By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Eat Your Heart Out Einstein: Particles Faster than the Speed of Light Dicovered

Tagged games:

Dr.Grass said:
...

Then, after struggling through all of it for some years it becomes clear that there is no interpretation (as you suggest above) where there is more information we just don't know about and QM could be considered deterministic. IT CAN'T. QM is a strange thing, but it works incredibly well and no one really knows why. 

...


Well, obviously there's no such thing as a completely deterministic interpretation of cookie-cutter QM, but

  1. hidden variable theories are not completely out, though Kochen-Specker's theorem or Aspect's verification of Bell's inequalities violation pose serious limitation on which of such theories can be admitted.
  2. there's work e.g. by Adler or t'Hooft to develop a classical deterministic layer of physics under the currently known QM, of which QM is an effective higher level. A bit like classical deterministc (micro-)dynamics exhibits classical statistical mechanic as an epiphenomenon.

Both fall under the "there's more information we don't know about" umbrella, but both require new physics.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Around the Network

Dr.Grass said:

--

1. You will use Griffiths' ''Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'' no doubt, so I suggest getting a copy now and getting familiar with the concepts waaay before you start doing it at Uni, because its an absolute mind fuck at first. I can send you an e-copy by email if you want as well. If you know how to integrate and how complex numbers work then you can handle the mathematics I'm sure. 

2. What you should stay the hell away from untill you're post graduate is Quantum Chromo Dynamics - the rest is fine.

3. Any Scandanavian Uni is very good - I was just asking because the standards vary quite dramatically depending on where you study - I was just curious.

1. Hmm, I might take this advice into consideration. I'm not terribly busy right now but I think I'll wait until later before I look into it. I have a full year before I have the first course in quantum mechanics so I think I'll look into it next summer... Which leads me to believe that I have no need for the book any time soon but thanks anyway :) Also, I'm quite sure I'll have no trouble with the mathematics, I probably understand mathematics better than physics.

2. I have no idea what that is, but if it seems interesting, I don't think I can resist taking a course in it :P

3. Ah, didn't think of that. But judging by what I've heard, should be true.



Zkuq said:

Dr.Grass said:

--

1. You will use Griffiths' ''Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'' no doubt, so I suggest getting a copy now and getting familiar with the concepts waaay before you start doing it at Uni, because its an absolute mind fuck at first. I can send you an e-copy by email if you want as well. If you know how to integrate and how complex numbers work then you can handle the mathematics I'm sure. 

2. What you should stay the hell away from untill you're post graduate is Quantum Chromo Dynamics - the rest is fine.

3. Any Scandanavian Uni is very good - I was just asking because the standards vary quite dramatically depending on where you study - I was just curious.

 

1. Hmm, I might take this advice into consideration. I'm not terribly busy right now but I think I'll wait until later before I look into it. I have a full year before I have the first course in quantum mechanics so I think I'll look into it next summer... Which leads me to believe that I have no need for the book any time soon but thanks anyway :) Also, I'm quite sure I'll have no trouble with the mathematics, I probably understand mathematics better than physics.

2. I have no idea what that is, but if it seems interesting, I don't think I can resist taking a course in it :P

3. Ah, didn't think of that. But judging by what I've heard, should be true.

Ooops, I meant Quantum Field Theory.

I'm pretty sure the mathematics there would be a problem for anyone



@Dr.Grass

How wonderful we have an apologist for the physics community. Actually you are quite wrong the biggest problem in modern physics is that the theory of General Relativity, and the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics are both mutually antagonistic. They fail to make accurate predictions when at different scales. Quantum Mechanics is not born out in the reality of the very large, and General Relativity fails miserably at describing the motions of atoms. Then to complicate matters further the math for both theories refuse to cooperate with one another.

It is the dirty secret of modern physics. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics despise one another, and if the greatest minds are all that you trust then take it from the horses mouth. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics, and spent much of his life trying to disprove the theory by highlighting the paradoxes the theory produced. What do you think he was talking about when he said god doesn't play dice. I am not saying the man was a saint either he is equally guilty of what I am talking about.

When confronted with the implication that the math told him the Universe could not be static, and thus must be either expanding or contracting. He ignored that implication, and fabricated the Universal Constant. See he didn't like the idea of a Universe that wasn't static so he pulled something out of his ass. So he could ignore something he found uncomfortable. Later when he was proven wrong he swiftly removed the Constant, but it doesn't really change the fact that he fudged the math.

I am vehemently opposed to the notion that the flaws of a existing theory should be tolerated, because there is no available substitute. Science should never be about entrenched thought, but in trusting the data. Galileo was forced to recant, because he debunked Aristotle. Thankfully by the time of Einstein nobody was threatening to kill him for debunking Newton. You see it isn't so much that Physicists are blind to these things. They are just simply refusing to grapple with the problems by and large. I just want them to admit that it is procrastination, and nothing less.

I am tired of so much cowardice. Of avoiding dealing with the big problems, because they could be maddening.



This seems very serious!



           

Around the Network

So does this mean that in 100 years in future, there will be time travel machines?



3DS Friend Code:   4596-9822-6909

Dodece said:
@Dr.Grass

How wonderful we have an apologist for the physics community. Actually you are quite wrong the biggest problem in modern physics is that the theory of General Relativity, and the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics are both mutually antagonistic. They fail to make accurate predictions when at different scales. Quantum Mechanics is not born out in the reality of the very large, and General Relativity fails miserably at describing the motions of atoms. Then to complicate matters further the math for both theories refuse to cooperate with one another.

It is the dirty secret of modern physics. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics despise one another, and if the greatest minds are all that you trust then take it from the horses mouth. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics, and spent much of his life trying to disprove the theory by highlighting the paradoxes the theory produced. What do you think he was talking about when he said god doesn't play dice. I am not saying the man was a saint either he is equally guilty of what I am talking about.

