OT: Einstein was wrong? Neutrinos faster than light?

[RUTGERS95]

Interesting and explains super nova light lag with neutrinos

for the geeks of course lol

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[RUScrew85]

Interesting and explains super nova light lag with neutrinos

for the geeks of course lol

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

I'm gonna go with this will be debunked. Something is affecting their measurement. Or they aren't getting the neutrinos from where or how they think. SR has been proven many many times.

 

[RUTGERS95]

I'm gonna go with this will be debunked. Something is affecting their measurement. Or they aren't getting the neutrinos from where or how they think. SR has been proven many many times.

possibly but the super nova light still hasn't been explained relative to the neutrinos ahead of the light

 

[Extra Point_rivals157299]

Of course things can exceed the speed of light. Einstein was speaking of the inability to measure anything moving faster than light, because there would be no light to see it. He was all about relative objects, making one formula describe all moving objects etc. Once warp drive is invented we will take light speed without a second thought.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I'm gonna go with this will be debunked. Something is affecting their measurement. Or they aren't getting the neutrinos from where or how they think. SR has been proven many many times.

This speaks to the imbalanced weight of negative evidence, which is to say no amount of evidence can prove something, it can merely add incremental support for it. But it only takes one contradictory observation or instance to disprove a theory or system. Nassim Taleb's books "Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life" and "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" address this, among other things.

I have no clue if the observations will hold up strongly enough to challenge Einstein. If they do, one thing is guaranteed: after we score the game-winning TD as time runs out in the NC game, we will be flagged for having too many neutrinos on the sideline.

 

[T2Kplus20]

Of course things can exceed the speed of light. Einstein was speaking of the inability to measure anything moving faster than light, because there would be no light to see it. He was all about relative objects, making one formula describe all moving objects etc. Once warp drive is invented we will take light speed without a second thought.

I think warp drive will be invented in 2063.

 

[RUScrew85]

possibly but the super nova light still hasn't been explained relative to the neutrinos ahead of the light

Yeah I remember that one - I thought it was assumed the light was slowed via reflection(?) in interstellar gas or gravity effects and the neutrinos weren't. It's been a while since I read about that.

I'm still sticking with SR until strongly proven otherwise. It's passed so many tests so far.

 

[RUScrew85]

Well sorry to burst the Warp Bubble here but it seems OP posted a article from 2011 about an experiment that was corrected in 2012. Einstein still rules.

OPERA neutrino anomaly[edit]​

Main article: Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly
On September 22, 2011, a preprint[89] from the OPERA Collaboration indicated detection of 17 and 28 GeV muon neutrinos, sent 730 kilometers (454 miles) from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, traveling faster than light by a relative amount of 2.48×10−5 (approximately 1 in 40,000), a statistic with 6.0-sigma significance.[90] On 17 November 2011, a second follow-up experiment by OPERA scientists confirmed their initial results.[91][92] However, scientists were skeptical about the results of these experiments, the significance of which was disputed.[93] In March 2012, the ICARUS collaboration failed to reproduce the OPERA results with their equipment, detecting neutrino travel time from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory indistinguishable from the speed of light.[94] Later the OPERA team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast.[95]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

 

[RU4Real]

I think warp drive will be invented in 2063.

Not happening, period.

 

[koleszar]

Not happening, period.

What about folding space? Is that one still on the table?

 

[RutgersRaRa]

What about folding space? Is that one still on the table?

 

[RUScrew85]

Of course things can exceed the speed of light. Einstein was speaking of the inability to measure anything moving faster than light, because there would be no light to see it. He was all about relative objects, making one formula describe all moving objects etc. Once warp drive is invented we will take light speed without a second thought.

I was actually doing a little refresh on this one when I found the 2012 correction to OPs article.

Pretty sure you're wrong on the faster than light issue they way you presented it. I read it to say anything for example a baseball can be thrown faster than the speed of light or a rocket can be taken to .99C and then steps on the Space Gas and accelerates to C+. Neither of these will work. IIRC The increase in velo as you approach C greatly increases the objects mass which requires (eventually) infinite energy to get to C. Infinite energy does not exist.

If you were talking about some weird edge cases like quantum tunneling or entangled objects or "warp drive" then I have no complaints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

I was looking into your claim when I found the 2012 results. They list some edge cases but not what your post read like to me.

This is a difficult question with plenty of nuances and "Relativities"(!) so I am NOT calling you out.

We're probably just just looking at things from a different perspective and I am by no means a expert on this.

 

[RU4Real]

What about folding space? Is that one still on the table?

Well, that's the problem with "warp drive". Its output is not velocity, it's time. Warp travel is indistinguishable from time travel in any material sense. It has to be - otherwise the time dilation effects would make for a pretty useless exercise.

The challenges are overwhelming and we're running very concurrent timelines here. One is the technology curve, which suggests how long it might take us to master the requisite technology to bop around the universe without adversely impacting anything at all.

