h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

humorous not humours, the old dyslexia is on overtime tonight

no apology needed

I also see, that they could be blaming equipment for the readings of faster than light travelthey can't have had an headwind then

"Einstein's theory of relativity predicts that nothing can travel faster than light. Thus if the Opera experiment is correct and neutrinos do travel faster than light, then relativity theory is wrong" [ = falsified]. "However, I don't believe the Opera results, because they disagree with the detection of neutrinos from supernova SN1987A."

Stephen Hawking, Radio 4, on the occasion of his 70th birthday.

Opera theory? I'm listening to "The Gypsy Baron" by Strauss right now. I sang in a high school production of it.... My theory is that the English-language version I sang is very different from the German original.

Now, as for neutrinos travelling faster than light, that's still way faster than I can travel. Does it really matter whether Einstein has been proven right or wrong? If he were still alive, I doubt that he wouldmind that much as long as the data were reliable. :-0

There is no explanation that works at present and there is sceptical reluctance on those taking part in the experiments, as 15 of the 160 strong did not sign the paper at the time of the initial test results.
Concerns come from all quarters ,liken to, Neutrinos should radiate particles and so end up with a lower energy than the Neutrinos, issues over whether special relativity could mess up the experiments clocks, concerns over the estimated error ratio and if faster than light Neutrinos exist, they would not only flout relativity but also the fundamental tenet that energy is conserved in the universe.
There is suggestion that they were aided and abetted by the even more elusive sterile Neutrino, that’s to say that the Opera Neutrinos could have morphed into sterile Neutrinos mid flight, taken a short cut through a extra dimension and appeared at the detectors 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light but even this short lived idea has been shot down as a consequence of the second test results. This is due to the unlikely event that the tighter bunches of particles from CERN could not have simultaneously done this on mass.

As for "However, I don't believe the Opera results, because they disagree with the detection of neutrinos from supernova SN1987A.", there could be a explanation in that the Neutrinos detected at the three sites on earth could have been released first as the inner core collapsed and that the visible light was released after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface

I've just had a thought! (it's ok, it didn't hurt)as even "light" can not escape from a black holes gravity, to escape one then, any particle would have to travel faster than light for escape velocity. On that, could there theoretically be faster than light neutrinos emanating from black holes and or even pulsars ?

A lot of things can be true in theory but false in practice.

when I catch one, I'll show you

Black holes , you either love them or hate them, I dislike the way that they are given credibility, without passing the ultimate tests that defines that they are truly observable and quantifiable entities.
The theory of General Relativity predicts them stating that if a body has sufficiently compact mass this will deform Space time to form a Black hole, Quantum mechanics predicts that Black holes emit  radiation.
Scientist speculate on there existence on what they observe out in space based round such predictions, this they believe gives greater weight to there existence and insist on using them in the creative mechanisms, that are involving our universe to date.
It seem odd that they can surmise that Black holes exist on the premise of these well documented predictions, yet for all that we think we know we still don’t fully understand Gravity.
In Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica published in 1687 he describes universal gravition and the three laws of motion, quite advanced for its time and stood true for three centuries.
Einstein though, thought that Newtonian mechanics still didn’t reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field and so developed his Special theory of relativity.
Realizing that the principles of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, this in turn developed into to his paper on the General theory of relativity.
Then comes along Quantum mechanics with distances of the order of the Plank length, leaving Relativity incompatible with Quantum .
Why I should mention Gravity , its because without fully understanding it we should not postulate on such things liken to Black Holes, yes the fore mentioned individuals have undoutablely given us great insight and what we now know, we could say to be as True, as what they have described, works within the confines of earth and immediate space.
Yet get too small and go too far and the dynamics of scale make what we know fail.
Does anyone know how gravitons interact and migrate through space , no, so I think that we should leave the concept of a Black Holes a lone until we do,

Stephen Hawking postulated that black holes could gradually evaporate over very very long periods of time. This has something o do with the interaction of particles of matter with antimatter.

