A proposal: why neutrinos may travel faster than light

It is possible to say that “a neutrino” is only a theoretical unity interpreted out of a collection of detected properties assumably resultant of disintegration of better understood forms of energy, things that more literally fit the description ‘particle’.

If so, a neutrino, and this goes for more subatomic definitions, is to be understood, if we are aiming for epistemic exactness, a case of transfer of information. I.e., parts of what we may define as a particle – empirical results amounting to almost a particle.

What kind of structural consistency does a neutrino have? It does not respond to electromagnetism, only weak-forces affect it.

It may exist only as our assumption, its structural integrity may be a fiction, an inference made because of the assumption that all change detected must be the effect of particles, which is how we still understand quanta.

It may not be the case that the transferred energy amounting to the detected neutrino is caused to be measured by it being there as such, separate from the measurement. It may be that the qualities that amount to the definition ‘neutrino’ are in part ‘teleported’, by the very expectation of and preparation for the ‘arrival’.

A neutrino may in part be caused ( in terms of space-time consistency ) by the placement of the receptive material, the terms of its being-measured, which accounts for its existence. The neutrino can not positively affect, the conditions for its existence must be created. Part of the work of its being is done for it – this may account for the lack of space-time momentum – it is in part a non-entity, appearing here and there as ‘real’, actively constant particles permit it.

Despite the two studies suggesting otherwise, statistically it’s still HIGHLY unlikely that neutrinos travel faster than light. (Ask any university-level physicist.) Much more likely, there’s an error in the studies, and indeed there are several suspect factors in both experiments that are still being studied.

What do you mean by “statistically it’s still HIGHLY unlikely that neutrinos travel faster than light”, if not “particles are not known to travel faster than light”, or even “particles are defined as mass which is to say that they can not travel faster than light”?

I’ve asked university level physicists, and I’ve read them. Nobody knows what to make of this, except to be sceptic.

The error in the study is, I propose, that neutrinos do not exist as mass, only as information, properties of mass.

I don’t know what that would mean precisely. But since neutrinos really do have momentum, and really do hit things – just very rarely – that doesn’t seem a fruitful direction to take your hypotheses. There are a lot of factors that could have confounded both studies that don’t require a redefinition of a neutrino. The dominant theory is that both studies relied on GPS satellites in order to calculate elapsed time, but they didn’t take into account the relativistic time dilation, which seems to account for the exact missing time. Again, it’ll be a few months before this is published, but if that isn’t the reason, very likely something similarly mundane will be.

At this point, error can be as much as assumption that neutrinos exist as there is a error in the mathematics of the studies done… the theory of Neutinos is handled ‘competently’ be a highly select number of individuals actually capable of doing the math- it’s hardly mainstream, though we pretend like we know somewhat what is being said and make broader principled assumptions as to interpreting what the mathematicians are saying. Even if YOU know how and do quite regularly the calculations, because your a philosopher at CERN, your quite likely aware everyone ELSE here can’t, and what we’re all talking about is embarrassing weak, backwards secondary references.

At the heart of the issue is there is TOO FEW TRAINED PHILOSOPHERS actually in physics. Yes, physics is a branch of philosophy, but it’s sorta herded into it’s little corner, guilded and protected with remarkably little influence. It’s highly resistant to outside methodologies other than what is internally accepted within it’s cliques, and as a result produces wonderful, colorful thoeries like the old proto-scientific mystery cults such as the stoic-Mithra movement and it’s remarkably accurate yet fanciful understanding of the universe- producing both mechanical devises (including the world’s first analog computer and mechanical models of the heavens) as well as colorful rituals and animal sacrifices in caves.

Modern mathematical-physics produce the mechanical devises as well, as well as the colorful theories. They are a tight knit bunch, and don’t take outsiders often unless they go through their mystery cults’ level of advancements and I am sure they gotta sacrifice some small little creature before having their papers published, much less read.

