Faster than the Speed of Light?


Faster than the Speed of Light?In September 2011, an international group of scientists has made an astonishing claim - they have detected particles that seemed to travel faster than the speed of light.

It was a claim that contradicted more than a hundred years of scientific orthodoxy. Suddenly there was talk of all kinds of bizarre concepts, from time travel to parallel universes.

So what is going on? Has Einstein's famous theory of relativity finally met its match? Will we one day be able to travel into the past or even into another universe?

In this film, Professor Marcus du Sautoy explores one of the most dramatic scientific announcements for a generation. In clear, simple language he tells the story of the science we thought we knew, how it is being challenged, and why it matters.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 7.41/10 from 27 users.
  • Irishkev

    It's NUCLEAR!!!!

  • Jack1952

    It threatens to go for the jugular of the physics of Einstein.

  • danijel vilenica

    “All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.” – Nikola Tesla, July 10, 1932

  • MatarD

    "It was a claim that contradicted more than a hundred years of scientific orthodoxy. Suddenly there was talk of all kinds of bizarre concepts, from time travel to parallel universes"

    The concept of time travel was strengthened by Einstein's theory, and parallel universes is not new.

  • lubime

    What travel faster the air or an airplane ?
    Is not the air already there before an airplane started to fly ?
    The Air could be the nutrino of the airplane ?
    Maybe the Nutrino does not travel at all it is just there and the light travels using the Nutrino as its media (ether ?) maybe.

  • Alexander Olsson

    I liked the idea of Meme-brain theory...fits well with Nassim Harameins Theory's which i find very interesting...i hope they can replicate this, because then the problems with Einsteins equations might be solved within our lifetimes...anyways, interesting stuff

  • Guest

    Nikola Tesla is often mentionned these the world recognizing his mind?

  • WTC7


    From what I understand, and I don't claim to understand it all entirely, Einstein allows for time travel but only towards the future, if someone travelled at the speed of light. It is my understanding that the speeds greater than light would change that in the sense that even traveling to the past would be possible. That would distort the concept of cause and consequence and that is what I think makes it different from Einstein's view of time travel.

  • bryan j trahan

    Neutrino Faster Than Light.
    A Tachyon Delight,
    Or Scientific Blight?

  • Guest

    This was good, simple enough even for me to get the idea. Now I see what The Mighty Achem was explaining to me :)

  • Guest

    The speed of thought may travel faster than the speed of light. It could be proven that something is thought before one thinks it.
    May be nutrinos are infinitesimal physical thoughts floating around the singularity mind which eventually combine with others nutrinos and grow and grow into bigger particles which grow and grow into what one "sees" with the mind.

  • Filip Gorecki

    I watched this twice. I really enjoy Docs that focus on current issues.

  • Jack1952

    Tesla was a brilliant mind. However, his research was done in the past and it is difficult to know exactly what he had accomplished or discovered. That is where the myth of Tesla begins. This are the myths that say that since we cannot prove what he discovered it must follow that he did in fact discover it and these innovations are being hidden from us by malevolent agents. In the world of myths "could be" is good enough to pass as truth.

  • Top_Quark

    Thanks Vlatko for putting this up so quickly. I will watch it one tonight.

    Neutrinos going faster than light is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence and already there are scientists doubting the methods and results. But if they did somehow, could it be that they went through an 'exra dimension' or a wormhole of some sort, which in turn would mean that Einstein's relativity theory still holds true. This is what another LHC scientist had said at that time.

  • Guest

    Ya, i too am waiting to see what the blue man will write here.

  • Achems_Razor

    Ah! maybe went faster than the purported speed of C because of quantum entanglement?

  • Achems_Razor


    Stop the presses! you should get a hold of Deepak Chopra, only he might know what you are talking about!

    Just ribbing you Toots.

    Edit, this is my 666th. comment, heavens to betsy!

  • Guest

    Me too, he always seems to throw a little spanner in the works, a good one though - one that adds a twist. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..... ;) I like your thoughts on the speed of thought .

  • Anthony Pirtle

    This is like the 'arsenic' life forms announcement all over again. How many documentaries will feature this announcement before its proven wrong, I wonder?

  • Guest

    Perc up a pot of kopi panas for Dr. Mersini-Houghton and put her on the heels of this sh*t. She's as likely as any of 'em to put the screws wherever they need to be put.
    And I'm only joking a little bit, and not at all.

  • Achems_Razor


    Yes, time travel to the future is already proven, even by our GPS system referred to as time dilation, but only from our perspective here on Earth.

    My own viewpoint is that time travel to the past is improbable, at least to get in the Earths time that we seem to know in this reality, to many probabilities, the (unobserved) past is not really real, only seems real, but by even thinking about the past we are forming new pasts by the play of probabilities, so there is no real past as we think of it. Re: Hawking:

    Furthermore any resting mass cannot achieve the speed of light, if so, will become an infinite mass, a singularity.

  • Guest

    Apparently, the neutrinos made a quick jaunt through "Star Trekian subspace," according to some.

  • Guest

    And let Betsy take that sh*t and croak with it.

  • Guest

    I feel I'm in familiar territory with star trek science, it's always an anomaly - no one knows what it is, fly through it!

  • Guest

    That's precisely what this doc suggests in part 4. String Theory "confirmation", at last!?

  • MatarD

    As you say. I cannot claim to understand how these relationships work. My understanding was not that the speed of light had to do with it as much as the possibility to directly bend space and time, just as he saw light being bent by gravity. Same as the theory of wormholes is derived from this, and if you can travel into to future you can naturally look back at yourself and see the past. Even look back by bending space and time.

  • Guest

    Could have sworn I'd heard that they had decided it was a mistake, must have imagined it.

  • Guest

    Quark-field resonance generator; proton-emitter flux-space capacitor; ion-tube tachyon warp-drive containment...

    "Someone throw me that science dictionary! And grab me a bagel while you're at it!"

  • Guest

    There's one in the replicator, I'll get it once I've ejected the warp core :)

  • Guest

    No, they found the mistake.

  • Top_Quark

    @Pysmythe, yes it could be a confirmation of the String Theory.

    But more questions here:

    The LHC has come up with more exciting news in the last couple of months. Researchers at Cern have failed to find evidence for supersymmetric particles therefore putting the Supersymmetry theory in a difficult spot. I know there is a lot more work to be done at the LHC (and other labs for that matter) before finally writing off the beautiful Supersymmetry theory but could it also mean the end of Superstring theory by its association to supersymmetry? Could even the M-theory be in jeopardy? I can sense Prof. Lee Smolin secretly smiling somewhere.

    Also if the LHC scientists fail to discover the Higgs Boson by next summer, then what modifications will be required in the Standard Model of particle physics? Surely there’s so much at stake in the next few years or even months.

    Thoughts anyone?

  • Guest

    Oh. I feel a bit sad for them now. Wonder if they figured out a way to get the cork back in the Champagne :(

  • Guest

    I lived not far from cern for a while, went to see it thinking there would be something wonderful, there was a field.

  • payner

    Everything is but a twinkle of a thought in the cosmic mind...We will never uncover the full truth. Every time we answer one question, ten more seem to pop up in its place. It is all evolving so fast we will never be able to figure out all the mystries and that is what keeps it interesting..quantum entanglement alone shows us that information can be in two places at once over a vast distance farther than light could travel in time. so do you all feel that maybe neutrino is the carrier of information? It goes right on through matter and dosent even slow down...Is it changing somehow as it goes throug and then taking or leaving some kind of pattern behind in the matrix of spacetime as it goes or what? its crazy but facinating..P

  • Epicurus

    lol loved this comment. I could see this happening to me.

  • Guest

    Don't you think, though, that some of the criticism about the failure to find the Higgs yet stems from those who were opposed to the cost of the LHC to begin with? There were enough of them, that's for sure... (And yet there always seems to be enough cash in the coffers to fund some military action, or a war or two.) Obviously, they just need to redefine the parameters of the tests they've run so far, or come up with a completely new experiment. But even if it fails, I don't think they'll be modifying the Standard Model (just because of that) too much any time soon, considering that it works as well as it does.

  • Guest

    You could try but I think they have a visitors centre now, it might not work for you :) I know of other fields you could go to though.

  • Guest

    Off to bed, sleep well folks x

  • oilchng

    I thought that "they" had proven this to be a miscalculation of satellite positional time, by not taking into account the distance of the source time to the repeater.

  • Guest

    The difference between us Dear that you would never dare write on this thread an idea never published before, or never read somewhere...i don't fear that, why should i? I have no degree of education to protect or defend.

  • Guest

    One thing that could go faster than the speed of light would be the speed of darkness, perhaps the thought came to my mind from that darkness.

  • Guest

    I myself would serve any kind of potion to Prof Joao Magueijo just to see that smile every day. lol

  • Guest

    I don't think they publish that dictionary fast enough to keep up. Cream cheese and smoked salmon? Nothing like a real Montreal Bagel.

  • Truthseeker420


  • Achems_Razor

    Dear Az...None of us has ever written on something they have never heard or read or that was published before, whether it be a paragraph or a word, except if you lived as in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and just came into the light for the first time.

  • Guest

    Was that the dark-haired hunk? Yeah, I think maybe even some deep, dark, undeveloped part of me wants to have his babies...
    (Either that, or run a rake over his face, lol.)

  • Aidan Skillings

    My god, how long ago was it that the announcement was made? This is some speedy doc making if I ever saw it...

  • Guest

    I know, right? That was Sept when I heard the news...As a consequence, maybe this doc was just a little too much like fast-food, imo. I think too much time was spent on "background" ( Ether, Relativity, etc., which I'm pretty sure we all know about -in layman's terms, at least- fairly well.), and not nearly enough on the implications, or even (potential) applications, should this pan (or have panned) out.

  • Guest

    You said you never much liked Star Trek, right? I was just throwing out a couple of homemade examples of what's called "treknobabble," lol.

  • tomregit

    @Aidan Skillings.
    This experiment will now be run again with important differences which should remove some ambiguities. In the first experiment, the NEUTRINOS emerged, after some complex interactions, from a stream of PROTONS generated at Cern, and travelled through the earth's crust to Gran Sasso in Italy. The protons were fired from Cern in a "long" pulse lasting 10 microseconds (10 millionths of a second). The neutrinos showed up in Italy 60 nanoseconds (60 billionths of a second) earlier than expected. This measurement, however, was not direct, but arrived at statistically by superimposing the NEUTRINO'S arrival times on the PROTON'S departure times over and over, then taking an average. This does not allow for the measurement of an individual neutrino.

    In a new experiment being run this month protons will be sent in short bursts of 1-2 nanoseconds separated by "long" intervals of 500 nanoseconds. Every neutrino event at Gran Sasso can then be unambiguously connected to a batch of protons at Cern. Physicist Matt Sassler, of Rutgers University, who originally raised concern about the methodology, describes it as sending isolated clicks instead of a long blast on a horn. In the latter case you must figure out when the horn starts and stops, but in the former case you hear each click and it's over.

    The findings of the original experiment were certainly interesting, but I believe many people were far too carried away by the results which appear to still be ambiguous and require further experimentation before we throw out relativity.

    EDIT: I have paraphrased much of this for the sake of brevity and hope I have not altered any facts in doing so.

  • Guest

    Very Interesting. It is written in a simple enough way that most people will get what you are saying....most people included me.
    Thank you.

