Physicists - the new theologians

[Chalnoth]

Yes, Jesus' miracles are documented in the Bible --- your point?

That I was not misreading the discussion. Whether due to my poor choice of words or your lack of reading comprehension, my statements were very much on the topic of that conversation.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well you've done nothing to show that this isn't a valid avenue of research and that more research into the area isn't perfectly reasonable.

There is no reason whatsoever why everybody should consider every avenue of research to be promising. I will freely admit that the promising avenues of research in theory are going to be rather subjective and therefore, in a sense, arbitrary. I have offered a skeleton argument that is commensurate with my current understanding of the field. But I honestly see no reason why I should bother to try to work harder to convince you that it is a promising avenue.

I merely am trying to get you to understand that others think it is, and therefore it is upon them to do the work in that area if they so choose. If you were a theorist working in physics and did not think string theory was promising, then obviously you would work at something else. It just disturbs me that you think that your own subjective determinations of what is or is not promising should be accepted by everybody.

P.S. For example, for my own personal work in physics, I am most interested in what the data says about theories, so string theory just isn't on my radar in terms of the work that I do. I just find it vaguely interesting and pay some small attention to it on the side.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well you've done nothing to show that this isn't a valid avenue of research and that more research into the area isn't perfectly reasonable.

Except with regards to the Bible, it's demonstrably false. Things are not so easy with string theory.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

There is no reason whatsoever why everybody should consider every avenue of research to be promising. I will freely admit that the promising avenues of research in theory are going to be rather subjective and therefore, in a sense, arbitrary. I have offered a skeleton argument that is commensurate with my current understanding of the field. But I honestly see no reason why I should bother to try to work harder to convince you that it is a promising avenue.

Yep, this has been the thing that keeps nagging at me about the merit of bothering to talk to you about this.

You don't seem able to back anything up with specifics.

I merely am trying to get you to understand that others think it is, and therefore it is upon them to do the work in that area if they so choose. If you were a theorist working in physics and did not think string theory was promising, then obviously you would work at something else. It just disturbs me that you think that your own subjective determinations of what is or is not promising should be accepted by everybody.

Well I did make an effort to understand string theory on a technical level before arriving at my opinion.

If string theorists were a few kooks I wouldn't.

What I care about is that people have given up on the vital core of what makes something science, namely falsifiability by comparison to nature.

Once you've given that up, you've traded reason for fantasy.

Hence the title of this thread.

I wonder sometimes if this all isn't the beginnings of the death of science and reason for a while and a coming new "dark age" of some sort.

There is a field that involves mathematical calculations without reference to nature, we call it mathematics. The pros in that field don't consider string theory mathematics due to its lack of rigor.

And the rigor is important precisely because of the lack of reference to nature.

P.S. For example, for my own personal work in physics, I am most interested in what the data says about theories, so string theory just isn't on my radar in terms of the work that I do. I just find it vaguely interesting and pay some small attention to it on the side.

So you are underlining the fact that you have been defending something you don't really understand, but are taking on faith that it must be valuable...because some bigshots like Witten seem to think it is...

Sure Witten got a Fields medal, and sure his work on topological quantum field theories and topological invariants and knot invariants was interesting but people have to get over their crush on the guy and think.

...

I just see the death of reason and a new theology in all this.

 

[AV1611VET]

That I was not misreading the discussion. Whether due to my poor choice of words or your lack of reading comprehension, my statements were very much on the topic of that conversation.

Then I'll ask you the same question, since you wanna play along:

Are Jesus' miracles well-documented?

Yes, or no?

MrGoodBytes says, "No".

If you, too, answer, "no", then I assume you can't even name 10 of His miracles?

 

[Chalnoth]

What I care about is that people have given up on the vital core of what makes something science, namely falsifiability by comparison to nature.

Except you're just wrong on that. There are a large number of people working with string theory who are attempting to tie it directly to experiment. They go through various avenues of doing this, some perhaps better than others, but it's definitely a big thrust in current string theory research.

Furthermore, some people just aren't interested in that sort of thing. For example, some may be more interested in fleshing out the mathematical underpinnings than bothering with comparison to experiment.

I wonder sometimes if this all isn't the beginnings of the death of science and reason for a while and a coming new "dark age" of some sort.

That's silly. You can claim that when we stop doing experiments. And the experimentalists vastly, vastly outnumber the theorists, by the way. Furthermore, of those theorists, those that are directly tied to experiments outnumber those that work on pure theory.

