From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:33:19 +0000 Archived: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:15:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery' >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:05:43 +0100 >Subject: Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery' >>From: Geoff Blackmore <geoff_184.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:55:37 +1300 >>Subject: Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery' >>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:54:15 +0100 >>>Subject: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery' >>>http://tinyurl.com/4yvxxwn >>>So why can't something go faster than the speed of light? >>>Because it would violate the laws of cause and effect. >>There appears to be some confusion here. The speed of light is >>not zero-time. The particles that CERN observed arriving 60 nano >>seconds earlier than expected, did not arrive 60 nano seconds >>before they departed, as implied. They still took a period of >>time to get from A to B; they just did it faster than >>anticipated. >The confusion is between proper and improper time. Considered >from the frame of reference of the photon its transit _is_ >considered to take zero time. This is the so-called _proper_ >time. Improper time is the time measured by some observer in >another frame moving at some speed less than c (e.g. the >experimenters). This improper time varies from frame to frame >but is always more than zero. >More formally, the photon track is regarded as a null signal >line, a line between point events A and B on which the invariant >relativistic called _interval_ is zero. This is called a space- >like interval. All observers in all inertial frames will agree >on the value of it, although they will disagree about the >improper spacetime separation of A and B depending on their >relative velocities. >The CERN result implies (or is believed to possibly imply) that >in the _proper_ time frame of the neutrinos they made the trip >in less than zero time (i.e., in imaginary time), and so >_would_have_ arrived "before they departed". This is exactly why >the result is facing such a strong challenge. Martin and List: Your paragraph is summed up in the author of the paper's last comment which I posted. I thought if anybody was interested in the details they should read the paper. Which to my mind explained the experiments parameters and outcomes very clearly. All that seems to be happening is a interpretation of what was stated in the paper. I heard another interpretation during an interview last night. The interviewee got the name of the particle right. I can't believe everybody thinks they now know the outcome of the experiment when the seemly hundreds of people involved in it are not sure. Once again, if you all are really interested in knowing the results, please go to the horse's mouth, as it were. KK Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp