The researchers who launched neutrino packets only to find that they traveled about 700 kilometers in less time than it takes a light beam to travel the same distance. They put their findings online for their peers to review
Neutrinos that passed through the ground from the LHC accelerator at CERN were picked up a fraction of a second earlier than expected by dedicated instruments 732 kilometers away at the Gran Sasso laboratory located under the Italian Alps. This is according to a publication last night (Thursday) by the group of researchers "opera" , who claim that there is no explanation for the speed greater than the speed of light, after all possibilities for disruptions in the measurements have been ruled out.
Neutrinos appear in nature in several types and recently they seem to spontaneously switch from one form to another. The team launched at the accelerator beams containing only one type of neutrino - muon neutrinos and sends them from a hub to a laboratory in Gran Sasso, Italy to see how many of them arrive as a different type - tau type neutrinos. During the experiment, the researchers noticed that the particles appeared a few billionths of a second earlier for the same distance compared to the speed of light.
The team led by Prof. Antonio Arditato measured the travel time of the neutrino packets about 15 thousand times and reached a level of statistical significance that allows identifying cases where it is a discovery. However, the group realized that "systematic errors" could easily cause illogical results and make it appear as if the particles exceeded the speed of light, but nevertheless they decided to publish the data so that more scientists could check it, because if the discovery is indeed confirmed it would be a shock to the foundations of physics.
Since the scientists who made the discovery are careful, it is highly desirable that we all be careful and let the scientists do their work, even if it causes errors in the experiment or measurements, otherwise the theoretical physicists will have a lot of work.
72 תגובות
On special relativity and the nuclear crisis
Israel has a stockpile of atomic bombs, but one bomb that falls on Gush Dan will wreak havoc on the country. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is getting close to assembling the nuclear warhead and announces his intention to destroy the State of Israel. Iran's connection to the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization proves that the nuclear threat is actually to the entire world. About a month before the outbreak of World War II, Albert Einstein sent a letter to the President of the United States Roosevelt in which he points out the possibility of creating a powerful bomb using uranium. He ended his letter by hinting that the Germans might already be busy creating this weapon. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Israel is busy in a confrontation with the President of the United States over the Iranian nuclear threat and the upcoming elections in both countries.
The atomic weapon is a consequence of the special theory of relativity that grew out of the understanding that man affects the world of phenomena. The founding idea is that it is possible to measure the length of a body using the movement of a light beam. But relativity is still limited in the concept of Euclidean mathematics. In 1969, George Spencer Brown published his revolutionary book The Laws of Form. In this book, Spencer essentially completes Einstein's relativistic move and extends it to the world of mathematics as well. The founding idea is called differentiation which is a more fundamental mathematical operation than the number. It is basically geometry that the shapes have no size. Using the new mathematics, it is possible to produce a weapon more deadly than the atomic weapon, but we can try to really deal with the existential danger that is approaching us. A science based only on pure objectivity is like a self-fulfilling prophecy and endangers the existence of the observer.
From what I understand the question is what was your speed in space during the experiment? Our relative speed changes with the earth's rotation in relation to space and the energy passing through us also changes.
a question:
Is the neutrino related to the attraction of bodies to one another or is there another particle? After all, it has a certain effect, doesn't it?
In short, detail exactly what you did in the experiment :) and we will try to help you with the theories
The universe is made up of waves that establish a wavelength twice the frequency, this is a constant called the speed of light
You should see a simple article I wrote
Search for them on Google mourici.022
The question is not really related:
If a neutrino can pass through the earth directly, at a speed very close to the speed of light,
Why not use it for communication that requires low ping?
How long does it take to create a neutrino particle, and how long does it take to absorb it?
So if Einstein was wrong, does that mean for sure that Newton was not wrong? (attribution....)
Thanks to whoever answered my previous question, and in the meantime another question occurred to me:
If the neutrino really did go the speed of light, shouldn't they have picked it up at the end of the orbit before they launched it?
Machel
Hello. Happy holiday. I just wanted to ask you, do you have any speculation on this topic for the new year? 🙂 Do you really have nothing to say about such a discovery? Even though they said "it is very desirable that we all be careful and let the scientists do their work", if the results of the measurements are correct - you as one who has mathematical knowledge and should at least at the mathematical level understand the meaning of the result - you have nothing to say on a theoretical level about this physics (although sometimes in different subjects you Indeed, do you allow yourself to express yourself in a hypothetical way, as for example in your article about the soul, and other topics)? Or do you prefer to listen to scientists who are doing their work and/or your conscience and refrain from saying your speculations on the subject so as not to confuse anyone and not drag the discussion about the speculations out of control? 🙂 Of course you don't have to answer. Have a good year.
Peace,
I am attaching a link to an article on the subject by Prof. Elam Gross from the Weizmann Institute of Science: Was Einstein really wrong?
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4127580,00.html
The theory of relativity is based on two principles: the first is called the principle of relativity and it says that the laws of nature do not change in reference systems that move relative to each other at a constant speed. The second law is the principle of constancy of the speed of light in which the assumption that light moves at the highest speed is actually hidden. The special theory of relativity completely changed the basic concepts of physics such as time, length, mass and energy. The theory was also found to have a dramatic use in the production of atomic weapons.
Now at the point of the awakening of scientific thought, the time is ripe for mathematicians to try and rethink the foundations of mathematics as well. Like Einstein, we must re-examine the most basic things, for example the concept of number. The Mayan tribe, at the same time as the Indians, strengthened the concept of number with the use of the number 0. What science needs is an idea that will allow the mathematician to enter the game of the world and not observe it from an objective point of view.
Happy New Year
Moses
Peace,
If the measurement is correct, what does this actually say about the Lorentz transformation?
The formula has a root whose parameter becomes negative if the speed of light is exceeded.
Does this mean that the formula may only be a good approximation of the true law of nature?
Is it possible that a small regularization of the formula (neutrino factor) will be a sufficient extension to cover the new case?
Happy New Year,
Rani
In my opinion, Erdogan should be launched in this particle accelerator towards Ahmadinejad who will be stationed opposite him in Italy and as a result of their meeting all the dark matter in the universe will be released..
Roy
About a year or two ago I tried to explain on this website about space-time, and about the particle that is faster than the photon
And I found people mocking (who today eat the hat).
I would be happy to discuss the subject with you, but first I have a question: what is your background in the field of physics and mathematics?
No, on the contrary, this is exactly what proves Einstein's theory!
His theory also says that gravity is basically the fact that every body curves the space around it inward. And the greater its mass, the stronger the effect on space. So, because the particle went straight through the Earth, and not through empty space, then because of the curvature of space by the Earth, it actually traveled a shorter distance. This is what caused the result to be smaller by a few billionths of a second. The Earth is not one of the heaviest in the universe, so the differences are tiny and almost imperceptible, but apparently there are devices sensitive enough to measure the tiny changes!
Happy new year to everyone ! And I hope that every year we will have such news that will create interest even among those who are oblivious to the matter. (oblivious isn't bliss)
(-:
Heavenly holiday.
Gil Dotan
I wish you success Roy. I understand that you are just at the beginning, as you say, you are currently writing the fourth article out of several dozen that are needed to open your theory. We will come back again in a few weeks to check the progress
A good week and a good year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
An appeal to everyone who has an open mind - the real challenge of theoretical physics:
To understand what space is in general and what time is within space.
In my eyes, the generating waves involved in the Schrödinger equation are not waves that transmit a signal from one place to another. At the most basic level, there are no different places in the universe. There is a level where everything is within everything. The waves represented in the Schrödinger equation are in my view a rough approximation of a cross section from this level. As such they do not transmit a signal. The letter itself is the result of their superposition!! Until now physicists have only talked about the events inside (!) space. I'm talking about events that take place on (!) the space. I'm talking about the way the space itself is created and works.
It's true, even though I studied physics, I'm still more of an "amateur" than a "professional". But I am developing my theory with positive feedback from a leading professor in Israel who still encourages me to continue. I invite readers to review her partial publication at:
http://www.q-spacetheory.org/
I claim: whoever does not manage to crack and understand what space is at all, will never reach the insights needed to create the overall theory of physics.
Thanks to Michael for the link.
I took the section at the end of the link from there
"With this kind of background, it is not necessarily the case that the limiting speed in nature is the speed of light," Kostelecky told The Guardian. "It might actually be the speed of neutrinos and light goes more slowly."
Well similar to the words of a point:-.
Point September 23, 2011 at 17:01 # A simple explanation is that the real "speed of light" is precisely the speed of the neutrino. The neutrino void is a true void. While the void of the photon is not quite empty.
Ehud, Guy, for your attention.
The words of amateurs should not be underestimated. (:))
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Ehud, Machal (or whoever understands)
What is the chance that the neutrino interacts with CDM particles? And moving as a soliton of a special type as a result of friction with the cold dark matter particles (even if they have not been discovered yet - theoretically what are the chances of this being possible)?
An article about the special soliton:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/physicists-predict-new-form-of-soliton-in-ultracold-gases-2912091/
(By the way, does anyone know if there were any developments following that soliton experiment?)
http://news.discovery.com/space/reality-check-what-are-those-naughty-neutrinos-really-up-to-110924.html
We are science enthusiasts who dabble in cosmological problems. And I really have no pretensions to explain to scientists what they may have omitted. little We are science enthusiasts expressing our opinions to science enthusiasts. point.
But please, don't idealize scientific research. The research is actually full of many opposite examples. The very fact that world fame is given only to the first and they are also the ones who will receive the Nobel Prize - this alone is already a source of errors in which research institutions publish even only after 90 percent of tests. Remember the meteor from Mars that NASA stated had signs of life in it. It doesn't matter what the truth was about the aforementioned meteor, but she achieved hers in that any discovery of life that will be made in the cosmos will have to mention her meteor.