They are so few in numbers, their concepts are going to be a ‘given’ all to often as a default, and built from that. It will be remarkably hard to get a orginal thinker capable of going to the roots of the nesting of conceptual assumptions and trace it’s genealogy though history and it’s philosophy back to where everyone fucked up several centuries back. You have to remember, the mathematics they used was largely developed back during the times of older, inferior theories- and it seems highly ineffectual to recognizing ‘truth’ or ‘not truth’ beyond it has a pretty mnemonic aesthetics and makes the mathematician excitable when they look at the new formula. It can describe a conceptual framework of paradox, but they are often the worst at spotting paradox in thinking in the first place, and many cognitive paradoxes another form of philosophy will be quick to recognize can go (and has too often gone) for years without being recognized or challenged.

If physics was able to attract more high quality and original philosophers to it, preferably illiterate to the mathematics in use- and encouraged to debate with them… I think mathematics would very quickly be forced to evolve, as well as our concepts of physics. Sometimes a revolution is needed, other times a nomadic invasion over sedentary populations, or a bloody insurrection to lead to the upheaval of heavy, tired ideas and fresh, new, more limber ones to emerge.

I don’t have much trust in any philosophy of physics at this point. To few, and too poor the legitimacy of their validity to their proofs. They have a human psychology like the rest, and it’s all cognitive artifacts they are dealing with- not physics persay. There is more than one way to skin a cat- the evidence lacking in many of their theories suggest it’s largely bullshit. The brain is wired to interpret information in many ways… we can’t interpret alot of this shit other than how they are informing us… even though we live in the same universe and share the same root philosophical dictionary, and handle equally complex theorems daily. Philosophers should not be at a lack of knowing, the evidence that we are suggests something is deeply fucked up in our current system.

We may very well be witnessing the end ebb of the scientific movement that has happened since Bacon and the Islamist theories. It had it’s origin and epicenter… now it’s retracting from it’s ultimate limit in terms of social organization at this point, and is retracting. This geometry of the sphere has nothing to do with numbers or productivity, just in terms of it’s ability to flexibly and adaptively organize, evolve it’s apparatus, and reexamine itself. It’s still going to have tidal functions, and well seemingly expand into usefulness from time to time in mini-revolutions, but those revolutions are going to increasingly resemble past revolutions in expectations of capital exploitation and rewards to scientist- formalizing and standardizing it’s growth and form. We are witnessing the end of the scientific movement as we know it… in it’s very ascension. It can only decay from this point on. Philosophy must be brave enough to find a new way forward. We must be bold spirits, we must lay the paradigm shift and the published papers aside, the need for valid exclusivity, and symbolic proofs of a abstract nature to correspond to another’s abstraction of limited data- and find a new path forward. The road to philosophy is wide open, and it can be anything. Science is failing us, we must find it’s successor. I challenge you to this path- the path of the overman. Become willing to pursue it. Failure to do so will keep us stuck in our current cycle of technological revolutions, wars and exploitation… it will eventually be our extinction. We must… we have no other choice at this point but to do so. Viva la revolution!

ChristianOverman, I’m not sure exactly what point you’re trying to make. But it seems like, in part, you’re saying that philosophers have a poor grasp of physics, and that philosophy of science is generally bullshit. I couldn’t agree more. One of the strongest logical fallacies to which philosophers (tragically including the professionals) seem susceptible is that of thinking that they have the foundation with which to criticize highly specialized areas, most frequently math, physics, and neurobiology / psychology.

I am not opposed to your conclusion, actually agree with it, but was saying the opposite… that physicist, though philosophers by default, are a remarkably limited group who practice a very select and esoteric philosophy and suffer hugely as a result from it… they only hear their own choir singing, from the choir book they wrote. This isn’t inherently a block to them being correct… but is a very grave handicap. They’ve invented a difficult to penetrate language and methodology, and beyond a few set principles changes radically in it’s underlining presumptions from one generation to the next… and even those core principles over larger periods of time faulter. I am merely recommending more outsiders WITHIN philosophy penetrate the sub-field of physics in unorthodox yet equally productive ways. It shouldn’t just be physicist, mystics, and the oddball mad inventor contemplating the quark- and you say ‘yes, we all do just that’… I say no we don’t. Most of us here can’t do the math. A more universal mathematics of philosophy is needed… something that can express all forms of logic, and be launched readily into the thick undergrowth of physics as readily as metaphysics and biology and sociology with equal finesse and clarity.