There is a field that involves mathematical calculations without reference to nature, we call it mathematics. The pros in that field don't consider string theory mathematics due to its lack of rigor.

Which, as I keep saying, is just an argument for more work on string theory. Specifically, more work on developing the mathematical underpinnings.

So you are underlining the fact that you have been defending something you don't really understand, but are taking on faith that it must be valuable...because some bigshots like Witten seem to think it is...

I'm not taking it on faith that it must be valuable. It makes perfect sense to me that a theory that has the promise of unifying quantum mechanics and gravity must be extremely enticing to some.

 

[Chalnoth]

Then I'll ask you the same question, since you wanna play along:

Are Jesus' miracles well-documented?

Yes, or no?

MrGoodBytes says, "No".

If you, too, answer, "no", then I assume you can't even name 10 of His miracles?

No.

We're using this definition of documented (from here)

3 a: to provide with factual or substantial support for statements made or a hypothesis proposed ; especially : to equip with exact references to authoritative supporting information b (1): to construct or produce (as a movie or novel) with authentic situations or events (2): to portray realistically

It is completely irrelevant how familiar or unfamiliar we or the average person are about Jesus' miracles as recorded in the Bible. Documentation relates to evidentiary support. The Bible does not offer evidentiary support of Jesus' miracles, and neither does anything else.

 

[Zone]

I remember vividly, as a child growing-up one night, my mother was cooking in the kitchen as I was (simply) looking outside the window, gazing-up not a the Moon & Star(s) like on a clear night, but at the reddish / orange (rust-like) skies & I saw a rectangular door to another dimension (opening from the top to bottom & closing from the bottom to the top) in the sky, then many years later as a teenager, I & my two other brothers was going to rob someone coming out of a bank & God via Jesus Christ, by means of The Holy Spirit immediately proved to me (1) one of the (String-Theory) dimension(s) via, (2) allowing me (spiritually) to step outside this spatial (Brane-Theory) dimension(s), then He accelerated Δt = time(s) dilation(s) spatial variation(s) & (3) proved to me (M-Theory) via visually showing me exactly which dimensional reality I & my two other brothers would enter into & how our lives would turn out if I & ignored all that He was currently showing / proving to me & decided to initiate just that one detrimental decision anyway.

Analytically it will require a God-like faith &, or trust for any truly intelligent individual(s) to believe & put your eternal life in anyone &, or thing that is not correct & it is illogical to accept as fact(s) & base their intellect(s), career(s), etc on the scientifically & mathematical falsities &, or fables below:

Evolution • Darwinism • Natural Selection • Mutually Exclusive • Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

Logically the below physics laws(s) scientifically & mathematically proves 100% that the above so-called proven fact(s) is actually compilation(s) of the deception(s):

Random Variable • Equiprobable • Probability • Probability Theory • Posterior Probability • Probability Interpretations Realization Probability • Epistemic Probability • Principle of Indifference



Therefore, (for me) analytically the Anthropic Principle is the only logical explanation(s) for all the (&#8734 infinitely various complexities of elemental energy Δ matter for the following factual reason(s) below:

• Strings
  [*]Branes
  [*]Quantum (M) Universes i.e., Parallel Universes
  [*]Black Holes
  [*]White Holes
  [*]Worm Holes
  [*]Time Dilations

Note: v, f, g, dt, dr, m.... & to take the (3) arranged facts below & rearranged them into the spherically correct foundational order relative to the visual image illustration below, I would start first by putting the String(s)(1) as the planet's (directional rotation(s) (dr) dimensional rotation(s), then I would put the (p)(m)Brane(s)(2) as the planet's (Δt = time dilation(s) (dt) dimensional time(s) & then I would finalize the (trinity / trio) by putting the Quantum (Multiple) Universe(s) Theory or, parallel universe(s)(3) as the planet's (energy Δ matter) (v)(f)(g)(m) velocity / force / gravitational / mass, last in the equation(s) compilation(s).

