- Michael South
- Lexington, MA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Could the findings at the LHC regarding the speed of neutrinos someday support the idea that quantum mechanics can operate on a larger scale
The search for a "theory of everything" that ties together all known physical phenomena has the major hurdle of unifying Einstein's theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.
At the LHC in Switzerland, scientists have observed neutrinos traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light, and have more recently re-run the test (eliminating a potential source of error) only to arrive at the same results. The implications of a particle that travels faster than the speed of light include refuting Einstein's theory of special relativity, opening the possibility of traveling back in time, and muddling the principles of cause and effect.
Now for my question: assuming that these findings prove to be accurate, could the existence of faster than light neutrinos coupled with Aaron O'Connell's experimentation support quantum mechanics (or some further evolved version) as a "unifying theory" which could predict the outcome of any theoretical experimentation? Aaron O'Connell's experiment demonstrates that visible objects can act in a quantum way. Does this mean that the ability of quantum particles to travel faster than the speed of light will also someday translate to macro-objects?
From what I can gather about Aaron O'Connell's talk, he is proposing that quantum mechanics can operate on a larger scale, which has always been the realm of Einstein's theories. Now evidence may exist which refutes aspects of Einstein's principle theories. Could quantum mechanics someday not only explain electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force, but the fourth fundamental interaction of nature, gravity, if the current theory we have for gravity is found to falter? And how might Aaron O'Connell's experiment tie into this?
I would appreciate any insights, opinons, or criticisms.
Closing Statement from Michael South
Thank you everyone for your inputs. I have learned a lot about a variety of related topics from this conversation. I personally cannot wait to see what these findings will have on classical physics as we know it.
James R Jacobsen
Understanding a basic paradox and its function in our dimension; then incorporating this into the “Standard Model” will eventually enable us to fully understand gravity/time/quantum mechanics.
The basic paradox: “Absolutely Nothing” exists an entity, it coexists at the same space, place, and time as its equal and opposite entity “Absolutely Everything”.
http://7777777s.com
Helen Hupe 30+
natasha nikulina 50+
I can't agree more ! On the level of shared space Absolutely Nothing = Absolutely Everything . Nothing is a potential existence for Everything, while the balance is not broken, till 'something' has not come into existence. Nothing/ Everything is opposed to Something. Actually, not opposed, because it is a part of it , that came into being or always coming... Here we are ; how being everchanging 'something', having limited tools and capacity to comprehend grasp Everything ? To be this Nothing/ Everything ? I don't know.
Is it actually possible ? Maybe not, but God bless those who try !
Richard Alexander
"Sorry," says the bartender, "We don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos in here."
A neutrino walks into a bar.
Ed Schulte 50+
yes all you have said is within range .....but lets try this...
Re:
"So, the observer creates the phenomenon, not because it has not existed before, but because the consciousness is ready to see it, choosing from out of all always existed/ existing possibilities.
"
Repeating but with 'words' added
So, the observing consciousness brings in the 'light of consciousness' and exposes what is "called" "phenomena" ...but truthfully it is ..."what is" and always has "existed" in the field of consciousness, and then it is "called" "discovered" / "known" / "fact" etc etc BUT always ...the "phenomena" is only the closest resonence (out of infinate possibilities) with / and / relative to / the Observer(s) 'Presence' or "Level of Consciousness"
So Be Well Be Present!!
natasha nikulina 50+
Maybe I understand it somehow, but I won't try again to explain what I probably understand,
the very attempt just ruins the feeling of understanding. I tried it in Russian, I couldn't shape it either...
So I leave it there/here in the feeling.
Thank you !
Ed Schulte 50+
As Tolle says it "Felt oneness with being".
Helen Hupe 30+
Thomas Anderson
natasha nikulina 50+
My gut instinct tells me the same, maybe there are even more than 4 Forces, the rest yet to be discovered, but still they are the one force.
Maybe on the level of intuitive mind there are no division between 'micro' and 'macro' world. The problem is how to shape this into words and equations :)
Ed Schulte 50+
There is no "flaw in the technique" per say,
this progress is indicative of the Level of Consciousness of the Observer(s) as the subject of "observation" is responding is accordance to/with that consciousness. The two are one and the same be it wave / partial / "God" / or the depth of this is never ending but the journey thru involves passage " through"( a very poor choice of words here but English is so limited) zones/ Levels of consciousness not yet active / included in HUman intellectual activity.
Not that those “zones” haven’t always existed Indeed they have!
natasha nikulina 50+
It is not English that is so limited, simply language as a tool is limited... But you've managed.
So, the observer creates the phenomenon, not because it has not existed before, but because the consciousness is ready to see it, choosing from out of all always existed/ existing possibilities.
And there is no end to it, discovering and creating are the one ...
Now I am striving to get something across. It's been better said : The knower is the known... the seer is the seen... the thinker is the thought.
Is that what you've meant ? :)
Frans Kellner 100+
A seminar for today.
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/12/12/getting-closer-to-finding-out-if-the-higgs-exists/
natasha nikulina 50+
Thank you for the link, Frans !