When confronted with the implication that the math told him the Universe could not be static, and thus must be either expanding or contracting. He ignored that implication, and fabricated the Universal Constant. See he didn't like the idea of a Universe that wasn't static so he pulled something out of his ass. So he could ignore something he found uncomfortable. Later when he was proven wrong he swiftly removed the Constant, but it doesn't really change the fact that he fudged the math.

I am vehemently opposed to the notion that the flaws of a existing theory should be tolerated, because there is no available substitute. Science should never be about entrenched thought, but in trusting the data. Galileo was forced to recant, because he debunked Aristotle. Thankfully by the time of Einstein nobody was threatening to kill him for debunking Newton. You see it isn't so much that Physicists are blind to these things. They are just simply refusing to grapple with the problems by and large. I just want them to admit that it is procrastination, and nothing less.

I am tired of so much cowardice. Of avoiding dealing with the big problems, because they could be maddening.

This is useless, trite dramatization.

There's no "dirty secrets" here: every problem with temptative theories that tried to integrate general relativity and QM are there in the open for anyone with the will and the intellectual tools to grasp them. All the mathematical problems, all the frustrations and weird ideas, all the phylosophical clashing is part of an ongoing open process. Everyone in the field knows what goes on, and there's no other field like theoretical physics where specialists try constantly to divulgate very difficult and technical subjects to the masses.

Einstein didn't "hate" QM. He was actually one of the fathers of the theory, but he hoped that what is technically called a realistic framework of QM could be developed. Thus the EPR paradox, thus Bell's work, thus Aspect's experiments. Had Einstein lived to see all of that, he'd have conceded the point and maybe changed his angle of attack.

Einstein didn't "fabricate" the cosmological constant, either, nor "fudge the math". It's a temptative modification of field equations that allowed for a stationary universe, introduced before there was indication on actual cosmological dynamics. But the point is that Einstein was ready to abandon it as soon as redshift experimental data seemed to indicate an expanding universe.

That's what scientists do. They have hunches, phylosphical points of view and tastes. In the end, the whole point of scientific collaboration and peer review is that this individuality won't harm proper advancement.

Physicists don't cling to the special relativity for affection or folklore. They aren't papering of cracks or ignoring "flaws", nor are they keeping any secret. They are simply making informed decisions. Special relativity with its mathematical and phylosophical framework has been tested against millions of times in thousands of different experiments and practical applications.

Simple statistic and epistemic thus requires to be prudent because the overall mass of past experiences makes such a potential breakthrough less likely than problems with experimental setup and data analysis. Most physicists on earth will be delighted if the results are replicated in different conditions and new physics is actually testable.

Frankly, you sound like an armchair commenter (it's the cosmological constant, and the standard model has nothing to do with the troubles of QM with general relativity, nor is the problem the motion of atoms, nor did Einstein debunk Newton). Before harping on faults and psychology of the physics community, which needs no apologists of course, maybe you should make an act of humility and admit that you don't know enough to take an informed stance.

Educate yourself and you'll be able to delve into an incredible variety of materials instead of invoking vague problems with the community from the outside. Physicists tackle big intellectual problems every day, don't call "cowardice" when it's rather your ignorance.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Einstein is pretty much giving you a "F*&K YOU" right now.

I'm quoting myself from the other thread that spawned just as many ridiculous comments as this one:

"Ladies and gentlemen, it seems the problem has been solved.

They didn't go faster than c apparantly. The clocks weren't properly synchronized due to *drumrol* relativistic effects.

Einstein (once again) giving you all (well those of you that acted all silly) the fat finger - twice."

So there you have it people. Expect a paper to be published soon and someone getting a nice Phd for his work. Must've been one hell of a mathematical headache to solve this one.



In a nutshell:

Gravitational fields cause time-dilation. Therefore clocks in a gravity field "run slow". The other type of effect to look out for is due to velocity...

So the clocks were synchronized and then the 1 was transported from point A to point B. Point A and B being the start and end of the journey the neutrinos would undertake.

The speed of the transporting vehicle was ' << c' , so no relativistic effects were involved there. However, the clock was transported over drastic altitude varations. This implies the gravitational field wasn't constant and would give rise to the clock (as it ascends) to run faster than its 'synchronized' counterpart.

You may say that the G-field of the earth is too small to account for this, BUT

Relativistic effects due to varying G-field can be measured for EVEN A DIFFERENCE OF 1CM(!).

=> clocks not properly synchronized
=> measurement error for the speed of the neutrino
=> people acting all crazy even though they didn't understand Relativity in the first place

EDIT: half my original post disappeared(?) hmf.



WereKitten said:
Dr.Grass said:
 
...

Then, after struggling through all of it for some years it becomes clear that there is no interpretation (as you suggest above) where there is more information we just don't know about and QM could be considered deterministic. IT CAN'T. QM is a strange thing, but it works incredibly well and no one really knows why. 

...


Well, obviously there's no such thing as a completely deterministic interpretation of cookie-cutter QM, but

  1. hidden variable theories are not completely out, though Kochen-Specker's theorem or Aspect's verification of Bell's inequalities violation pose serious limitation on which of such theories can be admitted.
  2. there's work e.g. by Adler or t'Hooft to develop a classical deterministic layer of physics under the currently known QM, of which QM is an effective higher level. A bit like classical deterministc (micro-)dynamics exhibits classical statistical mechanic as an epiphenomenon.

Both fall under the "there's more information we don't know about" umbrella, but both require new physics.


I am also of that opinion.

The problem with going in that direction is the mind-blowing success of Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Chromo Dynamics. It's undeniably beautiful and accurate.

But yes, we are surely not having all the information of the system before we "sandwich" (insider joke) it.