/sci/ - Science & Math

>what would happen if the laws of physics were different

Um, whatever you want.

>>3898311
Since when did we confirm that neutrions can go FTL?

O, wait....WE DIDN'T.

NEUTRONS DO NOT EXCEED c
NETRUONS DO NOT TRAVEL THROUGH TIME
THE CERN RESULTS DO NOT SUGGEST THAT NUTREONS EXCEEDED c

>>3898319
>>3898321
Let's assume the finding from OPERA is true. Would we be able to make a time machine using fundamental particles?

>>3898329
OPERA results indicate that neutrinos do in fact travel faster than C, and that they were ACCELERATED past C, which is the big thing.

<div class="math">\rlap { \lower{-1.5em}{You ~can't~ travel }} \rlap { \lower{-1.9em}{Cant}} \rlap { \lower{-2.5em}{~~~~~~~~can't ~travel~ the~ speed}} \rlap { \lower{0.6em}{of~ light can't~ travel~}} \rlap { \lower{0.5em}{of ~~light}} \rlap { \lower{1.9em}{only~ a~ fraction}} \rlap { \lower{2.5em}{~~~~~fraction }} \rlap { \lower{2.7em}{~~~~~~fraction }} \rlap { \lower{3.4em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.999^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} \rlap { \lower{3.5em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=1}} \rlap { \lower{3.4em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=1}} \rlap { \lower{4.2em}{you~ can't ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.25em}{you~ can't ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.1em}{you~ can't ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.7em}{you~ can't ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}}</div>

fuck time machines, im more interested in an antitelephone

Theoretically it *should* be possible to make a time machine, if neutrinos can travel at FTL speeds. And I thought they were simply recorded as being FTL, not accelerated by OPERA?

>>3898344
Unconfirmed results are shit. Every few days there is always "some major new result", most end up just being bullshit though. Until there is confirmation, we can't give too much merit to OPERA results.

>>3898335
Nope. What gives you that shitty idea?
What shitty retarded logic are you using to go from FTL neutrions -> time travel?

How does this shitty brain of yours work?

\thread

>>3898405
I have no idea, that's why I was asking. No particle with mass is supposed to be able to travel faster (or at) C, and if we find out that one can be accelerated beyond C I was wondering if we could harness it for use with time travel, since it should technically be going back in time when it's faster than C.

>>3898405
he asked a question you condescending sack of nigger.

Neutrinos do not go faster than C.
Neutrinos do not go faster than C.
Neutrinos do not go faster than C.
Neutrinos do not go faster than C.
Neutrinos do not go faster than C.
Neutrinos do not go faster than C.

>>3898396
>giving merit
>posting on 4chan

choose one

<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]
<span class="math">Leptons\; cannot\; travel\; faster\; than\; the\; speed\; of\; light[/spoiler]

>>3898408
The answer to your question is NO.
FTL neutrions does not imply time travel.

>since it should technically be going back in time when it's faster than C

Nope, where the fuck are you getting this nonsense? Special Relativity is obviouly in need of a modification is FTL exists. You cannot just attemp to apply it to shit it wasn't ment to be applied to, YOU WILL GET BULLSHIT. Do you also try to divide by 0? How is that working out for you?

cant travel the speedof lightcant travel of lightonly a fraction fraction fraction 09999999999999999 =1 =1you cant travel at the speed of lightyou cant travel at the speed of lightyou cant travel at the speed of lightyou cant travel at the speed of light

if you were a tiny person standing on a photon in the direction of motion and then jumped...would you be traveling faster than the speed of light for a brief second?

>>3898428

>2011
>still believing in relativity

ISHYGDDT

>>3898472
yes but obviously we don't have the ability to assemble so many photons so that they can 'carry' matter.
photons have very little mass.

>>3898472
you would not be able to jump forward

the fabric of space-time would prevent you from doing this, regardless of the relative perspective

>>3898472
Everything we know about massive particles tells us that they cannot travel the speed of light. Your question in nonsensical.

>>3898480
>the fabric of space-time would prevent you from doing this
>the fabric of space-time

>>3898477
>>3898477
>>3898477
>2011
>still thinking gravity can be quantized
>still thinking einstein was wrong
>still thinking some pseudo-scientific 'higgs mechanism' encompasses the existence of quantum fluctuations and quantum gravity
>mfw
ISHYGDDT

>>3898472

Really, that situation doesn't make any physical sense. But to humor it, I guess you could say that photons don't experience time and neither would someone standing on one, who therefore wouldn't be able to jump.

what if light is traveling faster than the speed of light?
why can't all our equations just be corrected for higher values?

>>3898321
All I know that some university in the east side of the US is trying to verify it, and have been finding evidence in favor of the FTL Neutrino hypothesis. Can't remember the name of the university though, but it was an MSNBC report.

