Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
superluminal Neutrinos ?
27 views
Skip to first unread message
clifford wright
Dec 18, 2011, 7:55:59 PM12/18/11
to
Well, speaking as a mere electronics engineer.
Whatever the cause of the 60nsecs speed up over
the path between CERN and the receiver as long as the
effect is real we have a BIG problem with Relativity.
I use radio communication a lot and it would be "relatively"
easy to send information (however low a bandwidth)via these pulses.
Even if not every pulse is detected and I can only presume that
Neutrino detectors are probably improving, some redundancy can be
built into the system to ensure data gets through.
So we have a communcations device that transmits and receives signals
at slightly faster than light speed.
I do agree however that the fact that the transmission path is through
solid matter might introduce other effects. But this is NOT the carefully
prepared inside of a transistor or Esaki diode this is just random
rock and soil.
Could we reasonably expect "tunnel" effects on such a path?
One small suggestion- How many theorists have used the variations of the
"Multiverse" theories to explain the changes in Neutrinos as they travel
and to potentially explain this experiment.
Simply put, the particles do not necessarily spend all their time in our
"universe" under our particular laws of Physics.
Looking forward to hearing more on the subject.
Clifford Wright New Zealand
Whatever the cause of the 60nsecs speed up over
the path between CERN and the receiver as long as the
effect is real we have a BIG problem with Relativity.
I use radio communication a lot and it would be "relatively"
easy to send information (however low a bandwidth)via these pulses.
Even if not every pulse is detected and I can only presume that
Neutrino detectors are probably improving, some redundancy can be
built into the system to ensure data gets through.
So we have a communcations device that transmits and receives signals
at slightly faster than light speed.
I do agree however that the fact that the transmission path is through
solid matter might introduce other effects. But this is NOT the carefully
prepared inside of a transistor or Esaki diode this is just random
rock and soil.
Could we reasonably expect "tunnel" effects on such a path?
One small suggestion- How many theorists have used the variations of the
"Multiverse" theories to explain the changes in Neutrinos as they travel
and to potentially explain this experiment.
Simply put, the particles do not necessarily spend all their time in our
"universe" under our particular laws of Physics.
Looking forward to hearing more on the subject.
Clifford Wright New Zealand
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Dec 19, 2011, 4:21:30 PM12/19/11
to
If confirmed it would be quite a paradigm shift, not only in physics but
stuff like SETI and the Fermi Paradox
--
Dirk
Full Spectrum Praxis : ZERO STATE : http://zerostate.net
Rock Brentwood
Dec 20, 2011, 3:27:23 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 18, 6:55=A0pm, clifford wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz>
wrote:
revision in the mainstream view of causality, none of this has any
impact on the question of the space-time signature and whether it is
Lorentzian or Galilean (for instance). These are features that can be
directly probed by determining the direction of rotation when
performing two boosts in different directions (which in turn directly
connects to the direction which Thomas precession takes place in); and
the sign of the mass-energy conversion M =3D alpha E: alpha > 0 means
Lorentzian, alpha =3D 0 means Galilean, alpha < 0 means Euclidean 4-D.
The notion that "causality" is somehow the definition or distinctive
character of relativity was one advanced by Reichenbach, who went as
far as taking the extreme view that "the relativity of simultaneity"
had nothing to do with "the relativity of motion". He formulated
Relativity as causal theory, while the correct formulation (i.e. the
one that captures the essential theses that the spacetime signature is
Lorentzian) is just that the invariant speed is finite in all
directions at all points-in-time.
This issue was critically examined in the 1983 classic "Foundations of
space-time theories: relativistic physics and philosophy of
space" (Michael Friedman), which did us the service of dispelling a
LOT of myths and folklore about what the proper formulations of
Newtonian theory was/is (even making a distinction between Galilean
vs. Newtonian); and folklore on what key assumptions are used/required
to establish Relativity.
Reichenbach's starting point was Friedman's R3 (or P3 I forget); to
contrast with alternative formulations R1, R2 (and P1 and P2 later
on). Another common postulate that is seen in the folklore and is also
wrong is the notion "all inertial frames of reference are equivalent";
which as Friedman pointed out after carefully dissecting it, says
virtually nothing at all of any content.