We simply don’t have that though, and it’s not on the horizon. In the meantime, I suggest we put our brains together like the pre-socratics and try a hand at new ideas of physics. Most will be bullshit, but sometimes a few will stumble upon a gem that can explain much, if not answer all our questions. We can map out the way the mind thinks of physics this way as well, paradox to grammatical structure to imaginative twinkling and back to paradox. It would do wonders to shape up Mathematics to make it more viable and usable to the average thinker if… it was actually common sense and usable in being steamlined for a human mind to grasp and comprehend with minimal effort.

As of right now, I am not all that convinced Neutrinos exist. Yes, I can interpret and develop a hypotheses like anyone else here- that’s not what I am saying- I am saying the scientific method isn’t enough to come to a positive conclusion that such things exist when other embarrassing gaps exist- such as the wave-particle theory. We can say we’ve narrowed it down to this or that and are nearly there until our faces turn red, but come on… if you can’t even grasp the keystone basics of the theory… what faith should I have in it all beyond what is immediately apparent to me?If you don’t know if it’s a particle or a wave, then when you blast a atom in a conductor, all you have to go off is the repetition of blasting it under those circumstances. We’re practicing medieval arts… our science is still bombastic and alchemical in it’s basic methodology, and it’s embarrassing. We’ve made all sorts of grand assumptions about the universe, and we receive a pleasurable response when we piece it all together and it’s not refuted… we gain a very nice, left hemispheric world view. However- other ages have developed equally impressive world views… and they fell apart.

All I know is, when you shoot crap through a cannon, we’re very good at spotting the behavior of the shrapnel to the point of knowing where it will land. I don’t trust the calculations on iota in telling me what’s going on otherwise… as we don’t even have the most basic fundamentals down yet. It would be nice to know why you can only see Sine Waves from certain directions- it would make me feel much more secure in assuming we know in terms of dimensions (if such things even exist at that level) if we have the underlining mechanics even correct or not. All we have is predictable phantoms… just like the Innuit assupmed the northern lights were spirits, but could predict their behavior off their mythology damn well… doesn’t make it right, just accurate in terms of being useful. We have a useful science, but not necessarily a correct one. It suffers from being too damn small and exclusive.

Sensible. I mean, who gives a fuck anyway? Unless it means I can get out of bed again this morning, on the opposite side.

source

How’s that for philosophy of science?

But that is all we have and all we will ever have: theories, formulas, narratives, instruments, languages, etc. that are ALL ACCURATE IN TERMS OF BEING USEFUL. EXACTLY.

Science, nay, all of our constructions are always and only within a system of “Intentionality of Use”, of what we will do with the theories, ideas, whatever. And most theories simply serve the function of creating other newer theories, are simply a narrative upon itself in an imaginary world that never ends, maybe even only simply to pass time, as something to let time pass.

There is no “right”, no absolute “correct”: there is no view from “nowhere”, there is only our subjectivity, and our arbitrary design that designs all else, no matter how hard we try to fool ourselves into thinking we are “objective”…

The laws of physics are a function of the observer: the design of the observer determines the design of the laws of physics. The design of the observer reflects the design of the laws of physics. The laws of physics only make sense to a given arbitrary observer and no other different kind of observer. How does the world look for an ant ? what are the “laws of physics” for an ant ? what are the laws of physics for a skyscraper ? How does the world look to that combination of matter ? (Imagining that they can observe the world somehow) and so on, how is the world with a modifed brain containing a car engine at full throttle, or how does the world appear, and what laws of physics does the observer use/discover if it is an Atom Bomb exploding (imagining the connections, if only instantaneously, that allow information processing given that maybe 10-40 seconds could be an hour for the Atom bomb brain).

And so the view fom “nowhere” would have to be a linear combination of every conceivable observer, designed in every conceivable way, a combinational explosion. And even then, the view would always be partial: a brain of an ant plus that of an Atom Bomb is different from a brain of a car engine plus a skyscraper (only using 2 examples of brains, observers). So which is the real - “objective” brain ? there is none, they are all arbitrary, the laws of physics are arbitrary.