  • norlavine

    Neutrinos have been there always, and if they in fact do travel faster than the speed of light, good luck to those who deem to harness them.

  • Guest

    Ever read any Terry Pratchett books? Great for long train rides. There was something in one of them about inspiration particles flying around the universe and every now and then one of them will pass through a brain and bingo, a brilliant thought is born! I know he likes to 'borrow' his stories from others but he does it well :)

  • Guest

    Or a better thing would be to read where they made a mistake which makes this doc a tad out of date.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    I considered watching this... but I already knew there was errors in the experiment stated. This is why you shouldn't make a documentary so fast, without the data being repeated and peer reviewed! Media these days...speed over accuracy.

  • Vlatko

    @Yi Wen Qian,

    ...I already knew there was errors in the experiment stated,

    No you didn't. You assume that there were errors, like the rest of the scientific community.

    Scientists in Italy scrutinized the results of the so-called Opera experiment for nearly six months before making the announcement.

    Initial re-testing is in progress, and will deliver serious results in April 2012. Until then, you can't be 100% sure that there were errors, nor anyone else.

    Further more the documentary is not stating that neutrinos are/were going faster than the speed of light? It just lays out the case, with some background info about relativity and light, and that without a replication of the experiment the question still stays open.

  • Guest

    Not to put too fine a point on it but there was a "duh" error from what I understand.

  • Vlatko


    May I know what was the "duh" error?

    In fact there are several possible errors. But even taking them all into account (without re-testing), still few nanoseconds can't be explained.

    Therefore re-testing is in progress and it will be completed in April 2012. If there was a "duh" error, why the hell bother doing the experiment again, with extra equipment and lot of fine tuning?

  • Guest

    The best source would be Technology Review published by MIT. It's quite easy to read. It completely explains the 64 nanoseconds.

    As far as doing the experiment again, by all means do it again and do it correctly this time. I would hope that we do find faster than light.

  • Guest

    Let me back-up here. Replace the word "completely" with "almost exactly".

  • Vlatko


    Replace the word "completely" with "almost exactly".

    Right, I was about to say that... and the documentary also says that.

    Those few extra nanoseconds at this moment remain unexplained, thus further testing is in place.

  • Guest

    Oh certainly more testing is required either way. Yet, my problem is that the CERN scientists over-looked this. I'm no physicist but it seems kind of fundamental to me (once it has been explained!). The Theory of Relativity being that which tripped them up only adds a sort of sweet irony (for Einstein).

  • Vlatko


    That is the beauty of science.

    OPERA findings are not published in peer-review journal, therefore they're unofficial. Once they conduct their experiment using a shorter timed proton beam they plan to publish their results in a peer-review journal, regardless of their findings.

    Ronald van Elburg at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands makes a convincing argument: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks. His argument is the strongest and makes most sense, however his paper is also not published in peer-review journal, which makes it unofficial too.

    In the meantime MINOS and T2K, will also attempt to recreate OPERA's results.

    Most probably the experiment contains error(s), but science will not let go until maximum scrutiny is applied.

  • Guest

    Maximum Scrutiny....Don't come half-steppin' with Brother Einstien!

  • Jason Dinh

    what was the name of the song that was playing when they first started talking about einstein

  • tomregit

    >Or a better thing would be to read where they made a mistake which makes this doc a tad out of date.<
    I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean. I have tried to understand the peculiar result, but I don't know where to read anything that that explains the "mistake" that may have been made. There may well be anomalies in the data which could be resolved by running the modified experiment. I'm not aware of the methodology of experiments being run by others in an attempt to replicate the Cern/Sasso run, but hopefully there are different ways to test it.

    My math and physics education is insufficient to comment further, but I know enough to know what I don't know.

  • Guest

    It is in Technology Review , The Physics arXiv Blog, published by MIT. Don't let that scare you, it's pretty easy reading. There are others that can be cited but this one is pretty straight-forward.

  • OldVandal

    The Unified Field Theory, is not as complicated as is presented.

  • norlavine

    Perhaps the current meter(s) for gauging velocities of infinitesimal masses suspected of travelling past light speed are inadequate, considering the physics would involve unknown and unmapped laws. It's a bit like trying to stream the internet on an old transistor radio. Neutrinos are truly pioneer territory and the old laws won't cut it..x

  • Dan Flynn

    It's hard to take the narrator seriously as he constantly mispronounces "nucleus" as nukulus. Pet peeve of mine... Sure, maybe it shouldn't undermine credibility, but f***!

  • Yi Wen Qian

    @ Vlatko

    Sorry Vlako, I shouldn't have used the word error but rather used the word 'inconsistencies'. It disagrees with many previous experiments that was performed and while it may not be errors, I still feel that a documentary about a claim at this scale shouldn't be made until at least April 2012.

    Also, the claims about errors are not unfounded. All experiments have a standard error, which is either due to the limitations of the observer or equipment. Such errors must be taken into account and the only way to fix this is to do more experiments. This doesn't mean that the results are false, but rather the interpretation is isn't spot on.

    My complaint, is towards to media, because it is actually the 3rd time I have heard the claim 'the speed of light isn't constant' (previous 2 got shot down or unproven... I can't remember cause it was a while ago). At this point, the data set is not complete, it's like you measure one day that your temperature isn't 37 and you claim that human body temperature isn't on average 37. I sincerely feel that a documentary shouldn't act like a tabloid, not before all the data are collected, peer reviewed, and published.

    This is just a rant about reading too much cancer cures in news papers with the text at the bottom, this data is yet to be published and I got it to you first!! Not exactly but you get what I mean.

  • Vlatko

    @Yi Wen Qian,

    I agree, but what I was trying to say is that the documentary is not sensationalist. It just lays out the case, the experiment, possible errors within, what was done so far, what will be done in near future, and some background info about relativity and the light. Nothing more.

  • aussie3931

    Thanks Irishkev......and it's also 'nucleus'. Where on earth did 'nuckeulus' come from.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    @ Vlatko,

    It's a pet peeves of mine, I would admit. I just feel this documentary could wait 6 months. Just because, if the result is false, it would be a huge embarrassment with in not just the science community, but the public's eyes as well.

  • Daniel Niculcea

    Actually, In the Feynman Lectures on Quantum Electrodynamics, it is stated that the photons travel with a mean speed of c: the speed of light. However, there are certain photons that travel slower and ones that travel faster, but they pretty much cancel each other out.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    Well, I haven't heard the lecture by Feynman, so I can't comment, but the mean sounds about right.

  • Guest

    I don't think it will be an embarrassment. This is the way science works and why it works. The scientists needed to get this information out as to let others examine the results.

    Personally I'm skeptical. Something as this falls under the "Extraordinary Claims" rule.

  • Daniel Niculcea

    Also, I understand that they used GPS tracking to calculate the speed of the neutrinos. And because the satellites are in high orbit, it is likely that they did not get the correct calculation. I did not have the time to verify this. If anybody knows anything, please post

  • Achems_Razor

    @Yi Wen Qian:

    I agree when you say all experiments can almost be precise, but the end result always will have an inherent error and can only come to an acceptable mean standard considering all the variables and inconsistencies with the limitations of math and such, especially at the subatomic scale.

  • Guest

    Scroll down until you see my name at 16 hours ago.

  • hungrinow

    I just have such a hard time listening to and watching something with such a dramatic soundtrack and camera work. It's not as heavy duty as American productions, but it's close.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    @ lakhotason

    Yeah, I do agree that's how science works, but usually scientists ask for feedback during the publication process, where the data is scrutinised in the science community first and not released to the public, just in case it is wrong. The public scrutiny usually comes after publication. However I do understand this is unique in that it is very cutting edge science and covers quite broad field of expertise.

    I don't think it would tarnish the team's image as much as the media that covered it, but then again the media is use to this. I really have a pet peeves thing against this...

  • Guest

    I'm with you. It's a pet peeve of mine also. Don't throw garbage in my face. I'm stupid enough to believe it.

  • Guest

    Yeah but we're talking about the speed of light. I understand the concept of the variables but......we're talking the motherlode here.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    No, this is very possible because, while light doesn't change it's speed in the current model, the limitations of equipment may give a range of results. The GPS used for tracking is one example where equipment limitations may cause a deviation. This can all be accounted for if the results are analysed correctly, and if there is enough of it.

  • Guest

    Oh but yes light does change its speed. The speed of light is measured in a vacuum I think.

    I'm really interested whether you see the neutrinos as traveling faster than light.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    Yes, light does travel differently in different mediums, the constant is in vacuum. I'm not saying that it isn't a constant as such, just data variation due to equipment limitations is probable. The mean will still be constant lol.

    Neutrinos have never been accurately measured, since it can pass through anything and is mostly undetectable. I can't make a comment about it because the results are not out yet. Even if it does, it might be travelling through a wormhole, so the speed might not change.

  • Guest

    No YI what do you think? What 'bout them neutrinos?

  • Yi Wen Qian

    I'm confused, it should travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, but since it interact with little else and tend to pass right through objects, it will travel at that speed in any medium I would think. So in a different medium I think neutrinos will travel faster than photons could. Is that the opinion you are looking for?

  • Guest

    So you are kinda leaning towards CERN? I'm not.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    No no lak, I am leaning against CERN lol, I think it can travel as fast as light in a vacuum, but not faster.

    Edit: perhaps we should use the 'universal speed limit' rather than the 'speed of light (photons)'.
    Aginst... away... what word do I use there?

  • Guest

    Speed of Light, Universal Speed Limit - same thing.

  • Dan Faro

    I believe they forgot to take into account some time difference that results from the technology they are using, and that corrected time is the same amount the neutrinos were supposed to have arrived sooner than light, approximately 60 milliseconds.

  • PeSO821

    What if light is slower because it interacts with dark matter (or who knows what is in "empty space")?
    And the true "speed of light" is the the one now measured by neutrinos, since they don't interact as much (or not at all) with this mestirious dark matter.
    Maybe the most famous constant, speed of light, is just a little bit bigger, and no fundamental laws are broken.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    But, but, they are not the same thing >.<

  • Guest

    Well it would make a difference if I hit a brick wall rather than a beam of light.

  • Guest

    You're right.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    @ PeSO821

    I disagree, I think zero times infinity is 0, so photons should always be massless. I did see your post indicating that perhaps light was interacting with the vacuum. I don't know enough physics to comment on that, but photons are also electromagnetic waves, so therefore interact with matter and can slow it down. First you will have to prove that light interact with these dark matter. Since we can't see dark matter, I assume that light doesn't interact with it?

  • Guest

    Damn Yi zero times anything is zero.

  • Yi Wen Qian

    Sorry, I should have posted @PeSO821.

  • Gary

    Anything at this speed is an awesome discovery.

  • PeSO821

    Multiply anything with 0 and it is 0, except with infinity, that can give you any result. Infinity has some really weird properties.

    Nobody has any clue what dark matter is, much less if it interacts with anything.
    All we know is, it is all around us, because of how galaxies rotate and other phenomena. It is believed to be more than 80% of all the mass in the universe.

    Light interacting with dark matter, is what makes the most sense to me. Maybe this experiment is first proof of interaction. But I might be completely off track :)

  • Yi Wen Qian

    Well, I googled 0 times infinity, it turns out that you can't do it because infinity isn't a natural, rational, real or complex number. The answer is indeterminate, so basicly undefined. So it doesn't actually mean that it would give any result.