Ed Schulte 50+
please see the last comment here .....this reflects the evidence that it is the Level of the Consciousness of the Observers which yields the evidence / verification
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16116230
natasha nikulina 50+
It's amazing stuff indeed ! Maybe we are pretty close to humble understanding who we are !
Any attempt to understand how mass is created leads to '0' . At the taproot level 'solid' matter evaporates into a ghost.
Maybe this is not a failure of our instruments , not a flaw of technique, but a basic feature of Nature's design?
An unobserved electron exists not as a particle but as a wave, a wave of potential, a ripple of possibility..., a dream that needs a touch of human will to push it into the realm of reality. Who are we then ?!
Amazingly the Higgs boson is called a 'God's particle ' !
David Hamilton 50+
Cinque McFarlane-Blake
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
natasha nikulina 50+
There is problem with the Standard Model, it describes, in a single mathematical framework, the basic constituents of nature and three of the four known forces that govern their interactions: electromagnetism; the “strong” force, which holds the nucleus of the atom together; and the “weak” force, which causes radioactive decay. The Standard Model is not particularly elegant... It leaves out the fourth force of nature, the earliest one to be discovered and the one with which we’re most familiar: gravity. Nobody has yet figured out how to describe gravity in the same language — the language of quantum mechanics . So we need a separate theory for gravity: Einstein’s general relativity theory."
Some physicists are reasonably content with this division of labor. Let the Standard Model handle the small stuff (atoms on down, quantum world), and general relativity handle the massive stuff (macro world ). Some physicists like Aaron O'Connell are not quite satisfied with this approach.
I am not a physicist I have nothing to add, I am just interested :)
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
Andres Aullet 10+
I will pick up your comment and deviate from the main topic of the conversation a little bit (my major was physics, so i have a soft spot for it)
Yes some physicist might be content with the division of labor but just as a shortcut way to make progress (as Farrukh has pointed out). In general it is a very uneasy compromise and many physicists i know consider it a bit embarrassing to have to use two different tools.
But there are places in the universe where it is impossible to separate the micro from the macro. The prime example is a black hole, where gravity is not negligible even at the tiniest of scales, and the quantum effects of course are relevant at the same time.
M-theory (which came out of string theory) is so far the latest attempt to describe these two realms in a unified way. But it is by no means complete or accepted by the scientific community as the unifying theory (at least not yet)
cheers
natasha nikulina 50+
Thank you very much for the comment !
I don't have opinions in physics and generally try not to have any at all. But I do have some beliefs and one of them , the major one : everything is deeply connected, I do mean everything.
The more divisions the less understanding " It's impossible to comprehend a part not comprehending the whole " I am highly interested in physics and physicists that insist that an entirely new framework must be found, one that would transcend the Standard Model by putting all four forces on the same theoretical footing. Only then, they argue, "will we understand how nature behaves at energies like those that prevailed at the Big Bang, when the four forces acted as one."
The best candidate for such a unifying framework seems to be String Theory. Maybe we need a string to tie the connection between relativity and quantum mechanics ? :) String theory is a total revolution from above. Once you find the right principles to describe nature at the very highest energies, all else follows. The problem with String Theory is that so far, at least as far as I know, it makes no testable predictions. Or maybe it is not so true...One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has 10 dimensions! (11 in M-theory). To a certain extend it depends on how LHC results will be interpreted, scientists could say we’ve discovered extra dimensions, which might provide evidence for string theory. Maybe Kaluza was right ?
Tsvetan Tsvetkov
natasha nikulina 50+
Aaron in his talk said :
"...imagine if you are in multiple places at the same time...
How would your consciousness handle your body being delocalized in space ?"
We do not understand the physics of consciousness, there is no scientific definition, we don't know how it works.
What if it's just the 'thing' that fix quantum objects to the position, to one place.
Consciousness does not inhabit our body, but 'creates' it and through entanglement all objects around us.
Everything everywhere does the same thing infinitely. '.. is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The zen monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving."
"it seems like all the objects in the elevator are really just quantum objects just crammed into a tiny space"
If our consciousness could handle our being in two places at the same time we would enjoy it with all macro-objects or without !
To move faster than the speed of light allows to travel in both directions in time.
Focusing on the fact that the universe is structured in four dimensions ( it is not the only universe , but it is the universe we inhabit and experience),it is clear that if you had complete freedom of action in all four there would be anarchy.
Instead of 'cosmos' you would have 'chaos'. So one dimension is not free - it has imprinted on it a one-way arrow that forbids you to go backwards, lets you to undo the connections that hold universe together. "Grandfather paradox "
A particle, that travels faster than the speed of light, maybe is a "Hi!" from 'extended' universe with more dimensions, free from the eye of the observer, our consciousness?
A string theory ?
Ed Schulte 50+
around ted forums too discuss this ...all have died because of understanding ....around what you term " larger scale" ......which I would suggest would better be said ...higher dimension ....but words are just words
here ia a link to a parellel lab result which parallels this current "faster then light" event
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement
Michael South
And very interesting article, thank you for sharing!
lynn eschbach 30+