> I use radio communication a lot and it would be "relatively"
> easy to send information (however low a bandwidth)via these pulses.
Fayngold in his 2008 book on Relativity also discussed in depth the
issue of causality violation, tachyons, superluminal quantum
tunnelling and the like. As he pointed out (underscoring Friedman):
many people have tied causality to relativity, even Einstein. And many
people were wrong to do so. One may assert this extra condition, but
it has no direct bearing on the actual scientific content contained in
the basic hypotheses: light-speed invariance. Fayngold went even
further to split hairs pointing out that even the designation of c as
"light speed in a vacuum" is wrong ... for very subtle reasons. So,
his proposal was to simply term c the "invariant speed".
Fayngold spelled out different ways to have tachyonic transmission
without causality violation. The simplest way, of course (not directly
mentioned by him) is to simply deny the paradox as humans-deluding-
themselves-about-their-"free will". Or to put it differently: to
assert the Novikov Consistency Conjecture. But apart from that, one
can also use the distinctive properties of tachyons (e.g. the
longitudinal component of its momentum) to establish a time-
directionality. So, even if you don't like Novikov, you can still get
away with time-directionality.
(But as I pointed out, in the article on the OPERA experiment, the
latest papers seemed already to rule out tachyons).
I have no problem with causality-violation. It would just mean that
some things yet-to-be are also written in stone, like the past.
"Time-traveller's paradoxes" were never anything more than false
arguments. There's lots of ways to avoid collision with intent or will
*even if* granting "free will" (which, given how predictable people
are to me, was always an implausible stretch to maintain).
You can forget, suffer a stroke, or fall asleep. Or you can also drop
dead before you get to do anything. None of these are under your
control. And all that's before you have a chance to "time-travel".
Your memory and brain are not under your control. Rather you are under
your brain's control. And the act of remembering things (or
remembering to do things) -- as anyone over 40 can tell you -- is NOT
a voluntary process, but just something you pray not to lose (as you
eventually will).
(The ploy of getting a machine to do things doesn't change anything.
*Somebody* has to make and set up the machine. And somebody's going to
fail if they try; which is a logical consequence that follows by
reductio absurdum from the "padadox".)
Some of the ways events can conspire to stop things from clashing even
if you can see the future, for instance, is to be able to correctly
call out the lottery numbers -- but mix up the day (Friday instead of
Wednesday) or year (first week of January in 2010 instead of 2008); or
to know that you're going to miss a flight scheduled to leave at 4PM
on Friday October 19, but not to know which year; or to know in 2006
that you're going to be called down to give a talk in the "7th story
of an office building" in Chicago, but not know by whom, where, when
or why until it sneaks up on you from behind (http://www.math.uic.edu/
seminars/view_seminar?id=3D998); or to know that the Republicans are
going to win in a landslide because of the "Palin Factor", but to not
know whether this was supposed to be 2008 or 2010; or to correctly
call out the plays of a game, one-by-one over an extended time
interval (like 10-20 minutes), mistakenly thinking you're watching a
rerun broadcast again ... only to find out later in the day that you
were watching a live broadcast.
As an engineer, you know that transmission is not an all-or-none
affair. You have the problem of interference, signal corruption and
the like. What we can clearly establish, irrespective of any issue of
causality violation, is that possible signalling from the future is by
its very nature laden with interference and noise to the point of
being nearly or completely unreadable. As a scientist, the "nearly,
but not quite" part is the key point of interest.
You may argue that the conspiracy of near-misses is somehow
"implausible", because if things were really set in stone in both the
backwards *and* forwards direction, people would notice those kind of
spooky incongruities all the time. And "nobody ever does".
But the problem with saying "people don't" however, is that *I do*.
Those descriptions are autobiographical. I will only make brief
mention of it here, since it's a personal matter; but to put it
bluntly: I have a lifelong precognitive ability and as of late for
some reason it is growing by leaps and bounds in ways that are getting
to be a bit unsettling and even disorienting.
This has always been one of the main reasons I've had such deep
interest in probing and resolving the issue of the nature of space and
time, one of my main motivations for studying physics at the
foundational level (rather than, say, finishing up a PhD -- all to
easy for me -- and working under some big-budget science program on
incremental research or under some "mentor's" wing). It is one of the
main reasons why I take such interest in experiments like this.
