# IF NEUTRINOS CANNOT MOVE FASTER THAN LIGHT

September 27 2011 at 4:53 PM

If neutrinos CAN move faster than light, special relativity should be rejected: it predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to one observer and does not occur according to the other:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"

The solution to the train in a tunnel problem is on p. 57 in David Morin's text:

p. 57: "Yes, the bomb explodes. This is clear in the frame of the train... (...) We can, however, also look at things in the frame of the tunnel... (...) Therefore, the deactivation device gets triggered before the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel, so you might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear to have a paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the deactivation device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate itself. It takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of the train from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this transmission time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no matter how fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has the best chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c, so let's assume this is the case..."

It can be rigorously proved that, if the deactivation signal's speed is higher than c (e.g. neutrinos faster than light are used), the signal does get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel. So special relativity predicts that the bomb explodes in the frame of the train and does not explode in the frame of the tunnel.

Now what if neutrinos CANNOT move faster than light, as desperate Einsteinians hope to prove some day? Will special relativity remain absurd? Of course it will - the absurdity comes from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Consider an analogous situation in Big Brother's world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Oceania's scientists have long ago advanced the fundamental postulate 2+2=5 and are now trying to resolve the following paradox:

3(2 + 2) = 3*5 = 15

3(2 + 2) = 3*2 + 3*2 = 6 + 6 = 12

Can the "paradox" be resolved? It can't of course. Oceania's scientists can only get rid of the false postulate 2+2=5. Analogously, scientists who do not want to live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world any longer will have to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

 Respond to this message

# Re: IF NEUTRINOS CANNOT MOVE FASTER THAN LIGHT

September 27 2011, 5:10 PM
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6zEttRTIu4 Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Surrey offers to "eat his shorts" live on TV if it is proven correct that subatomic particles called neutrinos have exceeded the Universe's speed limit - the speed of light. Quelle délicatesse, quelle finesse! Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

# Re: IF NEUTRINOS CANNOT MOVE FASTER THAN LIGHT

September 27 2011, 5:17 PM
 John Norton rebukes Michio Kaku for "misstating the physics". Kaku teaches that Einstein "found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved". Norton teaches that Maxwell's theory "allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer": http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory: Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." Michio Kaku rebukes crackpots for "denouncing Einstein's theory of relativity for years": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576588662498620624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Michio Kaku: "Einstein wrong? Impossible! (...) Of course, crackpots have been denouncing Einstein's theory of relativity for years. (...) Cracking the light barrier violated the core of Einstein's theory. According to relativity, as you approach the speed of light, time slows down, you get heavier, and you also get flatter (all of which have been measured in the lab). But if you go faster than light, then the impossible happens. Time goes backward. You are lighter than nothing, and you have negative width. Since this is ridiculous, you cannot go faster than light, said Einstein." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

# Re: IF NEUTRINOS CANNOT MOVE FASTER THAN LIGHT

September 28 2011, 1:33 AM
 Frequency and speed of the wave (relative to the observer) change, wavelength remains unchanged: this is the conclusion from the moving observer scenario that refutes Einstein's special relativity: http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave." http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf "La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !" http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics Stephan J.G. Gift "For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years." Yet the conclusion that the frequency and the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) change while the wavelength remains unchanged is based on common sense which is "the heresy of heresies" in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" John Norton, the subtlest practitioner of doublethink in Einsteinana, teaches: For other waves the moving observer may not be able to change the wavelength of waves coming in but for light waves the moving observer successfully does so glory eternal glory to Divine Albert's Divine Theory (believers sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions): http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

# The Race of Century

September 28 2011, 7:02 AM
 Photon versus Neutrino: [IMG][/IMG] Who wins this race?

# Who is photon?

September 28 2011, 7:10 AM