And finally, I accept your apology and of course I also apologize if it seemed from my words that I accused you of any accusations because I had no such intention.
Have a good week everyone and Ehud
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish and Roy,
I do not know if the test result in the report is correct or not, although it is likely that it is not. There are experiments that report the time difference between the arrival of neutrons and light from a supernova to the earth. Experiments, however, constitute a very precise barrier.
on the difference in particle velocities. In any case, even if the experiment is true or not, the attempt by people who are not knowledgeable in the field to conceive scientific theories is absurd.
Sabdarmish,
I apologize for the harsh tone in my previous words, but your pretension to explain science to scientists is outrageous. I will give you an example that can explain the absurdity of your words. You blamed me for not trying to find an explanation for the results of the experiment, so I went to work and found the solution. The experimenter who had to read the numbers from the display got confused in the reading and thus found out that the speed of the neutrino is greater than the speed of light. A reasonable explanation, isn't it? Let's see you disqualify him? Well, it is clear that my explanation is far-fetched, experiments are carried out by scientists with very high precision and are tested dozens of times, and the accusation of inaccuracy in performing the experiment is far-fetched. Likewise, your theories are brand new and spit in the face of science. You are actually saying that you, being uneducated in science, understand better than all the experts in the field those scientists who worked for years to build and disprove theories and thought of all the most illusory possibilities. Do they know less than you or are they simply less talented than you? Where do you choose to publish your theories in science? For the thousandth time (sorry for the harshness) new scientific theories have their place in scientific papers. Please try to publish your theories and then you will argue about the level of accuracy and knowledge needed to raise a scientific theory.
ravine,
You pretend to understand where time and space come from and claim that "the same creative waves that are the basis of quantum theory do contain the information about every event in the universe and transmit this information to the entire universe "simultaneously". "First of all, in no experiment have they been able to transmit information at a speed higher than the speed of light, let alone at the same time. Secondly, I explained to you that the "speed" at which a signal travels depends on the nature of the differential equation that represents the phenomenon. The heat equations and the Schrödinger equations are examples of partial parabolic equations. In this type of equations, the field in the entire space is updated "simultaneously" when a change is made at some point. The wave equation is a hyperbolic equation in which a disturbance progresses at a finite speed which is the speed of the wave (light or sound depending on the case). I suggested you repeat the quantum course but before that I recommend a course in partial differential equations before running to talk about the holographic principle.
To Ehud and to everyone who prefers to believe that the results of the experiment in question are a mistake,
It is possible that the experiment at CERN contains measurement errors or poor interpretation but what if not? The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was also thought to be a mistake and for years they preferred to turn a blind eye to the results. Those who now fiercely defend the theory of relativity in light of the results of the experiment and prefer to believe that this experiment will turn out to be a mistake and the whole matter will be forgotten, reminds me very much of those scientists who closed their eyes at the end of the 19th century.
Ehud, you sent me to repeat the line mechanics course. It will take a very long time. In the meantime, I want to ask you and everyone who can answer the following question:
Do you really understand what space and time are and where they come from?
In my opinion, those who really understand this can also understand how relativity and lines come together intuitively and how those waves that form the basis of quantum theory do contain the information about every event in the universe and transmit this information to the entire universe "simultaneously". To me, time itself is just a focus on a specific space. At a more basic level it has no existence. (For those familiar with the holographic idea - that's where I'm aiming + upgrade).
To Guy
The idea that the speed of light was different in the past was not enough to explain the current netrin speed problem. I just wanted to point out that I have not seen in any experiment the proof that the speed of light does not change on different dates, for example - that a year ago it was several millimeters per second greater than the speed today. This was not proven wrong in the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was done at one point in time and therefore could not reach a conclusion about speed differences at different dates. There it was only proven that the speed of light is the same in every direction and there is no connection of speeds accepted by Newtonian physics. This does not necessarily mean that the theory of attribution is incorrect, but rather that C changes somewhat depending on the date of measurement. If my intention is not clear, then no problem!
Shabbos shalom and please respond gently and politely
Sabdarmish Yehuda
back to the drawing board
S.H., a point, others and myself try to explain the contradiction in an experiment. Try too, Ehud, instead of sending me to study for ten years
I will consider your words Mr. Ehud and ignore the personal damage to my skills.
You treat all the constants of nature as constant even though doubts arise from time to time on this subject.
You admit that you do not understand why the speed of light is what it is and yet are not ready for the change proposed by dot or me. Most probably the explanations are lacking but I am happy and proud of the fertile imagination of a point or mine.
If doubts arise about whether Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead or a particle or a wave then doubts can also arise about whether C is a photon or a neutron.
