Ask Me Help Desk - Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light?

http://news.sciencemag.org/now/2011/...-than-lig.html

Independent verification is required but let us assume it will be proven.

Since its inception the Big Bang has been subject too much criticism especially in light of the number of seriously competing theories in recent times. For example, M-Theory and Big Bounce Theory.

The Big Bang has been largely unattractive for a number of reasons. Not least of all the inability to explain what came before the Big Bang. The two previous theories mention seem to give us a more plausible explanation because they explain our universe as a result of a violent event in a pre-existing universe. This seems to be the case with most non-Big Bang theories

What makes the Big Bang Theory so attractive is that it provides as number of explanations that satisfy certain requirements. For example, provides an explanation for the horizon problem.

What is least attractive about the theory is that it requires an inflationary period whereby the very early universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

My question is really about the possibility of reinstating the Big Bang as the preferred explanation for the beginning of the universe. Perhaps, the 'no boundary conditions' put forward by Hawking.

Assuming that faster than light speed has been demonstrated.

Tut

I like that sciencemag.org, so thanks. Funny writers.
What do I know? I am with the ones who say that there are too many ways for the measurments to be imprecise on this subject. But I love far fetched ideas.
I love it when something is postulated, named, studied for decades, and then can't be found, like the Higgs boson. Supposedly it will be narrowed down and found or discredited entirely very soon.
I don't love it when the Einsteins and Hawkings fall out of favor so meanly after contributing so much. Physicists can be a competitive bunch can't they? Not all of them, but enough.

There is a very simple answer for this.
We have calculated the wrong value for C (speed of light).
So nothing has really changed and the status quo is restored.
Sub atomic physics is very strange stuff indeed..

This story sounds like the last one.
And how do they time when the neutrino left?
And what if watching makes it go faster LOL

What if, over the past 3 years, the OPERA (or whatever thing where they do their experiment) which they have as 730 km long had gone shorter? I mean, with the tectonic plates moving over the surface of the Earth, couldn't it be that the 730 km is no longer 730 km, but a little shorter? Light covers roughly 1.8 m in 60 nanoseconds.

I think over time they'll get the discrepancy sorted out. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So far one experiment with a discrepancy of 1 part in a million from the expected results is not "extraordinary."

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

This story sounds like the last one.
And how do they time when the neutrino left?
And what if watching makes it go faster LOL

Hi Joy,

I don't really know but I guess it depends on how good the hardware and software is. In other words it probably depends on getting the level of uncertainty down to an acceptable level.

I would image that measuring still involves some type of force, mass and acceleration ratio as per Newtonian physics.

I assume you reference to the role of the observer in all of this is to point of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. While this is very relevant to measuring at a micro level there is always a danger of sliding over to a subjective idealist position in terms of the macro position.

I would imagine the Uncertainty Principle is factored into the measurements. Ebaines reference to Sagan saying that extraordinary science requires extraordinary evidence. We'll have to wait and see.

The Uncertainty Principle is not a claim that we cannot know anything with certainty. It is a claim that we can only know one thing at time. Dealing with one thing at a time is probably what science does best.

Tut

Tut, I enjoy what you write about, because I was not a student of physics and astronomy; I just read or watch the latest blurbs with interest. If you would be willing to say more about how going faster than the speed of light applies to the origins of the universe, I would be pleased to read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown008

What if, over the past 3 years, the OPERA (or whatever thing where they do their experiment) which they have as 730 km long had gone shorter? I mean, with the tectonic plates moving over the surface of the Earth, couldn't it be that the 730 km is no longer 730 km, but a little shorter? Light covers roughly 1.8 m in 60 nanoseconds.

I find this idea quite amusing - you're suggesting a massive earthquake changed the distance, and no one noticed. But it makes me wonder just how they measure the distance between the source and detector to an accuracy of a centimeter or two? Measuring the precise distance between two points so far away from each other is quite a trick. My guess (only a guess) is that they use GPS - it's accurate at determining a particular point to about a meter (not accurate enough), but it can measure the differencebetween two points too much tighter tolerances than that. I don't know of any other way to measure the distance between points that are not in line-of-sight to such a precise length. Any other ideas?

Well, my suggestion was not an earthquake, because when the plates move, they don't always produce earthquakes, but move slowly, and the measurement was done 3 years ago and not re-measured since then.

Otherwise, I'll stick to the idea that the speed of light was not properly calculated in vacuum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

Tut, I enjoy what you write about, because I was not a student of physics and astronomy; I just read or watch the lastest blurbs with interest. If you would be willing to say more about how going faster than the speed of light applies to the origins of the universe, I would be pleased to read it.

Hi Joy,

Ok, you asked for it, but no complaints even if you think it is really bad.

Spooky Action at a Distance

Today Einstein's famous dictum comes under a number of different headings such as, entanglement, non-locality, superposition and Bell's Inequality.

Locality is better because it provides us with a more 'common sense' interpretation of everyday events. After all, if an event happens in one place it can't instantaneously affect something somewhere else. Can it?

If the Sun were to suddenly explode our planet would not suddenly go into some type of death spiral the moment of explosion. As it takes 8 or 9 minutes for light, or any other information to reach us we would have some 8 or 9 minutes to enjoy normal earth life before the end.

Not long after the development of quantum theory, Einstein with the help of some friends develop the famous E P R paradox which predicted a breakdown in the much loved locality theory. Bell's Inequality is relevant here as indeed are other similar theories and experiments which attempt to prove that non-locality is an integral part of nature.

Non-locality pretty much amounts to saying that if we were take two identical particles and separate them by taking one to the other end of the universe they would be in instantaneous communication with each other. Do something to one particle the other will respond immediately.