    Dark matter is a theoretical matter to account for gravity, so there is no reason to believe that light should interact with it.

    Let's just wait for the results to come out before making any speculation.

  • Guest

    Contact: Eduard Albert Meier story is a documentary by lee elders, with wendelle stevens in it as well as billy meiers, that has clips that deal with faster than light travel. I tried to get this site to show it. I havent seen it here as yet. Oh and try as they might they couldnt debunk it. So take a look at this very interesting view of our universe and who is in it. In other words, watch the whole thing before cheap shotting it.

  • Guest

    dark matter is obnly a fudge factor to help balance the blank check written by the big bang proponents. It doesnt exsist. This site has a great documentary called thunderbolts of the gods. Try it. It's very entertaining to say the least. Cosmology Quest is a 2 part documentary on this subject as well

  • Guest

    Randolph Winters contact notes deals with the conversion of matter into something that will travel faster than light speed. Now heres the problem our accepted science says faster than light speed isnt possible. But if youm look at all the evidence you will find we have and are and will be visited by people from other planets. So if so. they didny use fossil fuels to get here. I would say they used non consumable fuel. Energy from the vacuum? Any of you investigate plasma?

  • Guest

    did you mis reply or what would make a difference to what? I lost you there?

  • Guest

    CERN ran the test again. Same result.

  • Top_Quark

    yes lightspeed broken again. see the link below:

    The US Minos experiment and Japan's T2K experiment will also test the observations. It is likely to be several months before they report back.

  • Guest

    Forgive my non scienceyness, but what is it called when a particle does something and another partner particle does the same, no matter how far and it knows instantly. Could it be anything to do with that or am I romping off into the wilderness?

  • Achems_Razor

    @50 4 40,

    Since I saw your question, it is called "quantum entanglement", what Einstein called spooky action at a distance.

    And you are probably romping off into the wilderness.

  • Guest

    Only probably? Well that's an improvement at least ! :)

  • Guest

    Night all x

  • Achems_Razor

    50 4 40,

    True, because I myself said on this doc I believe quantum E. might have something to do with it, whereas there are not one but two measurement apparatus involved, one at sending and one at receiving, therefore the neutrinos that are millions of times smaller than photons, might jump instantly or Planck second sooner therefore arriving nanoseconds sooner. I do not think they know if neutrinos follow or not follow Q.E.

  • Guest

    So perhaps the neutrinos they catch might not be the ones they threw. Now i think about it, it sounds daft. I read that If you can affect one of a pair of entangled particles there is no way of knowing how that might affect the other half. Wouldn't it be too much of a coincidence if all the neutrinos they threw just happened to have partners in the right place to be caught, you'd have to think they know what was expected of them !

  • Shane Gaumond

    Nothing wrong with the physics and or machines here although I am curious as to how they calibrated the detectors timing to start with. I suspect the calculated distance between the 2 points is less then there thinking it is and Earth's gravity is at play.
    It would be ironic if the theory that is on the verge of being busted saves itself because when the theory of relativity is considered the distance between point A and B is less then we thought it was.

  • francisco ortega

    i was just thinking, what if the speed of neutrinos was not constant. Mybe when it first begins to travel it accelerates at a faster rate then light (exceeding lights absolute velocity) but through time will slow down allowing light to catch up to the neutrinos. Theirs probably some rule of the universe that restricts the deceleration i am trying to explain. Anyway just wanted to throw that out their :)

  • Jeff Dodge

    Why can't people correctly pronounce the word "nuclear"?

  • Jordan Stevens

    quantum entanglement

  • Guest

    thanks :)

  • Tanzanos Eleytheros

    "NUCELUS"??? I wish people would use the correct form ie: "NUCLEUS" instead of the Americanised form!

    Thanks for the very interesting documentary!

  • Stephen Pazian

    Awesome Doc... and fast, I might add. I just starting reading about this experiment a few weeks ago on the science websites and I'm already seeing a well-produced documentary that explains it (to this nonphysicist) far better than any of the articles I've read. It really gets your mind spinning trying to think of reasons they came up with this result. When I first read about this experiment on sciencedaily I assumed they were leaving out some sort of relatavistic effects....

    For Example...
    If time itself is not absolute how can one be absolutely certain with regard to speeds measured so close to the ultimate speed limit, perhaps it could all boil down to a small difference in altitude between the the detectors and the beam. After all, we've all heard the phrase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (expect in politics of course :p)...

    They've clearly already thought of such things, however, as they've gone so far as to account for the infinitesimaly small movement between the continents. That bit wasn't posted in any article I've read on these experiments. It seems the degree of proof this team is offering is extraordinary after all. So now I'm left with... Wow this result really is amzing!

    Of the ideas put forth in this doc, I like the idea that the particles might have been blown off our membrane universe for some short time, causing the particles to appear to have achieved FTL travel. It would not only give the first experimental evidence for String Theory (which I think is long overdue) it would also proove the existance of the Multiverse and who knows what else. As exciting as this doc is, it fills me with a profound sense of sadness that I personally wasn't better at Calculus :p

    Again, Awesome Doc.. I'm now more greatly anticipating the future results from Chicago and Japan confirming these findings than I am the discovery of the Higgs.


    And to those who want to appear intelligent by pointing out that he mispronounced Nuclear, get over it.. I'm sure 99% of us noticed that.

  • Michael Clarke

    What is the True Speed Of Light..?? Did Albert (the Librarian) get it wrong..??

  • Larry Hill

    the PROOF of neutrinos moving faster then light can be seen in super nova observation , the last super nova event watched in 1987 showed neutrinos moving slower than the light , but those neutrino''s are from the second wave ,THEY MISSED THE FIRST WAVE because it out ran the first light burst by 60 nano seconds divided by distance minus that from date of first light pulse seen gives date they would've seen increased neutrino emission from said super nova ,So they need to watch for incidents of increased neutrino emissions in space and see if light pulses increases from said area of increased neutrinos .simple observational science will prove the theory correct .................

  • bizanjo

    Fastees(neutrinos) are faster than speed of light in a straight line,
    where as neutrinos are not the ultimate fastest ,
    fastees(so) are faster than neutrinos as it travel through neutrinos,
    (virtually we can travel into the past or future as we are doing it already, not physically)

  • Angelo Molinaro

    Angelo Molinaro
    Angelo Molinaro
    I had an article published in the scientific journal titled Galilean Electrodynamics Volume 15 Number1 January/Feburary 2004 issue. The article was titled The Invariance of Mass, which proves mathematically that Mass is an invariant. This finding proves that we can travel faster than the speed of light. I also wrote a book titled The Two State Universe which describes this finding. The book also describes a new theory of the Universe and Gravity, and answere many of the unanswered questions of Science.
    I have an undergraduate degree from MIT, I also have a Doctor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Theoretical Physics.


    They should have got you in this Doco - could have saved them all the bother and me; wish i had just read your comment instead of watching this!

  • Matt Kukowski

    Only GOD can move faster than the speed of light... I am zerg... resistance is futile.... this is earth shaking! Now we can all breathe a sigh of relief... the world is saved!

  • Dale Robin Sasseville

    Has anybody thought of that "Negative Energy" might the cause to the time deferential between point A to point B. Negative has been proven to warp space-time and who knows CERN maybe generating it every time they send the neutrinos to Italy. This could cause point A and Point B to contract and let the neutrinos appear to be FTL, when only traveling slower than light. This phenomenon is mentioned in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity stating that Gravity is just the warping of Space-Time. So far i have not heard of anybody putting this in account.

  • De Marco Mario

    Guys, i'm an Italian guy with NO physic education background, and even my English is a bit drunk still... so if you all wanna laugh at me for what i'm gonna say i will accept it....... but.....
    i'v been watching documentaries like this for few years and when i saw this one i got like an illumination, i'v been thinking about it for few days and i desperately need someone to explain me one thing, because i think i might have one theory that explain why the neutrinos appear to travel faster than the speed of light.
    Basically is because neutrinos are not effected from gravity of matter and they can travel trough matter without interfere with it, while light doesn't, so, in presence of a massive object in space like for example a large star, the light have to follow the curves of space-time while neutrinos can keep going straight trough the star, an observer located behind the star will detect neutrinos before the beam of light simply because the light beam has been traveling for a longer distance following the curves of space-time.
    I believe that neutrinos can't travel back in time, just forth, and can't brake the speed of light limit, but they can just travel trough shortcuts...

    Please, if there is anyone out there who can give me an explanation about what i just wrote, contact me, even if you just wish to tell me why and where i'm wrong, in simple words as i'm not a mathematician and i don't understand complicated formulas...

    thanks, Mario

  • g f

    I myself have no major physics education but the one problem that i can think of with your reasoning.

    If this were the case then the super nova in 1987 would have shown the opposite of your theory, due to the fact that, well i' guessing that the light and neutrinos would have passed stars and traveled further through the fabric of space, this would show that your theory is a contradiction to what was observed. seeing how the experiment here on earth was only in short distances not like the super nova which was very far away.

    But it is a cool thought.

  • De Marco Mario

    Yes, thanks for replying.. i already tough about that and i think there is an explanation why the light from the supernova reached us a bit earlier than the neutrinos, at beginning i tough that for some reason there was no major object on their path, but that's highly improbable or even impossible, so another explanation came in my mind:
    We on earth detected just the light that has been traveling in a straight line to us as neutrinos did, all the other beams of light where simply distorted and pushed away from that line so we where not able to detect them, if we could have done so,( like having light detectors somewhere else in outer space ) we would have seen them arrive after the neutrinos that reached earth,(based on equal distance ).
    Here on earth, the Italian Physicist had this result because while neutrinos travel trough the heart crust in a straight line, the light is being bent from the gravitational force of our planet, i know this last sentence is a nonsense, because the calculation has been made based on the speed of light in the vacuum and not actually on a beam of light that travel from Cern to Italy, but there is a way to verify this, actually 2 ways:

    1) Repeat the experiment releasing both neutrinos and beam of light in a vacuumed straight pipe that from CERN arrive in Italy, i guess they will detect once again the neutrinos first as i explained before.

    2) place a neutrinos generator in outer space away from any gravitational pole, together with a laser beam generator and two detectors located one in another place of the outer space ( still away from any gravitational pole ) and the other one here on earth.
    The generator must split both the beams of neutrinos and light and address them trough the detector number 1 and number 2, i guess this time the detector number 1 ( in outer space ) will detect light before neutrinos, while detector number 2 will detect neutrinos first as light beam has been disturbed by our planet gravity.

    If the same beam of light/neutrinos has been split but detected at arrival in different order from the two detectors, that must be the ultimate proof that neutrinos do not travel faster than light, but is the light that is affected during the travel trough the fabric of space.

    Not only that, i think that if was possible to let light travel in some way out from the fabric of space, the value of the speed of light would be higher than (C) and eventually match the speed of neutrinos that has been observed from Italian physicist, i know that's not possible because photons are too big to escape that fabric, but neutrinos are small enough to travel trough this without interact with it,so they can travel faster, and that's the whole point, in physic size does matter...

    PS. to moderator: i didn't know i couldn't post my email address, i just wanted to discuss this privately with someone with Physic education background and avoid silly comments from ppl who like to laugh at other ppl, but i guess is better if anyone can read and reply.


  • Mercenarry ForHire

    They found particles that move faster than the speed of ligh using the particle collider thingy.

  • Achems_Razor

    So funny, are you as precise in your Mercenarry ForHire thingy, don't quit your day job.