The other is the timeline of humanity, itself. Can we grow and mature as a species long enough to achieve these things?

My answer is on "no".

 

[T2Kplus20]

Well, that's the problem with "warp drive". Its output is not velocity, it's time. Warp travel is indistinguishable from time travel in any material sense. It has to be - otherwise the time dilation effects would make for a pretty useless exercise.

The challenges are overwhelming and we're running very concurrent timelines here. One is the technology curve, which suggests how long it might take us to master the requisite technology to bop around the universe without adversely impacting anything at all.

The other is the timeline of humanity, itself. Can we grow and mature as a species long enough to achieve these things?

My answer is on "no".

I say yes! Elon is already working on it.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Well, that's the problem with "warp drive". Its output is not velocity, it's time. Warp travel is indistinguishable from time travel in any material sense. It has to be - otherwise the time dilation effects would make for a pretty useless exercise.

The challenges are overwhelming and we're running very concurrent timelines here. One is the technology curve, which suggests how long it might take us to master the requisite technology to bop around the universe without adversely impacting anything at all.

The other is the timeline of humanity, itself. Can we grow and mature as a species long enough to achieve these things?

My answer is on "no".

Which brings up another paradox/conundrum, namely, the quantity of spiritually-minded folks praying for the asteroid. It's logically consistent, but (literally) self-defeating. Additionally, Einstein posited that everything is relative, but as it happens so is incest, which lends credence to the request for asteroidal assistance.

I second your "no."

 

[RUTGERS95]

Yeah I remember that one - I thought it was assumed the light was slowed via reflection(?) in interstellar gas or gravity effects and the neutrinos weren't. It's been a while since I read about that.

I'm still sticking with SR until strongly proven otherwise. It's passed so many tests so far.

I don't think it's slowed via reflection or gas, gravity perhaps but wouldn't that have an effect on the neutrinos as well?

One thing is for certain, we probably understand a fraction of a percent of what we think we know. I would imagine the next 200yrs will be like the last century in terms of human technological development.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Well sorry to burst the Warp Bubble here but it seems OP posted a article from 2011 about an experiment that was corrected in 2012. Einstein still rules.

OPERA neutrino anomaly[edit]​

Main article: Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly
On September 22, 2011, a preprint[89] from the OPERA Collaboration indicated detection of 17 and 28 GeV muon neutrinos, sent 730 kilometers (454 miles) from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, traveling faster than light by a relative amount of 2.48×10−5 (approximately 1 in 40,000), a statistic with 6.0-sigma significance.[90] On 17 November 2011, a second follow-up experiment by OPERA scientists confirmed their initial results.[91][92] However, scientists were skeptical about the results of these experiments, the significance of which was disputed.[93] In March 2012, the ICARUS collaboration failed to reproduce the OPERA results with their equipment, detecting neutrino travel time from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory indistinguishable from the speed of light.[94] Later the OPERA team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast.[95]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

there was a follow up, I'll post it. it refutes that

 

[RUScrew85]

I don't think it's slowed via reflection or gas, gravity perhaps but wouldn't that have an effect on the neutrinos as well?

One thing is for certain, we probably understand a fraction of a percent of what we think we know. I would imagine the next 200yrs will be like the last century in terms of human technological development.

Yeah I don't know. I just vaguely remember that one idea was the light was delayed somehow compared to the neutrinos. Maybe the neutrinos are generated before the photons? Maybe gravitational lensing on the photons that does not effect the neutrinos? I don't know.

Roger on that.

 

[RUScrew85]

there was a follow up, I'll post it. it refutes that

Oh OK. I just noticed that info was posted when looking for the other answer and your OP was written before the noted correction.

Post it if you find it.

 

[mdk02]

I think warp drive will be invented in 2063.

Kind of like fusion generation of electricity. 20 years away for the last 50 years.

 

[RUaMoose_rivals]

I always laugh when they say Betelgeuse is going supernova at any time when it may have already done so. The light (500 LY away) may just not have reached us yet.

 

[RutgersSam]

I think warp drive will be invented in 2063.

About when Schiano's grand plan will culminate!

 

[WhiteBus]

OP, you should add "Nerd Alert" to the thread title

 

[29PAS]

I don't really care about neutrinos or warp drives. I just want the damn Autodoc(tor) that exists in a lot of science fiction. Get plugged in and everything gets fixed.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I don't know about all that high-falutin sciency stuff. But it was pretty clear this was a hoax when it became evident that the project was using an obviously fake acronym: "OPERA", which is malformed from the words:

Oscillation
Project
with
Emulsion-tRacking
Apparatus

Seriously? GTFOH with that "tRacking" noise!

They need to go back to their lab and craft an honest acronym if they want any kind of successful science. Everybody knows this.

 

[OldManRiver1]

Not happening, period.

Unless the Vulcan's help us