1. M-Theory
2. Brane Theory
3. String-Theory

​

Interplanetary, interstellar &, or intergalactic travel through space via a worm-hole is absolutely feasible, but the only (5) problems with that type of travel is entropy, the velocity of light, black-holes, super massive black-holes & time dilation.​

∑ E = E[sub]k[/sub] + E[sub]p[/sub] = E = mc² = (½ / c² = 1)​

1. Entropy - All of the "energy Δ matter" that exist within this dimension via the Big-Bang has absolutely no invulnerability to the decaying effect(s) / affect(s) of entropy is because it's nonnative to this dimension (called our universe) whereas "dark energy ± dark matter" is indigenous to this dimension & therefore it has a invulnerability to the decaying effect(s) / affect(s) of entropy.
L= 1 {(= √1- v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])[sup]1/2[/sup]}
∏-1 ≈ E = mc² =∑ E = E[sub]k[/sub] + E[sub]p[/sub] = E = mc² = (½ / c² = 1)

√1- v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup]
​

​

2. E = mc² - The (½ c² = 1) velocity of (L) light (or, infinitesimally small) energy Δ matter / mass traveling through the vacuum of space, the (E = mc² = ½ = c² = 1, formula) L is fast....​

Example: Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth (for many reasons) has 24 time-zones & rotates in has about 24 hours, therefore, if you were to be suspended above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a velocity of 25000/24 or (1,007 mph) just over 1000 miles per hour, the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is 186,282.397 miles per second, therefore (186,282.397 ÷ 25,000 = 7.45129588) anyone, or anything traveling at the velocity of light would be able to circle the Earth (7) seven times in one second (i.e., 1,000,000 Microseconds).​

Relative to E = mc² (i.e., A. Einstein) as you can see above (E = mc² = ½ = c² = 1, formula) the velocity of (L) light is very fast, but due to the enormity of this (spherical) dimension, it will not add any noticeable advantage(s)....

Example: The diameter of our Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light-years across & hypothetically, if we was traveling at the velocity of light (E = mc² = ½ = c² = 1, formula) relatively speaking, from A↔B, it would still take us 100,000 years to finally reach the other-side, from X↔Y.

Example: The third dimension (or, Heaven) is 187,000,000,000,000 Trillion x Billion light-years = 1.09688515 × 10[sup]34[/sup] undecillion miles away from Earth & hypothetically, if we was traveling at the velocity of light (E = mc² = ½ = c² = 1, formula) relatively speaking, from A↔B, it would still take us 187,000,000,000,000 Trillion x Billion years to finally reach the third dimension, (or, Heaven) from X↔Y.

3. Black Holes - Due to it's strong electromagnetically positive field / charge gravitation's, if our space vessel(s) do not emit(s) a electromagnetically neutral field / charge traveling at the velocity of light, (E = mc² = ½ = c² = 1, formula) relatively speaking, it will be impossible.

4. Supermassive Black Holes - Due to it's extremely strong electromagnetically positive field / charge gravitation's, if our space vessel(s) do not emit(s) a electromagnetically neutral field / charge traveling close to & at the velocity of light, (E = mc² = ½ = c² = 1, formula) relatively speaking, it will be impossible.

5. Time Dilation - Thanks the decaying effect(s) / affect(s) of entropy upon E = m & the (½ = c² = 1) velocity of light, etc interplanetary travel is hard, interstellar & intergalactic travel is currently impossible.

 

[Zone]

Hi CF Member(s),

Since you're a analytically / logical thinker too, I am going to tell you what I also told the physics teacher(s) & student(s), which made them view & see it from my analytically / logical perspective...., (I know that Neutrinos travel close to the velocity of light) I am going to explain exactly why I still believe & will tell anyone that, Neutrinos travel (FTL) faster than light, also tell me if you understand why I believe what I believe & say what I say.... pertaining to (FTL) faster than light velocity travel, matter Δ energy polarity, etc.

•••••••••• NEUTRINOS ••••••••••​

• The "photons" produced in nuclear reactions take about "a million years" to move from the core of a star to the photospheric surface. The photons scatter off the dense gas particles in the interior & move about a centimeter between collisions. In each collision they transfer some of their energy to the gas particles. By the time photons reach the photosphere, the gamma rays have become photons of much lower energy (i.e., visible light photons). Because the photons now reaching the photospheric surface were produced about a million years ago, they will tell us about the condition(s) within the core of any star, as it was a million years ago, (relative to distance) it takes photons 8.32 minutes to reach Earth from the sun.

• A "neutrino" is a massless (or very nearly massless) particle that rarely interacts with ordinary matter. Neutrinos travel extremely fast---the speed of light if they have zero mass or very close to the speed of light if they have a small mass. Because they travel so fast & interact so rarely with matter, neutrinos pass from the core of the Sun to the surface in only "two seconds". They take less than 4.16 minutes to travel the distance from the Sun to the Earth. If you could detect them, the neutrinos will tell you about the condition(s) within the Sun's core as it was only 4.16 minutes ago (much more current information than the photons!).