More significantly, in the course of watching this rather strange
phenomenon as a passive observer, the number of instances have grown
(as of the last few years) to the point where it's starting to become
repeatable and to the point where I'm now beginning to see
regularities in the phenomena and actually formulate hypotheses.
That's always the first step in an observational regimen: collect
data, find patterns and regularities.
But like celestial phenomena, or like the phenomenon of
"remembering" (which, for anyone over 40, is increasingly beyond their
conscious ability to control), it's something I can only observe as a
passive spectator. I can't make a planet or star in a lab either.
It's why, also, I'm very skeptical anyone who asserts a "causality"
principle ab initio. No causality principle is contained in any field
equation or basic axiom of relativity. In every case I've seen, it's
always been a somewhat vague assertion of "folklore" that has been
"written in by hand", to use a physicist's term, as a way of narrowing
down possible solutions to equations.
(The sole exception is Fayngold, which I describe below.)
The equations say nothing about causality; and the burden is (and has
always been) on those to establish how and why *from first principles*
in a *strictly rigorous way* (i.e. by deductions carried out in first
order logic from a well-defined set of physical assumptions) to
explain (a) what causality actually is and (b) how it emerges from
laws which make no mention of it. Zeh made a stab at it. But Zeh also
took the stand point above of "people don't".
For me, given my experience, the "extraordinary claim" which requires
extraordinary proof is that causality holds true; rather than that it
doesn't.
I mention this here to point out that *even with* the foreknowledge,
there is no paradox; no ability to "intervene" or "change" anything.
Things conspire in ways they can to keep things consistent even if --
say -- I could rattle off the sequence of events in a game or pageant
over the course of several minutes out loud several minutes in advance
in full view of the event and its participants. (All of that is part
of what I meant by "unsettling" above). Or, to use another example, I
could intentionally decide to walk the longest possible route to the
train to get to Chicago to give the talk on the 7th floor in the
"office building" just to see if I miss the train. (I tried, got lost,
and barely got to the station seconds before the train left.)
The question you're bound to ask as an engineer pertains to a matter
that was enshrined by Fayngold.
Fayngold's point of view of causality is that information is
transmitted by virtue of the future wave form or "response curve"
being a NON-ANALYTIC function when taken over an interval that crosses
time-zero. What he was trying to do was to get it so that you can't
"predict" the future coefficients of the power series by the past wave
form segment. For, one of the main features of an analytic function is
that it can only be 0 in an interval if it is 0 everywhere. To the
same degree, its values over any interval provide sufficient
information and detail to extrapolate the function over the entire
real line.
So, Fayngold's point of view is that the point of non-analycity is
where the information is being transmitted. To test the true speed of
transmission requires first and foremost correctly identifying where
in the wave train this occurs. This is Fayngold's "leading edge".
OPERA can go seriously wrong in many ways on that count. They may
simply be identifying the wrong part of the wavefront as the leading
edge.
For engineers, the analogous principle is that the response curve is
dead zero at t < 0, but non-zero after t > 0. Ipso facto that means
it's non-analytic.
In general, I have a problem with this notion and tend to soundly
reject any assertion of non-analycity (including with the propagator
functions in quantum field theory).
There's more to the world than meets most people's eyes, and more to
be found by probing that one question further. I think all the
response curves are analytic but exponentially dampened.
That would mean that somewhere down the line it should even be able to
instill machines with precognitive ability. Yet, none of it will
entail paradox.
wrote:
> Well, speaking as a mere electronics engineer.
> Whatever the cause of the 60nsecs speed up over
> the path between CERN and the receiver as long as the
> effect is real we have a BIG problem with Relativity.
Not at all. Although signalling outside the light cone would herald a
> Whatever the cause of the 60nsecs speed up over
> the path between CERN and the receiver as long as the
> effect is real we have a BIG problem with Relativity.
revision in the mainstream view of causality, none of this has any
impact on the question of the space-time signature and whether it is
Lorentzian or Galilean (for instance). These are features that can be
directly probed by determining the direction of rotation when
performing two boosts in different directions (which in turn directly
connects to the direction which Thomas precession takes place in); and
the sign of the mass-energy conversion M =3D alpha E: alpha > 0 means
Lorentzian, alpha =3D 0 means Galilean, alpha < 0 means Euclidean 4-D.