  • Patrick

    It seems to me that the ability to move faster than light therefore time travel would have to possible in order to explain an omnipotent being that exist in all space at all times. Time travel would have to be possible just not within the grasp of humans at our present stage of technology, knowledge or development! Just because we (humans) cannot explain or duplicate a thing doesn't necessarily make it impossible or improbable for all... we are not alone in the universe, nor are we (humans) the be all end all of technology, knowledge or beings in my opinion!

  • David

    Understood hardly a thing. My physics seem to be stuck back in the eighties (So 20th). Let me know when I can go see my great-grandfather. In the meantime I'll have to brush up. Any suggestions?

  • David

    I'll be watching star Trek...

  • aufpet

    Well I look at the possibility that all matter in existence is inside a net. All matter can't escape the net apart from one which is called the neutrinos. It escapes the net and finds itself in an almost identical dimension. Then, em I don't know. My brain is hurting and I'm off to bed to think about John Titor the time traveler who just happened to mention this future discovery back in 1999. Strange but true!

  • leif Muffett

    wasn't this attributed to an error caused by a loose fiber optic cable?

  • SuperPhoenix

    I can make a sense of what de macro Mario said.He is able to understand neutrinos can pass through matter and gravitational effect. By understanding neutrinos it could help us more about the real speed limit of the universe. For now I will stick to speed of light.

  • Shellyinthestudywitha Revolver

    im stuck with a pressing question that's been burning in my head for a few days. im trying to write a paper on neutrinos and i saw a few documentaries stating that they maybe as fast if not 60 nano seconds faster in the doc. it stated that neutrinos are formed in a membrane (dimensions) with light, light is not able to pass through these membranes which is why light keeps the same speed; it also states that since neutrinos can pass through membranes (dimensions ) it is possible that it could be slightly faster than light. here is where i am stumped. February 23rd 1987 a supernova was recorded, according to the published reports neutrinos were moving slowing than the speed of light. i want to know is it due to the path that was taken were there no membranes for the neutrinos to pass through, are neutrinos only faster than light when passing through membranes and was the experiment OPERA something that should be studied for a different reason? is there some signification about the space between Geneva and Italy that has caused a possible membrane to appear and speed up the neutrinos to cause them to be 60 nano seconds faster than the speed of light?

  • Abracax

    Are you from the future?

  • De Marco Mario

    thanks for your comment, i really appreciate it

  • Robert Pruitt

    I know this is late, just "stumbled" onto this article.
    The speed of light is actually NOT constant at all. It changes depending on what it is traveling through. For instance light traveling through glass(like you wear to correct vision, has a speed of ~124,000 miles per second. It is actually this change in speed that allows glasses to correct vision. If the speed stayed constant then the light would not bend which it must do to refocus. Scientists are also "pretty sure" there are regions of space itself where the speed of light is different for some reason, although I can not remember why exactly.

    Also, we can blame the speed at which documentaries are produced and released to the public directly at the feet of the internet itself. If everyone waited months for confirmation before making a documentary about something, then not only would almost no one watch it, they would b*tch and moan about it being "old" news and wonder what took so long. The internet has, more than anything else, turned us as a group, into a must have it now society. While this is beyond great for some things, such as government accountability, it is not so great, I would even say detrimental, when it comes to accurate research, since everyone is busy trying to be first. Since being first to report something that gets the average person seriously excited(if it turns out to be accurate) puts you first in line or more of that coveted grant money.

  • Pierre Savoie

    Is this more New Age crap, like What the Bleep Do We Know? We know plenty, and it's not up to liberal-arts New Age doodoo-heads to interpret science for the rest of us.

  • Andrew Hansen

    Sigh, this was an error in the recording instrument. Furthermore, traveling backwards in time (for those who mentioned it) is impossible. The idea of time-travel has gained popularity because according to many equations in physics, time is reversible. However, this does not accurately reflect reality. This is because of three things:

    1. The second law of thermodynamics: entropy increases in a system and never the reverse. This remains true unless a considerable amount of energy (relatively speaking) is applied to the system to "organize" it, so applying this to the universe would conflict with the first law of thermodynamics.

    2. The past is non-existent. The idea of time as a line is only a model. Time is just what we use to describe the interactions between particles as a system changes. In truth, there is always only the present. The past and future are merely conceptual or predictive.

    3. Certain particles decay in certain circumstances (thus going against conservation of mass). Since they no longer exist in our universe, we would have to create mass to account for their loss in order to then "reverse" the flow of time. As this cannot be done, we cannot travel back in time.

    The problem here is that many of the theories about physics have been misunderstood and misconstrued. For some reason, many people have the misconception that with physics anything is possible. This is not true. Take trying to escape our universe for example (which is impossible). If we ever could, at best the laws of physics would differ in a way that wouldn't facilitate our ability to exist.

  • Jeremy Laws Ruggles

    what a prat! in a vacuum c is constant new age world or not. interestingly c isn't concerned with the human world or its interpretations

  • Richard Bradshaw Watson II

    Yes, some guy who worked in a patent office and played violin and piano should have kept his 'science' to himself (Albert Einstein).

  • Richard Bradshaw Watson II

    Neutrinos do NOT travel faster-than-light - it was a mistake in the readings - and this site needs to be tweaked. However, quantum entanglement/non-locality or as Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance" is real and has been experimentally proven since c. 1935.
    I'm an independent researcher and theorist. For many years, I've been conducting experiments in the 'speed and power of thought' and came across this site through a google search. I've proven that thought can be much faster-than-light, going back in time and creating a new chain-of-events (from my perspective) that result in a perceived 'non-coincidental synchronic reaction' or 'synchronism'. I've documented many strong examples of this 'Speed & Power of Thought Theory'.

  • Phyllis Mclemore

    Read another book, ya'll. Read Hands of Light written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan. She says all of us are energy beings, not solid. And it is consciousness that vibrates faster than the speed of light. And it is the spin around the nucleus that spins faster than the speed of light. Each of of our cells, atoms, quarks has a spin and that spin is what makes us not solid.
    That is why so many spiritual books say that we are spirit. We are literally not solid. Solid is a rumor. Solid is what happens when energy slows down and the frequencies and amps become denser and denser, but still not solid because there always has to be a spin.
    Read The Holographic Universe. We live in energy that behaves like the ocean. Waves and series of waves we are. This series of waves and coils that we are has condensed so tightly that we call it solid for convenience.
    But this convenience has led to Darwinism which has led to the belief in death and disease and separation. Darwinism says that it is survival of the fittest and then we all die. Intelligent design says that we vibrate as energy beings now in the spacious present, changing vibration as we travel between parallel realities, but always vibrating the speed of God or faster than the speed of light. We never die because we are energy.

  • Greg Uzu

    Hi Richard,

    Having read your post, I am compelled to respond based on basic logic. I may not be a scientist but a Historian, yet, my knowledge of History and the repeated logic in the events that I have studied have shown that no idea is definite. In other words, Man cannot be certain of any of any information they have. For example, a man came up some time back to say the world was spherical. The response of the whole world-(led by the Catholic Church) was to persecute him because they were absolutely sure that the knowledge...the information they had was absolute. But, was it? Mobile phones used by Captain Kirk in Star Trek was at that time considered fiction and impossible. But today, we have it everywhere. The ship's doors opened on their own accord. For decades now, we've had doors with this capability. Presently, Project Bluebeam enables the stealth infusion of ideas in the minds of men through some sort of invisible projection.
    To cut this post short, please allow me to insist that we keep our minds open to the possibility that matter can in fact travel faster than the speed of light. You never know. Our knowledge...our present knowledge could be likened to an ant walking on a basket ball but never knowing on what it is walking. At this present level of our understanding, we may conclude absolutely that matter cannot possibly travel faster than light. But, how can we be certain?...How can we be sure? Is any knowledge really absolute?


    Not only that recently a device was made which when light enters it actually accelerates it.I saw it on physics. org.

  • Goddess

    I totally agree with you Patrick maybe it's these limitations that we humans put on ourselves that is keeping us from moving to the universe like other alien beings... I also believe that speed of thought is faster than the speed of light. I can travel to Mars faster in my mind then light could leave Earth and travel to and get to Mars. and the mere fact that I thought it makes it real and some dimensions of space and time.

  • Goddess

    Mr Hansen your points are very interesting. I am not a physics expert or anything likr thst but I do habe my opinion on the subject at hand. Regarding the second law of thermodynamics who is to really say we as re not living sn existence that we hsve lived and relived and relived over and over again...therfore toggling back and forth totally oblivios to the our formrr existence. Mathematically...a negative plus a negative equals a positive..As far as living in anothrt universe...hmmmI believe the energy of your thoughts would allow you too..Thank you in advance for reading my response.

  • Let

    p.s. its the gap between atoms that makes us "not solid" not some spiritual psuedo science by some unknown author who thinks "spirits" are a part of science when the spirit is completely unfounded in scientific fact. the spin around the quarks is faster than light? wtf? no. solid is when atoms for tight groups and get in the way of other atoms, which is tied to atomic groups. frequencies and amps? u realize amps are a mathematical formula not an object right? parallel realities?

    this is a documentary site. not a place to spout psuedo science or religious ideas. please. leave your bullcrap religious ideas in church, or in your head. science revolves around proof. not some idea your favorite author spouted while on drugs.

  • awful_truth

    For the record, neutrinos do not travel faster than the speed of light, and it has already been proven that they had made mistakes in their measurements, and calculations. Furthermore, it is only been implied from another experiment that neutrinos have a non zero mass. (never proven, and no number assigned) In fact, up until 2008, it was accepted that neutrinos were massless particles. For this reason, when they announced that they had accelerated neutrinos beyond the speed of light, I didn't buy it for a second.
    An electron has an extremely tiny mass, and has never been accelerated beyond lightspeed since the inception of particle accelerators. Ergo, had they actually accelerated neutrinos beyond light speed, the only conclusion that was logical, is that neutrinos are massless particles. Since they were unable to do it, implies that neutrinos may have a non zero mass. On this particular point, Einstein rules, and their attempt to dethrone special relativity was pure folly!
    P.S: Dark energy, and dark mass are the equivalent of Einstein's cosmological constant.(an attempt to make something work, because they refuse to accept there is flaws in the standard model - introduce something that can never be proven or measured) Furthermore, the universe is collapsing under the force of gravity, (not expanding) which explains why this movement is accelerating. (thus, no need for dark matter, or dark energy) Any questions?

  • Kurt the Turk

    I agree with you, except this is totally the place to spout psuedo science or religious ideas, even if they come from my an idea my favorite author spouted while on drugs.

  • EZ Cortez

    So.... they don't understand what happened so they say it went outside our universe/dimension then came back earlier. Just like a person diagnosed with cancer and later is tested free of it, without treatment, Maybe it was God! Or maybe it was magic! Heck, while we are playing this game, maybe it was both!
    If there is no way to test it then there is no theory. Science 101. Seems string theory is striking the wrong chords (pun intended). Thanks for playing, though.

  • Brandon Miller

    Where are you getting your facts? What scientific evidence even implies that the universe is collapsing on itself? It's proven that galaxies are moving away from us, proven by the red shift caused by lights equivalent of the Doppler effect. The farther the galaxy, the greater the red shift, thus it's moving faster. What evidence can you possibly use to dispute this? Please fill me in because I can't think of anything that has even implied that the universe may be collapsing.

