Einstein’s mistake and CERN experiment

For the last six months I have been repeatedly answering the question about superluminal neutrinos. I post below one such response from Sept 2011.
Einstein was, of course, wrong, but not for this reason. He (and most other physicists after him) wrongly thought relativity matters only for speeds close to light. That is true only for the one body problem. For the many body problem, relativity matters even at lower speeds. Einstein never understood this subtle mathematical point all his life.
CERN is wrong because the claim about superluminal neutrinos is conceptually confused. (But, of course, Western journalists superstitiously believe in the authority of CERN, “God particle” and all that. They have the money, so they must be right.)
—————email of 26 September—–
The point I made is that theory of relativity starts off by defining a clock. There is no God-given time out there to be measured, as Newton wrongly thought.
So what clock should one use?
If you do not know exactly how to measure time, you cannot measure velocity either, so it is meaningless to speak of velocities greater than that of light.
To understand the first thing about relativity, you must understand this point.
Also, Einstein did not make any seminal contribution, as you say. As a patent clerk he knew a legal way to grab credit which he did (also for the work of Hilbert, and earlier Botlzmann and Gibbs). He made a mistake in the process. If Western history could falsely belittle Egyptians, why do you think the people it glorifies are the right one’s?
Secondly, relativity is only a theory, not some grand universal law. The measure of time used just happens to be a convenient one (as emphasized by Poincare) so it can, of course, be changed. But there is no indication in the news report that any such fundamental reconceptualisation was done, and an alternative way of measuring time was defined.
Finally, the theory of relativity does allow tachyons—faster than light particles. My friend Waldyr Rodrigues has written specifically on superliminal neutrino solutions. However, in that situation, one cannot then hang on to the simple notion of causality used in the news report that the neutrinos left CERN and then arrived in Italy. You may like to check out the chapter on “Time Travel” in my book The Eleven Pictures of Time (Sage, 2003), and the parts about the tachyonic anti-telephone. If Shakepeare dictated Hamlet to Bacon, Shakespeare did not have “control” over it, and cannot be regarded as the author. If you are more mathematically inclined, you can check out my paper on “Time travel and the reality of spontaneity” on the arxiv (published in Foundations of Physics, 2006).

Leave a Reply