I'll have to search for it again. :(

>>3898487

>mfw TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

Stephen Hawking prepare your anus

>>3898523
Could you make that a little smaller, please? I'm not blind yet.

>>3898492
>>3898492
>2011
>still cannot into manifolds
>still cannot into minkowski space-time
>still cannot into basic theoretical physics

>>3898531

LOL

>1872
>Not being from the future and reshaping the timeline as you see fit

ISHYGDDT

>>3898428
Yes, they can.

>>3898523
I'll believe it when CERN finds a 'graviton'

Until then, nope

Call me a classicalfag, I don't give a fuck. I firmly believe QFT can apply to practically any fundamental force (as clearly shown in the standard model), but not gravity. Einstein's gravity cannot be renormalized due to QFT not being perfected in curved space-time.

>>3898428
Apparently they can, evidently.

>>3898560
no, they can't.

>>3898568
nope

they have more degrees of freedom and see different spatial geometry, that's all

>Scientists afraid to Einstein was wrong
>mfw they're the same as Christains afraid to admit the Bible was wrong

>>3898541

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jpek6/do_microwave_ovens_work_in_space/c2e2m4r?context=3

>>3898662
my thoughts exactly

First of all it has yet to be verified. second neutrinos barely have any mass, and do not behave under the same guidelines as the macro world

>>3898725
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass

Speed of light is fixed.
We've only measured the speed of light in a vacuum. Not a quantum vacuum or some shit. I'm not exactly sure how it works. But no, neutrinos aren't anything that break the fixed lightspeed rule.

>>3898749
This is the way that it was explained to me by an actual doctor of physics. So shut up about it already /sci/ and stop being underage.

>>3898700
>reddit
>no physics credentials
>no knowledge of GTR/STR
>no knowledge of experimental evidence
i'm obviously dealing with someone who cannot even into differential geometry

>>3898662
It's fair to be cautious about overturning one of the theories physics is built upon.

>>3898751
also, he's correct to the degree that space-time is not a 'fabric'

it's a manifold, but to the public's eye it behaves similarly to a fabric/cloth - hence the coined term.

>>3898754
exactly to do so is to start a paradigm shift.

god damnit

>>3898803
>flash of time travel

Guys, what if neutrinos do travel faster than light and they collided and created a faster than light explosion on a small scale. Could this create a flash of time travel?

>>3898804

By that I mean an explosion in which creates a portal or whatever the fuck you want to call it. Could that explosion yield a portal that lasts a very short time?

>>3898662
>>3898721

>get one result that doesn't immediately make sense
>OMG EINSTEIN WAS WRONG, OVERTURN EVERYTHING
>tell people who tell you to calm down that they're just like the church persecuting Galileo

>>3898812
>explosion yields a portal

Neutrinos can't go faster than light. Are you idiots all trolling?

>>3898803
>>3898803

physics is not a verbal exercise

>>3898816

Please tell me how this is so wrong. FTL apparently means time travel is possible so if neutrinos travel faster than light, could a collision of neutrinos cause some kind of time travel?

i believe the current state of affairs is

>neutrinos do indeed travel faster than light
>something like .0012% faster
>this does not violate relativity
>this will not lead to time travel or warp engines or whateverthefuck
>this DOES promote some very interesting questions as to the nature of neutrinos, which are frankly kind of mysterious

>>3898823
apples are food
when they collide does it make a pie?

>>3898828
the current state of affairs is:
>weird result that violates either causality or relativity
>waiting for someone to replicate it with different machines to be sure there aren't errors that haven't been found

>>3898841
>waiting for someone to replicate it with different machines to be sure there aren't errors that haven't been found
looking at the data, and the various attempts they did to violate their own data (make sure it's legit), i'm almost convinced of their findings
almost

>>3898662
Funny, neutrinos going FTL wouldn't prove Einstein or relativity wrong, in fact the speed of light only applies to particles of matter, other forms of energy (even light) can still most faster than c if they didn't have the vacuum of space restricting them. And any particle of matter going at faster than c would be able to "hold itself," and would begin turning into energy.

>>3898847
sure they're very impressive findings, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered reporting them
replication is still the ultimate test, that's how it has always worked
I can't believe we have to explain this to people every time something weird happens in science

Just because you go faster than the speed of light doesn't imply that you go into the past. You'd just go faster into the future.

>>3898852
I need a trolltarded pic

>>3898721
>>3898721
>>3898721
apparently tesla was referring to cosmic rays, not neutrinos:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/26/no-tesla-did-not-predict-faster-than-light-neutrino
s/

neurinos have mass.
Relativity states that ALL massless particles travel at c, the speed of light, 299 792 458 m/s. An object with any amount of mass would require infinite energy to accelerate to c; aka it is not possible.

The fucking neutrino paper was RETRACTED. Please look up the definition of the word if you are unsure of the meaning. Neutrinos travel very very close to c, but do not travel at c.

"One problem is that the CERN result busts the apparent speed limit of neutrinos seen when radiation from a supernova explosion reached Earth in February 1987.

Supernovae are exploding stars that are so bright they can briefly outshine their host galaxies. However, most of their energy actually streams out as neutrinos. Because neutrinos scarcely interact with matter, they should escape an exploding star almost immediately, while photons of light will take about 3 hours to get out. And in 1987, trillions of neutrinos arrived 3 hours before the dying star's light caught up, just as physicists would have expected.

The recent claim of a much higher neutrino speed just doesn't fit with this earlier measurement. "If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy," says Sher. "They didn't. The supernova contradicts this [new finding] by huge factors."

>>3898860
Blame the media brosky. Blame the media.
>mfw

>>3898861
I believe the logic behind this was originally that in order to time travel into the past, it would require the same amount of power as it would take to reach light speed, which we already know how much energy light speed would require for us (hint: horizontal eight).

>>3898860
which is why i said almost
i suspect independent confirmation might take a few years of shooting particles though

>>3898876
Neutrinos are subatomic though, I don't really think they have the same kind of mass we're thinking of. Also you're probably referring to "mass" as "matter," like what you, me, and everything solid you can touch is made out of. Energies have mass as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
>Mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter—such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)—also exhibit mass.

>>3898876
This. We already have evidence that suggests that neutrinos can't go FTL.

>>3898876

>neurinos have mass.

Nurp.

We don't honestly know if neutrinos have mass.

We just sort of assume they do. The seem to. We haven't closely examined them, because it's nearly impossible to.

>>3898861
That's actually not true, you literally go back in time. A recieves a message before B sent it in A's frame, then A sends a message back to B before B even sent his original message, etc.

>>3898900
You're not just referring to tachyons, are you?

I personally would like to believe they discovered tachyons.

There's nothing fucking magical about the EM radiation. It still has a velocity.

5/10

>>3898861
no
actually its worse than that, there's not really such a thing as an absolute past for future

Alice and Bob are duelists with tachyon guns
they agree to fly away from each other, count to 8, then fire
they fly off at .866c, a very fast speed
in relativity one consequence of this is that each sees the other moving at half speed through time
Alice counts to 8 and shoots Bob
The tachyon hits Bob instantly, but Bob has been moving at half speed compared to Alice so he's only counted to 4!
He shoots back at her but Alice has also been moving at half speed compared to Bob and the tachyon hits her as she reaches the count of 2!
if she dies we have a paradox since she can't shoot Bob six seconds later

that is the *real* problem that relativity causes with FTL movement

What I'm wondering if that this will possibly lead to resurrection of the longdead luminiferous aether theory in a modern form.

While I have admittedly not given this much thought, it would make sense that if you accept light travels through a medium, then something that wasn't light might propogate through the same medium at a faster rate, especially if it didn't interact strongly with that medium.

Of course, aether theory was a mess by the time it was finally abandoned, what's the most recent formulation that tries to integrate relativity? Aether Drag theory? Perhaps the concept of aether could be integrated with the higgs field.

>>3898911
No, I'm referencing particles that are accelerated past the speed of light, rather than particles that are always above light speed.

>>3898920

WTF?

>in relativity one consequence of this is that each sees the other moving at half speed through time
>Alice counts to 8 and shoots Bob
>The tachyon hits Bob instantly, but Bob has been moving at half speed compared to Alice so he's only counted to 4!

Explain. Why don't they hit each other nearly simultaneously if Bob shoots at the 8 sec mark?

>>3898920
my relativity textbook solves this problem. their relative time changes, yes, but by introducing a third observer, the paradox is "easily" solved. It's really not an issue and has been solved for decades. Let me know if you'd like me to take pics of the text and upload them here.

>>3898926
The higgs field is kinda like the modern version of the ether propagating space. As well as dark energy in a weird way, and dark matter. Not to mention we have dark flow as well.

It is a mess and we certainly don't need more.

>>3898920
an excellent explanation of the dillemna. However, allow me to bring up a concern I have in general with these types of arguments without necessarily challenging your conclusions.

Many aspects of physics related arguments treat causality as a law around which to shape arguments. However, unlike say relativity or gravity, principles of causality in time traveling contexts aren't based around experimental data, but rather purely on what seems logical and what fits our perception of self consistent. Is there really anything to say that hypothetical time travel couldn't lead to seemingly inconsistent events occuring? THings which, if witnessed might defy explanation? I think we might be missing a chance to explore the mechanics of causality if we're limited to simple linear cause and effect relationships.

>>3898957
this "dilemma" is a really neat thought experiment/homework problem, but is NOT unsolved or contradictory! It is famously called the "Twin Paradox" and has been solved over and over!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
look at the "what it looks like" section.
>>3898953
says he's seen a solution in his relativity text; so have I. and please see

>>3898876 for truth.

>>3898956
relativity does not imply a linear cause and effect, in the sense that is normally thought of. Look up "light cone". tachyon speed (speed of light) is the hard, upper limit, and light cones show the "elsewhere" region where causality becomes undefined. the problem is, you can't get there from here, or vice versa, there is no "leakage" between the two. Well, quantum entanglement is some pretty crazy shit but I doubt it violates relativity, or rather if it does, it will be like how Newtonian physics is an approximation for Relativity. Relativity will become an approximation for another theory, but will not be discredited, just as how we apply regular newtonian physics to 90% of applied problems.

>>3898939
because in Bob's frame of reference Alice has only spent 4 seconds counting
it's not an illusion or anything, time is literally moving differently for the two of them

>>3898953
its the simplest possible explanation of how you can get time paradoxes, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that
love to see the diagrams and such

>>3898971
perhaps I mistated things somewhere. When I said in the context of time travel, I meant hypothetical situations in which special relativity wouldn't be completely true, such as OPERA mildly hints at. Of course my real point was to discuss causality in general, but of course assuming it is true led to the successful development of special and general relativity so maybe I'm just splitting hairs.

>>3898957
his conclusions are wrong. Since A and B are relative to each other, you can't define absolute time (or even relative time) with respect to either of them... duh. A third observer, not moving with respect to A and B, solves the problem.

It's like the aristotle (or whoever) paradox: "to get to the door, you must first get halfway to the door, then halfway to that point (ad infinitum) so you can never move"

or "the hare will never reach the tortoise if he is given a head start. the hare will reach the spot the tortoise was at, but by then the tortoise will have moved forward. Then, the hare will reach the next spot the tortoise is at, but yet again the tortoise will have never moved forward. Therefore you can never overtake someone who has a head start."

both of those, clearly wrong. As well as that guy's assumption with the two people shooting each other, simply wrong.

>>3899011
>A third observer, not moving with respect to A and B, solves the problem.
A and B are moving in opposite directions, how could anyone managed to be stationary relative to both of them?

Might it be the case that our measurement of light speed is off by a few nanoseconds and we could just never detect it?

Either way, neutrinos going FTL is not new, it was reported in the past by Fermilab (2007) and others, and the results were just ignored

>>3898872
Guy who wrote that Forbes article was wrong, the cosmic rays Tesla was talking about were neutrinos, back then cosmic rays were known to contain uncharged particles which everyone called "neutrons", this was before "neutron" started to mean the part of the nuclei.

>>3899019
IIRC they were ignored because the error bars were right on the edge, they also got a different speed than the CERN/OPERA people

>>3899028
Hopefully more examination will be directed now, besides it's hard to ignore a phenomenon when it repeats itself in new and strange ways.

>>3899055
you say phenomena, I say error.

>>3899055
but, you know, it *didn't* repeat itself
they got a different answer

>>3898472
nope. space makes room for that and will slow down space relative to you

>>3898472
no, because a little person can't be traveling along with the photon

>>3899016
they travel the opposite direction at same speed. C starts at 0 on the x axis. Remains there. A is now traveling +.866c, and B is travelling -.866c.

Easy.

And you know, C doesn't need to be stationary relative to either, he just needs to be in a different frame of reference as A or B (that is, doing ANYTHING except travelling the EXACT same speed as them). It just makes the calculation easier if C is "stationary".

>>3899113
I'd never claim to be an expert on relativity but it seems like you're pretending there's an absolute frame of reference.

are people arguing that relativity *never* makes paradoxes if you allow FTL or just that the duelist example isn't a good one?

that free will feel

>>3899068
If a 5.3 pound rock hits you immediately followed by a 6.7 pound rock, that doesn't mean an avalanche is not occurring.

>>3899063
>you say phenomena, I say error.
>error
It was outside the error margin, that's the point, otherwise it wouldn't even be reported.

>>3899192
>It was outside the error margin, that's the point, otherwise it wouldn't even be reported.
At Fermilab it was right on the margin. There's no protocol for that in statistics or in science. Technically you have a significant result but the degree of error you'd have to miss is so small that you might as well not have one.

>>3899234
I know, but it occurring twice outside the error margin (even by a tiny amount) would be significant enough for investigation.

Now Fermilab and some others are trying to investigate the phenomenon, they might be able to replicate it.

>>3899266
which is why people are investigating...
so far half the result with OPERA has been accounted for

>>3899179
source?