The notion that "causality" is somehow the definition or distinctive
character of relativity was one advanced by Reichenbach, who went as
far as taking the extreme view that "the relativity of simultaneity"
had nothing to do with "the relativity of motion". He formulated
Relativity as causal theory, while the correct formulation (i.e. the
one that captures the essential theses that the spacetime signature is
Lorentzian) is just that the invariant speed is finite in all
directions at all points-in-time.
This issue was critically examined in the 1983 classic "Foundations of
space-time theories: relativistic physics and philosophy of
space" (Michael Friedman), which did us the service of dispelling a
LOT of myths and folklore about what the proper formulations of
Newtonian theory was/is (even making a distinction between Galilean
vs. Newtonian); and folklore on what key assumptions are used/required
to establish Relativity.
Reichenbach's starting point was Friedman's R3 (or P3 I forget); to
contrast with alternative formulations R1, R2 (and P1 and P2 later
on). Another common postulate that is seen in the folklore and is also
wrong is the notion "all inertial frames of reference are equivalent";
which as Friedman pointed out after carefully dissecting it, says
virtually nothing at all of any content.
> I use radio communication a lot and it would be "relatively"
> easy to send information (however low a bandwidth)via these pulses.
issue of causality violation, tachyons, superluminal quantum
tunnelling and the like. As he pointed out (underscoring Friedman):
many people have tied causality to relativity, even Einstein. And many
people were wrong to do so. One may assert this extra condition, but
it has no direct bearing on the actual scientific content contained in
the basic hypotheses: light-speed invariance. Fayngold went even
further to split hairs pointing out that even the designation of c as
"light speed in a vacuum" is wrong ... for very subtle reasons. So,
his proposal was to simply term c the "invariant speed".
Fayngold spelled out different ways to have tachyonic transmission
without causality violation. The simplest way, of course (not directly
mentioned by him) is to simply deny the paradox as humans-deluding-
themselves-about-their-"free will". Or to put it differently: to
assert the Novikov Consistency Conjecture. But apart from that, one
can also use the distinctive properties of tachyons (e.g. the
longitudinal component of its momentum) to establish a time-
directionality. So, even if you don't like Novikov, you can still get
away with time-directionality.
(But as I pointed out, in the article on the OPERA experiment, the
latest papers seemed already to rule out tachyons).
I have no problem with causality-violation. It would just mean that
some things yet-to-be are also written in stone, like the past.
"Time-traveller's paradoxes" were never anything more than false
arguments. There's lots of ways to avoid collision with intent or will
*even if* granting "free will" (which, given how predictable people
are to me, was always an implausible stretch to maintain).
You can forget, suffer a stroke, or fall asleep. Or you can also drop
dead before you get to do anything. None of these are under your
control. And all that's before you have a chance to "time-travel".
Your memory and brain are not under your control. Rather you are under
your brain's control. And the act of remembering things (or
remembering to do things) -- as anyone over 40 can tell you -- is NOT
a voluntary process, but just something you pray not to lose (as you
eventually will).
(The ploy of getting a machine to do things doesn't change anything.
*Somebody* has to make and set up the machine. And somebody's going to
fail if they try; which is a logical consequence that follows by
reductio absurdum from the "padadox".)
Some of the ways events can conspire to stop things from clashing even
if you can see the future, for instance, is to be able to correctly
call out the lottery numbers -- but mix up the day (Friday instead of
Wednesday) or year (first week of January in 2010 instead of 2008); or
to know that you're going to miss a flight scheduled to leave at 4PM
on Friday October 19, but not to know which year; or to know in 2006
that you're going to be called down to give a talk in the "7th story
of an office building" in Chicago, but not know by whom, where, when
or why until it sneaks up on you from behind (http://www.math.uic.edu/
seminars/view_seminar?id=3D998); or to know that the Republicans are
going to win in a landslide because of the "Palin Factor", but to not
know whether this was supposed to be 2008 or 2010; or to correctly
call out the plays of a game, one-by-one over an extended time
interval (like 10-20 minutes), mistakenly thinking you're watching a
rerun broadcast again ... only to find out later in the day that you
were watching a live broadcast.
