UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Sep > Sep 30

Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:22:44 -0600
Archived: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:52:34 -0400
Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:13:55 +0100
>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:53:58 +0100
>>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?

>>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:00:51 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken?


Hi Martin, Gerald,

I really should know better than to step into this.

>>...suppose that the edifice
>>has to be rebuilt with the abandonment of one key assumption,
>>and suppose that assumption were to be the (very) deeply
>>embedded one that the mass/energy equivalence exhausts all
>>existential categories? In other words, neutrinos can exceed the
>>speed of light in a vacuum because they are neither mass nor
>>energy, but a third type of thing. The fact that they appear to
>>have a tiny mass may turn out to be a by-product of some over-
>>arching truth about the nature of things that we just aren't
>>onto yet.

Of course, we already know of at least one 'third thing', namely
consciousness itself, about which the current body of physics is
utterly silent. As far as is apparent now, neither requires the
other. So, there are certainly 'third things' out there, and no
reason in principle not to incorporate them into a hypothesis.
But, as I think Martin is suggesting, it can become a bad habit.

<snip>

>What could it mean to say that a neutrino had arrived back in
>its own past by travelling those 730 km?

Kurt Godel showed that there were perfectly plausible universes
(i.e., they could, with sufficient resources, be physically
'constructed'), consistent with general relativity, in which
closed timelike curves were possible. As such, I think the cat
was already out of the bag: the 'time' described by relativity
(i.e., the temporal axis of the 4-dimensional Minkowski
spacetime) is _not_ the same thing as what we intuitively
experience as Time. I think the latter is the real source of our
insistence on 'causality'... and rightly so.

[BTW, an excellent and accessible discussion of Godel's result,
and it's almost wholesale dismissal by the scientific community
(but notably, not by Einstein), can be found in A World Without
Time by Palle Yourgrau.]

<snip>

>I do think there is a tendency to conflate causality with local-
>real determinism. The latter enshrines the principle of
>contiguous and antecedent cause; but this might apply only to
>one self-consistent (neutrino anomalies notwithstanding) half of
>the total causal structure. If the underlying (quantum) causal
>structure is nonlocal, and if (as we ought to expect) a nonlocal
>structure implies an exhaustive cosmic interconnectivity, then
>the state at any given here and now could be a statistical
>resultant of contributions from all other past _and_ future
>states all over the cosmos, instead of merely all past local
>states, with the historical classical description that we
>experience being merely a self-consistent tempora;l projection.
>The fact that we local observers value the predictivity allowed
>by an arrow of time does not mean that the cosmos has to care
>about it globally. I'd go so far as to say that quantum
>entanglement means the causal structure _has_to_be_ like that.
>(Yet more speculation....)

I would tend to agree with the above, although again I think it
points to a difference in category between time in the quantum
causal structure and what we experience as time. If a given
event derives from a causal connection to all past _and_ future
states, then what is 'Now', and why (or how) do we recognize it
as such, as we evidently can?

As in previous such forays, I find my head starting to hurt, so
I'll leave off here. Regarding the CERN result, I'll bet a dollar
it turns out to be a systematic error. But on the other hand,
neutrinos are certainly bizarre little rascals, and I remain
puzzled and fascinated by the possibility that (alleged)
variations of radioactive decay rates are correlated to solar
neutrino flux, as discussed briefly here on UpDates some months ago.


Regards,

Mike






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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com