Cern

[Frances_iom]

I heard once that GPS has a limited lifespan for a scientific reason. We should therefore be conserving waymarks.

a few leylines here and there will suffice!!
- GPS relies on highly accurate atomic clocks carried by satellites in a orbital constellation - orbits decay (eg hitting stray molecules, pressure of sunlight and other photons - satellites eventually run out of fuel needed to correct the orbit - electronics fail (tho not is seems as much as certain intellects) - hence regular replacement satellites, orbital spares and the new European GPS system

[french frank]

This explains how neutrinos can travel faster than light without negating the theory of relativity. I think it means that when they have the velocity to exceed the speed of light they hop into another dimension and then re-enter before they've set out . Ish.

[Lateralthinking1]

Frances-iom - Thank you for your explanation of GPS which I understood. frenchfrank - Thank you for your commentary on relativity which I didn't understand. The idea of there being more than three dimensions threw me. As for Swiss gnomes, they are surely being kept ultra safe so that we can learn more about gegnomes.

[vinteuil]

... effect is not necessarily related to cause.

In 1739 Hume demonstrated that there is no philosophically convincing connection between cause and effect...

[Roehre]

This explains how neutrinos can travel faster than light without negating the theory of relativity. I think it means that when they have the velocity to e
exceed the speed of light they hop into another dimension and then re-enter before they've set out . Ish.

The Theories of Relativity state that the maximum speed a particle can reach is the speed of light (nearly 300.000 km/s).
If this theory is correct, neutrinos won't travel faster either. But jumping a dimension (see my contribution #3) means the distance these particles travel is shorter, and therefore (as speed = distance/time) their speed seems to be higher.

[Vile Consort]

I have heard of a convincing explanation of this. The chairman of my amateur radio club, Martin G8KDF, who is a design engineer, but is/was also I think a professor of physics, has studied this situation very closely, and he gave us a talk on a possible explanation. He was convinced the experiemnt was accurate and had no hidden flaws. Also that Einstein's theories has stood the test of time.

The talk was given without any hint of confidential matter being imparted, and therefore I think I can broadcast his explanation. Which is that there is a huge lump of anti-matter in the way, between CERN and the Italian station. This effectively causes a negative refractive index, causing the neutrinos, not to slow down, but to speed up over the speed of light as measured in free space. Seemed convincing to me!

Antimatter has a negative refractive index? Does it really? How does that work then?

[Word]

I haven't read the latest paper, so don't know if this has been addressed, but the following seems like a reasonable hypothesis for the observed behaviour: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/
(Just adding another dimension to explain things always seems like a bit of a cop-out.)

'Does it really matter?'

Very much so. There is physics; everything else is just what we do to pass the time.

[amateur51]

This explains how neutrinos can travel faster than light without negating the theory of relativity. I think it means that when they have the velocity to exceed the speed of light they hop into another dimension and then re-enter before they've set out . Ish.

I suddenly had a vision of Lord Home (of the Hirsel) trying to explain that to himself using his famous box of matches

[Quarky]

"Antimatter has a negative refractive index? Does it really? How does that work then? "

Dunno exactly - I'll ask Martin when next I see him.

Although having a physics degree, these days I do not go beyond Maxwel's equations of electromagnetism.

However I did notice a book with an interesting description of the phenomenon- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T...page&q&f=false

However I was quite happy with the explanation posted by Word, which seemed even more convincing. After all it was another Dutchman, Lorentz, who laid the mathematical foundations for relativity.

[Simon]

Amusing, isn't it, to come across some of the hypotheses of scientists. Scientific American is a journal I read when I can, and though of course I can't grasp the complex stuff, much is fascinating even to a layman.

Some of the theories are patently absurd - especially the ones wheeled out in attempts to undermine positions that conflict with "established" philosophies that scientists don't really want to part with.** One is so often reminded of the Catholic Church's objections about the position of the earth and the sun. A hefty cut or two with the famous Razor is in many cases the necessary medicine! So it doesn't surprise me to hear of the anti-matter idea. Of course, this has a few flaws, the largest being that there is no proof whatsoever that antimatter exists in the first place. But, I accept, it could do!

I very much admire the CERN scientists - the temptation to cover this up must have been enormous. I gather that some wanted to do precisely that - they couldn't accept the results.

**Einstein's theory of nothing being able to exceed the speed of light has been understood as ridiculous by a lot of people for a long time - the problem has been that none of them has had the mathematical ability (for indeed he was a mathematical genius) to squash his ideas mathematically. But as we all know, mathematics can be flawed, and is not 100% perfect in it's proofs.

[John Skelton]

Amusing, isn't it, to come across some of the hypotheses of scientists. Scientific American is a journal I read when I can, and though of course I can't grasp the complex stuff, much is fascinating even to a layman.

Some of the theories are patently absurd - especially the ones wheeled out in attempts to undermine positions that conflict with "established" philosophies that scientists don't really want to part with.** One is so often reminded of the Catholic Church's objections about the position of the earth and the sun. A hefty cut or two with the famous Razor is in many cases the necessary medicine! So it doesn't surprise me to hear of the anti-matter idea. Of course, this has a few flaws, the largest being that there is no proof whatsoever that antimatter exists in the first place. But, I accept, it could do!

I very much admire the CERN scientists - the temptation to cover this up must have been enormous. I gather that some wanted to do precisely that - they couldn't accept the results.

**Einstein's theory of nothing being able to exceed the speed of light has been understood as ridiculous by a lot of people for a long time - the problem has been that none of them has had the mathematical ability (for indeed he was a mathematical genius) to squash his ideas mathematically. But as we all know, mathematics can be flawed, and is not 100% perfect in it's proofs.

I hadn't realised that you were a scientist, Simon. I'd thought of you as more a man of letters. Notwithstanding: it's its proofs, not "it's proofs."

[Vile Consort]

"Antimatter has a negative refractive index? Does it really? How does that work then? "

Dunno exactly - I'll ask Martin when next I see him.

Although having a physics degree, these days I do not go beyond Maxwel's equations of electromagnetism.

However I did notice a book with an interesting description of the phenomenon- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T...page&q&f=false

However I was quite happy with the explanation posted by Word, which seemed even more convincing. After all it was another Dutchman, Lorentz, who laid the mathematical foundations for relativity.

All that's needed for light to travel faster in a medium than in vacuo is a refractive index less than unity. The speed of light would tend to infinity as the refractive index approached zero from above. A negative refractive index would presumably mean light came out of the medium before it went in, thus violating the conservation of energy.

[Roehre]

I haven't read the latest paper, so don't know if this has been addressed, but the following seems like a reasonable hypothesis for the observed behaviour: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Good article. Thanks Word

[Frances_iom]

..of course I can't grasp the complex stuff, ..Of course, this has a few flaws, the largest being that there is no proof whatsoever that antimatter exists in the first place..

maybe a brief email to CERN to inform them of your concerns - http://alpha-new.web.cern.ch/

[Ferretfancy]

Sorry Simon, but anti-matter has been produced in the laboratory, albeit with only a few atoms at a time, but enough to prove that it exists.