Time Travel? Einstein was wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blynd1
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 79
  • Views Views 8K
I don't understand how they can recieve a signal milli-seconds before it has actually been sent.. Or have I misread something?

Do people think it's possible that the future has already happened and that what is to happen in say, 2 hours time has always been set in stone?
 
W4FC B3N said:
I don't understand how they can recieve a signal milli-seconds before it has actually been sent.. Or have I misread something?

Do people think it's possible that the future has already happened and that what is to happen in say, 2 hours time has always been set in stone?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the ****** up world of special relativity. If you consider two points in a galaxy, A and B, and then consider that time is equal to the distance between the two points and the speed at which they are traversed, when we hold the speed of light as a universal speed limit, nothing can ever go between A and B faster than light. Remember, you can't observe anything either unless the light reaches you either. Pretend you're on a train, and point A is next to you and point B is at the end of the train. At each point, a ball is dropped at precisely the same time, but because of the distance between the points, you observe A first and then B. That is in essence, relativity.

The equation for time dilation:

tdgraphformula.gif

This implies that the speed of light, c, is the universal speed limit, as at v=c the function divides by zero, which is impossible. Since time slows down to a point where it stops for the observer travelling at the speed of light, it follows that if we were to surpass the light barrier, you would travel backwards in time, hence you receive the signal before it's sent. If you had a device that fired a photon at the speed of light towards a reflective surface, and used that to measure time in a clock, if the device moved at the speed of light horizontally, the photons would never reach the plate to be returned to the device, and so time would stop.

And no, I don't believe the future has already happened and set in stone.
 
was trying to explain to my girlfriend about how, in theory, we might be able to travel back in time but couldn't real do it and she was very sceptical. Someone make it nice and simple for me? (Joel? ;) )
 
How does the speed barrier being broken relate to time travel?
 
Jak said:
was trying to explain to my girlfriend about how, in theory, we might be able to travel back in time but couldn't real do it and she was very sceptical. Someone make it nice and simple for me? (Joel? ;) )
Click to expand...

mrjack41 said:
How does the speed barrier being broken relate to time travel?
Click to expand...

I explained it in my last post? :/
 
i recently discussed it wit my Phys. teacher, and there was a small meeting about it were she attend and said that it could be a false. plus also sated that it the waves causing to make it come before the actual atom too reach the speed the same as light.

i too am confused, but u know there are scientist that are fighting over this to make it false.



bu it would be cool to go back in time :P
 
Jak said:
was trying to explain to my girlfriend about how, in theory, we might be able to travel back in time but couldn't real do it and she was very sceptical. Someone make it nice and simple for me? (Joel? ;) )
Click to expand...

I've already explained it to you next week.
 
The scientists who appeared to have found in September that certain subatomic particles can travel faster than light have ruled out one potential source of error in their measurements after completing a second, fine-tuned version of their experiment.

Their results, posted on the ArXiv preprint server on Friday morning and submitted for peer review in the Journal of High Energy Physics, confirmed earlier measurements that neutrinos, sent through the ground from Cern near Geneva to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy 450 miles (720km) away seemed to travel faster than light.

The finding that neutrinos might break one of the most fundamental laws of physics sent scientists into a frenzy when it was first reported in September. Not only because it appeared to go against Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity but, if correct, the finding opened up the troubling possibility of being able to send information back in time, blurring the line between past and present and wreaking havoc with the fundamental principle of cause and effect.

The physicist and TV presenter Professor Jim Al-Khalili of the University of Surrey expressed the incredulity of many in the field when he said that if the findings "prove to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV".

In their original experiment scientists fired beams of neutrinos from Cernto the Gran Sasso lab and the neutrinos seemed to arrive sixty billionths of a second earlier than they should if travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum.

One potential source of error pointed out by other scientists was that the pulses of neutrinos sent by Cern were relatively long, around 10 microseconds each, so measuring the exact arrival time of the particles at Gran Sasso could have relatively large errors. To account for this potential problem in the latest version of the test, the beams sent by Cern were thousands of times shorter – around three nanoseconds – with large gaps of 524 nanoseconds between them. This allowed scientists to time the arrival of the neutrinos at Gran Sasso with greater accuracy.

