This whole one reminds me of the believers' and the heretics' debate rather continually.
For what I do not understand neither to the mathematics and to the physics, I cannot join the discussion about the topic in a merit.
(And I do not can in English.)
There is suspecting me only that the truth than always, is between the different viewpoints somewhere halfway.
P.S.:
I add it to it because of that, it would not be necessary to ridicule the person who there is on an other opinion possibly.
Who knows, who laughs at his end?
For what I do not understand neither to the mathematics and to the physics, I cannot join the discussion about the topic in a merit.
(And I do not can in English.)
There is suspecting me only that the truth than always, is between the different viewpoints somewhere halfway.
P.S.:
I add it to it because of that, it would not be necessary to ridicule the person who there is on an other opinion possibly.
Who knows, who laughs at his end?
Last edited:
I cannot believe this thread got this far based on a proposition that the OP could not, and will never, prove, let alone understand. I would venture that most, the greater majority, of forum members do not and will not get close to understanding the physics and maths associated with the concept; I certainly don't.
I'm reminded of an anecdote; a journalist interviewed a physicist, whose name escapes me, in the 1910s and said that he understood that only three people understood relativity. The physicist said, to the effect, there are Einstein and me, who is the third person?
I'm reminded of an anecdote; a journalist interviewed a physicist, whose name escapes me, in the 1910s and said that he understood that only three people understood relativity. The physicist said, to the effect, there are Einstein and me, who is the third person?
[1110.2685] Times of Flight between a Source and a Detector observed from a GPS satelite
This looks right to me, but it's not directly in my area of expertise. I'd love to hear comments from the "real" physicists here.
This looks right to me, but it's not directly in my area of expertise. I'd love to hear comments from the "real" physicists here.
I'm not a "real" physicist, but I predict a truckload of new-agers and conspiracy theorists will say this conclusion is wrong, and that the neutrinos really were going faster than the speed of light. I should start my stopwatch to check how long it takes for the first one to make such a claim. I should check Deepak's Twitter feed right now. Yuck, where's the brain bleach...
Apparently, Lorentz never accepted Einsteinian relativity. Scroll down to and read this:
Whittaker and the Aether
More fantastic revelations here:
Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius By Hans C. Ohanian
Einstein's Mistakes: The Human ... - Hans C. Ohanian - Google Books
Whittaker and the Aether
More fantastic revelations here:
Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius By Hans C. Ohanian
Einstein's Mistakes: The Human ... - Hans C. Ohanian - Google Books
Does the belief in Einstein's relativity theory indicate a certain type of mental disability?
Google Translate
Google Translate
just now heard that Einstein was much more right than he knew himself
that he actually described the creation of the universe
life itself, actually
if light 'fluctuates' a bit, so what
if it does, wouldn't it be natural
what else to expect
How Einstein ruined physics
how einstein ruined physics - roger schlafly - Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=d7...&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
how einstein ruined physics - roger schlafly - Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=d7...&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Last edited:
Attachments
but he explained a heck of a lot of physical phenomena really well
an earlier question was leading towards ~ "how many people really understand Special Relativity"
my guestimate there must be order of 100k PhD's in physics worldwide, alive today, and will have had to demonstrate some knowledge for their degree
quite a few more get undergrad Physics degrees and good lab's today include measurements, calculation of Relativistic effects:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.5977v1.pdf
quite a change from 1910
ps - and the magnets are still sticking to my refrigerator door, without monopoles!
an earlier question was leading towards ~ "how many people really understand Special Relativity"
my guestimate there must be order of 100k PhD's in physics worldwide, alive today, and will have had to demonstrate some knowledge for their degree
quite a few more get undergrad Physics degrees and good lab's today include measurements, calculation of Relativistic effects:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.5977v1.pdf
quite a change from 1910
ps - and the magnets are still sticking to my refrigerator door, without monopoles!
Last edited:
What's this stuff about Lorentz violation?
Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not the part that says: " Such patterns require the existence of a privileged local inertial frame (the "vacuum rest frame"). They can be tested, at least partially, by ultra-high energy cosmic ray experiments like the Pierre Auger Observatory."
Lorentz covariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not the part that says: " Such patterns require the existence of a privileged local inertial frame (the "vacuum rest frame"). They can be tested, at least partially, by ultra-high energy cosmic ray experiments like the Pierre Auger Observatory."
Don't forget to study this information carefully.
Relativity skeptics and aether proponents
Relativity skeptics and aether proponents
Oops!
Quote:
Last month, a team of international researchers shocked the scientific world with the news that particles they had been firing for several years from the CERN particle accelerator in Switzerland at detectors at the OPERA facility in Gran Sasso, Italy placed about 450 miles away appeared to be arriving at their destination faster than the time it would take light to get there.
The particles, traveling through air, water, and rock, shouldn't have hit the Gran Sasso detectors sooner than about 2.4 thousandths of a second after being fired, which is the time it would take light to travel the distance between the two points. Yet the CERN researchers reported that their neutrinos were getting to the target 64 nanoseconds faster—meaning that they were traveling faster than light, supposedly impossible according to the Theory of Special Relativity.
Now other scientists say that a failure to fully account for the effects of relativity is what caused the original researchers to supposedly mis-measure the time it was taking the neutrinos to travel using a GPS satellite, despite the CERN team saying they had factored relativity into their calculations.
A new paper by Dutch researcher Ronald A.J. van Elburg lays out the case that the GPS satellite measuring the neutrinos' movements was also moving relative to the CERN and OPERA facilities as it orbited the Earth. Briefly, van Elburg asserts that the effects of relativity as they pertain to the GPS satellite's measurements require two corrections to the perceived time of travel.
Lo and behold, it turns out that applying that double correction shaves 64 nanoseconds off the neutrinos' travel time, according to van Elburg.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...id=9taRRPd5COH
Quote:
Last month, a team of international researchers shocked the scientific world with the news that particles they had been firing for several years from the CERN particle accelerator in Switzerland at detectors at the OPERA facility in Gran Sasso, Italy placed about 450 miles away appeared to be arriving at their destination faster than the time it would take light to get there.
The particles, traveling through air, water, and rock, shouldn't have hit the Gran Sasso detectors sooner than about 2.4 thousandths of a second after being fired, which is the time it would take light to travel the distance between the two points. Yet the CERN researchers reported that their neutrinos were getting to the target 64 nanoseconds faster—meaning that they were traveling faster than light, supposedly impossible according to the Theory of Special Relativity.
Now other scientists say that a failure to fully account for the effects of relativity is what caused the original researchers to supposedly mis-measure the time it was taking the neutrinos to travel using a GPS satellite, despite the CERN team saying they had factored relativity into their calculations.
A new paper by Dutch researcher Ronald A.J. van Elburg lays out the case that the GPS satellite measuring the neutrinos' movements was also moving relative to the CERN and OPERA facilities as it orbited the Earth. Briefly, van Elburg asserts that the effects of relativity as they pertain to the GPS satellite's measurements require two corrections to the perceived time of travel.
Lo and behold, it turns out that applying that double correction shaves 64 nanoseconds off the neutrinos' travel time, according to van Elburg.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...id=9taRRPd5COH
- Status
- Not open for further replies.