  • awful_truth

    @Brandon Miller: I am more than happy to answer your question.
    1) When Einstein completed general relativity in 1916, he concluded that the universe must either be expanding, or contracting, but not static. (this led to the notion of the universe having a beginning - the big bang - a derissive term coined by Fred Hoyle who believed in the steady state theory) Einstein himself did not like the idea of the universe having a beginning. This is why he tried to introduce a cosmological constant to counteract the force of gravity. None the less, when Edwin Hubble showed Einstein the red shift of galaxies through his very large telescope, Einstein had to accept what his own theory had implied. (not static) With that said, Doppler red shift speaks only of whether something is moving towards or away from you. It has nothing to do with acceleration. The fact that galaxies were observed (generally) to be moving away from one another, the idea of expansion took hold.
    2) The fact that we are part of the universe, means it is impossible to distinguish whether the universe is expanding or contracting. To test this, just draw it out on a piece of paper for confirmation. (galaxy A and galaxy B both contracting over time (while stationary) will still give the appearance that they are moving away from one another)
    3) It wasn't until the late 1990's, that this movement (expansion/contraction) of the universe was measured to be accelerating. The fact that it is accelerating implies contraction (shrinking) under the force of gravity, because over time, (13.7 billion years) this movement would be slowing down like all explosions, not accelerating.
    As I stated previously, we can never know with certainty either way since we are part of the system. With that said, the logical conclusion that is implied by the evidence supports contraction, or collapse. Another implication is that the initial expansion stopped long ago, and has already started towards the 'big crunch', under the force of gravity.
    Under the standard model, scientists keep looking for missing mass (dark matter/dark energy) both items that are the the equivalent of Einstein's cosmological constant, because they can never be observed, or measured.(philosophy, not science) As with all things, people who have invested a lifetime attempting to make the standard model work have lost objectivity. This is precisely why Einstein could improve upon Newton because he had to accept the obvious, even if it was non intuitive. (time is not constant) 100 years later, we know this with certainty, however this did not make what Einstein concluded any easier to accept at his time!
    Note: If string theory is correct, the graviton is interdimensional throughout the multiverse, which would explain the so called missing mass.
    Everything I have stated is congruent with special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics.
    If you have any further questions, let me know. Take care, and best wishes Brandon Miller!

  • Achems_Razor

    Why are you saying explosions? no explosion, but expansion re: inflation. Just called BB for lack of a better word. Just by saying explosion, you blew it, pun intended.

  • awful_truth

    @Achems_Razor: Your criticism of one word is appropriate, but does not invalidate my position, nor negate it's logic. I was just responding with a language that most people can relate to, (visualize) regarding dissipation of velocity from initial output. (especially with gravity working against it)
    Since I know you are intelligent enough to find fault with the argument, (if it existed) and chose instead to focus on my choice of words, is a confirmation that my position is valid. (thanks!)

  • awful_truth

    @jackmax: Your attempt at belittling the individual when you couldn't find fault with the position, is beneath you. (or apparently not) If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, your time would be better spent speaking about something you understand.

  • awful_truth

    @docoman: Brandon Miller's question was "What scientific evidence even implies that the universe is collapsing on itself?
    My views regarding a collapsing universe are my own, and have been so for 30 years, yet I have never encountered this position in the scientific community. (nor on the net) I would suspect neither has Brandon, which is why he posed the question to begin with.
    If I was out of line by misinterpreting jackmax's intent, then he has my sincerest apology, and I will tell him so! (point well made Docoman)

  • awful_truth

    @jackmax: If I misconstrued the intent of your comment, please accept my sincerest apology regarding my last reply to you. Docoman was right in bringing this to my attention, and cudos to him for it!

  • docoman

    Thanks man, I don't know Jackmax's view, was just unsure from his post which way he was leaning. (I know him but don't usually talk 'cosmos' with him) I have read and liked your posts on this matter, (no pun intended), and agree with things like neutrino's not traveling faster then light, it was an error in their measurements . I just have a couple of questions about your 'crunch conclusion'.

    Your No. 2; " The fact that we are part of the universe, means it is impossible to distinguish whether the universe is expanding or contracting."

    I'm not following you there, and not sure if that's correct or not?
    [Edit- if that is the case, how do you know it's contracting?]
    No. 3; "The fact that it is accelerating implies contraction (shrinking) under
    the force of gravity, because over time, (13.7 billion years) this movement would be slowing down like all explosions, not accelerating."
    Achems and you are correct, Bang, and explosion is not really the correct term, but serves as a laymens term to help understand.
    I'll give an analogy of why I'm not sure an acceleration HAS to imply a contraction. I understand that gravity should have a constant pull on everything, and either be trying to slow down an expansion, or speed up a contraction. But here's my analogy.
    A hand-grenade, when it explodes, there will be a sudden increase in velocity of the shrapnel and hot air (residue of explosives etc). Measure the movement and speed of the shrapnel. It will expand accelerating faster and further away from each other for a time, until the point where gravity (and in this case wind resistance etc) starts to first slow that initial expansion, then eventually take over and the shrapnel falls.
    Could it not be possible, that the expansion energy from the initial BB is still enough to be accelerating us, like the shrapnel, and make us still be moving apart at an ever increasing speed. We don't know if 13.7 Billion years is enough to slow the expansion yet.

    Thus giving us the red-shift we see. If it was a crunch, we should see a blue shift shouldn't we? Hopefully, eventually gravity will be enough to first slow then reverse it, otherwise we're in for the 'big freeze' rather then crunch.

    I too don't like very much dark matter and dark energy. I recall a scientist being able to show the effect of dark matter (it's gravitational pull on light, similar to light bending around the sun in Einstein's eclipse proof) on light traveling over distance. (can't remember off the top of my head, I'll have to search to find it/him) Not a direct observation, but one of it's effects. Rather like a black hole.

  • Achems_Razor

    Well no, your position to me is a thought experiment, only valid if you have your experiment proven by math at least, and validated by peer review and published, sorry.

  • awful_truth

    @docoman: For the record, these are my favorite types of discussions. (contemplating different ideas)
    Question 1) As I stated with Brandon Miller, if galaxy A and galaxy B are contracting under their own gravity, they will appear to be moving apart. (redshifting) Thus, if expansion is occurring everywhere, or contracting everywhere, since we are part of the system, our yardsticks of measurement will be doing so as well, so there is no way to determine with certainty which is really occurring. The only time we would ever see a blueshift, is when something is physically moving towards us. (eg: Andromeda) For this reason, the initial expansion could stop, and begin contraction without us ever being aware of it. (only acceleration, or deceleration would expose this)
    Question 2) In my opinion, the measurement of acceleration implies contraction for the following reason. If Alan Guth's inflationary theory is correct that the initial expansion of the universe was even faster than the speed of light, then there is no way that the universe could now be in a state of acceleration unless we are expanding faster than the initial inflationary rate. ( I am unconvinced of Guth's theory to begin with) Since we have confirmed the acceleration, it not only implies Guth's theory to be incorrect, but makes me question why someone of Alan Guth stature in the physics community hasn't recognized this glaring contradiction.
    Point 1) In regards to gravity, it is a mathematical force of acceleration at 33fps/ps under the equivalence principle of general relativity. When you consider the point I have just raised, it is highly improbable (no certainty) that the universe can be in a accelerated state of expansion with gravity working against it. It is far more likely that contraction is already occurring.
    Note: Last , but definitely not least, it is also possible that Fred Hoyle, (steady state) Einstein, (expansion/contraction) and Stephen Hawking (no big bang) are all correct at the same time for the following reason.
    1) If the universe is a brain (which I think it is) it is the best anology because your brain expanded initially after conception until birth. Our brains, and heads have not continued to grow outward as we matured. What we do know is that neuron and dendritic connections shrink to make more room in the same volume of space. This was confirmed years ago with brain mapping, and when the same people were scanned a decade later, the doctors initially thought the brains had completely rewired themselves, until they zoomed in to find the identical configurations still existed, they had just contracted in size.
    With this in mind, who is to say what we observe or measure speaks of external boundries. Einstein himself believed the universe to be finite, and infinite at the same time. This only proves how quick we resort back to 3 dimensional thinking, when we observe at least 4 in our daily lives.
    Of course, none of this means anything to the naysayers who need 'certainty of proof' before they will adjust their thinking accordingly. Since quantum mechanics (no certainty, only probability) is a real part of the universe, it is time for a paradigm shift in thinking if humanity hopes to evolve their thinking and understanding. (enlightenment)
    It has been my experience that most of us (me included) tend to cling to what we think we know, and only change when we have little choice. Since science is no longer completely based in certainty, those who have put all their eggs in one unchanging basket of thought will find themselves limited by their own lack of imagination. (The possibilities of potentiality)
    Yes, these are my opinions and should be taken as such, (I am not the gospel) but appear to me, to better fit the facts than the 'standard model' of thinking. Either way, if I make people think, actually think, instead of just accepting the status quo, then I have done my job as a neurotransmitter in the brain we call the universe) Take care, and best wishes docoman!

  • awful_truth

    @Joshua Marks: I watched the short documentary regarding the link you left in your comment. Obviously Joshua, I am not in agreement with several things mentioned in the documentary.
    1) According to our present day understanding of physics, anything with mass cannot move at lightspeed or beyond, because the amount of energy necessary to propel the mass to lightspeed would be infinite. (special relativity) The only thing that can move faster than lightspeed is a theoretical particle called a tachyon. (greek word for swift one) A tachyon also can never travel at sublight speeds.
    2) The only theory that has expansion at faster than lightspeed is Alan Guth's inflationary theory, which he believes occurred only before the universe cooled enough to allow mass to form, and gravity to separate from the 3 other forces of nature. (electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear force)
    In my opinion, redshift speeds that astronomers are using today(by their own rules) are proof that our understanding is flawed, and incomplete. Since they have not been able to reconcile these issues only means that science like humans themselves are still a work in progress.
    Note: Even if you had a 2 galaxies moving away from each other at 3/4's of the speed of light, according to this film, they would be unable to relay information to each other, when in actuality, this is not true. If you had a stationary galaxy between them, it could transfer of signal from one to another because neither of them is beyond reach to the central one. (paradox)
    As stated in my response to docoman, I am not the gospel regarding physics, and my understanding is based upon 30 years of accepting the rules that have been confirmed by the giants who came before us. (Newton, Einstein, etc) Since 99% of physics is usually not the overthrowing of another's work, but instead is built upon, we tend to never question that which came before us. This does not however answer the 1% of the time that they made errors, and when they occur, it is very difficult to remove them. Einstein's theories, like Newton before him, have survived stringent testing, so when something flies in the face of what we know with certainty, then it is time to re-evaluate our approach, even if it means going back until we find the flawed assumption which is incongruent with what we know to be certain. (which even means questioning what we think we know to be certain) To de-throne these ideas are highly unlikely, and should be questioned last. Since the advent of quantum mechanics, (no certainty, only probability) this had made scientific proof sometimes impossible by it's very nature.
    Note: This is why I question our accepted ideas of expansion, because the thinking tends to disregard the flaws we see in favor of confirmation, instead of correction.
    In any case, these are my thoughts regarding what I seen on the video in question, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter as well. (let me know what you think) Take care Joshua!