Photons travel at (186,282.397 miles per second) the velocity of light, but since it takes them "one million years" to leave the core of the star & just reach the photospheric surface & it takes neutrinos take "only two seconds" to leave the core of any star & reach the photospheric surface.

I can confidently say that, neutrinos travel (FTL) "faster than light" (or photons).​

Astronomy Notes​

Note: Logically any element(s) possessing the particle(s) mass naturally travel(s) at the (+E = mc²) particle(s) light speed velocity, since the neutrino(s) &, or anti-neutrino(s) mass is (also) of an infinitesimal particle(s) mass size, it can (also) travel / pass unimpeded straight through positive (±) & negative matter Δ energy, amazingly as if; after it's created in side the electromagnetically gravimetric core of a (magnet, or) star, contained within a strong (dark matter) (-v)(-f)(-g)(-dt)(-dr)(-m) negative energy / vacuum(s) / field(s), it exist within it's own dimension(s) &, do not exist within this dimension anymore.

Neutrino(s) / anti-neutrino(s) is of a mass-less particle(s) & the electromagnetic neutrality of both rarely interact(s) with the ordinary (+½) matter &, or (-½) antimatter energy element(s), since the neutrino(s) / anti-neutrino(s) have {+½ 0...., {±}...,-½ 0} neutral charge & zero mass the velocity will not be affected by positive (±) & negative energy Δ matter they travel(s) (FTL) faster than (+E = mc²) the photonic light particle(s) velocity.

Example: Analytically, if two elemental mass-less individual particles were to have race(s) on Earth, from the polaric North to the South polaric pole, or from one planet, solar system &, or galaxy to the next (relative to the amount of atmospheric particulate matter Δ energy, etc that they're both traveling through) they will complete the race(s) relatively at the same time(s).... correct?

No..., incorrect, because if one of the elemental particle(s) possessed the electromagnetic (neutral) ability, which naturally allows it to pass through the positive (±) & negative energy Δ matter, therefore it logically can & will pass / travel through the planet / matter / mass / energy / field(s), (FTL) faster than (E = mc²) light speed velocity; only because of it's (special) neutral charge / mass....., etc characteristic(s).

Also, due to the elementary fact of the neutrality within the neutrino(s) / anti-neutrino(s) core composition(s), logically it will (also) easily win the race(s) by traveling the exact same direction(s) the photon(s) particle(s) travel(s).....

Neutrino(s) / anti-neutrino(s) travel(s) (FTL) faster than (E = mc²) light speed velocity & interact so rarely with (±) matter & remember that, the neutrino(s) / anti-neutrino(s) passes from the core of the star(s) / sun(s) to the photospheric surface in only (2) two seconds.

They take less than 4.16 minutes to travel the space / distance from the Sun to the Earth, relative to the 8.32 minutes the photon(s) need to travel the same space / distance.

Hey CF Member(s), I value your thoughts & it would honor me, if you let me know what you think about, what I believe & say.

 

[Chalnoth]

I have to admit that I didn't read much of what you wrote there, Zone, but you're just incorrect on neutrinos.

Neutrinos do not travel faster than the speed of light. They are particles that have small but non-zero masses which are typically created at energies that far exceed their rest mass energy. They therefore typically travel at speeds very close to that of light. But certainly not faster.

And yes, since they lack electric charge, they only interact very weakly with matter. In fact, they only interact through the weak nuclear force. Which is why we build big detectors like the Super Kamiokande experiment to detect them:
http://www.aip.org/png/html/super-k.htm

Note that in the third picture you can see a man in a boat servicing some of the detectors (during operation the chamber is entirely filled with water).

Photons do not take longer to leave stars because they travel more slowly, but because they run into more things along the way. When we're talking about traveling through space, since space doesn't have nearly as much stuff for photons to bump into as the interior of a star, neutrinos and photons travel at nearly the same speed. Since, however, the neutrinos have a very small mass, they will typically lose the race by some small amount.

 

[SpidermanTUba]

And as far as I understand, string theorists are laughed upon even in the theoretical physics community

As a graduate student in physics I can confirm this. We also laugh at quantum physicists who write pop novels on what people think is quantum physics but which is actually "quantum philosophy" or even "quantum religion".

Yes - quantum physics states that observing a system changes it. That's it. There's no philosophical implications that come from that. Its really just science.


Quantum electrodynamics is in fact the most proven science there is, in terms of how well experiment corresponds with result. But the idea that quantum physics implies something spiritual is BS.

