From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:26:55 +0100 Archived: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:04:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery' >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:33:19 +0000 >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. Which paragraph is "summed up"? There are three. But it scarcely matters, since anyone on this List can see immediately that none of them is even approximately similar in content or intent to the passage which KK quoted, thus: "Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results." K (if I may) I think everybody is quite clear that the CERN result is: a) unreplicated and possibly a systemmatic error; and b) a result of "potentially great impact" as the paper also says. Various posters have mentioned and/or implied both of these things, myself included. The post from me which has got you in a huff was quite plainly aimed at the question posed by Geoff Blackmore, which again has no relation to the content of the passage quoted by you, and is about the relation between time and the invariant null interval in special relativity, which, as far as I know from having read the paper fairly closely, is _not_ an issue illuminated therein. >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. Anybody has read it. It does explain the experiment and outcomes. It does _not_ address a) introductory-level relativity such as the above, or b) any of the possible implications which we are having fun discussing. You would know that if you read your own quotation properly: "We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results." >All that seems to be happening is a [sic] interpretation of >what was stated in the paper. What is happening is speculation around the possible implications of what the paper itself calls a result having "potentially great impact". If they did not feel that rather strongly they would never have published. A few of us - like most of the rest of the world, you will have noticed - are intrigued about the implications _if_ they have not made a systemmatic error. You are not obliged to care, of course. In which case, pipe down. >I heard another interpretation during an >interview last night. Sorry. Complain to the radio station. >The interviewee got the name of the particle right. Well good for them. >I can't believe everybody thinks they now know >the outcome of the experiment when the seemly [sic] hundreds >of people involved in it are not sure. Who said that? Whatever interpretive filter you have over your reading glasses needs changing or cleaning. I think I'm safe in saying that _nobody_ here_ has even implied that they "know the outcome". All we know is what is reported in the paper (which you too have studied assiduously, of course). Time will tell whether it turns out to be a robust result or not. But the impeccable source of it, and the fascinating implications of it, lead curious people to want to think about it. You don't have to join in. >Once again, if you all are really interested in knowing the >results, please go to the horse's mouth, as it were. Once again, the results published are not at issue. The implications are, and (to repeat) these are "deliberately" _not_ discussed in the paper. The horse's mouth is silent on all of that. One can only hope that the horse's ass will follow suit. Martin Shough 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