Was Einstein wrong?

[Middleoftheroad]

What is negative mass?
What about a form of Bell's as the little things travel in pairs, (for protection perhaps).

They wont have negative mass, first off Cern posted their information because they are trying to get people to tell them what they did wrong, they don't even believe their own information, mainly because every other experiment that has been done has shown that neuntrinos move slower then light. If Cern's current calculations were correct, then the neutrinos from sn 1987a would have arrived 4 years earlier then the photons (light particle) instead of 2 hours after, especially since photons interact more with matter then neutrinos do, meaning they should have slowed down more.
Second, even if this experiment was to be confirmed, it doesn't mean neutrinos would have negative mass. It would mean that 'c' in Einstien's famous e=mc2, would need to be redefined. What physicists understand is that 'c' is first and foremost meant to be the ultimate speed limit of the universe, and almost coincidentally the speed of light (as it has been assumed that photons had no mass). 'c' would still be the ultimate speed limit, but the number would be changed and it would stop being referred to as the speed of light. It would end up being a race to test the mass of a photon.

What other experiments? The last time I looked all the experiments showed that muon neutrinos travel at a speed that was, until now, immeasurably slower than the speed of light. This was the first experiment that was accurate enough to actually measure their speed, and it came up with an answer that they want to be sure about. They eliminated everything they could possibly think of to explain what they did wrong, and want to see if someone else can see something they missed.

By the way, the neutrinos that come from that supernova that did not show up 4 years ago are electron neutrinos, not muon neutrinos, which is what CERN used in their experiment. Since we are talking about different particles it is entirely possible they have different masses, and thus different speeds.

C would not have to redefined if this experiment turns out to be true. C is the speed of light in a vacuum, not the ultimate speed limit in the universe. It is considered to be the ultimate speed because Einstein's special theory of relativity works that way, and no evidence has, to date, been found to dispute that theory.

As to your first paragraph, basically we are agreeing just in different words. With one exception, even the scientist think they messed up, they don't even believe their information, they just don't know how they messed up, either something is not as accurate as they thought or they are missing something that would give them a different reading then they were expecting, unfortunetly everything that goes into measuring this is beyond any one persons understanding, I still can't figure out how they used GPS to set their clocks to that close of a time, since GPS isn't accurate to that degree.
To the second paragraph this is entirely possible, so I must concede your point on this.
And finally the third paragraph, in reference to C. Here I will quote wikipedia,
" According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed of all massless particles and associated fields—including electromagnetic radiation such as light—in vacuum, and it is predicted by the current theory to be the speed of gravity (that is, gravitational waves)." (found in the first paragraph here Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
In other words C is the speed of massless partricles, of which they believe light is (a massless particle), but C is NOT directly defined as the speed of light, it is just generally referred to as such, as it is easier to say "the speed of light" then "the speed of massless particles in a vacuum"
It is also important to remember, that since 1905 there have been thousands of test to try and break this so called "speed limit", and disprove relativity. Every single experiment has failed. It is also to important to remember that relativity has also made many claims that most people thought would be preposterous, but every one of these claims has turned out to be true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They wont have negative mass, first off Cern posted their information because they are trying to get people to tell them what they did wrong, they don't even believe their own information, mainly because every other experiment that has been done has shown that neuntrinos move slower then light. If Cern's current calculations were correct, then the neutrinos from sn 1987a would have arrived 4 years earlier then the photons (light particle) instead of 2 hours after, especially since photons interact more with matter then neutrinos do, meaning they should have slowed down more.
Second, even if this experiment was to be confirmed, it doesn't mean neutrinos would have negative mass. It would mean that 'c' in Einstien's famous e=mc2, would need to be redefined. What physicists understand is that 'c' is first and foremost meant to be the ultimate speed limit of the universe, and almost coincidentally the speed of light (as it has been assumed that photons had no mass). 'c' would still be the ultimate speed limit, but the number would be changed and it would stop being referred to as the speed of light. It would end up being a race to test the mass of a photon.

What other experiments? The last time I looked all the experiments showed that muon neutrinos travel at a speed that was, until now, immeasurably slower than the speed of light. This was the first experiment that was accurate enough to actually measure their speed, and it came up with an answer that they want to be sure about. They eliminated everything they could possibly think of to explain what they did wrong, and want to see if someone else can see something they missed.

By the way, the neutrinos that come from that supernova that did not show up 4 years ago are electron neutrinos, not muon neutrinos, which is what CERN used in their experiment. Since we are talking about different particles it is entirely possible they have different masses, and thus different speeds.

C would not have to redefined if this experiment turns out to be true. C is the speed of light in a vacuum, not the ultimate speed limit in the universe. It is considered to be the ultimate speed because Einstein's special theory of relativity works that way, and no evidence has, to date, been found to dispute that theory.

As to your first paragraph, basically we are agreeing just in different words. With one exception, even the scientist think they messed up, they don't even believe their information, they just don't know how they messed up, either something is not as accurate as they thought or they are missing something that would give them a different reading then they were expecting, unfortunetly everything that goes into measuring this is beyond any one persons understanding, I still can't figure out how they used GPS to set their clocks to that close of a time, since GPS isn't accurate to that degree.
To the second paragraph this is entirely possible, so I must concede your point on this.
And finally the third paragraph, in reference to C. Here I will quote wikipedia,
" According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed of all massless particles and associated fields—including electromagnetic radiation such as light—in vacuum, and it is predicted by the current theory to be the speed of gravity (that is, gravitational waves)." (found in the first paragraph here Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
In other words C is the speed of massless partricles, of which they believe light is (a massless particle), but C is NOT directly defined as the speed of light, it is just generally referred to as such, as it is easier to say "the speed of light" then "the speed of massless particles in a vacuum"
It is also important to remember, that since 1905 there have been thousands of test to try and break this so called "speed limit", and disprove relativity. Every single experiment has failed. It is also to important to remember that relativity has also made many claims that most people thought would be preposterous, but every one of these claims has turned out to be true.

You missed the topic sentence:

The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.[2] This speed is approximately 186,282 miles per second. According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy...

The rest is just repeating what I said. If it turns out that the neutrinos are actually traveling faster than light it just means special relativity is wrong, and will have to be tweaked, it will not affect c because c is not defined by special relativity.

 

[saveliberty]

I would sooner believe a faulty measuring device or formula for determining the actual speed. This is one reason there are so few laws of science though. I would imagine the energy it takes to remove a neutrino from an atom and send it on a path is extreme. Unlikely you could transport anything from here to a star for example. I'm going to need to see the results replicated that other institutions and the applicable theory for why this is possible.

 

[Harry Dresden]

since Dean hasnt chimed in yet ill say it in his place....i bet none of those scientist were Conservatives........otherwise they would have said Gawd did it....

 

[uscitizen]

I think this will end up being some type of anomaly, but you never know. It's also worth noting that physical laws that we know exist today weren't applicable immediately following the big bang.

also note that every generation seems to mostly think they have it all figured out and most of them are proven wrong at some point.

It is likely our knowledge of the scientific universe will now be laughed at within the next 100 years.

 

[zzzz]

The experiments because of the long distance and the curvature of the earth used GPS to determine the speed and it is here that the error is probably embedded. The following list contains GPS errors:

Sources of GPS signal errors
Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy include the following:

Ionosphere and troposphere delays - The satellite signal slows as it passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model that calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for this type of error.
Signal multipath - This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches the receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby causing errors.
Receiver clock errors - A receiver's built-in clock is not as accurate as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it may have very slight timing errors.
Orbital errors - Also known as ephemeris errors, these are inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location.
Number of satellites visible - The more satellites a GPS receiver can "see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic interference, or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal reception, causing position errors or possibly no position reading at all. GPS units typically will not work indoors, underwater or underground.
Satellite geometry/shading - This refers to the relative position of the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry results when the satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping.
Intentional degradation of the satellite signal - Selective Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent military adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The government turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the accuracy of civilian GPS receivers.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's the cool thing about Science.

It's "Progressive".

It's we who are learning. Science is already there.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I would sooner believe a faulty measuring device or formula for determining the actual speed. This is one reason there are so few laws of science though. I would imagine the energy it takes to remove a neutrino from an atom and send it on a path is extreme. Unlikely you could transport anything from here to a star for example. I'm going to need to see the results replicated that other institutions and the applicable theory for why this is possible.