 

[corvus_corax]

As a graduate student in physics I can confirm this. We also laugh at quantum physicists who write pop novels on what people think is quantum physics but which is actually "quantum philosophy" or even "quantum religion".

Ala "What the Bleep to We Know?"
109 minutes of my life I will never get back
Yeah, I hate that "quantum philosophy/religion" crap THAT much (it's a shame that CF doesn't have "the finger" emoticon....lol)

Likewise "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters".
Both address the physics solidly, but then jump headfirst into metaphysics and religion, and claim that it is based on the "new physics", all the while citing religious scriptures in the most dubious manner.

Just one more instance of people trying to say "See? MY religious beliefs and science are 100% in line with each other!one11!!one!"


Sound familiar?

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, a more accurate way of describing the observer effect is as follows:

Whenever we perform an experiment to measure some observable, it is required that we set up the experimental apparatus to initiate some sort of reaction with the system being observed. This reaction that we set up necessarily affects the state of the thing being observed.

 

[Zone]

Hi Chalnoth,

Now you see my paradox &, or dilemma...., because for many reasons I know that you're 100% correct , therefore I will have to agree with you 100%, but for many reasons, I also know that you're 100% incorrect, therefore I will have to initiate a 180[sup]o[/sup] U-turn & disagree with you 100%.

Spatial Time Dilation​

The following information, equation(s) & image(s) is (pertaining to The Theory Of Everything, The Omega Particle(s), the velocity of light, time dilation within Euclidean space, Supersymmetry, etc & is) congruent with the Euclidean group, the Lorentz group, Euler, Einstein, Copenhagen, Heisenberg, Newton, Coulomb, Schrödinger, etc...

E = mc[sup]2[/sup]Δt = (+t = ±(&#947 = -t =) 1 = λ
Δt¹ = (λ =)T[sup]¹[/sup]= T[sub]0[/sub] (1 - V[sup]2[/sup]/C[sup]2[/sup])[sup]1/2[/sup]
F[sub]1[/sub] = F[sub]1[/sub] = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup] + E = (+½ ± -½) E[sub]k[/sub] + E[sub]p[/sub]= F[sub]1[/sub] = F[sub]1[/sub] = K[sub]e[/sub] = q[sub]1[/sub]q[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]
x||y =(1 = x[sup]+1[/sup]± y[sup]-1[/sup]) E = mc[sup]2[/sup]= (1 - v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])1
∑ (x,y =)E= F→ = d[sup] (mv)[/sup]/d [sup]t[/sup]
√ -∞...., y(±)x √ ....,+∞
E ≈ Ω (Δ α)
√+∞...., x(±)y √ ....,-∞
E = ∫+Δx • ±γ • -Δx ​

Your link (i.e., "America Institute of Physics") is appreciated & it also makes me reminisce about the work(s) of "CERN".

In the past, I used to periodically luxuriate myself via teasing my friends Brian (i.e., physicist Brian Cox), Leon (i.e., physicist Leon Max Lederman) & etc profusely via email(s) pertaining to their "Theory Of Everything" (i.e., TOE), their elusive "God Particle" & mainly after they initiated the first (preliminary) test(s) of their "Large Hadron Collider" (i.e., LHC) after many years of calculations / hard work, etc & on their very first test they had encounter technical difficulties, downtime, delays, etc & yes, I've repented of my non-Christian-like action(s) / sin(s) via initiating a 180[sup]o[/sup] U-turn & not teasing them anymore.

If Brian, Leon, etc is really serious about making progress wherein their "Theory Of Everything" (i.e., TOE) & their infamously elusive "God Particle" is concerned, they must focus all their attention upon meticulously dissect & rigorously analyzing all of the following forms of energy (i.e., E = ):

• Dark Matter

• Dark Galaxy

• Dark Flow

• Dark Matter Halo

• Hot Dark Matter (HDM)

• Warm Dark Matter (WDM)

• Cold Dark Matter (CDM)

• Lambda-CDM

• Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

• Dark Energy

• Neutralino

• WIMPs

• Supersymmetry

• Strong interaction

• Neutrinos

• Neutrino Oscillation

• Antineutrinos

• Tachyons

• Faster Than Light (FTL)
  

• Strongly Interacting Massive Particle (SIMP)

• Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Object (MACHO)

THE OMEGA (Ω) PARTICLE(S)


​

 

[Chalnoth]

That post you just wrote? I can't see how it says anything at all. You say you disagree, but then you write down a bunch of gibberish. Can you say what you mean in plain language?