Writing on his blog when the fine-tuned experiment started last month, Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist at Rutgers University, said the shorter pulses of neutrinos being sent from Cern to Gran Sasso would remove the need to measure the shape and duration of the beam. "It's like sending a series of loud and isolated clicks instead of a long blast on a horn," he said. "In the latter case you have to figure out exactly when the horn starts and stops, but in the former you just hear each click and then it's already over. In other words, with the short pulses you don't need to know the pulse shape, just the pulse time."
"And you also don't need to measure thousands of neutrinos in order to reproduce the pulse shape, getting the leading and trailing edges just right; you just need a small number – maybe even as few as 10 or so – to check the timing of just those few pulses for which a neutrino makes a splash in Opera."

Around 20 neutrino events have been measured at the Gran Sasso lab in the fine-tuned version of the experiment in the past few weeks, each one precisely associated with a pulse leaving Cern. The scientists concluded from the new measurements that the neutrinos still appeared to be arriving earlier than they should.

"With the new type of beam produced by Cern's accelerators we've been able to to measure with accuracy the time of flight of neutrinos one by one," said Dario Autiero of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). "The 20 neutrinos we recorded provide comparable accuracy to the 15,000 on which our original measurement was based. In addition their analysis is simpler and less dependent on the measurement of the time structure of the proton pulses and its relation to the neutrinos' production mechanism."

In a statement released on Friday, Fernando Ferroni, president of the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, said: "A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication on physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny. The experiment at Opera, thanks to a specially adapted Cern beam, has made an important test of consistency of its result. The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."

Since the Opera (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) team at Gran Sasso announced its results, physicists around the world have published scores of online papers trying to explain the strange finding as either the result of a trivial mistake or evidence for new physics.

Dr Carlo Contaldi of Imperial College London suggested that different gravitational effects at Cern and Gran Sasso could have affected the clocks used to measure the neutrinos. Others have come up with ideas about new physics that modify special relativity by taking the unexpected effects of higher dimensions into account.

Despite the latest result, said Autiero, the observed faster-than-light anomaly in the neutrinos' speed from Cern to Gran Sasso needed further scrutiny and independent tests before it could be refuted or confirmed definitively. The Opera experiment will continue to take data with a newmuon detector well into next year, to improve the accuracy of the results.

The search for errors is not yet over, according to Jacques Martino, director of the National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics at CNRS. He said that more checks would be under way in future, including ensuring that the clocks at Cern and Gran Sasso were properly synchronised, perhaps by using an optical fibre as opposed to the GPS system used at the moment.

This would remove any potential errors that might occur due to the effects of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which says that clocks tick at different rates depending on the amount of gravitational force they experience – clocks closer to the surface of the Earth tick slower than those further away.
Even a tiny discrepancy between the clocks at Cern and Gran Sasso could be at the root of the faster-than-light results seen in September.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-new-results-show-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html


 
Last edited:
Until it's been published in a reputable Journal and has been peer reviewed it means nothing. It's going to be worth following though, not because it's going to be true, but because the way they improve the experiments and the accuracy of the tools will be interesting.
 
Lee said:
Until it's been published in a reputable Journal and has been peer reviewed it means nothing. It's going to be worth following though, not because it's going to be true, but because the way they improve the experiments and the accuracy of the tools will be interesting.
Click to expand...

The more times they repeat it the more accurate the evidence is getting. There's still 6 or 7 from the team that are refusing to sign it off to be published, there's rightfully much scepticism about the result, but it's an exciting scientific period, and could really be astonishing if it's proven true.

And even if it's not been published, theorists are already beginning to try and explain it such is the significance if the result is true.
 
Meh, a NWO took this research down. And now they are going to make a weapon of mass destruction.
 
An update to the link Lee posted earlier here.

A faulty cable. Good to know my hat remains uneaten.
 
Vanjagl said:
You can't tell ? Well, maybe this will help you.
Then aliens will come on Earth and steal NWO's woms and blow Jupiter cuz they can.
Click to expand...

You post so much conspiracy bullshit it's hard to sieve through what you're joking about.
 
What kind conspiracy ? That Americans are after African oil ? Or that NATO can't attack Syria cuz Russians would start a war ?
 
**** that was exciting at the time. sad face
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top