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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp