Infinity Hypothesis

[swansont]

You can debate this all you like, but the fact remains. The story leaked FROM CERN, and it hit the headlines. It hit the headlines for the exact reason I said. A lack of fundamental understanding.

Um, no. The story did not "leak" — there was a press release, which is basically on the opposite end of the spectrum of information transfer as a leak. They never claimed their results were confirmed — they did the opposite of that, too.

 

The OPERA measurement is at odds with well-established laws of nature, though science frequently progresses by overthrowing the established paradigms. For this reason, many searches have been made for deviations from Einstein’s theory of relativity, so far not finding any such evidence. The strong constraints arising from these observations makes an interpretation of the OPERA measurement in terms of modification of Einstein’s theory unlikely, and give further strong reason to seek new independent measurements.

“This result comes as a complete surprise,” said OPERA spokesperson, Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern. “After many months of studies and cross checks we have not found any instrumental effect that could explain the result of the measurement. While OPERA researchers will continue their studies, we are also looking forward to independent measurements to fully assess the nature of this observation.”

 

“When an experiment finds an apparently unbelievable result and can find no artefact of the measurement to account for it, it’s normal procedure to invite broader scrutiny, and this is exactly what the OPERA collaboration is doing, it’s good scientific practice,” said CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. “If this measurement is confirmed, it might change our view of physics, but we need to be sure that there are no other, more mundane, explanations. That will require independent measurements.”

 

 

(bold emphasis added)

 

So they did not "immediately abandon the very fundamental knowledge they're using to accelerate the particles in the first place"

 

Any "lack of fundamental understanding" lies past that point: with the popular press that related the stiory, or with the readers of the story.

[andreasjva]

@Unity

 

Sigh........

[Mordred]

 

You can debate this all you like, but the fact remains. The story leaked FROM CERN, and it hit the headlines. It hit the headlines for the exact reason I said. A lack of fundamental understanding. Like I said, you may be satisfied with the scientific definition, but the rest of the world is not. I personally don't understand how you think the scientific explanation says anything about the speed limit. It's kind of baffling to me actually. Aren't you more curious than that? Why is anything able to move in the first place? Why do photons immediately hit light speed?

 

These are the questions I want to know.

Then study the reasons, pop media and YouTube articles are more misleading than helpful. My signature has numerous free textbook style articles. Edited January 15, 2015 by Mordred

[andreasjva]

 

For this reason, many searches have been made for deviations from Einstein’s theory of relativity, so far not finding any such evidence.

 

That kind of validates my point. If they truly understood the fundamentals, they wouldn't be wasting their time, and they could move on to bigger and better things. As near as I can tell, Einstein's work is pretty much gospel.

[Mordred]

Lol well if you look at the math your model runs counter to Einstein's field equations.

[andreasjva]

@Swanson...

 

This is my last post on the subject, as it's a waste of time and energy.

 

You have a whole scientific subculture trying to dethrone Einstein. These are highly educated people who understand much more than me, and many of the people posting here right now. If they fundamentally knew why things can't exceed the speed of light, they wouldn't waste their time trying to disprove it, and they would be doing much more useful science.

 

As for the mass media, it is sciences duty to convey the proper message. The headline should have been, faulty equipment yields unusual result. Actually, it should have never even been a press release at all. They just should have known something was f'd up and fixed it. It's sort of like NASA putting out a press release because they broke a bolt while turning a wrench. Why do a press release at all?

 

This is almost funny.

 

"The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action"

 

The experiment was faulty. Do we marvel at an auto mechanic fixing a car?

 

I'm sorry, the headlines were what they were, and CERN allowed that to happen by releasing the press release to begin with, when they should have been calling the Maytag repairman.

 

Lol well if you look at the math your model runs counter to Einstein's field equations.

 

There is no math, so I have no idea why you say that. My guess is, it would still fit. But that's a subjective statement, isn't it? No one is going to know until someone tries to figure it out and builds a model around the idea. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't know. But neither do you.

[swansont]

 

That kind of validates my point. If they truly understood the fundamentals, they wouldn't be wasting their time, and they could move on to bigger and better things. As near as I can tell, Einstein's work is pretty much gospel.

