Einstein for ever?

[wobblycogs]

Pretty much spot on.

Einsteins big discovery was that mass and energy are interchangeable (but it's not really correct to say mass is energy). We exploit this discovery every day in nuclear reactors for example where we split a heavy nucleus into two lighter ones. The sum of the masses of the two lighter nuclei is less than the original nucleus, the difference is energy.

You can, in theory at least, make something with mass go at a speed arbitrarily close to the speed of light but never actually at the speed of light because the particles mass increases with velocity in a non-linear manner. The particle accelerator at Cern has protons whizzing round at something like 99.9999991% the speed of light for example.

If the neutrinos have gone faster than the speed of light E=mc^2 won't necessarily be completely wrong, more likely it would only be correct when dealing with "normal" matter. If this is a true result there are several possible explanations such as higher dimensional short cuts and exotic matter with imaginary mass.

 

[RogerS]

I can thoroughly recommend "why does e=mc2? (and why should we care) by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw for a reasonably straightforward guide.

 

[Digit]

Is the speed of light the velocity at which no matter how much energy you input into the system the particle just gets heavier and speed remains constant?

Actually as far as I can find out Einstein never mentioned C as being the speed of light.
His '05 paper was published AFAIR in German and he stated that E=MV2.
Maxwell proposed that the speed of light was a Universal Constant, by which he meant that where ever you were in the universe the speed of light, under specified conditions, was the same.
In German notation E and M are the same as in English, but the Geman for Constant is Konstant, so what Einstein was stating is not clear.
Whether he clarified the matter later I know not.
If the experiment that started this thread turns out to be valid Einsten's formula will still stand if he did not specify V.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

Why shouldn't neutrinos travel faster? It's all based on our perception of time and time is not something universal and absolute...at least, it isn't from a spacetime perspective.

 

[Karl]

Roy - did you read that book which I recommended earlier in this thread?

Einsteins theory classified a universal constant speed, above which nothing could go faster. It matters not whether it was V or C or c or v. The fact is that this universal speed turns out to be the speed of light. For an explanation, try reading the book I recommended.

If the experiment that started this thread turns out to be valid Einsten's formula will still stand if he did not specify V.

Given that V (or C) is the speed of light, then if the results of the experiment are verified, it will turn the theory on its head.

 

[Digit]

Roy - did you read that book which I recommended earlier in this thread?

I've never seen it offered for sale.

The fact is that this universal speed turns out to be the speed of light.

Not if Neutrinos, or some yet to be discovered particle, travels faster. Remember Karl that neutrinos were unheard of at the time of Einstein's paper, I wouldn't shut the door on his idea being final.
Remember that pre Einstein, 'everybody' knew that light propogated through the Aether

Why shouldn't neutrinos travel faster?

None that I can think of. If they do the formula is still valid if Einsten didn't mention light speed.
Does anyone know what his V stood for? I've been trying to find out for years. That he meant light appears to be one of those things 'that everybody knows.'


Roy.

 

[Karl]

Roy - I got the book off e-bay.

I'm not shutting my mind to anything. Just pointing out that great physicists have proven that the C in the theory is equal to the speed of light. It doesn't matter whether Einstein knew it at the time (not sure if he did, but I think he did - i'll read my book again to double check) - it has been proven later that it IS equal to the SOL. It isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of space.

If the theory is correct, then nothing can travel faster than SOL, including Neutrino's. Which is why the theory will be proved wrong if the OP experiment is upheld, and a complete re-think of physics as we understand it will be required.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Digit]

Karl, if they have proved it, as you say, then there is no point in CERN or others repeating the experiment.
As they are doing so there must be some room for doubt, would you not agree?

Roy.

 

[wobblycogs]

There is always room for doubt with a theory, that's why it's a theory. The important point here is the special and general relativity have made almost countless predictions about matter and the universe and every single time we've tested those predictions they have turned out to be 100% spot on. This is pretty much unheard of with any other theory where the theory was developed before the experiment (normally the experiments come first).

While the result is certainly interesting it's one that should be looked at with a great deal of scepticism. If no systematic error is found (which is likely) then there is still a small chance that it's just a fluke, an artefact of statistics. If no error is found it doesn't necessarily write off all of modern physics but it does mean that we will have to have a serious re-think about our view of the universe. It may well be that neutrinos can be composed of real and imaginary matter and everything we've studied up to now is made of just real matter or about a million other possibilities. It will certainly be exciting if it's a real result but I for one won't be a believer until it's been replicated in at least two other places.

 

[Digit]

If no error is found it doesn't necessarily write off all of modern physics

My point entirely. I think my point was not understood. Let us assume that the neutrino is faster, all that happens then is it becomes the new C, if Einstein hedged his bets and gave no value to his V.
Theoretically any partical faster than light should have negative properties, as the neutrino seems to obey Ensteinian theory then it would seem to be slower than light or is C.
Using just the math it has not, AFAIK been physically proved on the basis that no one has converted a mass to its full energy potential.
Am I wrong?

Roy.

 

[wobblycogs]

I would say that it's unlikely that we would change the value of c currently used. More likely is we would have to find new equations that deal with (high energy) neutrinos and other strange matter that we subsequently discover.

