling" things etc.

The only thing I can think of to break the speed of light thing is us understanding new substances, matter -
naturally the speed of light remains the same for all substances we know of today. ;)

[Sylvia Else]

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Looking at people's obsession with the speed of light. And Einstein equation E = mc2.
It appears that what people are looking for is a new substance or new theory to explain much of the universe.
For instance, if we are confined to the "speed of light" - something we know 3x10(8) it might create a lot of "mind boggling" things etc.
The only thing I can think of to break the speed of light thing is us understanding new substances, matter -
naturally the speed of light remains the same for all substances we know of today. ;)

This is just wild, completely baseless, speculation.

Some people think that because they know some words, they have some
understanding.

Sylvia.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

no it is not.


any new matter that is discovered or observed would surely be ground breaking.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
no it is not.
any new matter that is discovered or observed would surely be ground breaking.

The speed of light as a limit is built into the fabric of space-time -
The same space-time that any newly found matter would occupy. There's no
reason at all to think it's even remotely possible that some new kind of
matter could exceed the speed of light, and every reason to think that
it could not.

It is, as I said, wild speculation.

Sylvia.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

friend.


Space time might exists for our current universe. Naturally light (today 14) could be a product of this space time fabric.

Very good second sentence.

Any newly found matter may not be very new. It could be very old.

If this were to be the case, then it may exist very lightly in existing space time making it very difficult to find or detect.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

further comment,


it is interesting the idea to travel faster than the speed of light to travel through time.

I suspect this is in the Einstein equations.

In fact it might be impossible to travel more than c, because "current light" would include all wavelengths, and "stuff" from the past or previous.


Were there to be something in the substance of light itself , then the key to the past is to find such a component.

?

[Kevin Aylward]

hi - I thought I might join this discussion.
We learnt in physics nothing could move faster than the speed of
light. I was thinking that perhaps matter, not that we know of
today is able to move in a way that can transverse large distances.
My hypothesis is that previous to matter we know today - e.g. protons
, electrons, matter existed differently. So here (earth) to the
sun could be traversed very quickly by large "forms" by existing in
a type of fabric.
If anyone is interested to explore this idea let me know.
Alternatively if there is a more suitable UseNet group for me to
join. Please advise !!!
Thanks -
Gavin
Unfalsifiable theories are called religion, and have no place in science.

Maybe, but they may well have a place in reality. It is a fact that some
things are true, but un-provable. e.g. Godel.

Its pretty much logically certain, that the "fullest" description of the
universe, inherently contains truths that are non-falsifiable, even in
principle. Its just the way it is. The idea that science can describe all
physical properties in closed form is pretty much delusional.

Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

[Poutnik]

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
hi -
I thought I might join this discussion.
We learnt in physics nothing could move faster than the speed of light.

this is not true.
It applies only to matter, energy and information.

E.g. wave and group speed of the composite EM signal
can be higher than c.

Similarly phase speed of gamma rays in glass or water
is higher than c.

[g***@iinet.net.au]

I understand. In some circumstances, "things" or "fields" or phase speed of gamma rays is higher than c.


I am not really challenging that current information can move faster than c. I guess looking at "new matter" and what it might be, might influence the discussion around the classical E=mc2.


What I propose is if "beings" are able to transverse the universe. And if such beings were able to "scale" to very big. Then the problem of travelling such large distances in the universe could be explained.


Such beings could scale (for instance) from earth to the sun (instantly). Then this is a breach of something "at the speed of light" ??


Gavin

[Poutnik]

Post by g***@iinet.net.au
I understand. In some circumstances, "things" or "fields" or phase speed of gamma rays is higher than c.
I am not really challenging that current information can move faster than c.

Exactly the opposite. Information cannot.

[Poutnik]

Post by Poutnik
E.g. wave and group speed of the composite EM signal
can be higher than c.

correction - should be
E.g. PHASE and group speed of the composite EM signal

[Jacko]

Post by Ned Latham
I saw a 2011 documentary on the web two days ago (2014/05/16) with
the name "Faster than the Speed of Light?", so I had a look at it.

Seems like it was a loose connector. But a faster speed of light already happens. In free space for example versus at ground level. It seems a faster speed of light might be possible with anti gravity.

[Poutnik]

Post by Jacko

Post by Ned Latham
I saw a 2011 documentary on the web two days ago (2014/05/16) with
the name "Faster than the Speed of Light?", so I had a look at it.

Seems like it was a loose connector. But a faster speed of light already happens. In free space for example versus at ground level. It seems a faster speed of light might be possible with anti gravity.

In GR context, the c speed limit is always local,
in a local inertial frame, where SR is the local GR approximation.[#]

That is not the case of free space light wrt the ground level.

[#] Similarly as in a geometry analogy,
a tangent line is a local approximation of a curve.