One might well say that this only applies to the micro world. It shouldn't apply to the macro world. In the 'real' world nothing travels faster than light and more importantly if it did then our day to day activities would be impossible. This is because speed of light has implications for causation. In the 'real' world of experience cause always comes before effect.

If I am making an omelette and I were to accidentally knock an egg off the table it would probably smash and I would have to clean it up. Faster than light travel has all types of implications for causation. Time could run backwards. The broken egg could reassemble itself and pop itself back up on the table. I could be cleaning up the mess on the floor before the egg is actually knocked off the table. In fact there are endless possibilities or in quantum terms, 'waves of possibility' In other words, it is possible for a physical system to be in all its possible states at the same time.

For example the egg on the table is both on the table and on the ground at the same time. It is both smashed at intact at the same time. It is only through the act of actually observing the egg that all these other possibilities 'disappear'. In other words, when I knock the egg off the table the most likely outcomes is that it will smash when it hits the ground. To put it a different way, when we observe we see things in terms of cause and effect.

If Kant is right then time and space are categories of understanding. Time and space are the glasses we are forced to wear. We have no choice, our mind imposes these categories on our experiences. That is why we see things they way we do,not necessarily as they really are.

How does faster than light travel apply to the origins of the universe? I don't really know. Perhaps it means that non-locality was the reality in the beginning universe. Perhaps the separation we witness today is just an illusion and everything is still attached to everything just like it was in the beginning.

I think it was Michael Talbot who said that the Andromeda Galaxy exists in the fingernail of my right hand.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

I think it was Michael Talbot who said that the Andromeda Galaxy exists in the fingernail of my right hand.

Otter in the movie "Animal House" expressed this concept quite well (with a little help from his pot-smoking professor).

Otter: "OK, So that means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. ... That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be ..
Prof Jennings: "one little, tiny universe."

If you have a Hulu account you can see it here about two minutes in: Hulu - Animal House: Smoke Some Pot

I love it when I can have an excuse to mention one of the funniest movies of all time in the Physics Forum!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

If you have a Hulu account you can see it here about two minutes in: Hulu - Animal House: Smoke Some Pot

I love it when I can have an excuse to mention one of the funniest movies of all time in the Physics Forum!

Like it. Just on the space/time thing. Bill Murray is on the phone to the weather service in Groundhog Day.

Murray: Yes, that's all very well but what if there is no tomorrow. There wasn't yesterday. Click!. Hello!. Hello!. are you still there?

Tut

Thanks.
Perhaps the constants aren't so constant, such as new universe speed and old speed.

I do get the sense of the limitations of our thinking, imposed on us by our languages.

I watch TV shows on something like dimensions and hear 5 different theories on how many there are, including 1 (haven't heard none), that time doesn't exist, and so on. Respected physicists all over the place. Fine, but is it that easy to manipulate the math to prove 1 dimension or 3 or 4 or 9, or are they just Making Things Up?
As for big leaps in thought, were Einstein and Hawking in the tub when they thought up relativity and black holes? Were they thinking outside of the math or is that not a meaningful question?
It just seems that even today we have as many widely disparate theories as we did back when there was no technology to speak of, so if math is math and accelerators and such are doing what they do, where do we get all this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

Thanks.
Perhaps the constants aren't so constant, such as new universe speed and old speed.

I do get the sense of the limitations of our thinking, imposed on us by our languages.

Very true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypuly

I watch TV shows on something like dimensions and hear 5 different theories on how many there are, including 1 (haven't heard none), that time doesn't exist, and so on.

There are two possibilities here.
1. Time did not exist before the Big Bang and then somehow time sprang into existence. This may well be a contradiction.

2. Time has always existed even in pre-exsiting universes. In other words, time has always existed.

Everyone finds it difficult to get their heads around number 1.

Number 2. Well, it's much more appealing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypuly

Respected physicists all over the place. Fine, but is it that easy to manipulate the math to prove 1 dimension or 3 or 4 or 9, or are they just Making Things up.

I think you are referring to String Theory here. I am reasonably sure that now the maths has been pretty much settled thanks to M- Theory. If you are interested you can Google M-Theory. Eleven dimensions seems to successfully draw the various competing string theories together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypuly

As for big leaps in thought, were Einstein and Hawking in the tub when they thought up relativity and black holes? Were they thinking outside of the math or is that not a meaningful question?
It just seems that even today we have as many widely disparate theories as we did back when there was no technology to speak of, so if math is math and accelerators and such are doing what they do, where do we get all this?

I think much of the early work being done in physicists and cosmologists has demonstrated a tradition of trying to fit theory and observation together( as it should be when doing science). This is certainly true of the Big Bang theory. Many of the problems were ironed out by adding the ad hock theory of inflation. In other words, it helped explain some of the observations.

String theory and extra dimensions goes against this trend. There are no observations to be had. We will never see a string and well will never see extra dimensions. Perhaps when we die we might, but not in this life. In fact it is impossible to even imagine what extra dimensions look like. Mathematics can explain extra dimensions very easily and I guess this is the appeal.

I don't really know if scientists of the past were thinking outside of the maths. I think they were using maths to explain the observations. String theory uses maths to explain the maths. In other words, it pulls itself up by its own bootstraps.

String theorists like to think they are doing science, but I think they are doing metaphysics.

Anything I write on any topic is just my opinion.

Tut

TUT: I apologize - I thought your post was very well written and I meant to hit "helpful" but hit the wrong button instead. I don't think there is any way for me to take it back. Sorry!

Yea, and with the reasons for the comments removed, it's not even explicit =/

Oh well, I gave a greenie and the net result is a +4 instead of a +10; better than a -1 ;)