  • awful_truth

    @Achems_Razor: That is fine, and I don't expect you to take my word for it, but the theory is none the less sound. Since I learned from the best,(thought experiments) I am in good company, and I can wait for confirmation, even if someone else takes credit for my ideas. (it happens every day to many people!)

  • Joshua Marks

    *synaptogasm* Job well done, Cosmotic Neurotransmitter!

    (Another comment in MOD review for link, but see today's WIRED: Scientists Discover a Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics)

  • oQ

    Wasn't the Helical model a theory of Nassim Haramein? I know for sure he supports that idea strongly.

  • docoman

    I have no idea mate, never heard of him as far as I know. I was thinking about it one day, and how we supposedly do 'laps' around our galaxy, so I figured our sun can't be stationary, which must make a difference to what our orbits really are like. I'm not sure if that link is an accurate picture of it, but that's something similar to what I pictured in my mind. (without the trailing lines of course, they're to help visualise the trails)

  • oQ

    Yes, Haramein, not a very well respected scientist (he is weird but visionary) but a scientist still. He has been supporting this idea in many of his conferences.

  • Achems_Razor

    He is a scientist only in his mind, who believes in the planet nibiru for one. Nothing peer reviewed and accepted.

  • jackmax

    From what I've read of him, his no more a scientist than you and I. A higher education does not automatically mean that you can claim to be something your not, which he seems to have shown every time he claims something.

    Making things up to suit your model does not make it right which he seems to do quite often.

    This is a very interesting subject that I must admit I've only ever had a passing interest in how ever I find it insulting that people of his elk can make such claims constantly. All the scientific community continue to show his flaws and errors yet he seems to have found a market for him to peddle his product.

    It only proves to me that on a whole people are easy targets for all types of conmen and charlatan that will take advantage of them from any angle.

  • terrasodium

    excluding nibiru, how does that not include 99.9 percent of the posters and mods on this site, is science a pursuit functioning under licence only?if so history would exclude most of what you would claim as scientific discovery, that would be anything pre natural philosophy(now called science). Is wikipedia a peer reviewed resource, it gets hyperlinked by you often in your gatekeeping arguements.

  • Joshua Marks

    Thanks - great thoughts on deep complexity. I share the value in remaining "open" due to the nature of the topic - "suspending" conclusions, acknowledging and embracing paradox, allow for some self-organization of information... and hopefully attaining a state of healthy "persistent disequilibrium." Maybe this is a value to healthy living systems.

    Fascinating to dive into some of the detail and juggle concrete manifestations of "reality" as they present, and then listen in, particularly to scholars that have made such incredible advances in expressing "coherence." This is one of the major themes I've taken from the Bohm dialogues on quantum and consciousness... the value and pursuit of coherence. The antidote to complexity is simplicity - Einstein was a master, Bohm,... I value the integration in this pursuit of the nature of the cosmos with that of consciousness and spiritual implications/realities. Obviously, your thoughts bring this into play explicitly!

    Btw, I reviewed your head-to-head thought-grind at/on the WIRED article... :) Progress is hard in make in these conversations, but the process is valuable. Thanks, AT!

  • oQ

    ya, I already know that, we have talked about this many times.
    The only reason I mentioned Haramein is because he is one of the first "scientist" to support the Helical Model of the Universe (see Docoman's link)

  • awful_truth

    @Joshua Marks: Thank you for the kind words Joshua. There is no doubt we are on the same page regarding the need for simplicity, and 'the integration/pursuit of consciousness and spiritual implications' towards reality. To me, the potentiality of thought should never be dismissed regarding its implications on the world around us.
    As far as my comments on the WIRED article, I didn't really expect to receive a warm welcome for my thoughts, especially the way I introduced them. (Sometimes I do this just to shake people up , and make them think about other important matters)
    Note: I could respect the individual that was debating with me, but his obtuse attacks on everyone (and I mean everyone) who offered something new and different tends to bring out the worst in me. For me, sometimes the delivery means more than the difference of opinion. It is very easy for communication to grind to a halt if people start with name calling, and belittling behaviour. Since we are all a 'work in progress' acceptance for those who have yet to acquire professional courtesy is a difficult tolerance to achieve. I am sure you have run into your share, and can relate.
    Thanks for the heads up regarding the article. I love to stay up on new discoveries, even if I appear to question their value. (shhhh - don't tell anyone) Take care Joshua!
    P.S: synaptogasm, Cosmotic Neurotransmitter! (I love it man, creative linguistics!)

  • awful_truth

    @Docoman: I checked out the link you listed. I must say that the visual effects are cool, and it is great at reminding people the solar system is moving through space. With that said, it is my understanding that the motion he depicts is incorrect in several ways.
    1) The solar system is tilted at an angle towards the galactic center (60 degrees generally disregarding precession or wobble) so the planets are spinning around the sun, sometimes ahead of the sun, sometimes behind it. (not like a vortex)
    2) There is a supposed black hole at the center of the galaxy, not a large sunlike mass. (maybe he did this for the ease of animation)
    3) The sun does rise and fall relative to the galactic plane, just not as extreme as it is portrayed. (cool stuff, none the less)
    In regards to your comments, I appreciate that you understand my 'brain' analogy. It seems to be a difficult idea for me to convey to people. I am a graduate of computer animation myself, and hope to complete something I have been working on (copyright 1987) to help ease the transition of this understanding via visual perception. In other words, I have my own working model created for better general understanding.
    As far as the physics go, I am not a physicist, but have been studying the science at length on my own for many years, and I believe I have a good grasp of the theoretical understanding, (SR/GR/ QM) just not the details of the mathematical framework.
    Advantage: An objective perspective on their work and possible contradictions, because I am not corrupted by dogma.
    disadvantage: Easy to misconstrue information if I am not stringent in my investigations, which is why I work so diligently towards its understanding.
    The questions you raise are completely valid:
    1) expansion occurring everywhere without distance changes; Answer: If everything is expanding or contracting, distance will not change because the measuring rods have expanded or contracted as well. This is why I stated that since we are part of the system, (inside looking out, not on the outside looking in) we cannot determine one from the other with certainty.
    2) Massive objects accelerating near lightspeed, and apparent distances; Answer: The Hubble constant ,and the standard candle which are used to measure items at extreme distances, and what direction they are moving (in my opinion) are rudimentary at best, and not very accurate. Einstein himself stated that since space and time are so elastic, the measuring rods become so distorted, that measuring distance itself is problematic at best. Yes, we have made improvements, including our understanding, however it seems to me that sometimes unyielding laws like special and general relativity are ignored when it no longer suits them. In other words, you are right that just because it doesn't feel right, doesn't mean it is wrong, but I have learned to 'trust my gut', especially once you the have fundamentals well engrained.
    Since I have my own working model that attempts to simplify, and unify that which seems impossible, I have come to understand the importance of combining open mindedness, and what Ernst Mach referred to as 'intellectual skepticism'.
    For me, this never became so apparent as when I comment on (you guessed it) religious, or atheist documentaries where I seem to able to upset both sides, leaving me to wonder, where does that leave me?
    In closing, I quit fighting myself long ago about the need to bring together extreme perspectives to common ground. In the 1990's, Ed Witton solved the mathematics of combining the math of the very large, and the very small. It doesn't guarantee he is right, (unprovable ergo philosophy, not science) but this does not negate the possibility that he is non the less correct. Since the advent of quantum mechanics, certainty has become less important to scientific understanding, (right or wrong) but was still necessary to keep moving forward.
    Since it is all part of the same universe/multiverse, it is my opinion that until we think in terms of complimentary simplicity, not opposing extremes, can true enlightenment occur. As usual, it is just my opinion, and take it for what it is worth. (one man's opinion - the name of the book I am working on. A heretics guide to a new bible of understanding)
    Either way, the beauty of it all is we get to research, and decide for ourselves, and I for one will never dismiss the 'power of thought' because it brings me closer to understanding the potentiality of the 'universal brain' of which we are a tiny, but important part of.
    I leave you with another quote by Einstein:
    "For me, it is enough just to wonder at the possibilities". Take care Docoman!

  • Achems_Razor

    I was referring to a scientist with credentials.
    Here is another wiki for you.

  • docoman

    G'day A_T,

    yeah, that graphic just came up early in youtube to give the basic idea I'd pictured. I'd also thought that we're supposed to be orbiting around our galactic center, so the sun should be moving in a curve, and the 'planes of orbit' of the planets in that seems more extreme then I'd imagined. (the vortex behind) Its interesting when you get those 'ah ha' moments, and realise something is missing. I did the same thing thinking about the procession of the equinox, and how if the angles are extreme enough, in 12.5 thousand years, Australia could be having Christmas in winter time, not summer. How it must move the climate as it progresses. I looked it up and found the Milankovitch cycle. Someone had already thought of it and worked it out. :(

    One question about your post. With regards to our yardstick expanding or contracting with the universe, I know you mentioned the Hubble constant and the standard candle, (used to work out large distances to galaxies etc) but isn't the real 'yardstick' the speed of light? Which shouldn't change, (without showing a red or blue shift) assuming it's moving through a vacuum?

  • docoman

    Actually, isn't Epicurius studying to become a medical scientist of some sort? I've been meaning to ask how he's going, I've not read anything about it for awhile?

  • terrasodium

    wasn't the big crunch considered by stephen hawkins and later retracted, I might be off on this , are you proposing a variant on that possibility, and if the observable wave shifts red blue accelerating and decelerating respectivelly, is it possible that the same phenomenon has limited observabilty in the color shift with solar objects traveling in what has been established as variations of spiral clustered gallaxies, and could there be a grander spiral cluster of the universe, considering some of the stars in our gallaxy appear to be moving away from us and others in thesame spiral gallaxiy appear to be moving edit, with less acceleration. another way of cribing my question might be that in a spiral an object observed from our star 3 billion years earlier might have a different trajectory blue accelerating from our observating today as red decelerating, It will only be possible tomodelanyhypotheisis mathmatically(second order logic)if P=NP otherwise the models are impossible to construct

  • awful_truth

    @docoman:disqus: I apologize for the delay docoman, I have been indisposed for the last few days. (my father is dying)
    With regards to your question, it is accepted in physics that the expansion (or contraction) of the universe is occurring everywhere. (at every location in space) If this is true, than the 'yardstick' we use to measure this phenomenon must either be expanding (or contracting) as well. This is why it is impossible to discern with certainty whether the universe is expanding or contracting because the yardstick itself will change accordingly.
    When Edwin Hubble first calculated the 'Hubble constant', his calculation showed the age of the universe as much less than the age of the earth from planetary analysis. (How could the universe be younger than the earth?) Once Hubble realized that many of those little stars were in fact galaxies,(and a lot further away) his figures were refined to reflect what we accept today. The standard candle was really a rudimentary way of calculating distance from stars for astronomy based upon their apparent 'brightness'. Note: This statement will infuriate those who accept without question.
    So, here in lies the problem. Since the witnessing of redshift in astronomy, everyone assumed this implied expansion, without really questioning it. This is akin to stating the planets revolves around the sun in a counter clockwise direction. This only applies from a north pole perspective. From the south pole, it would be considered clockwise. (subjective choice) We now know the Hubble constant is not constant, but a changing variable which now implies acceleration. Since it is only a subjective variable based upon observation, and measurement of something that is not static, it is fair to say that our understanding in these regards is far from 'certain'.
    The speed of light in a vacuum, which is constant, only reveals whether something is approaching you,(blue shift) or moving away. (red shift) It does not speak of acceleration, only velocity. Modern astronomy has extremely distance stars moving away from us beyond light speed,(factors of C in red shift) which is incongruent with special relativity.

