That is the difference in gravity for the clocks at both ends of the trip. It seems that they may have not taken that into account for the experiment. Both ends of the trip would experience slightly different gravity and since time runs slower in higher gravity it would mean that the clocks would be ticking at slight different rates compared to each other which may end up enough to take into account the faster than light difference. Isn't science cool? http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.575.html
The observation of relativity only exists because all our senses are electromagnetic. The electromagnetic universe is not defined by space and time, but by the constant velocity of electromagnetic radiation. Space and time are consequences of this velocity. This then allows things to pop in and out of our electromagnetic universe, between the electromagnetically observable existance and the unobservable non-existance/nothing. The neutrinos can do this and many other things can do this, consider the experiments where material media was used that slowed the velocity of light down to an almost standstill, and used that light for observations. Yes. Science is absolutely cool.
I read this article in the Sunday newspaper, and thought I'd repost it here. If the experiment conducted by CERN is valid, then the world as we know it has just changed!
Well if what the OP says is true its a moot point. Its a calibration error among the time keeping devices in the two locations. Its not like you can just look at a wall clock and mark the time. It requires time keeping at atomic clock accuracies and its obvious that gravity played a trick on the timekeepers.
Perhaps that's correct. But, we're also talking about nuclear physicists, and as the article I posted stated -- I'll be the first to admit that they've very possibly made a mistake and can't discover their error - that's why they've asked others to replicate their experiment and see if the results are valid, or if they're erroneous. But if by some chance the results are valid, and neutrinos can travel faster than light...
Then we're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed because we have no other possible theory to replace Relativity and that means that all of our cosmological measurements and theories are wrong. That means that our use of Cepheid variables to measure distances, and using red shifts.. are all wrong. Dark matters theories, wrong.. everything in our astronomical knowledge would have to be erased and replaced with a big fat "?" But I'm pretty confident we'll find this be an error because there isn't a single observable phenomena that agrees with this result. How else can one explain light being slowed down or bent by gravity if Einstein is wrong?
The scientists themselves are pretty sure that they screwed up something. They think that they're wrong. That won't save them though as when (if?) the error is found the media will report them as the scientists who thought they beat Einstein.
It's also possible that the theory of relativity will just end up with: Nothing can travel faster than light* *except in this instance And everything will keep on ticking as it did.
But what if...? What if this is the new reality? What if Einstein was wrong, and this is the breakthrough? What if this is the beginning of things we've always dreamed about - warp speed and time travel? If this experiment should prove to be valid, and neutrinos can travel faster than light, we could be on the verge of something almost incomprehensible!
Relativity of right. Just because something is not 100% correct doesn't mean it's as wrong as everything else that is wrong. A lot of our things currently work according to our understanding of relativity so it's obviously not totally wrong. Newton was enough to get NASA to the Moon. Obviously Newton isn't totally wrong, but if you put Newton into the GPS system it'd fail.
Raum, Zeit, Materie Abel said that he acquired his knowledge, "By studying the masters and not their pupils.".
Special Relativity does not state that nothing can travel FTL; Special Relativity states that a particle cannot be accelerated to the speed of light in spacetime. SR hypothesizes a particle, the tachyon, that travels FTL. If the results of the experiment stand, then they could have the first evidence of wormholes; neutrinos could be entering wormholes and traveling outside of spacetime so SR would still be a valid theory.
The problem with that though is how do we know there are wormholes or if SR is wrong? Personally I think that the Neutrino Theory of Light needs to be seriously looked at again with careful consideration of CP-Violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
Well, forgive what may be seen as stick-in-the-mud cynicism, directed at those who claim this will completely upend science and be the end of physics as we know it.. Of course it won't. *Even if* (and that's a huge long shot) this is validated, all it means is that for some neutrinos under some conditions, c may not be the precise limit. Let's face it - GPS is still working (which uses relativity), and every other observation, every other experiment, every other REAL situation we have been able to observe or simulate does not* show FTL to be possible. And EVERY aspect of relativity has been tested to some degree and holds. What's more, the alleged extra speed is miniscule. .002%, I understand..? That's hardly an astonishing breach, even if it is proven to exist. Relativity, even though an incredible advance in physics, did not change how we built bridges, or even high speed, high flying aircraft. And apart from a few tiny issues, even our fastest spacecraft are not materially affected. On a day to day basis, the only time you see any outcome of relativity, is relying on your GPS to be reasonably accurate. So, when/IF this is verified, I won't be holding my breath for the production of an FTL spaceship, or a time machine, or even... free energy!!! (I'm sure that's in there somewhere...) * - Relativity/cosmology experts, I know that wasn't exactly true, but I hope you will forgive my simplification..
look up what the word 'physics' means. I used to think physics meant t'the theorem too. read the EPR paradox..... Even einstern knew it was a joke. And if he already in the ground and you still dont know, then we each can see, you skipped class. Perhaps you didnt even take any physics beyond high school? wow..... Dood, you need to catch up on 'tings. wow.... apparently you dont comprehend the whole big bang concept and red shift either. Let alone what cern does. there is a whole bunch of 'science' using 'speed' dooood. what does 'free energy' have to do with this? most of what you post, aint true Keep apologizing! And get used to it!