Your law vs theory thing is something you and most lamans completely misunderstand. Anything now put forth in science is called a theory by rule. Science refuses to put forth laws anymore and will not do so probably until every single thing is understood and how it works together, which will be either in the distant future, or possible never.
Basically, by scientific principle, if scientist were studying and naming what happened on 9/11 they would call it the theory of 9/11 (i.e. that terrorist were responsible for attacking the twin towers), since there is not a unanimous consensus on what happened that day (due to truthers).

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I think this will end up being some type of anomaly, but you never know. It's also worth noting that physical laws that we know exist today weren't applicable immediately following the big bang.

also note that every generation seems to mostly think they have it all figured out and most of them are proven wrong at some point.

It is likely our knowledge of the scientific universe will now be laughed at within the next 100 years.

I'm actually not so sure about this. Special relativity is now 105 years old and still going strong, despite thousands of test to disprove it and equipment that is probably millions of times more sensitive. To put it into context this theory came about only two years after the wright brothers first flight and only 12 years after the first car was built (4 hp). I don't think I even need to mention how computers and television weren't around at that time (although I just did).
Pretty much most physicist accept relativity as fact, the main question now is figuring out what is wrong with quantum mechanics, and then trying to figure out how quantum mechanics and relativity work together (quantum gravity).

 

[Cammmpbell]

This is the most exciting thing I have ever read.

An international team of scientists has recorded neutrino particles travelling faster than the speed of light, a spokesman for the researchers said on Thursday -- in what could be a challenge to one of the fundamental rules of physics. Antonio Ereditato, who works at the CERN particle physics centre on the Franco-Swiss border, told Reuters that measurements over three years showed the neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso, Italy.
"We have high confidence in our results. But we need other colleagues to do their tests and confirm them," he said.

Particles recorded moving faster than light - CERN | Reuters

I had read for years that at the moment of the "Big Bang" the speed of light was exceeded. Now...with modern partical accelerators and calculations they have proven it. If we can just get Republican presidential nominees to ever actually read anything except the bible that will be a giant leap for mankind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would sooner believe a faulty measuring device or formula for determining the actual speed. This is one reason there are so few laws of science though. I would imagine the energy it takes to remove a neutrino from an atom and send it on a path is extreme. Unlikely you could transport anything from here to a star for example. I'm going to need to see the results replicated that other institutions and the applicable theory for why this is possible.

Your law vs theory thing is something you and most lamans completely misunderstand. Anything now put forth in science is called a theory by rule. Science refuses to put forth laws anymore and will not do so probably until every single thing is understood and how it works together, which will be either in the distant future, or possible never.
Basically, by scientific principle, if scientist were studying and naming what happened on 9/11 they would call it the theory of 9/11 (i.e. that terrorist were responsible for attacking the twin towers), since there is not a unanimous consensus on what happened that day (due to truthers).

Not accurate, but essentially correct. Theory is a rather broad term with multiple meanings, but there are things that science actually accepts as laws. But the reason science is not putting forth any laws is not because they are unwilling to promulgate them, it is because most of them have been discovered already. Discovering a new law would be a Nobel Prize worthy event because it would literally be something that has been under our noses for years, but no one noticed.

If someone applied the scientific method to 9/11 they would have no trouble concluding that terrorists perpetrated it, and they would not call it a theory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think this will end up being some type of anomaly, but you never know. It's also worth noting that physical laws that we know exist today weren't applicable immediately following the big bang.

also note that every generation seems to mostly think they have it all figured out and most of them are proven wrong at some point.

It is likely our knowledge of the scientific universe will now be laughed at within the next 100 years.

I'm actually not so sure about this. Special relativity is now 105 years old and still going strong, despite thousands of test to disprove it and equipment that is probably millions of times more sensitive. To put it into context this theory came about only two years after the wright brothers first flight and only 12 years after the first car was built (4 hp). I don't think I even need to mention how computers and television weren't around at that time (although I just did).
Pretty much most physicist accept relativity as fact, the main question now is figuring out what is wrong with quantum mechanics, and then trying to figure out how quantum mechanics and relativity work together (quantum gravity).

Why does there have to be something wrong with quantum mechanics? The more experiments we do, the more it proves that quantum physics works by a different set of rules. The fact that a single proton can go through two slits and interfere with itself, unless it is being observed, proves conclusively that the rules as we perceive them in the macro universe do not apply.