    Special note: the measurement of light speed itself (186,000 mile per sec.) would not appear to change by our standard of measurement, if both light and our way of measuring it, were changing directly proportional to each other.
    Einstein once stated that to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the first sign of insanity. (I completely agree)
    As long as these inconsistencies exist, it is at least fair to say that our current explanations are flawed, and have need for either further refinement, or a paradigm shift in thinking.(a complete overhaul) This need not mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, (Newton and Einstein) but that we need to remain open minded regarding what we think we really know. (Edwin Hubble's .... er..... variable constant, - and it's implications)
    We must also remember that the land of certainty ended with Einstein, and the onset of quantum mechanics. We now live in a universe of contradictions, at least on the atomic scale.
    Take this opinion for what it is worth, (only an opinion) and from someone who makes no claims to having a doctorate in physics. I am just an individual like yourself who is trying to understand what it all means. Since I believe in 'intellectual skepticism', it is my nature to question the unquestionable, even when I am wrong!
    Best wishes, and merry Christmas docoman!

  • awful_truth

    @terrasodium:disqus: I am sorry for the delay, I have been preoccupied with family matters. First of all, great questions terrasodium.
    As far as I know, Stephen Hawking's final analysis was that there was no 'big bang' or starting point of the universe, (V) but was instead curved, (U) with no origin. (look to the bottoms of the letters for the shape in which he referred regarding a graph of time and distance) Ergo, the idea of a 'big crunch' became a meaningless point. (no need for an end if there was never no beginning) Also, since there 'appears to be insufficient observable mass, the idea of a 'big crunch' fell to the acceptance of the 'big freeze'.
    Your second question is in reference to independent motions of stars and galaxies to one another, as opposed to the expansion/contraction of the universe itself.
    Red shift and blue shift only refer to whether an object is approaching you, or moving away from you. This only refers to velocities, not acceleration, or deceleration. Since light speed is a constant under special relativity, and never changing in a vacuum, this shifting of light spectrum (Doppler effect) only reveals relative motion. The more the light is shifted to one side of the spectrum, the faster (velocity) it is moving towards or away from you.
    The 3K background radiation and redshift of the expansion/contraction of the universe is independent of the galaxies and their motions. It just so happens that majority of the galaxies (especially distant ones) appear to be moving apart. Andromeda is blue shifted because sometime in the distant future, it is going to collide with our Milky Way galaxy.
    There is a terrific point you raised; the idea of independent and different rates of acceleration from different galaxies themselves. This is more than possible in my eyes, especially when galaxies and stars collide, or are going to have 'close calls' where they are accelerated at each other under the force of gravity. This however should not be confused with issues regarding expansion, or contraction of the universe.
    It is my opinion that the universe/multiverse in which we exist was born, and expanded for a time, and the exterior of this construct itself has been static for billions of years. The only reason it appears to still be expanding is because of the scientists of the day subjectively chose to accept the redshift as expansion. (if galaxy A and Galaxy B are collapsing in size under the force of gravity, they will appear to be moving apart) Since the Hubble constant is not a constant, and was measured to be an accelerating variable, it implies to me that the universe is supporting it's static state by collapsing in on itself under the force of gravity. Since we are part of the system, we cannot distinguish between the two, and if we had lived billions of years, we would of still have been unaware of the difference except for the change in the Hubble constant. (acceleration, then deceleration, then constant, then accelerating again by contraction. Note: This idea is based on the assumption that the Hubble constant is correct. (big assumption) For greater understanding of my position, read my responses to docoman below. As I have stated to him, these are just my opinions, and should be treated as such. With that said, I have not been able to find any incongruences with my model in regards to special/general relativity, and quantum mechanics. Take care, and merry Christmas terrasodium!

  • docoman

    I'm sorry to hear that mate, no appologies necessary, thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts, which I find very interesting btw. If you're busy with things that is totally understandable, if/when you're in the mood is good mate.
    I've followed most of what you've said, and agree on many if not most things. I have a couple questions still :) .. I'll get to that.

    I'd say it'd be fair to say that our understanding of the Universe is still in it's relative infancy, (assuming we continue to learn more as a species for awhile longer), and we will almost definitely at least amend / change in some ways some things we've taken as correct at this moment, possibly as much as you suggest when you said 'a paradigm shift in thinking.' One could argue we already have and will continue to as we learn more. One of the beautiful things about science in my opinion, it's about the knowledge and is willing to adapt and change accordingly to new discoveries. (Should be, if other politics leave it be)

    I kind of lost you, or not sure if I understand you completely, I'll paraphrase / reword most of it and you might see where/if I misunderstood you. Sorry for the extra length / repeat.
    -Everyone has assumed the redshift observed implied expansion.
    -That could be a relative observation, looked at from a different perspective could render an opposite/different answer. Like your Planets/Poles analogy.
    -The Hubble constant has been shown to be not constant but implies an acceleration, so because it's been assumed we're expanding, it's assumed it's an accelerating expansion.
    -But if the expansion is in fact just one interpretation, and a different viewpoint existed, then the 'Hubble acceleration' could be a contraction instead of an expansion.
    - Red or Blue Shift only indicates direction and velocity, not acceleration.
    - "Modern astronomy has extremely distance stars moving away from us
    beyond light speed,(factors of C in red shift) which is incongruent with
    special relativity."
    - If light and the way we measured it changed proportionally it would seem the same to us.
    - "As long as these inconsistencies exist, it is at least fair to say that
    our current explanations are flawed, and have need for either further
    refinement, or a paradigm shift in thinking.(a complete overhaul) This
    need not mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, (Newton
    and Einstein) but that we need to remain open minded regarding what we
    think we really know."

    A question, would I be correct in assuming the main inconsistency you mean there is the problem of distant stars' speeds in factors of C and reconciling this with special relativity?
    Which I also find very interesting, (the distant stars' speeds) do you have a good link handy from a good source talking about that? I completely agree with the rest of what you think there. We've much more to learn, we need to keep what we think and some of what we're pretty sure we've got correct in mind, but still be open to change how it's used and viewed, and other / new ways of looking at it. Newton to Einstein is a good example of that I think. I also agree with you, now with the 'weirdness' of Quantum we're discovering, it's time to stay open to correspondingly, seemingly at first 'weird' unexpected contradictions.
    Another question I have, if we're seeing a Redshift, and the assumptions of why we get that Redshift (velocity away from us) is correct, wouldn't that mean, at least the time the light left those stars/galaxies on it's journey to us, they were moving away?

    Is there some other way to see a different perspective to that (Redshift), like with your planet/poles analogy, that you know of, or have thoughts on, that would make it seem opposite to what is currently observed? (I've briefly considered light changing speed over time/distance or because of the expansion of 'space itself'', influencing that redshift possibly. Didn't go far with it though, I don't have the math education to properly 'play around' with it)
    My thoughts and questions aren't from anyone remotely educated more then a very basic level on this topic, but I do find it interesting. I agree with your 'intellectual skepticism', I think that is a healthy thing in everyone, especially scientists.

    Merry Christmas to you and yours too A_T. And my sincere best wishes towards you and your family in this hard time now mate.

  • terrasodium

    Much appreciated , my appologies for my post being stilted and grammatically difficult , I've been working on a new keyboard and it's proving difficult at times, my grammar gets sidebarred at the best of times , fortunately individuals like yourself don't get hung up on the scriveners code and can see the abstract in the words.
    I liked your logic,I will have to read the post again and absorb some of the constructs you've put out as potential, If we could only find a supermassive blackholes collision the leaps in the mechanics would help the gravity wave mystery unfold, problem is most groupthinkers will start erecting statues before the ink can dry in the textbooks.
    Merry Christmas, and a happy belated Hanukkah to you and yours.
    P.S. Is it not true that if you take einstiens relativity equation and add velocity it illustrates that any matter cannot reach lightspeed?

  • awful_truth

    @terrasodium:disqus: No sweat man, I never get caught up on spelling or grammatical errors. (substance before superficial) To best answer your question, I can tell you this.
    The premise of special relativity is that if you are travelling in a straight line, at a constant velocity, you cannot perform any experiment be it optical, electrical, or mechanical, that will reveal your motion.
    The equation E=MC2, is energy (E) is equal to the mass of an object (M) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (186,000 miles per a second times itself) Lightspeed is represented by the (C) in the equation.
    A consequence of this, is that any mass, however tiny, cannot reach lightspeed because the amount of energy required to accelerate it grows infinite as you approach lightspeed. Thus, your question, and understanding is correct.
    Note: While special relativity is 'childsplay' mathematically speaking compared to general relativity, I am not the one to explain this, because I study the theoretical aspect of it, not the mathematics itself.
    Einstein himself had to get his good friend Marcel Grossman to tutor him in the math, because he himself preferred to do thought experiments, (like myself) than spend his time in math class. When confronted by the problems of solving general relativity, (no longer constant velocity - ergo acceleration, and it's equal - gravitation - 33 FPS/PS known as the equivalence principal, and the implications of curved geometry) Einstein quickly realized he should have been in class with his friend. Take care terrasodium!

  • Samuel Morrissey

    'Question 1) As I stated with Brandon Miller, if galaxy A and galaxy B
    are contracting under their own gravity, they will appear to be moving
    apart. (redshifting)'

    No because red shifting is the doppler effect in light caused by actual motion. Whether or not they are expanding or contracting, if they are moving apart then red shift, together then blue shift. Even if your idea is right, the red shift is a result of apart motion not contraction. Maybe they are contracting, maybe they are not, but they are definitely moving apart as evidenced by the red shift.

    Besides that, it is the differences in red shift that cement the expansion idea. The further away a thing is, the further it is red shifted. The only way to explain this uniform and proportional speed differential is a uniform expansion. Bear in mind expansion does not mean of space time, which would be undetectable as the measuring device would be likewise expanding, it is an increase in physical volume due to the apart motion of the objects within it. Your contraction under gravity suggestion is similarly not of space time but a description of objects actually moving closer together while the measuring stick stays the same. If you say space time is either expanding or contracting, this can have no observable effects as the observers will likewise have expanded/contracted and therefore any hypotheses of such can not be used to make any conclusion.

    'Question 2) In my opinion, the measurement of acceleration implies
    contraction for the following reason. If Alan Guth's inflationary theory
    is correct that the initial expansion of the universe was even faster
    than the speed of light, then there is no way that the universe could
    now be in a state of acceleration unless we are expanding faster than
    the initial inflationary rate.'

    There are many misconceptions about the inflationary theory, chief among them being the scale on which the theory suggests the inflation event occurred. We are talking in nano seconds to the power of minus several trillion after the big bang when the universe was not much bigger than a marble, and the inflationary period is complete some time after when the universe is still not much bigger than a football. That the matter/energy needs to have moved faster than the speed of light as we measure it today during this period and the subsequent dark age is irrelevant due to the fact that at that time the speed of light was not constant nor similar to the speed we measure today, as well as the separate forces that we see today being mostly combined (or more correctly not yet separated) in single greater precursor forces. When the forces settled out and the speed of light became constant some 300,000 years later and the first photons were radiated the universe was already 90 million light years in diameter.

    The speeds and accelerations you point to are not set, inflation was very fast indeed but it stopped. There is no reason that the accelerating expansion (objects flying apart) we currently see should have to be faster than this.

