Daily News

CERN REPORTS PARTICLES TRAVELING FASTER THAN LIGHT, PHYSICISTS ...

Yesterday in my News and Views from the Nefarium I discussed the CERN claim to have recorded particles moving faster than the "relativistic speed limit" of the velocity of light, and I'd like to record my comments, or at least memorialize them, in written form here. The article at phys.org may be found here:

Physicists wary of junking light speed limit yet

As I noted in my comments, 60 nanoseconds, both is and is not significant. The value of "c", like all constants of physics, is a theoretical value calculated from several measurements, and these measurements have been recorded over time. As the article itself points out, the experiment will certainly need confirmation. For this reason, physicists are correct to be skeptical of having to rethink the metric theories of Relativity.

But as I also pointed out, some physicists attempted to construct cosmological theories on the basis of the idea of variable constants, and notably, this effort began in Nazi Germany with such famous names as Pascual Jordan, Ott Christian Hilgenberg, and others. Jordan is perhaps the most interesting figure here, for he was not only an ardent supporter of the Nazi regime - a fact that probably cost him a Nobel prize in physics - but one of the significant contributors to the elaboration of quantum mechanics.

Pascual Jordan

Jordan, during the Nazi era, abandoned quantum mechanical pursuits for reasons that are unclear - and which certainly invite speculation - for cosmological pursuits. For our purposes, he was one of the first big names to begin to theorize on the possibilities that the measured variations of physical constants may represent something significant. In this respect he joined others entertaining such notions inside of Germany, most notably Dr. Ing. Ott Christian Hilgenberg, who himself published a number of papers in the 1930s on this idea, coupling it to the idea of vortex mechanics.

Einstein was not without his critics in the American physics community either, the most notable contemporary being Dr. Herbert Ives of Bell laboratories, who viewed the Special Relativity theory as a kind of philosophical dogma, and who wrote a number of papers critical of the theory in its philosophical assumptions. It should be noted that Ives in turn had his critics, who informed him that his own experiments confirmed Einstein's views.

Dr. Herbert E. Ives, ca. 1913

The point I am trying to emphasize here is that Einstein had his critics, and if CERN's experiment should be confirmed by further testing, then we may expect to see some old theories perhaps being re-examined by the scientific community, and a lively debate over its interpretation. But this also means - contrary to some of the discussion already occurring - that it is far too early to be speaking of the collapse of Einstein's relativity theories within the edifice of the contemporary standard model. But if it is confirmed, the debates will be an extraordinarily interesting process to watch.

14 thoughts on “ CERN REPORTS PARTICLES TRAVELING FASTER THAN LIGHT, PHYSICISTS ...”

  1. Richard Pettigrew

    Since the speed of light figure quoted is normally “in a vacuum” then the so-called constant ‘c’ can not be.

    We all know that the speed of sound varies depending on the medium through which it propagates or travels. Why not the speed of light?

    The theory says it could be possible so why should these physicists deny that anything could travel faster than “the speed of light”?

    We know about the non-local nature of quantum physics and the mysterious quantum jump an electron makes between orbital level of the atom, so any CERN scientists reading this please explain why some other particle could not do something similar?

  2. The Sumerians used a base 60 count and how we get our system
    of multiples of 60 for round and sky measurements.
    Forgive me, Joseph, if I am saying that rather primitively.

    I do so much reading that it is difficult to keep track of what
    I call details (smart, but not the best memory)
    in my search for the BIG picture.

    Quantum Physics explains a lot of things as does a Conscious,
    Self-aware Universe explain QM, and yet there are no
    miracles here.

    I have been coming across lots of
    “vortex mechanics” as well, without which the engineering of
    the ‘strange’ science of QM would not be possible.

    I consider myself a theorist, but the engineering of the
    technology implied, must also be possible;
    for then what good the theory or ‘seeing’ the BIG picture(?)

    Thank you, Joseph, for your specificity and others with their
    insightful comments.

  3. I am not all that enamored of Einstein, as he was a plagiarist and, I believe, a “created” media star. There were enormous problems with the Michelson-Morley experiments, and Eddington’s supposed “confirmation” of relativity happened with virtually no evidence to support it. (He produced only two photos of the eclipse on his expedition – mostly it was obscured by clouds.)

    Einstein himself finally answered the critics of his lack of crediting the work of others which he published, and simply said his time was too valuable to be bothered citing references. He felt anyone involved in the field should just “know” where the ideas came from. I consider that arrogant and the stance of a liar.