From Wikipedia -- "In London, where Southampton Row passes Russell Square, across from the British Museum in Bloomsbury, Leo Szilárd waited irritably one gray Depression morning for the stoplight to change. A trace of rain had fallen during the night; Tuesday, September 12, 1933, dawned cool, humid and dull. Drizzling rain would begin again in early afternoon. When Szilárd told the story later he never mentioned his destination that morning. He may have had none; he often walked to think. In any case another destination intervened. The stoplight changed to green. Szilárd stepped off the curb. As he crossed the street time cracked open before him and he saw a way to the future, death into the world and all our woes, the shape of things to come." Szilard's vision? Something we now take for granted, Elementary Physics 101 -- a neutron-induced nuclear chain reaction. While I don't think this discovery is going to completely destroy Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I also think that this is very probably a huge leap forwards. Who knows where this discovery will lead? I'm 54, and I know I won't live to see FTL travel, or even time travel (especially if they can't get the flux capacitor to use less than one point two one gigawatts of power!) - but I believe that they're possible, and that this discovery is one step closer to them becoming reality.
But don't you see the errror here? If science corrects its mistakes, then the world is based on nothing but theory! You life is based on nothing, and you believe in nothing?!111!11 [lol]
I agree hence my use of the words "could have". One experiment (again if validated, and that is a huge "if") will not be conclusive. On a second thought, could this "neutrino" actually have been the theoretical tachyon? And how could physicists tell the difference? I absolutely agree! On a side note: Krauthammer should stick to his opinions on politics and stay away from the facts of physics.
Why? Do you think that this topic isn't part of physics? If so, could you tell us what major branch of science this is about? ?? I'm sorry, but that isn't very clear. If you mean that you thought that physics ONLY meant relativity - I'm very sorry to hear that. At no time did I ever think that, nor did I say that. Please just read the words and don't add your interpretation. The EPR paradox has very little to do with a preliminary observation of some neutrinos being recorded as traveling FTL, especially when that observation is awaiting verification, let alone being theorised and then understood. IF it is verified, it MAY have some implications, but it won't be tossing out the theorems and calculations that have worked so well to date, and will continue to work, just as GR and SR didn't mean the end of Newtonian physics - you don't need to take relativistic effects into account when studying billiard ball interactions... But until there is a verified breach of GR/SR or any other related theorem/principle.. until the potential explanations are all thoroughly explored by far better minds than mine or yours, making wild claims about it being some sort of biblical moment is an example of premature postulation, to put it mildly.... Tell me, Bishadi, was Einstein ever wrong? It's spelled with a capital by the way.. IF? So you don't know? Let me help: March 14, 1879 April 18, 1955. Jot it in your notebook. I prefer to let my words speak for me, rather than descend to ad hominem. The reader shall decide... Is that your version of talking like a scientist? Forgive me for being a little unimpressed. It was an in-joke. If I have to explain it, it won't be funny. But ironically you made my point adequately.. Really? Well, feel free to get specific and use appropriate language explaining where my errors are, in detail, and I'll address it. Let me explain - 'sentences' like: and are examples of handwaving, not pointing out what 'aint true'. I'll happily apologise WHEN you manage to point out those 'aint true' things with reasons/cites. Bishadi, will you be apologising when/if the flaw in the observations is agreed upon by the leading scientists in this field? And out of curiosity, who would you nominate as the top two authorities in this field whose word you would accept?
News articles EPR shares the math is incomplete to describe phenomenon such as what this thread is about. Einstein wrote the GR/SR and EPR to share the previous are incomplete. ie.... the evidence is self explanitory by a great mind. I am just a simple one, that is makind a fool of your posts. sure..... he published too much in the miracle year i do appreciate when people of science have the yahoos to remember the the disclosure of 'we just dont know' Then there are idiots who rant about everyone else is smarter and act as if there is no way someone capable could be directly slapping them in the face. 'just because'