The incompatibility of the large with the small is an ilustration of the lack of a unified field theory. This is what scientists are seeking. That they don't have it yet should not be taken as a sign that they know nothing. They know quite a lot.

Even if we don't have proof that black holes exist, we should still respect the principle that *if* we ever advance to travelling through deep space, we should not go near those places where we suspect black holes are located. This is a safety issue.

Hi Paul, I was a keen Stephen Hawking fan, I read all his early books, I can not take away that the guy has got vision and has established himself has a authority in this field but I fell out with many of his thoughts sometime ago .
This was brought to a head when I started to read Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow book “ The grand design”, on page 5, their introduction went on to state “ Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientist have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge”.
What a load of rubbish, book closed and it never got read.
The problem with being a bearer of torches is that you fall in to the trap of allowing ones ego to rule, he has change tacked from being very scientific to verging on dictatorial on his thoughts in his field of interest.
He’s entitled to his opinion as we all are but not at the expense of sounding like god.
As for the lack of a unified field theory I despair and the endless need that’s is placed on trying to unify Quantum and relativity in support for some mythical one .
They operate as two systems and there are too many contradictions that would have to be reconciled or more the cause botched so as to get it to work.
I’m not saying that we stop and let the current status quo to exist, yes mankind needs to advance his understanding, but we seem to have too many loose ends already without giving us more to puzzle at
This is were philosophy comes in, science may well be the end product, served to the masses, but it often the case of thinking the unthinkable that lends its helping hand to a solution.
I don’t dispute that there are phenomena’s out there that under current thinking are called black holes, but that’s all they are phenomena’s ,to give them such a label as a black hole is tantamount to wishful thinking.

The Hawking quote about neutrinos is a statement of opinion, not of fact. He correctly starts with 'I believe'. In philosophical terms, this would be seen as an autobiographical statement.

The stupidity of his statement about philosophy is there for all to see, as winternights pointed out. It's autobiographical in more ways than one.

That is, obviously, that he actually says 'I don't believe', which in itself of course is a statement of belief. And he doesn't actually start with it! (Post 563).

mea culpa.

Winternights, your post [571] is brilliant and eloquent. I hadn't read any of Hawking's recent books, and don't much care any more, as he would naturally have been overtaken by younger colleagues in his profession. Newer eyes see things that older ones can no longer perceive.

I wonder, though, at your statement:

"I don’t dispute that there are phenomena’s out there that under current thinking are called black holes, but that’s all they are phenomena’s ,to give them such a label as a black hole is tantamount to wishful thinking."

Well, we're human, aren't we? We absolutely have to give names to things, as naming gives us a sense of control. I think we should continue to call whatever they are "black holes" until someone comes up with a better idea. Maybe someone already *has* come up with a better name ["singularities," maybe? or was that the original name?], but the media haven't picked up on it yet.

I remember earlier centuries in which medical conditions were associated with words like "Phlebotomy," "vapours," "humours," etc. These names dropped out of the medical vocabulary as new names superceded them.

Anyway, it's not as if travelling to a "black hole" was imminent. Given what scientists think they know about such things, even getting close t one means certain death. Why bother to try? A better bet would be to find habitable planets so that we no longer feel alone in the universe.

In the meantime, let's try to keep our own planet from self-destructing!

who needs Hawkins etc when there's us

Prof, in my humble opinion the world is in such dire straits that it will take everybody working together to avoid disaster. So, we need Stephen Hawking and anyone else we can get.

Plus, I suspect that there will be many who decline to work together. That's human nature. :P-( That means that you and Mr Hawking will have to work twice as hard as you can, while I will coordinate while sipping a .

I totally agree with your first statement Paul

and as for your secondHawkins can go it alone a whileI'm having a with you

I'm sure Hawkings won't mind if we do that.

ha! he's no option

I suspect that winternights got his Hawking quote from the same magazine that I got mine.