    Einstein is constantly held up as the greatest scientific mind of the last century, yet there are many more who are far more brilliant, did far more actual work, and yet are relegated to obscurity. That is the work of a PR machine, pure and simple. Einstein is the Milli Vanilli of physics.

    Relativity seems designed to lead to a dead end in physics, and the academic establishment continues to shore it up with “patches” and exceptions to try and hold together a theory which has many holes in it. The religious nature of devotion to the theory repeats the behavior of many other theories, many of which are obviously false, and leads to the conclusion that there are certain powers which control what “science” is allowed to study, at least in the public eye.

    I believe that Relativity was “pushed” by forces determined to downplay the possibilities inherent in Whittaker’s 1903 and 1904 papers, and Tesla’s work, as they would lead to a liberation of knowledge which would radically change the balance of power in the world (between the elites and the common man).

    I have witnessed this same kind of propaganda campaign over and over again in the past few decades. It is part of the deeply corrupted nature of academia and the scientific community as they prostitute themselves to the Bankster agenda.

    The more deeply I investigate Western Society, the more it turns out to be a fabric of blatant lies – a castle made of sand.

    1. I have a book from 1922 GRAVITATION VERSUS RELATIVITY by Charles Lane Poor, which shows the original plates from Eddington.

      If anything, they are a complete refutation of SR. On top of that, it is still admitted today that they really do not have the precision to verify Relativity with eclipse experiments.

      The Eddington experiment was a complete hoax. There are articles on the internet about this. Recommended reading.

  4. Joe — Regarding the “faster than the speed of light” by a factor of “60 nanoseconds” (or whatever it was….), I am wondering if YOU are inferring any significance to the number “60” here…

    Been reading your books and suddenly “60” looks to me like “19.5” looks to Richard Hoagland… 🙂

    Or is this just a random number and likely just a wild coincidence to your “lost physics” properties…???

  5. A little off topic BUT:

    I just finished reading “Reich of the Black Sun.” I found it a VERY interesting AND thought provoking book. It “made me think,” my primary criteria for a good book.

    I will purchase another one soon.

    As for “variable constants,” I wonder if a consciousness unable to, directly, detect any fluctuations in the geometry of space would be able to tell if constants were indeed changing. I guess it’s all “relative.”

  6. Robert Barricklow

    Ironically, the math in quantum mechanics, by its very nature, is, for lack of a better moniker, probable. Thus 2+2=4, in the final quantum analysis, is like the speed of light, not an exact science. Thus, the constants, by nature, vary, quantumly. But when it comes to time, well, there’s …where the real fun begins.

  7. Hi Dr Farrell,

    thank you for your thought provoking work – long may it continue!

    I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the ideas of Dr Myron Evans –
    a contemporary physicist who has also found the standard model laking – but whose response – The Einstein Cartan Evans Field Theory, heralded as the Great White Hope has now become something only spoken of in whispers – Evans himself discribed as “screwball scientist” (always a good sign)

    his view on Cern is that any results taken from Einsteinian general relativity will be complete nonsense (from his blog) he calls Cern “The Ministry of Truth”

    anyway heres a link to his papers

    http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Unified_Field_Theory_papers

    I’m sure your insightful physics eye can find something here – if it has’nt already

  8. Wouldn’t it be more shocking if the cosmic speed limit is never broken?

    Referring to his book and an interview with GeorgeAnn Hughes, Dr. Farrell explains that the work of alchemy cannot be undertaken without the alchemist himself undergoing his own transmutation. In other words, his own consciousness has a role in the preparation of the philosopher’s stone.

    Why would it be any different for modern day scientists. The team’s consciousness must surely play a role in the outcome of their experiments. Did they fire a beam of neutrinos 454 miles underground from Geneva to Italy just because they could. Of course not. I’ll just bet every one of those physicists “believe” that a neutrino can outrun light.

  9. I find it odd. The whole point of CERN is to over turn a perfectly usable theory. The standard model. I guess it’s a dead end and that begs the question of why so much money is pumped into the most expensive machine on the planet to over turn a workable theory. Or do they know something they’re not telling?

    1. I’m no physicist, but from what I gather reading others who DO seem to understand all the various theories (and I believe Joe Farrell, himself; correct me if I’ve got it wrong, Joe…) but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is NOT workable (i.e., “engineerable”) and that is precisely the problem.

Comments are closed.