How does the proton know it is being observed? Is the "knowledge" that it is being observed constrained by the speed of light? How do entangled particles "know" what is happening to its partner at speeds that have been proved to exceed that of light?

Maybe this experiment with the muon neutrinos is the first step to fixing what is wrong with special relativity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the most exciting thing I have ever read.

An international team of scientists has recorded neutrino particles travelling faster than the speed of light, a spokesman for the researchers said on Thursday -- in what could be a challenge to one of the fundamental rules of physics. Antonio Ereditato, who works at the CERN particle physics centre on the Franco-Swiss border, told Reuters that measurements over three years showed the neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso, Italy.
"We have high confidence in our results. But we need other colleagues to do their tests and confirm them," he said.

Particles recorded moving faster than light - CERN | Reuters

I had read for years that at the moment of the "Big Bang" the speed of light was exceeded. Now...with modern partical accelerators and calculations they have proven it. If we can just get Republican presidential nominees to ever actually read anything except the bible that will be a giant leap for mankind.

Another rdean sock.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

also note that every generation seems to mostly think they have it all figured out and most of them are proven wrong at some point.

It is likely our knowledge of the scientific universe will now be laughed at within the next 100 years.

I'm actually not so sure about this. Special relativity is now 105 years old and still going strong, despite thousands of test to disprove it and equipment that is probably millions of times more sensitive. To put it into context this theory came about only two years after the wright brothers first flight and only 12 years after the first car was built (4 hp). I don't think I even need to mention how computers and television weren't around at that time (although I just did).
Pretty much most physicist accept relativity as fact, the main question now is figuring out what is wrong with quantum mechanics, and then trying to figure out how quantum mechanics and relativity work together (quantum gravity).

Why does there have to be something wrong with quantum mechanics? The more experiments we do, the more it proves that quantum physics works by a different set of rules. The fact that a single proton can go through two slits and interfere with itself, unless it is being observed, proves conclusively that the rules as we perceive them in the macro universe do not apply.

How does the proton know it is being observed? Is the "knowledge" that it is being observed constrained by the speed of light? How do entangled particles "know" what is happening to its partner at speeds that have been proved to exceed that of light?

Maybe this experiment with the muon neutrinos is the first step to fixing what is wrong with special relativity.

I have no problem with the double slit experiment. The only reason I say something wrong is the vacuum catastrophe. It made a prediction that they knew was wrong long before they even tested it, then they tested it and found out that they were correct, that is was wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

The experiments because of the long distance and the curvature of the earth used GPS to determine the speed and it is here that the error is probably embedded. The following list contains GPS errors:

Sources of GPS signal errors
Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy include the following:

Ionosphere and troposphere delays - The satellite signal slows as it passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model that calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for this type of error.
Signal multipath - This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches the receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby causing errors.
Receiver clock errors - A receiver's built-in clock is not as accurate as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it may have very slight timing errors.
Orbital errors - Also known as ephemeris errors, these are inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location.
Number of satellites visible - The more satellites a GPS receiver can "see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic interference, or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal reception, causing position errors or possibly no position reading at all. GPS units typically will not work indoors, underwater or underground.
Satellite geometry/shading - This refers to the relative position of the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry results when the satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping.
Intentional degradation of the satellite signal - Selective Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent military adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The government turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the accuracy of civilian GPS receivers.

Now all ya gotta do is to separate out of all those possible errors the ones that are STATIC and the ones that are DYNAMIC. Because you don't need ABSOLUTE timing accuracy to run the experiment. Relative timing accuracy is probably enough.

Meaning that if time ticks on GPS are stable to the highest standards, you would NOT be concerned about buildings -- because they don't move or CHANGE the propagation timing during the brief experiment. However atmospheric effects are dynamic and COULD..

You know -- Einstein strongly resisted the Big Bang explanation despite the supporting effect it had for his work on Unified Theory. I think intuition plays a larger role at this level of the game than most folks admit. I'm much better at intuition than I am differential calculus and 4 or 8 Dimensional math!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

This entire debate/thread is way over my head.

Consider. We observe a horrible act/accident which is preventable and we see it happen; yet, we can prevent it because we can move faster than light and return to the event before it happens!?!?!

Maybe I miss the point, but thinking through the possibilities hurts my head.

 

[Photonic]

This entire debate/thread is way over my head.