 

[Zone]

Hi Chalnoth,

I would like to apologize for offending you with the mathematical equation(s), etc (no harm was intended) I only assumed that perhaps you're a "physicist, or physics-student", hopefully now you see my paradox &, or dilemma...., but I am going to tell you exactly what I've told the physics teacher(s) &, or student(s).
E = m...., even though I know that, neutrinos & anti-neutrinos travel close to the velocity of 1.86 • 10[sup]5[/sup] (i.e., 6.71 • 10[sup]8[/sup]) out of 100% only 1% of me believes that they travel at a velocity of 1.86 • 10[sup]5[/sup], the other 99% of me believes that they travel FTL, or beyond 6.71 • 10[sup]8[/sup], this is why within my other reply-post I said to you.... "for many reasons I know that you're 100% correct , therefore I will have to agree with you 100%, but for many reasons, I also know that you're 100% incorrect, therefore I will have to initiate a 180[sup]o[/sup] U-turn & disagree with you 100%".

It's like I've always believed & said, "all things are relative...." & remember (Δt =) that height, width, depth, weight, space, distance, time, etc, is always relative to something else.

You may not be aware of the facts, that many physicists & scientists (knowingly, or unknowingly) agree 100% with my above statement due to "nonzero" (i.e., non-zero-sum), or 0[sup]-0[/sup] mass.

Pertaining to the (i.e., E = Electromagnetic &, or) electric charge of the neutrinos & anti-neutrinos & their velocity, just read what they believe & what they're saying → Neutrino Speed.

Why do I believe neutrinos & anti-neutrinos travel FTL?​

The elementary charge(s) of the neutrino(s) & anti-neutrino(s) coincides with the Majorana particles category & due to the electromagnetic neutrality of both of them rarely interact(s) with the ordinary (+½) matter &, or (-½) antimatter energy element(s). Since the neutrino(s) & anti-neutrino(s) have {+½ [sup]0[/sup]...., {±}...,-½ [sup]0[/sup]}the neutral charge(s) & therefore must naturally have a (+1½) positive half & (1-½) negative half charge within its nucleus & with its (0[sup]-0[/sup]) zero mass it will not encounter any resistance traveling / passing through positive (±) negative (energy Δ matter) velocity will be unimpeded by traveling / passing through positive (±) negative (energy Δ matter), which is why 99% of me believe that, neutrino(s) & anti-neutrino(s) travel (FTL) faster than (E = mc[sup]2[/sup]) 1.86 • 10[sup]5[/sup] the velocity of the photonic light particle(s)....​

Perhaps the Dark energy Δ Dark matter particle(s) also travel at, or (FTL) faster than (E = mc[sup]2[/sup]) 6.71 • 10[sup]8[/sup].​

Maybe even the hypothetical Exotic matter as well....​

Note: More than 95 • 10[sup]12[/sup] neutrinos is pass through the Earth, our bodies, etc every second (i.e., 10[sup]–6[/sup]).​

 

[Zone]

Accidental Duplication

 

[Chalnoth]

Zone, I was neither harmed nor offended by your equations. They just make no sense whatsoever. And yes, by the way, I'm a physicist, and you're completely off your rocker when it comes to neutrinos traveling faster than light. The most that you can say is that photons tend to run into more stuff as they travel, and so will take longer than a neutrino if there's a lot of stuff. But that doesn't indicate that the actual velocity of a neutrino is any greater.

 

[Zone]

Zone, I was neither harmed nor offended by your equations. They just make no sense whatsoever. And yes, by the way, I'm a physicist, and you're completely off your rocker when it comes to neutrinos traveling faster than light. The most that you can say is that photons tend to run into more stuff as they travel, and so will take longer than a neutrino if there's a lot of stuff. But that doesn't indicate that the actual velocity of a neutrino is any greater.

Hi Chalnoth,

It's imperative that you always remember that all things (understanding, intellect, etc) are relative &, or relative to something else.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hi Chalnoth,

It's imperative that you always remember that all things (understanding, intellect, etc) are relative &, or relative to something else.

Yes, and if we are careful about talking about what the speed of a neutrino is relative to, the right way to say it is that a neutrino can never ever catch up to a photon.

That is, if you send a neutrino and a photon off from the same place at the same time, and they don't bump into anything, then the photon will always win the race, because the neutrino has a small but nonzero mass and therefore travels slower.