I'm sure Schrödinger's cat would love to have a few more nanoseconds of life in a natrine experiment.
And please, please respond gently
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish:
If you added the date of the measurement to the description of each measurement, you would have no problem describing any measurement - even incorrect measurements. You would have a perfect theory without contradictions - but you would also lose your ability to predict.
In short, your amateurish suggestions are against the principle of Ockham's razor.
Maybe we'll define a new principle in science - Sabdarmish's putty:
When there's a hole in the theory, we'll just pull out Sabdarmish's putty! And we have a perfect theory
Sabdarmish,
Maybe enough already... you are an example of everything that is not scientific. Science is not a night of ideas invented to explain an experiment. Science is a coherent collection of theories. You, on the other hand, lack basic knowledge (you do have a rich imagination) and any knowledge
In science you have your own theory. About 500 years ago it was possible to come up with a theory without knowing anything and maybe even reject it
Theories today must be studied for about 10 years to understand the leading scientific theories and how they fit together. Please then spare the readers your theories based on a basic lack of understanding.
A side note: Science today is built on constants of nature which are numbers such as the speed of light, Planac's constant, the constant of gravitation, etc... The value of the constants of nature is given by guesswork and is not theoretically explained by a complete theory. For the sake of explanation - why the speed of light is as it is and not 2 times or 100 times higher, well there is no theoretical explanation, the value of the speed of light is as it is because that is how it was measured in an experiment. The goal of science is to reduce as much as possible the lack of knowledge and, as a special case, the number of constants of nature. An anti-scientific solution is to invent a natural constant for every experiment.
Now for the idea of the constant speed of light for different particles. Einstein showed that if the speed of light is constant for each observer, it is not possible for two observers to synchronize their clocks. The relativity of time arises from the fact that clocks cannot be synchronized. If every particle has a constant speed for every observer, this contradicts special relativity and means that there are two types of time, an idea that you may happily adopt, but it is exactly the opposite of what science is trying to achieve. If we invent its own theory for each experiment, we will be engaged in collecting stamps and not in science.
I would like to upgrade the interesting things that a point said.
First, he said:-
"A simple explanation is that the real "speed of light" is precisely the speed of the neutrino. The neutrino void is a true void. Whereas the void of the photon is not really empty." End quote.
That is, he says that the higher speed of the neutrino is the correct one that should be considered.
In my upgrade I want to give each particle its final speed. That is, everyone will have the theory of relativity correct only that the value of C in the formula will be for the photon 299,792,458 meters per second, for the neutrinos the speed will be approximately 299,799,845 meters per second (a little more than seven kilometers per second greater than the speed of the photon) and so on with other particles each and its C .
That is, if we do the Michelson Morley experiment with netrins instead of photons, then again we will get the same speed in every direction.
In this way we can maintain both the correctness of my upgraded theory of relativity and the correctness of the measured results.
It is possible to upgrade it in another way by changing the speed C also as a function of the measured date. But that's for another comment (because they won't let me publish an article on the subject here in their knowledge).
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thanks to the last Camila, I hope your words will help a little in this Sisyphean "struggle" that confuses everything possible and science.
Creationism is an attempt to sell expired goods in new packaging. Stinks to anyone with a normal sense of smell.
And Tomer, Junk DNA is just a misleading but catchy name. Many years ago it was already clear that this was not really junk. If we talk in general, in DNA that does not code for proteins but has different effects and great importance.
Where is Gali Weinstein?
What Randall Monroe thinks about it:
http://xkcd.com/955
Roy
I recommend you repeat the course in quantum theory. First of all, even according to quantum theory, information cannot be transferred
at a speed greater than the speed of light. If it were possible to transmit a signal, it would be possible to calibrate clocks simultaneously in contradiction to the theory of relativity. What happens in quantum experiments involving entanglement is the transfer of correlations. The correlations between experimental results in two detectors vary but no information is transferable.
The Schrödinger equation is not a relativistic quantum equation, therefore it should not be surprising that it allows the transfer of an immediate change throughout the space, by the way, one does not have to go that far from the heat diffusion equation, it also allows a simultaneous change in the entire space following a local change, this is due to the nature of the underlying differential equation.
Anyway, the formula to look at is the Dirac equation which is a relativistic quantum equation.
my father
Most of the neutrinos passed through the detectors but to detect a neutrino it has to be absorbed by the detector. Therefore the neutrinos that were detected did not continue but were absorbed by the detector.
The passage of information faster than light is possible in waves that are not light waves - Schrödinger waves - the generating waves expressed in the Schrödinger equation on which quantum mechanics is practically based. This does not contradict Einstein's relativity because light does not travel faster than light but a different type of information. The mistake (also of Einstein himself) was to conclude that the limit on the speed of light should be generalized to every characteristic of nature.
