My understanding is that on a sub-atomic level all particles of a particular kind are the same, electron A cannot be distinguished from electron B. If electron A decays into some other particles and these then recombine to form an electron again we don't know if that is electron A 'reborn' or electron B in its first existence.
If that is correct the question that must be asked is "how do they know that the neutrinos arriving are the neutrinos which were sent?"
Maybe there is nothing traveling and the result is due to some quantum entanglement?

Hello pre-dawn,

I wondered when reading your post whether you were commenting from a scientific perspective or a spiritual one. Do the two differ signficantly.
quantum mechanics and O.B.Es seem to have strings of similarity that run along paralell lines.

Hi Tzu,
I would have responded to you, but don't know yet what you were saying. A Statement about feeding starving children , dead truths,, A Political observation involving a criticism of an event now done, a spilled milk type thing. We should really lament other thngs that have happened, doubtlessly with the same futility. OK , maybe not. I know , how about we could use threads to discuss things in addition to injecting our world view into a subject. That would be different,, Discussions taking place on discussion forums, whatever next. I lke my Chips out of Packets and not on shoulders personally.
Oh, and . I have conversed with you , after a fashion for years. I know people evolve and change, but if I may, you appear to have altered in a way that has made you a little defensive upwardly in scale. A trend hope to see very much reversed sooner rather than later at least wth me.because as you know . I am as lethal.threatening and dangerouse as a blancmange.

Greetings..

My apologies, Neville... ''spilled milk" is also a lesson learned, i should have opened another thread about the appropriate use of resources..

Be well..

The confusion lies in... if neutrinos travel faster than light we should be bombarded by them some minutes in advance of the arrival of light from a supernova, but we are not.

This is a complex issue but suggesting that no funds should be spent on science as long as there is poverty would mean there would be no science. We would still be in the 17 or 18th century.
You can find articles that explain just how much of our current technology has been made possible due to modern physics, including medical equipment and the computer you are using to share your ideas. Do you know how many lives have been saved by MRIs and similar tech?

Many of these discoveries could open doors to things that could transform society in a positive way. A quantum teleporter could open the door to something like a food replicator for example. Or things that could potentially be much more useful than throwing money at problems that just return once the money is gone.


Regarding Einstein, I'm not sure how he would react to some of the new physics but we do know his reaction to quantum mechanics. He completely rejected it. It went against his spiritual ideas and he spent his final decades trying to disprove it. The Einstein/Bohr debates are famous, bringing about the EPR paradox and all.
He was also very arrogant and confident over his special/general relativity equations even before they were proven by testing their predictions. Because of that I think he would dismiss these findings of faster than light particles as an error. At least until further proof.

I think it's interesting anyway.

I wish there was more funding for science and research (I agree with joelr). I am struggling to find funding for investigating the fundamentals of starch (which definitely would/does feed people and used in numerous applications).
Prioritising certain branches of sciences and not others would be (and is) foolish because you never know what you might find. Changes in technology in one field has an impact on another. I wish there was more funding available for scientists (I have been working on my project over a year now on very little personal funds).
Regarding your comments on Einstein or an individual scientist, in reality the scientists involved in the field interact and discuss ideas, so its not really fair to just acknowledge a single scientist (as you have pointed out the debates between Einstein and Bohr). Being fair to Einstein, the relativity theory was a "theory" which obviously was not entirely based on experimental studies, and we can propose a theory or a hypothesis. The advances in technology in the present need to be considered and I don't feel it is fair to even ask what Einstein made out of the recent experiments (which still need further investigation before declaring them "definitive").

About the speed of light I was made to believe that it is not a constant speed. I think it was in one of the "Through the Wormhole" shows, a scientist showed some test results that suggested that it depended on where in the universe the light came from what speed it came with. Or something like that.

But still I am no expert.