With regards to:

Also, mathematics is greatly overrated in physics: the three body problem has no analytical solution (an equation having a precise formula as a solution and not a numerical approximation), and almost all problems in physics must be performed numerically on supercomputers executing billions of operations a second: the very fact that we can only approximate the solutions with billions of calculations is a declaration of defeat for the entire model of mathematics in physics, if even only partially.

The formulas and symbols, the sequence of symbols is a one to one correspondence between relationships, mostly imagined and invented, but some somewhat true, so if you want even more abstract relationships, just invent even more indirect references,like the square root of the square root with no number inside, the manipulation of words mathematically but with unknown meanings etc. like space plus the square root of entity minus void, etc.

LOL

Why are you laughing at me ? Do you have a car engine in your brain at full throttle ? and are the cylinders and gears, and many other gears, signals, wild symbols, wild chemicals, wild signals, trillions of gears, circuits, you name it, you invent it, like a crazy duck, all connected and disconnected with all kinds of mixes of neural circuits and sense organs and emotion - sentiment circuits and pain/pleasure mechanisms, and many other contraptions in your Man Brain ? Are you that particular OBSERVER ? Do you know how the world and reality feels like for that contraption ? And do you think that your personal Man Brain and life history and contraption in the ball of meat that is your brain is “objective” and has a higher “metaphysical value” and “truth” then the car engine brain mix OBSERVER ? Prove it then, show me the evidence, show me how your view is superior and tied up into the real “laws of physics” as opposed to what the car engine brain observes, and the patterns it discerns and the “laws of physics” (if it even needs them?) discovers.

Nature is just one wild contraption that just appeared, for no reason at all, just because, because the blind forces of nature made the chemicals connect and evolve to create this fluke and insanely arbitrary quirk of a brain and Man Brain.

There are starquakes on magnetars, solid frozen neutron stars that are frozen into a configuration by immense magnetic forces and just a small instability and change of the magnetic field can generate huge amounts of gamma ray pulses, enough to burn all life on earth if the magnetar is close enough. So how does the world appear to that particular observer, to that brain, to the magnetar brain. Oh, it is not a brain ? but it can be configured in such a way as to become an observer, and it would see things different from you.

Am I wrong ? good, I want to be wrong, I want to lie, I want to tell as many untruths as possible, I worship lying, especially lying to myself (it is the only thing left worthwhile) I worship “incorrect” and “false”, I love contradiction, I worship contradiction as my only god, the more I am wrong and contradictory the better. Worship lies, invent ever more crazy lies, deceive, fake it, fake it all, delusion is my friend.

Now, feel free to attack !

Anyways, I have demonstrated once and for all that the neutrino speed is faster than light in:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177509

Einstein was wrong, I am right, suck it up dude.

TOBOR THE APE

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/suspen … ation.html

That was from:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177441

Study it all very carefully, please, and open your skull and stick stuff inside it, do me a favor (this also solves the overpopulation problem). Jackasses, we need trillions of new people, trillions of people to explore all…

For an Instant Singularitarian everything is (or can be, or can be potentially, or is in a certain universe amongst the infinite number of universes that exist) a brain, everything or anything is or can be an observer.

For an Instant Singularitarian (as in Instant Singularity by sticking wild stuff in your brain and entering a state of singularity, a new universe with new laws of physics, by sticking wild chunks of metal, jet engines in your brain or the the brain in jet engines and crossing the boundary into a new universe, but also Instant Singularity as in everything is an instantaneous interaction of matter with itself, a reciprocal interaction of chunks of matter in an instant of time, signals talking to each other, actions and reactions all in one instant of time with no spatial or temporal extension, simply an Information Relationship achieved etc.) everything is a brain, everything is an observer, everything or anything can be a potential brain - observer decoding the universe (what universe ? no universe ha ha) in any possible ways hence living in new parallel universes with new laws of physics, etc. Of course this as described by our puny logic.

And also since anything can be a brain or observer, any ensemble at all of entities (not necessary all in one place or time) can also be a brain, like a chunk of a magnetar plus a few electrons on mars plus a mountain on earth can represent and be the ensemble of a single delimitation of a single brain - observer. And this brain decodes the universe differently from us and lives in a parallel universe.

And also different time zones and material items can be a brain, like a given car in 1951 plus a rock on mars in the year 2020 plus a chunk of the sun today can be ensembled in one new observer - brain, living incredible experiences, etc. Or potentially, new brains. But how to find out ? open your skull and shove a jet engine in it, step on the gas and find out.