 

The point of the experiment was not a test of Einstein's work. It just turned into that, briefly, owing to the problem they had.

 

Describing Einstein's work as gospel sorta missed the whole point of doing science.

[Mordred]

Wrong I do mathematically know it won't from your descriptives. I already showed you the related thermodynamic reasons.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Mordred

[andreasjva]

 

Describing Einstein's work as gospel sorta missed the whole point of doing science.

 

agreed. sorry. didn't mean to say it like that.

[swansont]

@Swanson...

 

This is my last post on the subject, as it's a waste of time and energy.

Indeed it is. You should focus your time and energy on learning science and about science.

 

 

You have a whole scientific subculture trying to dethrone Einstein.

Really? Who are these people?

 

These are highly educated people who understand much more than me, and many of the people posting here right now. If they fundamentally knew why things can't exceed the speed of light, they wouldn't waste their time trying to disprove it, and they would be doing much more useful science.

 

 

I submit that no practicing scientist posting in this thread (much less many) is trying to disprove Einstein.

 

As for the mass media, it is sciences duty to convey the proper message. The headline should have been, faulty equipment yields unusual result. Actually, it should have never even been a press release at all. They just should have known something was f'd up and fixed it. It's sort of like NASA putting out a press release because they broke a bolt while turning a wrench. Why do a press release at all?

How can they put information that they didn't have into the press release?

 

[andreasjva]

 

Wrong I do mathematically know it won't from your descriptives

 

I disagree. I don't think you know. These are descriptives, and I have never made any attempt to tie them into field equations. Not sure I could. We're dealing with relative states here though, and I seriously doubt flipping from a view of expansion to contraction would have any serious implication for the standing mathematical interpretations. Aside from being flipped around, do you look any different in the mirror?

[imatfaal]

Make sense?

 

No.

 

To release that energy you would need something to act upon it at c^2 so your answer comes out to 1.

 

That's not what E=mc^2 means.

 

You are working from a fundamentally flawed knowledge of maths and physics - from that base anything is possible and almost certainly wrong.

[andreasjva]

 

That's not what E=mc^2 means.

 

 

I stand corrected. Earlier in the post I stated specifically we are the stored energy within that state, not released energy. Nothing has to act upon it.

[xyzt]

 

Very recently, CERN made a stunning announcement. They had detected particles traveling beyond the speed of light.

No, they didn't, it was an experimental setup error,a disconnected cable. You need to stop the nonsense about "relativity is wrong".

[Mordred]

 

I disagree. I don't think you know. These are descriptives, and I have never made any attempt to tie them into field equations. Not sure I could. We're dealing with relative states here though, and I seriously doubt flipping from a view of expansion to contraction would have any serious implication for the standing mathematical interpretations. Aside from being flipped around, do you look any different in the mirror?

You want the math I don't feel like posting the latex from a phone. Read the first 25 pages here.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426

 

Then look at chapter 3 in this article.

 

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf particle physics in the early universe.

 

This entire article discusses how the Einstein field equations work in terms of vectors and stress energy momentum tensors. Flipping directions does matter.

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

[andreasjva]

 

No, they didn't, it was an experimental setup error,a disconnected cable. You need to stop the nonsense about "relativity is wrong".

 

Clearly you have not read any of the thread. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[Mordred]

You change expansion to contraction for one particle species This will raise the temperature.

 

[latex] pv=nRt[/latex]

[andreasjva]

Look Mordred, there is no way you could possibly know if this is correct or not, because there is no math. It's that simple. Now if you would like to disprove it mathematically, then you would need to develop a complete and comprehensive mathematical theory to backup your speculation that it's wrong . This has to start from the ground up with this theory, to see how it ties into those field equations. You could not possibly know any of this at this juncture. No one knows. This is a forum, not a peer review process. I am presenting ideas that you clearly dislike. That's okay by me.

 

As I said, it seems to loosely fit a fairly large number of observations. It does so because it is an inverse solution. I would suspect it would continue along the same path with most of GR. Where it deviates is things like possibly explaining dark energy, and/or dark mater. It also suggest that the universe came to be all at once, or began at its maximum scale, and has been dwindling down over time until an inevitable conclusion. Personally, I never expected to see that, but i do. I also never expected to consider a possible quantum fluctuation as a catalyst, but I do now. It's possible our entire universe represent a single quantum fluctuation. There was never a dense point of energy that just happened to be hit with a randomly fluctuation.