    'Point 1) In regards to gravity, it is a mathematical force of
    acceleration at 33fps/ps under the equivalence principle of general

    That is merely a description of the effect of gravity in a unique situation, that being 1 G or Earth gravity. On the moon, gravity does not accelerate an object at that same rate.

    You have some interesting ideas which you could improve on by concentrating a bit more on the actual math rather than thought experiments which are purely speculative.

    In my thought experiments the universe is so vast that any phenomena we see may well be merely a minor variation in a particular location. The universe appears to be expanding from where we are sitting, but we can only see so far. Maybe some place greatly distant the opposite effect could be observed, and maybe the net expansion/contraction equals zero.

  • awful_truth

    @Samuel Morrissey: Just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions you have regarding my explanations.
    1) 2 objects, each contracting in stationary positions, will indeed appear to be moving apart as their independent volumes decrease in size. Draw this out on a piece of paper for verification. This is also precisely why they will appear red shifted to each other, because the volume of space between them will be increasing in size as their own individual volume decreases. (moving apart) Thus, it is an apart motion, and a contraction together at the same time.
    2) A uniform expansion, or a uniform internal contraction are indistinguishable from one another since we are part of the system. If we were on the 'outside looking in', only then can we objectively state for certain which is occurring. This coincides with Einstein's original equations and statement regarding an either expanding or contracting universe, just not static.) In essence, I am stating that Einstein, and Fred Hoyle (steady state) were actually both correct at the same time.
    3) I am glad to see we both agree that the initial expansion stopped, and the 4 forces of nature hadn't separated from one another.
    This is precisely why the universe is now in a state of internal contraction, and why the Hubble constant is not constant, because it is accelerating under the force of gravity (mass) which now exists, and could not exist before the 4 forces of nature separated.
    4) Last, but not least, my expression of gravity (1G) was only used as an example to explain the equivalence principal, (general relativity) that gravitation, and acceleration are also indistinguishable.
    I appreciate your thoughts and criticisms, but may I suggest you read the complete discussion I have been having with docoman, (in it's entirety) before passing judgement on what you assume are mathematical limitations. Perhaps the biggest stumbling block for all of us is the limitation of comprehension we all exhibit due to the limited nature of the written word, and more importantly, those things which don't fit our own personal constructs, and understandings.
    P.S: I very much like your position regarding the limitations of what we can actually see do to the vastness of the universe. I do believe the external expansion/contraction to be zero. (static) I just believe it is being supported by an internal contraction of mass, due to it's own inherent gravitation. Much like a star that supports it's volume (stabilization) through the act of fusion by gravitation. Take care, and Merry Christmas Samuel.

  • awful_truth

    @docoman: Yes, from the items you have listed, you appear to be understanding my basic position, and some of my concerns regarding what I perceive to be fundamental flaws.
    In response to your question, light itself should not be changing speeds (in a vacuum) to create any changes in what we appear to see as 'redshift'. If such a thing was happening, then we are going to have to disregard what Einstein concluded in special relativity. (I don't find this idea impossible, just highly improbable with what we have been consistently confirming since its inception)
    You are also correct that redshift is only exhibiting what was happening at that time. If something has since changed, depending on it's distance, we will not see the change until it has reached us at the speed of light itself. (roughly speaking, look up at the big dipper on your 75th birthday, and you will see it as it was when you were born. When you figure one light year is app. 6 trillion miles, only then do we understand that our nearest star Alpha Centauri is 26 trillion miles away. (60,000 years away at todays best speed for a one way trip - warp drive, and shields not included)
    I completely agree with you that one great thing about science is its ability to adapt and change accordingly, with good checks and balances, as long as it is unimpeded by external sources. It has been my experience that 'politics aside', the greatest influence is those 7 deadly sins we all hear about. (greed, pride, etc) With that said, I haven't seen anything in life that isn't influenced by them, which is why my intellectual skepticism is so well entrenched.
    As far as redshifts beyond the speed of light, I am making reference to astronomical observations which 'appear' to be moving faster than light due to distance. There is a law refered to as the Lorentz covariance that forbids this. Since redshifts can have multiple causes, (relative motion, universal expansion, and gravitation for example) how we decipher their differences, and how we perceive them is part of the reason why my skepticism exists, if only to keep me 'open minded' to the possibilities. Have a good one docoman!

  • Samuel Morrissey

    Seasons greetings to you also. I must further elaborate why your contraction hypothesis is flawed, however. Take my second paragraph regarding the red shift proportionality with distance. If your contraction hypothesis was correct the red shift would be uniform unless you assert that the further away an object is the faster it is contracting which is adding yet another inexplicable phenomenon. If gravity is the force behind the contraction, then the further away a thing is it must then have more mass to create more gravity to contract faster. The truth is your hypothesis creates several problems rather than solve any.

    It was one of the more difficult concepts for me to understand initially, but as I said before the only way to explain the further/faster problem without creating a whole new set of problems is the expanding universe. To show this principle in local reality, get a rubber balloon and draw 3 evenly spaced dots on it (in a line) then blow it up. imagine that we are one of the dots on the end of the line and we are looking back at the other 2 dots. As the balloon expands (at a steady rate) the closest dot will appear to be moving away at a certain speed, but the further dot will appear to be moving away faster, in fact double speed at double the distance.

    The mathematics to describe this predictable experimental speed difference are actually very straightforward, and strangely enough to our best observations absolutely perfectly echoed in the redshift phenomenon. This would not be observed if your contraction hypothesis was correct. (without adding extra mass proportionally with distance)

    The tricky thing is, the universe is not expanding its volume at a steady rate like a balloon filling with so many cubic centimeters of air per second. The universe appears to be expanding in each dimensional direction at the constant speed of light, thus the volumetric increase is actually accelerating rather than constant. I can show you this with very simple math. Take a cube with dimensions of 1 unit in height/length/width. It's volume is 1 (1x1x1) then add 1 to each dimension to simulate uniform expansion. Its volume is now 8 (2x2x2) so we have a volumetric increase of 7. Then again add 1 to each dimension. It's volume is now 27 (3x3x3) so this time there is a volumetric increase of 19 for exactly the same rate of directional expansion (1).

    I did read the whole conversation, Mr truth. As I share your fascination with the subject, it would be impossible for me not to have done so. I wouldn't have commented in such depth otherwise.

    But yes, you take care and happy holidays :)

  • awful_truth

    @Samuel Morrissey:
    These are what I call interesting discussions. To answer your question, yes, the further an object is away, the faster it is contracting. This does not require more mass, because under the equivalence principal, by it's very nature is in an accelerated state.
    For the same reason you speak of expansion at an accelerated rate, is precisely why I speak of contraction at an accelerated rate. The only difference between our positions is that you stated in your previous comment to me that the initial inflation stopped. If it did, what second effort of energy got it expanding again?
    It is for this reason that a second acceleration could only occur if the initial inflation accelerated, decelerated, and stopped, then contracted internally in an accelerated state to support a static external volume. (unobservable)
    I believe it is fair to say that neither one of us is likely convert the other; not because either one of us is incapable of understanding the other person's position, (we both give great analogies) but because we are biased to our own perspectives. It should be noted that my position is more difficult to accept than yours, only because it is not supported by mainstream physics.
    Of course, this is of no consequence to me. Not only do I love the challenge, but more importantly (right or wrong) it is more in my nature to lead, than it is to follow. (Just the idea of fitting in erks me I guess)
    Either way, I do respect your position, and your view in regards to it. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Happy holidays to you as well Samuel!

  • Achems_Razor

    You guys did not give much mention of "Dark energy, Dark matter"

  • Achems_Razor

    Would like to wish Vlatko, my fellow moderators, the regulars on TDF community, and all other commentors, a merry Xmas and a great new year.

  • over the edge

    same to you and everyone else

  • sxfndr

    Okay, real quickly here, the speed of light is not a static thing, it was an average calculated from a list of results from different tests in different labs conducted by different scientists all around the globe. They dropped the highest and lowest speeds from the list, and mathematically averaged the rest of them.. uggh.

  • terrasodium

    Thanks for the reminder, peer review at its most practical in the formation of everyday applications of the public mind.In your oppinion does this improve or remove speculative objective pursuit of questioning the underlying mechanics of everything?

  • sxfndr

    I'd have to say that any pursuit questioning the underlying mechanics of everything in the Universe is a noble pursuit, and anything (such as the inclusion of non-static light speed) that broadens the horizon of that speculation can do nothing but help in the true discovery and explanation of Universal Mechanics or "grand design". Clearly our present understanding of science and mathematics are slightly broken and need some tweaking, it's vital these topics are looked at with open logical minds in order to ensure a destiny befitting of mankind.

  • commdiver81

    so if gravity affects light? how can the speed of light be a constant no matter where in the universe you are ? i dont believe it! i think light will travel at a slightly different speed on Jupiter than on earth. not only because of gravity , but because of the atmospheric differences.
    the photons at some point have to run into different molecules and elements in the atmospheres of the planets slowing the waves down at a certain level!

  • Joshua Marks

    AT - I was just was forwarded a link re: Halton Arp -The Modern Day Galileo Electric Universe pioneer dies. Thought of you as I was watching at YT as it seems like your "cup of tea." I'll let you look it up if interested rather than linking and going through mod...

    Also, I noticed in looking you up here your recent foray into climate sciences discussion and thought I would recommend evaluating data and issues at Geoengineering Watch dot org... high priority stuff on the table and the data is broadly clear. I attempt to bring this to light to as many as possible... (wrote a few articles there including Got Life? The Battle Against Geoengineering as fyi. Best!

  • awful_truth

    @Joshua Marks: I checked out your suggestion regarding Halton Arp. Very interesting stuff. (thanks Joshua) Of course, I like the fact that the 'wolf effect' has been confirmed, yet scientists refuse to acknowledge that their astronomical views need to be re-evaluated; then again, I have taken to heart what Ernst Mach suggested to Einstein regarding 'intellectual skepticism' about everything. (fight the good fight with the closed minded)
    I also checked out your geo-engineering site. I have no doubt that HAARP is dangerous, and have been warning people for some time regarding its implications. Keep up the good work Joshua. Anytime you can get people to actually think instead of regurgitating what others say without questioning its validity, is a good thing. Of course, that is just my opinion, but I believe it to be a healthy one at that. Take care, and best wishes Joshua!

  • jaberwokky

    I was watching something else somewhere else today before this doc when I was suddenly struck with how futile the life of a photon is. When you think about it, in a relative way, every one of those poor little guys die at the same instance they are born. All those photons smacking into the back of your eye socket like intergalactic sperms as they race from the Andromeda galaxy across 2.5 million years of our time ... they never see any of it. To them it's just blinking in and out of existence. So sad :(

    I came here in my sadness with the hope that neutrinos would fair better. Perhaps, I though, if they do indeed travel faster than light then at least they'd get to experience something ... even if it was all backwards in time like some dodgy David Lynch movie.

    Alas, twas only myself I fooled.

    Good doc though, even if I did already know the ending.


    finally a comment section with INTELLIGENT posters.

  • Hardcard

    Spoiler alert: A loose fiber optic cable connecting a GPS receiver with some pc card was altering the results of OPERA's experiment, according to the wikipedia article. Further testing indicated that the OPERA initial results were wrong, the speed of those muon neutrinos was consistent with the speed of light. Einstein's universal speed limit seems to persist, after all.