Everything is a potential brain observer, everything no matter how disconnected and far out and unrelated can be all put in one bag representing a new brain - observer - universe - laws of physics. A new Instant Singularity.

TOBOR ATE MAN

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/suspen … ation.html

It is not absurd, only our mind - logic - language and neural circuits are not capable of making any possible sense of it, sense for us, for how we are, for our “Intentionality of Use”, for how the logic is inserted in an already completely constructed logical system (requiring millions of circuits and years of life to develop).

The cause before the effect is outside of our range of understanding, it is not the universe that is limited, but our manipulation of the universe, our understanding and logical description of the universe that is limited and will always be limited by the limited number of neural circuits and the limited combination of concepts our mind, in this present design, can conceive.

Therefore, change the Man Brain, design a new one, etc.

Bustin, are you sill a tree hugger ? Do you still like nature ? You must be educated: kill nature, crack open the earth, burn the world, pollute, nuke all, get nature running wild, kill kill kill nature once and for all, turn america into one giant car engine cracking the earth and polluting like crazy, hate nature with all your guts, how I love to hate nature and punish nature, kill it fast, nuke the sun, nuke all, destroy, etc. show nature who the boss is!

As in unresolved conflicts, as in self against self, always more unresolved conflicts, ever more, internally torn.

Don’t be a scaredy cat, build those trillions of cadillacs and skyscrapers, do it man, don’t be a nature lover fairy, pua, pa, pa, pa chicken, pua, pa, pa, pa chicken, kill nature, be a man, don’t be a girly girl fairy protecting “mother” nature… fairy, you mair, you fairy, pua, pa pa, pa …

TOBOR THE EIGHTH MAN

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/suspen … ation.html

As a corollary, if everything is a brain, an observer, an abstract or potential observer, then the universe is not space - time but a monolithic slab of BRANIUM consisting of all the points in space and time, and all of the possible ensembles and delimitations across all the combination of points being brains, observers, etc. But if everything is a brain - observer, what are they decoding and observing ? other brains, themselves, the condensation of matter into pure consciousness, but many multiples of a never ending orthogonal array of minds, experiences and brains, Information Relationship.

But if everything is brains, there is no external reality, all is just a mind, a slab of mind. Tis a job for TOBOR THE EIGHT MAN! What does he suggest ? he suggests to keep an open mind, keep on experimenting, don’t let the green nature lovers stop you…

TOBOR THE EIGHT MAN

Warning ! Warning! This thread has been officially hijacked by TOBOR AN APE MAN!

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/suspen … ation.html

Correction on previous post:

(by the way, where are all the hot ladies, I liked it when they attacked me, since I am a loser, a miserable loser…come on San Jose Mommy and Alexandra talk to me please, pretty please (NOT!) crack open your skulls and stick a lot of wild stuff in it sluts…) QUO VADIS BABY ?..(as in towards the end of Last Tango in Paris…)

"which means that the particle’s faster-than-light motion means that it “arrives” before it “left”.

It gets worse when you pull in standard Relativistic Quantum Mechanics about density, length, and mass increases in particles of non-zero rest mass (the neutrino is about 1.5eV). Any nonzero rest mass goes to infinity when speed C is reached, density becomes infinite, and size becomes zero. In other words, this neutrino becomes a SINGULARITY."

It is not absurd, only our mind - logic - language and neural circuits are not capable of making any possible sense of it, sense for us, for how we are, for our “Intentionality of Use”, for how the logic is inserted in an already completely constructed logical system (requiring millions of circuits and years of life to develop).

The EFFECT BEFORE THE CAUSE is outside of our range of understanding, it is not the universe that is limited, but our manipulation of the universe, our understanding and logical description of the universe that is limited and will always be limited by the limited number of neural circuits and the limited combination of concepts our mind, in this present design, can conceive.

Therefore, change the Man Brain, design a new one, etc.

Bustin, are you sill a tree hugger ? Do you still like nature ? You must be educated: kill nature, crack open the earth, burn the world, pollute, nuke all, get nature running wild, kill kill kill nature once and for all, turn america into one giant car engine cracking the earth and polluting like crazy, hate nature with all your guts, how I love to hate nature and punish nature, kill it fast, nuke the sun, nuke all, destroy, etc. show nature who the boss is!

As in unresolved conflicts, as in self against self, always more unresolved conflicts, ever more, internally torn.

Don’t be a scaredy cat, build those trillions of cadillacs and skyscrapers, do it man, don’t be a nature lover fairy, pua, pa, pa, pa chicken, pua, pa, pa, pa chicken, kill nature, be a man, don’t be a girly girl fairy protecting “mother” nature… fairy, you mair, you fairy, pua, pa pa, pa …

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/suspen … ation.html

In BRAINIUM everything is an observer, everything is a brain, a brain is observing Information relationships which themselves are other brains and processing the signals with circuits which themselves are new modified brains (everything is a special modified brain executing a special observation (according to how that new brain is designed and how it reciprocally explores and interacts and fits in its environment according to its quirk design) upon a universe with new laws of physics and new experiences), every atom, every elementary particle is an observer - brain. But the information itself it perceives and outputs in reaction is itself ever new brains, ever new observers, a never ending array of universes.

But if the observer sees the universe with their brains, and the signals and information received and emitted themselves are brains, then the information must become real through event circuits that execute some reality condensation through pain/pleasure systems or similar (since information (brain types) is just denotation (other brain types, etc.), symbols, pictures which by definition do not exist in any possible way except as ghosts), but this is not the naive infinite world model of quantum mechanics, it is a world of denotation become real, through observers, each observing each other and creating new realities because each brain - observer is a new universe.

BRAINIUM - that material where every elementary particle, every entity discernable, inventable, immaginable, everything you see, any combination of things and concepts and ideas, any possible relationship you can invent, all Information Relationships, no matter how unrelated and far off, every combination of entities, photons, atoms, electrons, every possible thing is a specially designed brain observing a new universe. Our universe is one huge monolithic slab of BRAINIUM.

That chair plus the pebble 100 miles away plus a chunk of the Sun plus the square root plus a number plus 69 plus 8 plus a book is one particular brain, is one particular observer viewing a new universe, is a singularity, and Instant Singularity achieved living a full real life in a new world…now invent any other combination, we live in BRAINIUM…

Am I doing ok now San Jose Mommy and Alexandra ? Is my homework good enough now ? can I go out to play in the backyard now ? or must I stay and continue to finish my homework ?..

AN APE

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/suspen … ation.html

Mommy says I have to finish my homework: so then in BRAINIUM, if everything is a brain (a processor), then even any event itself is a brain, even any sequence of events, a 2 hour movie is a brain, but then all brains are interacting (as Mass Energy colliding as Information Relationships achieved instantaneously) and creating new brains, but if all is brain - processor what is the object ? if all is subject what is the object ? if all is a function, what is the function operating upon ? other brains, and remember a brain is understood as a modified brain perceiving a completely wildly different universe with wildly different laws of physics and experiences, but all those entities themselves are brains in a hyperbolic abstraction towards infinity. New laws of physics are new brains…

So keep on combining new designs of new brains, the 2 hour movie plus a sequence of random symbols plus a chunk of mars plus a mountain is a brain B1, the events of 2 million years on Venus is a brain B2, but B1 processes B2, and B2 processes B1, B1 and B2 collide, interact, each is a new universe for each other, all new brains and universes, all modified minds, stick wild things in brains, change all.

TOBOR AN 8 MAN

That was from:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177441

A new brain is W£URUU%UN%NUNN, what is that doing ?

Recently I have been able to (finally) prove a few things beyond doubt. One is that absolutely nothing has, does, or will ever surpass the speed of radiant energy (what we mean when we say, “speed of light”). But also, absolutely no particle has, does, or ever will travel even at the speed of radiant energy, certainly not faster.

Recently I have managed to create perhaps the first real metaparticle in human history (but one can never tell how much has been kept secret by others). I now know with absolute certainty; exactly of what particles are made, how they come to be, the form they take, why they do what they do, and exactly what they can or cannot do. And I can tell you with certainty, “neither neutrinos nor any particle may travel faster that radiant energy (aka ‘light’)”.