 

Another thing that has always bugged me was light speed and time. Where is time fast? We can stop it, but no one really discusses speeding it up. My idea does give that dynamic like never before. It says that those quantum particles we see popping in an out of existence, are really here much longer than we really perceive. That little blip of a quantum fluctuation could equate to millions or even billions of years from it's perspective. Hard to say. We just see it momentarily blip in and out of existence because it lies on the very edge of our perspective of contraction. There's your time fast.

 

No one has explored this idea though, so no one knows for certain if it's nonsense or reality. You think it's nonsense. Fine. Next!

[Strange]

 

No, there is only one logical answer.

 

Only one? Not very imaginative or "out of the box" thinking.

 

Just to be clear, the question was "why is the universe like it is". There are several possible answers that I can think of (and I think it is a pointless question - I'm sure people who think it important or interesting can think of dozens). Just to get started:

 

- Because if the universe did not behave like that, we would not be here to ask the question.

- God made it that way - ot ast least, she made this one like that.

- If the universe were differnt we would be asking why it was like that.

- There are multiple universes with different properties so there is no reason for us being in this one

- Fundamental laws of physics mean that only one possible configuration is possibel

- And so on.

 

Now, you can say my prediction was purely a guess, and maybe it was. But, maybe it wasn't. I was pretty confident they messed up.

 

So was everybody else. Your guess didn't pinpoint which component was faulty and so is completely useless.

You can debate this all you like, but the fact remains. The story leaked FROM CERN, and it hit the headlines.

 

It did not "leak". It was announced at a press conference. The reason they announced it was becuase they wanted help to understand what was wrong.

 

It hit the headlines for the exact reason I said.

 

It hit the headlines because it would be exciting if true.

 

Why is anything able to move in the first place? Why do photons immediately hit light speed? These are the questions I want to know.

 

 

Philosophy is just down the hall.

[andreasjva]

 

You change expansion to contraction for one particle species This will raise the temperature.

 

The perspective is entirely relative. You are basing the physics on a static view, but that's not necessarily reality. Science considers matter like little static ball bearings. This would still clearly be the view in the contracting state, because it's all relative perspectives. You don't understand it yet. We don't know we're contracting, because it's about relativity. We think we're static.

 

Only one? Not very imaginative or "out of the box" thinking.

 

Let me rephrase it. The is only one correct answer based on logic.

[swansont]

Let me rephrase it. The is only one correct answer based on logic.

 

The problem is that for science, you have to be able to compare your model with nature. Nature doesn't care if your answer is "logical". If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. So how do we compare your ideas with experiment?

[andreasjva]

 

It hit the headlines because it would be exciting if true.

 

Beating dead horses to death....

 

It can't ever be true, because nothing can exceed the speed of light.

 

If they understood fundamentally what was going on, there was absolutely no reason to put out a press release in the first place. Like I said, first call should have been to the Maytag repairman, not the press. They did it to themselves. I can't believe you're even defending it.

 

Do you get excited when your engine starts making funny noises? Should we put out a press release?

 

Face it, they jumped the gun.

[swansont]

Also, you've thus far ignored my question about contraction. To what point is everything contracting? And doesn't that mean we are moving toward things that are on the other side of that point? So why do we see redshifts, rather than blueshifts?

[andreasjva]

 

Philosophy is just down the hall.

 

That's certainly not philosophy. I'm kind of shocked that you would consider photon velocity and motion as such actually. That's almost like a creationist mentality.

[swansont]

It can't ever be true, because nothing can exceed the speed of light.

 

If they understood fundamentally what was going on, there was absolutely no reason to put out a press release in the first place. Like I said, first call should have been to the Maytag repairman, not the press. They did it to themselves. I can't believe you're even defending it.

 

 

How do you know that nothing can ever exceed the speed of light unless you test the theory? Science is rife with examples of testing the limits of a theory and finding out that there's something new.