As a general rule theories that have stood the test of time don't get completely discarded they just end up with caveats on them about when they don't work. Newtonian (aka classical) mechanics, for example, works brilliantly well for every day things like houses and bridges but becomes increasingly inaccurate as the scale gets larger (planetary movements) and smaller (bunches of atoms).

I don't know of any experiment that has completely converted mass to energy (or vice versa) but there have been no end of experiments that prove E=mc^2 by converting some fractional mass of a particle to energy. While it would be an interesting experiment I don't think it's necessary to carry it out in order to say E=mc^2 is a good rule for how the universe works.

 

[Digit]

Newtonian (aka classical) mechanics, for example, works brilliantly well for every day things like houses and bridges but becomes increasingly inaccurate as the scale gets larger (planetary movements) and smaller (bunches of atoms).

Agreed, I was going to make the same observation.

While it would be an interesting experiment I don't think it's necessary to carry it out in order to say E=mc^2 is a good rule for how the universe works.

Agreed again.
The only reason I would like to know what Einstein's V was is curiosity. As I know you are aware mathematical notation has an accepted code, X= the unknown etc, and it's worth noting, I think, the Albert used recognised notation, in German, for two of the components.
E= Energy, in German Energie.
M = Mass, in German Masse.
So what the hell was V?
I would dearly like to know.
To me the experiment is worth repeating if only for the reason that we might learn somethin.
Seen the report on the new super telescope BTW?

Roy.

 

[wobblycogs]

I assume you mean the ALMA telescope. I hadn't seen the report until you said. I saw something about the building of that telescope a little while back, I thought it was still a long way from going live. Sounds like they still have quite a lot of work to do on it so the data we gather from it should be amazing when it's done. I just wish they would get a decent sized interferometer in space, the images would me amazing. Even the James Webb which is damn near built might not get launched due to budget over runs.

 

[Digit]

Even the James Webb which is damn near built might not get launched due to budget over runs.

Unfortunately many still see pure science as a waste of money cogs. This array may show us the limits of the visible unverse.
Then we can sit and debate about 'beyond!' :lol:

Roy.

 

[wobblycogs]

If I was king I'd pump money into all areas of science and engineering left, right and centre. My personal favourite big science program is ITER http://www.iter.org/. I'm at a loss to understand why it doesn't get more funding, if they can make it work we have free power forever (forever in this context means longer than we care about ).

 

[RogerS]

.....
If the experiment that started this thread turns out to be valid Einsten's formula will still stand if he did not specify V.

Roy.

He did. It was his shorthand for the speed of light.

 

[Digit]

At one time cogs one our governments insisted that they would only fund those ideas that would produce useable results within ten years. The first item on the agenda would have to have been a crystal ball!
Politicians seem mainly to be lawyers, doctors etc, few have any base in the sciences,
I think we need a new Space Race!
The Chinese are developing a space station as a step to Mars. Personally I don't give a damn what language the first man speaks, I'd just love to be around to see it.
Ta Rog.

BTW Cogs did you know the first attempt at measuring light speed was supposedly conducted by Galileo?

Roy.

 

[Karl]

The reason why the speed of light was denoted as V, latterly C, is given here.

Karl

 

[Digit]

Yeah, I read it a few minutes ago. Amazing what you can find on the Net.

Roy.

 

[newt]

[color=#FFFF0[/color]

Not only does it make sense I think it's a great bit of scientific thinking.

Neutrinos interact with gravity and the weak nuclear force (they don't interact with the strong nuclear force or electromagnetism which is why they are so hard to detect). Therefore they would be affected by the gravitational pull of the earth but the effect would be tiny due to the speed they are travelling and the strength of the interaction, I doubt it would be measurable.

The earth couldn't accelerate the particle up to super-luminal speeds using a slingshot effect for the same reason you can't make any item to go at ligth speed - the energy required would be infinite. Imagine a piece of string with a small weight attached.
Holding the string you spin the weight above your head and it goes at a a certain
speed. The longer you make the string the faster the weight goes but the more energy you have to put in to keep it spinning. The string represents the attraction by gravity so even if the interaction with the neutrino was brief you would you would still need to apply infinite energy to accelerate it.

We commonly measure speeds above c but there are special cases where an item is
moving almost towards us at a speed close to c (say 97% or more of c). The measured speed is then apparently some multiple of c, I know of at least one measurement of 4*c. Of course this is an artefact of how the speed was measured not an actual true reading. The reason I mention it is because this is something that would need to be accounted for in the measurements. The earths rotation could cause an apparent increase in the speed of the neutrinos. If I'm honest though I don't think this effect would be anywhere near large enough for account for this discrepancy

The circumference of the earthis 40075.16km so at the equator the velocity is 1669.8km/h (which is 463.8333m/s). The neutrino took 0.0024 seconds to travel the distance from the source to the detector so the earth rotated during the travel time of
the neutrino was: 1.1m. Note that this is an absolute worst case where the neutrino
source and detector were on the equator and they neutrino had to follow the surface of
the earth. IIRC the discrepancy would have to be about 18m to account for the odd
measurement.

Edit. the distance is probably measured with gps and then corrected by calculation for relativistic effects.

You are right there are confusions with C I can remember getting up tight when I was studying microwave theory and the difference in speed between the group and phase velocity in a waveguide.