As an engineer, you know that transmission is not an all-or-none
affair. You have the problem of interference, signal corruption and
the like. What we can clearly establish, irrespective of any issue of
causality violation, is that possible signalling from the future is by
its very nature laden with interference and noise to the point of
being nearly or completely unreadable. As a scientist, the "nearly,
but not quite" part is the key point of interest.
You may argue that the conspiracy of near-misses is somehow
"implausible", because if things were really set in stone in both the
backwards *and* forwards direction, people would notice those kind of
spooky incongruities all the time. And "nobody ever does".
But the problem with saying "people don't" however, is that *I do*.
Those descriptions are autobiographical. I will only make brief
mention of it here, since it's a personal matter; but to put it
bluntly: I have a lifelong precognitive ability and as of late for
some reason it is growing by leaps and bounds in ways that are getting
to be a bit unsettling and even disorienting.
This has always been one of the main reasons I've had such deep
interest in probing and resolving the issue of the nature of space and
time, one of my main motivations for studying physics at the
foundational level (rather than, say, finishing up a PhD -- all to
easy for me -- and working under some big-budget science program on
incremental research or under some "mentor's" wing). It is one of the
main reasons why I take such interest in experiments like this.
More significantly, in the course of watching this rather strange
phenomenon as a passive observer, the number of instances have grown
(as of the last few years) to the point where it's starting to become
repeatable and to the point where I'm now beginning to see
regularities in the phenomena and actually formulate hypotheses.
That's always the first step in an observational regimen: collect
data, find patterns and regularities.
But like celestial phenomena, or like the phenomenon of
"remembering" (which, for anyone over 40, is increasingly beyond their
conscious ability to control), it's something I can only observe as a
passive spectator. I can't make a planet or star in a lab either.
It's why, also, I'm very skeptical anyone who asserts a "causality"
principle ab initio. No causality principle is contained in any field
equation or basic axiom of relativity. In every case I've seen, it's
always been a somewhat vague assertion of "folklore" that has been
"written in by hand", to use a physicist's term, as a way of narrowing
down possible solutions to equations.
(The sole exception is Fayngold, which I describe below.)
The equations say nothing about causality; and the burden is (and has
always been) on those to establish how and why *from first principles*
in a *strictly rigorous way* (i.e. by deductions carried out in first
order logic from a well-defined set of physical assumptions) to
explain (a) what causality actually is and (b) how it emerges from
laws which make no mention of it. Zeh made a stab at it. But Zeh also
took the stand point above of "people don't".
For me, given my experience, the "extraordinary claim" which requires
extraordinary proof is that causality holds true; rather than that it
doesn't.
I mention this here to point out that *even with* the foreknowledge,
there is no paradox; no ability to "intervene" or "change" anything.
Things conspire in ways they can to keep things consistent even if --
say -- I could rattle off the sequence of events in a game or pageant
over the course of several minutes out loud several minutes in advance
in full view of the event and its participants. (All of that is part
of what I meant by "unsettling" above). Or, to use another example, I
could intentionally decide to walk the longest possible route to the
train to get to Chicago to give the talk on the 7th floor in the
"office building" just to see if I miss the train. (I tried, got lost,
and barely got to the station seconds before the train left.)
The question you're bound to ask as an engineer pertains to a matter
that was enshrined by Fayngold.
Fayngold's point of view of causality is that information is
transmitted by virtue of the future wave form or "response curve"
being a NON-ANALYTIC function when taken over an interval that crosses
time-zero. What he was trying to do was to get it so that you can't
"predict" the future coefficients of the power series by the past wave
form segment. For, one of the main features of an analytic function is
that it can only be 0 in an interval if it is 0 everywhere. To the
same degree, its values over any interval provide sufficient
information and detail to extrapolate the function over the entire
real line.
So, Fayngold's point of view is that the point of non-analycity is
where the information is being transmitted. To test the true speed of
transmission requires first and foremost correctly identifying where
in the wave train this occurs. This is Fayngold's "leading edge".