Now more specifically: if indeed that neutrino moves faster than light it is due to it being a wave and not a particle. Not a light wave but a wave composed of the same waves that form the basis of the Schrödinger equation. Those who accept the Schrödinger equation as it is and do not try to be clever and disapprove of its amazing result understand the following:
Every particle in the universe is created from the sum of waves characterized by being "spread" simultaneously over the entire universe both in space and time. It is revealed as a particle at a specific location in space and time because at that location there is a constructive conflict. Those who deeply understand the Fourier series - the mathematics behind the Schrödinger equation - and throw it without hesitation and fear onto physics will immediately understand how that neutrino "appeared" earlier than expected in Italy.
Strengthens the level of research.
I really think there should be an article about science, and the scientific way, a lot of people think it's some kind of faith, quite a few times I've been asked if I believe in science, which is terrible.
I really liked what Pukta said, after all, neutrinos also have no mass in motion.
A simple explanation is that the real "speed of light" is precisely the speed of the neutrino. The neutrino void is a true void. While the void of the photon is not quite empty.
Kamila, you wrote a fascinating and winning response to the product.
Abi, you should frame Camila's answer and upload it as a new topic.
I hope that the error in these measurements that were in the accelerator will be discovered
And Einstein's special theory of relativity will be preserved as it is.
In any case, the next revolution will not happen in physics.
Happy New Year
Moses
Tomer, it turns out that junk dna is not junk after all:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3245601,00.html
You are also invited to review the following thread, where the 2 theories and their evidence were presented:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-304253
The neutrinos passed through detectors and of course continued on.
Nir,
To your question, unequivocally, yes!!!
The author of the article is excellent. It is likely that special relativity will not suffer a serious shock. It seems to me that the principle according to which no particle can move faster than the speed of light will be preserved.
When dealing with speeds close to the speed of light, speeds must of course be summed up according to the formulas of the theory of relativity. Sabradmish already noted in his response that the difference in the tangential rotational speeds of the Earth in Switzerland and Italy must be taken into account. In addition, perhaps the orbital speed of the earth around the sun should also be taken into account when the location of the laboratories at the moment of the experiment can be at different distances from the sun and therefore also have different orbital speeds. When dealing with nanoseconds - such factors can certainly have an effect.
I wonder if there is something to it and if the researchers have given their opinion to talk.
After the speed of light, comes the speed of heavy!
Lairan: In the well-known factor gamma there is a root of 1 - the ratio between the speed of the body and the speed of light therefore if a body moves faster we will get an imaginary root, now this factor appears in many calculations for example energy (gamma times the mass) it has no meaning in my opinion as an imaginary number of energy.... So in my opinion, according to Einstein's Torah, there are also no bodies faster than the speed of light
How did they pick up neutrino particles?
Didn't neutrinos go through all matter?
Tomer,
https://www.hayadan.org.il/neutrino-pass-spead-of-light-2309114/#comment-307401
Such discoveries (which have not yet been clarified what they mean and even if they are true) do not in the least change the way of thinking and/or the feeling of the bearers of the flag of science for the simple reason that every scientific theory, even the most accepted and even the common origin of species based on the fact of evolution, is merely the explanation The best we have at the moment is a massive collection of observations and facts. Anyone who is involved in science (and I include them) will be happy to abandon one theory if you find an alternative theory that explains at least as well the variety of phenomena in question. This is our usual state of mind in science, that's why the first sentence you wrote in your response is bursting into an open door. The natural state of science is that we don't know many things yet, but under a concentration on obscuring what we don't know with miraculous and ugly filler, scientists concentrate on what is known and try to operate on the fringes of this knowledge to reveal a little more of that dark area of not knowing. The reason we don't change our minds easily is because there simply isn't a serious alternative that even comes close in quality to the existing theories. In many discussions here, debunkers of established theories (especially in the context of evolution, but not only) were asked to present an alternative that could be examined critically. I have personally requested this numerous times. Not a single alternative was given as above, not even a shred of an alternative that could explain anything about what we see here in the world. Usually the proposed alternative is "all-powerful intelligent engineer" which is a meaningless sentence that explains nothing and equal to any practical need to say: "I have no idea".
Creationism tries to selectively fight certain theories when in fact all theories were designed using the same scientific method. In this sense, creationism is overwhelmingly anti-scientific and is indeed primitive in thought, especially in light of the attempt to sell old ideas that at best are not supported by evidence and at worst lack internal consistency and even stand in stark contradiction with the facts we have today.
In your opinion, everyone who expresses an opinion should be respected, even if it is very different from the consensus. You're forgetting one thing, scientists weren't just people who presented different opinions because of a gut feeling or because of unusual observations that for some reason cannot be reproduced and have no established evidence. They performed rigorous, reproducible experiments and proposed models of the world that made it possible to better explain a variety of phenomena and also made it possible to produce technology based on those models and on the basis of the ideas derived from them. Believers in extraterrestrials, conspiracy theorists and especially religious people do not meet these criteria so your comparison is quite ridiculous. It is especially distorted in light of the fact that to this day people in this world use horrific violence in the name of religion. To the credit of the creationists that today they are only lying and trying to steal minds and degrade more innocents to such a low level of existence, today they no longer raise the stake, and you have nothing to thank God for that, it is a fact that there are no shortage of places in the world where they do indeed kill in all sorts of strange ways He who does not accept God as his own (in every place it is a different God, which sharpens the absurdity of religious beliefs).
If you knew a little research on the subject, you would know that there are simple answers to this, since the ability to regenerate has great advantages and disadvantages, and conditions can arise that are easy to see when the advantage outweighs the disadvantage and vice versa. The major drawback of the regeneration mechanism was already mentioned above by "someone completely different" when in practice we have a certain degree of regeneration in certain organs. Moreover, let's examine this from an evolutionary point of view, if in primitive creatures (in terms of their evolutionary antiquity) the feature of regeneration is relatively common, then we would expect to find remnants of this mechanism in relatively new creatures. You should read about the studies of Prof. Michal Schwartz from the Weizmann Institute regarding homologous mechanisms as above in rodents and in humans. She discovered that the regeneration mechanism actually exists in us, but there is a newer, more evolutionary mechanism that suppresses the activity of regeneration after an injury. A few years ago, she began research in which they try to cancel the inhibition mechanism to allow the body to regenerate. It is important what this means, for example, regarding injuries that leave a person paralyzed for life. You can pray to that substandard engineer for ages, but it won't change your situation. Understanding regeneration mechanisms and discovering inhibitory mechanisms, among other things while relying on the common origin of species and the understanding of biological processes through the lens of evolution, saves lives and quality of life every day, and the hand is still tipped. The "examples of essential contradictions" are actually a reflection of your ignorance of the facts, of scientific studies that have already been published and of your understanding of science in general. The other examples you gave illustrate this as well, especially the comparison between dark energy and between wizards and fairies. Read for yourself about the processes that led to the invention of these concepts and maybe then you will understand why your comparison is stupid. It's especially funny that you write: "If you don't know, you invent" when it's obvious that you lean in the creative direction. I suggest you accept and apply what you wrote and behave a little more modestly. Unlike you, creationists and others who believe in baseless nonsense, science at least has built-in tools to receive feedback on the quality of the theories it holds. One of these feedbacks is the technology that is created on the basis of scientific discoveries and work using the scientific method. Look around you for a moment, how much of what you see here is developed on the basis of science and what of it is developed on the basis of the "wisdom" of the Holy Scriptures? Can you name any significant discovery or technology that resulted from the millions of hours of study by Abrach or other clerics? I am ready to give up everything that comes out of religion, literally everything and stay only with technology. Is there anyone among the followers of the intelligent pig who is willing to give up all technology that is not the result of knowledge from the Holy Scriptures and the "research" of religion? As mentioned, a little modesty won't hurt you. And maybe you should even more than a little.
If possible a brief explanation..as far as I understand Einstein's formulas show that it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light...but do not say anything about bodies that are already fast or faster than this speed....This part was Einstein's assumption that since it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light there is no body that moves fast Greater than that...but this assumption is based on personal logic and not on formulas..
Am I right in what I just wrote about Einstein?
Tomer uses, and someone else uses it completely
Regarding your question in astronomy and physics:
I highly recommend you to look at Revised Newtonian Dynamics,
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%AA
The idea simply assumes that dark matter does not exist, and proposes a tiny change in Newton's second equation to correct the situation, reasoning that Newton's second equation is only valid within the earth but on a galactic scale, the laws change a bit.
"Scientists at CERN fear they have discovered a particle faster than light"
I don't understand, what are they afraid of? What's so scary about that?
What is particularly hard for me to believe is that when measuring the distance from laboratory to laboratory in a line crossing the Earth, they made such a precise measurement at a distance of 720 km that would be expressed in a standard deviation of only 10 nanoseconds. It is true that you can verify this statistically by sending billions of quanta of something from one place to another and prove that they arrive exactly on time, but when something like this happens it means one of two things: either the distance is not calculated correctly or there is something that can exceed the speed of light. At the moment my gut feeling says that it is a distance calculation not who knows how much. But maybe Einstein was wrong.
Donny: Assuming this is true - what might the implications be?
Bonnie: I don't know...
Lesbaramish, I didn't make a mistake in the calculations, you just didn't understand what Einstein explained 100 years ago
in a reference system and it doesn't matter if the system is moving or stationary
And it doesn't matter how you measure
The speed of light is constant and information cannot be transmitted faster than it
Most likely the scientists in the experiment made a stupid mistake and you won't hear about this news again
If it turns out that they were not mistaken, which is unlikely, since the speed of netrins has been measured in the past, then you will hear more news from scientists who recreated the experiments, and then there will be a need for basic changes in our understanding, which is unlikely
Thank you Sabradamish for the comment/clarification. There may be a lack of precision in this or that experiment and there may also be assumptions or mistakes made by the researchers themselves.
I am a scientist (just a science lover) and my goal is to raise questions or bewilderment about data or facts that are not in line with the accepted theories, and should be considered.
Regarding the theory of relativity and quantum theory (if we return to our issues), there is a well-known but slightly problematic phenomenon in quantum physics called quantum entanglement - below is a quote from Wikipedia:
"Quantum entanglement (in English, Quantum Entanglement) is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics in which the quantum states of two or more objects must always be described with reference to one another, despite the possibility that the objects are physically distant from each other (non-local behavior). This relationship cannot be described in the probability terms of classical physics, but can be described as a wave function indicating the common quantum state of all the parts. The phenomenon leads to coordination in the measured physical properties of the objects. The moment a measurement is made on one of the objects (i.e. the collapse of the wave function) it is immediately reflected in the other object as well, even in a situation where the objects are light years apart.
At first glance, it seems that the quantum entanglement contradicts a main feature of Einstein's theory of relativity, which claims that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Although it appears that two interwoven systems interact with each other across large distances and instantaneously, this phenomenon cannot be used to transmit information immediately, and therefore there is no contradiction."
The scientists "settlement" the contradiction to the theory of relativity by saying that it is not possible (we don't know how) to use the phenomenon in order to transmit information immediately and therefore there is no violation of the principle that the speed of light is absolute
but…..
How an object that is light years away reflects a measurement made on another object instantaneously, they did not answer that
How does he "know" if it is not possible to transfer information/matter/energy or anything else at a speed higher than the speed of light?
What about the singularity? The scientists live with the fact that there are places in the universe that break the laws of nature and physics, in my opinion there is no such situation, and the theory is simply incomplete because there are elements and factors that we do not know about and therefore we did not include them in it.
Addendum to the answer to Tamar
Einstein published a partial picture of the physical world as
Newton before him, published only a partial picture of the same world
himself.
But on the basis of the knowledge left by Einstein, the lasers were developed,
The photoelectric cell, the atomic bomb. and the atomic reactors.
And surely two or three more are important.
I want to say, I would not rush to underestimate modern physicists
Even if it was clear to me that they don't know everything.
Experiments with particles have been carried out for decades, many hundreds of particles have already been discovered. Why, on the assumption that there is indeed no error in the calculations, are they only going over it now. What sets this experiment apart from many that have been done in the past.
When I first learned about the theory of relativity, I remember that Einstein then claimed something similar but different (to the one attributed to him here): he said that there is no particle that can receive an additional momentum that will make it exceed the speed of light.... But he did not rule out the possibility of the particle having a speed greater than the speed of light.
I can prove this from Dado's recorded lectures at the Technion.
Please don't make the discussion about evolution. The topic of relativity is also very important.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In Wi-Net they specified more:
"The current experiment conducted in Geneva was carried out by shooting a beam of neutrinos created in the large particle accelerator towards a target in Italy located 730 km away. The particles covered the distance in the short time by 60 nanoseconds from the time it would have taken them if they had moved at the speed of light, where the measurement error is 10 nanoseconds." End quote
And I add - let's divide the distance by the exact speed of light -
730 divided by 299,792.458 equals 2.435 milliseconds. Since a nanosecond is a billionth of a second, this is 2,435,000 nanoseconds. It is also a given that they discovered an inaccuracy of 60 nanoseconds.
In 60 nanoseconds the light is enough to move about 18 meters. Apparently they were able to measure the distance more accurately and this is not where the error comes from. But if the speed of light was greater at 7392 meters per second even then the result would be accurate. Seemingly a delusional thing, except... if we add to the speed of the natrine the speed of the earth about 30 km per second and perhaps also the fact that the speed of rotation of the earth in Italy is greater than the speed of rotation in Switzerland further north! In this case we will find out again that something is wrong with the theory of relativity and Michelson Morley's experiment..
I hope I didn't miscalculate
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Tamar (and Ehud)
I agree with you that we do not know everything and therefore
set up this accelerator - and in any case,
And this, I suppose, is the point of municipal agreement between us -
When you don't know everything (in a certain field) either
You don't know how much you don't know.
but:
Regarding evolution: the skin and the liver in humans
renewing An evolutionary reason for the non-regeneration of
The other organs in higher animals can be e.g
Genetic replication is problematic in animals whose genetic code
Too complex and long to the point of creating distorted organs
and causing cancer.
Regarding DNA: until the role of DNA is discovered
All this separate (molecule) was considered garbage,
The longer the code test continues the more likely it is
From the garbage will turn out to be gold.
on astronomy and physics. The astrophysicists
Really don't know, I agree with you on this.