Consider. We observe a horrible act/accident which is preventable and we see it happen; yet, we can prevent it because we can move faster than light and return to the event before it happens!?!?!

Maybe I miss the point, but thinking through the possibilities hurts my head.

Time dilation may not be a factor anymore though. If Einsteins theory of relativity is only part of the picture then it may not have negative mass or go back in time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm actually not so sure about this. Special relativity is now 105 years old and still going strong, despite thousands of test to disprove it and equipment that is probably millions of times more sensitive. To put it into context this theory came about only two years after the wright brothers first flight and only 12 years after the first car was built (4 hp). I don't think I even need to mention how computers and television weren't around at that time (although I just did).
Pretty much most physicist accept relativity as fact, the main question now is figuring out what is wrong with quantum mechanics, and then trying to figure out how quantum mechanics and relativity work together (quantum gravity).

Why does there have to be something wrong with quantum mechanics? The more experiments we do, the more it proves that quantum physics works by a different set of rules. The fact that a single proton can go through two slits and interfere with itself, unless it is being observed, proves conclusively that the rules as we perceive them in the macro universe do not apply.

How does the proton know it is being observed? Is the "knowledge" that it is being observed constrained by the speed of light? How do entangled particles "know" what is happening to its partner at speeds that have been proved to exceed that of light?

Maybe this experiment with the muon neutrinos is the first step to fixing what is wrong with special relativity.

I have no problem with the double slit experiment. The only reason I say something wrong is the vacuum catastrophe. It made a prediction that they knew was wrong long before they even tested it, then they tested it and found out that they were correct, that is was wrong.

The cosmological constant will be solved eventually, just like the blackbody radiation problem was solved. Planck's answer gave birth to quantum theory, who knows what will happen when someone figures out the vacuum catastrophe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why does there have to be something wrong with quantum mechanics? The more experiments we do, the more it proves that quantum physics works by a different set of rules. The fact that a single proton can go through two slits and interfere with itself, unless it is being observed, proves conclusively that the rules as we perceive them in the macro universe do not apply.

How does the proton know it is being observed? Is the "knowledge" that it is being observed constrained by the speed of light? How do entangled particles "know" what is happening to its partner at speeds that have been proved to exceed that of light?

Maybe this experiment with the muon neutrinos is the first step to fixing what is wrong with special relativity.

I have no problem with the double slit experiment. The only reason I say something wrong is the vacuum catastrophe. It made a prediction that they knew was wrong long before they even tested it, then they tested it and found out that they were correct, that is was wrong.

The cosmological constant will be solved eventually, just like the blackbody radiation problem was solved. Planck's answer gave birth to quantum theory, who knows what will happen when someone figures out the vacuum catastrophe.

"In cosmology the vacuum catastrophe *** refers to the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density as inferred from data obtained from the Voyager spacecraft of less than 1014 GeV/m3 and the zero-point energy of 10121 GeV/m3 calculated using quantum field theory.[1] This discrepancy has been termed "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!"[2]

"This problem was identified at an early stage by Walther Nernst,[3] who raised the question of the consequences of such a huge energy of vacuum on gravitational effects.[4] A recent philosophical and historical assessment is provided by Rugh and Zinkernagel.[5]"

Thanks for the lead, now my head doesn't hurt, it's fully numb.


*** From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with the double slit experiment. The only reason I say something wrong is the vacuum catastrophe. It made a prediction that they knew was wrong long before they even tested it, then they tested it and found out that they were correct, that is was wrong.

The cosmological constant will be solved eventually, just like the blackbody radiation problem was solved. Planck's answer gave birth to quantum theory, who knows what will happen when someone figures out the vacuum catastrophe.

"In cosmology the vacuum catastrophe *** refers to the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density as inferred from data obtained from the Voyager spacecraft of less than 1014 GeV/m3 and the zero-point energy of 10121 GeV/m3 calculated using quantum field theory.[1] This discrepancy has been termed "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!"[2]

"This problem was identified at an early stage by Walther Nernst,[3] who raised the question of the consequences of such a huge energy of vacuum on gravitational effects.[4] A recent philosophical and historical assessment is provided by Rugh and Zinkernagel.[5]"

Thanks for the lead, now my head doesn't hurt, it's fully numb.


*** From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trust me, you are getting the easy part of it. If I tried to lay out the math it would hurt my head, and I would probably get half of it wrong.