Neutrinos go trolling on

[Beef]

posted on November 18th, 2011, 9:54 pm

Last edited by Beef on November 18th, 2011, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Second thing is, that even if those neutrinos were faster than light, it does not mean that the whole theory of relativity is useless or "fundamentally incorrect" - it would just mean that in this particular example it does not correspond to facts...

The general theory of relativity speak that if an object, ANY object has mass, then the energy required for it to achieve light speed becomes infinite.

So... does the neutrino has mass? Yes it does. Mass being close to zero does not mean that it is zero.

You cannot dispute me on that, these are not my words and it is not open for debate or interpretation. This is phisics. If you don't understand that then you should try something simpler.

I do not wish to sound rude, but it is hard thing to talk about because people are used to all objects being either negotiable or open to opinion. For phisics if you say an equation 1+1=2 you cannot say "maybe" 2 or what if 1 was placed in the context of... no. Not open for opinions. Gravity won't ask people if it is convenient for it to pull them to them to the ground, or the photon won't ask you on what you have to say about him going through you... Only when you understand that will the world of phisics open up to you!

[sectoid]

posted on November 18th, 2011, 10:04 pm

Last edited by sectoid on November 18th, 2011, 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The general theory of relativity speak that if an object, ANY object has mass, then the energy required for it to achieve light speed becomes infinite.

So... does the neutrino has mass? Yes it does. Mass being close to zero does not mean that it is zero.

You cannot dispute me on that, these are not my words and it is not open for debate or interpretation. This is phisics. If you don't understand that then you should try something simpler. It is hard thing to talk about because people are used to all object being either negotiable or open to opinion. For phisics if you say an equation 1+1=2 you cannot say "maybe" 2 or what if 1 was placed in the context of... no. Not open for opinions.

So you could make it true by adding "...except neutrinos", right? :-)

A quadratic equation with negative discriminant does not have a solution when dealing with real numbers, it does however have a solution when dealing with complex ones. It is a matter of context.

edit:

That things do not ask what is convenient for you when they fall, is something entirely differt from gravity ("things do fall" and "gravity makes things fall" are different things: one is a fact another is an interpretation, a response to the question "why do things fall?", one of many possible true responses - or a model if you like (a picture of fact)). Only when you understand that will you also understand what science is and what it isn't.

posted on November 18th, 2011, 10:14 pm

erm jan i'm thinking you misread what i wrote. i'm perfectly open to new findings disproving the old findings, i said i would find it funny if that's what came of this.

Na...I don't think so. What I meant with my highly emotional post (crap I already regret it) was that I support your opinion. The beautiful thing about science is that it is fluent and changing all the time. And as a side note... that we should accept the final frontier as it is and do not fall into claiming that natural laws are fix. We may say that we assume they are fix. Cern is a blast... I still hope we won't be sucked into a black hole...  (sigh... i love it).

posted on November 18th, 2011, 10:16 pm

No, you can't, that's the whole point.
Einstein's equation describes any particle with a mass. It also blatantly and impolitely declares the speed of light as the ultimate maximum there is out there.

If that's true, then where do the aliens come from i wonder... those saucer are little small to pack enough food for the long trip to earth.

So... E=mc[sup]2[/sup]? I don't think so!

posted on November 18th, 2011, 10:44 pm

Czech republic :-).

interesting, you said is that an open interval or a closed one? ie are the endpoints included or not?

This is phisics

ok so that's phisics explained.

anyone got any idea about physics?

it was either laugh at the type or do a cheap "this is sparta" joke, i think i made the right choice.

[sectoid]

posted on November 18th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Last edited by sectoid on November 18th, 2011, 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

interesting, you said is that an open interval or a closed one? ie are the endpoints included or not?

ok so that's phisics explained.

anyone got any idea about physics?

it was either laugh at the type or do a cheap "this is sparta" joke, i think i made the right choice.

It's closed, open one would look like this (3; 11). Funny thing is that, when you are dealing with infinite you have to use open one, which pretty much says that autors of this notation did not consider actualy infinite sets, but only potentialy infinite sets...

edit: disregard last sentence I need to think it through

posted on November 18th, 2011, 11:16 pm

in england (a,b) is open as well. we use [a,b] for closed.

[a.infinity] makes no sense mathematically as it requires infinity to belong to the set, which it cant since it isnt a real number.

posted on November 19th, 2011, 8:15 am

Infinity means faliure in physics. The inability to apply the eqiation into extreme conditions means that the equation itself no longer explains the targeted event as a whole.

If we go back to our topic: General theory of relativity states that "g" eqals infinite in the event horizon of a black hole. In order for it to attract such a gravitational pull it means that object must also have proportial mass to gravitational pull it provides; which means mass should also be then unlimited in einsteins world. Now, we go back to the math:

E=mc[sup]2[/sup], m=unl.
RESULT: E=unl., c becomes irrelevant
So then E=m[sub]inf[/sub]...

That's why its such a disaster to use enstein's eqations under such extremes as sinularities and the early universe in general, because they don't know what could have possibly overpowered infinite gravitational pull to spawn the universe. Well now at least they know its not as simple as a 3 letter eqation!

posted on November 19th, 2011, 10:26 am

physics is like adding math to science. physics has for a long time been taken as "law" because it was proven with math. however as science has discovered and will continue to discover new factors that affect our current understanding of physics.physics is changing because scientist and mathematician's are finding more inconsistency with the current "law of physics" its common knowledge that there are particles, and forces and waves, combined with unique conditions that dont behave as the current "law of physics" would have us think. In time as more research  is done im sure the "law of physics" will change or at least be am-mended as more about how this universe interacts with itself is discovered.


Ps i do think the field of quantum physics is kinda like "experimental physics" or "research physics" as it is looking into the unexplained aspect of physics.

posted on November 19th, 2011, 12:04 pm

And did you know that at the center of every black hole is a little man with a flashlight trying to find the circuit breaker. Im sorry the conversation is way over my head for this time of night/morning

[Optec]

posted on November 19th, 2011, 12:51 pm

Last edited by Optec on November 19th, 2011, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

c is not just the speed of light, c is the maximum rate of information propagation (using AI nomenclature). And that's a very fundamental property of this universe. The fact that we are here and are thinking about c is a good evidence that c is quite precisely c and not c+1, as our universe would look quite different with a slower or higher information propagation (reduing or increasing the area of influence an event has at a given time). Think of the radiation of supernovas for example. Or the speed at which atomic fusion takes place, generating the heavy elements planets are made of. The universe is a fragile play of balances. Its a lot of funny coincidences and "jokes" of quantum physics that allows so much of carbon to be generated in such tiny suns we have around! And how would this small dirtball look without all those carbon guys playing Fleet Operations!

Yea these are not the words a physicists would use, but it might be easier to get the image

posted on November 19th, 2011, 1:01 pm

earth without fleetops? a sad prospect. i wonder if a2 would be dead without fleetops and the general activity fleetops generates. googling armada 2 gives fleetops as the third option behind a2files and the wikipedia entry, and google loves to give priority to the wikipedia entries for things.

also i really doubt a physician would ever use those words, seeing as physician = medical guy

i love when typos result in something with a random meaning, rather than just gibberish.

posted on November 19th, 2011, 3:02 pm

grr  all those nasty english words. Sorry and fixed

posted on November 19th, 2011, 9:39 pm

posted on November 20th, 2011, 1:48 am

I'd just like to note that the universe is a big, confusing tangled mess of webs and wires. There's always going to be exceptions. I'd say that neutrinos can do this because they don't normally interact with the rest of the universe (reaction wise).