Dark energy and the possibility of multiple universes
And dimensions make this point clear to me
At what speed did it travel the distance, 1.2 speed of light….. Does anyone understand this from the data of the experiment?
to love
The intention was (and remains) to claim that the theory of relativity
It is not and could not be the vision of all physics
the modern - and if so, it stands as an absolute invalid
of the possibility of new revelations that are contrary to the Torah
itself - extremely problematic.
Every time there are discoveries that undermine the existing theories, I wonder how the standard bearers of theories (such as evolution, global warming and others) feel when they realize that their theories are based on what is known and it is possible (just possible) that there are many things that we have not yet discovered that fundamentally change the Our perceptions (including the scientific ones)
Yes, even among the writers of the site, which I personally greatly appreciate, there are those who would not consider the possibility of visits from other planets, and creationism here has long since become a dirty word that mainly describes thought primitiveness.
To remind you, when Galileo and Copernicus dared to challenge the existing theories, they risked their lives especially in front of the Church and the Inquisition - Aristotle or Plato then claimed that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it and that there are only 4 or 5 elements (if we also consider the ether) and anyone who claimed otherwise faced the center.
Today, thank God, they don't burn people who think differently, they just denounce them as delusional, primitive and ridiculous.
I will not go into all the examples of fundamental contradictions in the existing theories, I will only bring a few:
Evolution - how is it possible that an essential feature such as limb regrowth (after amputation) that exists in evolutionarily inferior creatures such as starfish and various worms has been lost in the evolutionary scale - is it not an existential survival feature of the first order?
How is it that 95% of DNA is defined as junk by scientists but is copied by nature with obsessive precision from generation to generation for tens of thousands of years? Aren't unnecessary things supposed to degenerate over time?
Astronomy- Could anyone deduce anything about a 100 piece puzzle when they only have 4 pieces of it in their hands? If the answer is no, then how can the scientists build theories about the universe when 96% of it is defined by them as dark energy and dark matter which, although most of the universe is made up of, we have no evidence or vision of one such atom.
What is dark energy? Maybe wizards and fairies also exist? When you don't know, you invent.
The difference is that no mainstream scientist will come and say maybe there are worlds that exist in other dimensions in the universe and therefore we have no way to measure them and they are the ones that explain the missing mass?
In conclusion, I would recommend to all the "knowers" a little modesty, there is much to explore and precisely from skepticism and challenging the existing theory we can make amazing discoveries about the universe and ourselves.
someone else entirely,
Einstein did not understand that the quantum theory contradicts the theory of relativity and it does not. In quantum theory there is no transfer of information at a speed greater than the speed of light and therefore it has no problem with special relativity (with general relativity there are problems but that is a completely different story). In short, the Dirac equation is a combination of private relativity with quantums, and quantum field theory is also based on both theories.
Nir
I don't think that the question of whether the neutrino passes through a vacuum or through matter is relevant, since neutrinos have a very weak interaction with matter, so from his point of view the earth is also transparent, i.e. equivalent to a vacuum.
ORT
The neutrino does not change shape, it changes its "character" from an electronic neutrino to an ionized neutrino. The scale of the distance or the time during which the neutrino is in the medium of oscillations in its "character" is the distance to the sun so that it hardly changes at all when passing through the earth.
A contradiction indeed, but...Einstein already understood that the quantum theory..
which deals with subatomic particles contradicts the theory
The relationship. Since this is a subatomic particle, the discovery
was possible according to modern physics which includes both
These conflicting theories.
Do you think he moves at ludicrous speed??
Prophet Prophet on the wall, who is the most demagogue in town?
We don't know everything, that's why when Abrahamists who claim that we are visited by aliens and many are deceiving because of all kinds of theories. The speed of light and the like, I say that in terms of science we are only in our infancy.
The question is whether he exceeded the speed of the blank?
Did the neutrino change shape during the experiment?
We (humans) like to define and give rules and laws to every process in nature. Over time, as we discover more things, we see that we understand less and less of the great thing called creation and the universe.
In ancient times, when they believed that the world was square, anyone who dared to think otherwise was immediately considered ignorant and uneducated, that's how it is today in the scientific branch, there is a general opinion with a fixed agenda, and anyone who dares to say that he has a new thesis is quickly killed and belittled. Against the agenda, today Einstein is the star of tomorrow's generation he will already have his superstar.
Already in the near future humanity will learn new technologies new materials and resources that have not yet been seen by man, already today there are creative ideas such as string theory or cold fusion.
Interestingly, about a month ago there was an article here about researchers discovering that it is impossible to travel in time due to the limitation of the speed of light, the title of the article was "Now it is official, it is impossible to travel in time" - or something like that.
Now if they find out that it is definitely possible to exceed the speed of light, then this whole article will be quite worth it, you know why...
That's why I always say, it is impossible to determine "for sure" in science, because there is always the "if" that is somewhere in places that we can no longer understand.
After a century it is time for a new theory