OPERA can go seriously wrong in many ways on that count. They may
simply be identifying the wrong part of the wavefront as the leading
edge.
For engineers, the analogous principle is that the response curve is
dead zero at t < 0, but non-zero after t > 0. Ipso facto that means
it's non-analytic.
In general, I have a problem with this notion and tend to soundly
reject any assertion of non-analycity (including with the propagator
functions in quantum field theory).
There's more to the world than meets most people's eyes, and more to
be found by probing that one question further. I think all the
response curves are analytic but exponentially dampened.
That would mean that somewhere down the line it should even be able to
instill machines with precognitive ability. Yet, none of it will
entail paradox.
Jos Bergervoet
Dec 20, 2011, 1:48:37 PM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 9:27=A0am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com> wrote:
...
non-analytic! It is zero one the left real half-axis and
also on the right, so even more non-analytic. :-) It's
pretty reasonable that the response reflects this..
> In general, I have a problem with this notion and tend to soundly
> reject any assertion of non-analycity (including with the propagator
> functions in quantum field theory).
Same story: you start with a delta-function, you reap
what you sow.. Now, can you explain (for those engineers)
how, and why you would want a completely non-analytic
stimulus to have a perfectly analytic response?!
--
Jos
...
> For engineers, the analogous principle is that the response curve is
> dead zero at t < 0, but non-zero after t > 0. Ipso facto that means
> it's non-analytic.
But it is the response to a "test pulse" which itself is
> dead zero at t < 0, but non-zero after t > 0. Ipso facto that means
> it's non-analytic.
non-analytic! It is zero one the left real half-axis and
also on the right, so even more non-analytic. :-) It's
pretty reasonable that the response reflects this..
> In general, I have a problem with this notion and tend to soundly
> reject any assertion of non-analycity (including with the propagator
> functions in quantum field theory).
what you sow.. Now, can you explain (for those engineers)
how, and why you would want a completely non-analytic
stimulus to have a perfectly analytic response?!
--
Jos
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Dec 21, 2011, 8:04:42 AM12/21/11
to
In article <9l7m0s...@mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Right, except perhaps for something like travel through a wormhole,
depending on the precise definition.
> If confirmed it would be quite a paradigm shift, not only in physics but
> stuff like SETI and the Fermi Paradox
I'm not sure about this. What if SLIGHTLY faster than light is
possible, but no more? Qualitatively, this wouldn't change much.
(Think of the matter-antimatter asymmetry with kaons. It's there, but
not nearly enough to explain all the observed preponderance of matter
over antimatter.)
Fermi paradox? Since with von Neumann machines one could colonize the
galaxy in much less than the lifetime of the galaxy, the lack of
(appreciably) FTL travel is probably not an issue here.
Right, except perhaps for something like travel through a wormhole,
depending on the precise definition.
> If confirmed it would be quite a paradigm shift, not only in physics but
> stuff like SETI and the Fermi Paradox
possible, but no more? Qualitatively, this wouldn't change much.
(Think of the matter-antimatter asymmetry with kaons. It's there, but
not nearly enough to explain all the observed preponderance of matter
over antimatter.)
Fermi paradox? Since with von Neumann machines one could colonize the
galaxy in much less than the lifetime of the galaxy, the lack of
(appreciably) FTL travel is probably not an issue here.
Hendrik van Hees
Dec 21, 2011, 6:36:30 PM12/21/11
to
On 21/12/11 14:04, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> I'm not sure about this. What if SLIGHTLY faster than light is
> possible, but no more? Qualitatively, this wouldn't change much.
> (Think of the matter-antimatter asymmetry with kaons. It's there, but
> not nearly enough to explain all the observed preponderance of matter
> over antimatter.)
It's not so clear to me yet, whether there is really something faster
> I'm not sure about this. What if SLIGHTLY faster than light is
> possible, but no more? Qualitatively, this wouldn't change much.
> (Think of the matter-antimatter asymmetry with kaons. It's there, but
> not nearly enough to explain all the observed preponderance of matter
> over antimatter.)
than light, which is not allowed to be in relativistic physics. The
propagation of Neutrinos is a wave phenomenon, and there are a lot of
"velocities" that are allowed to be greater than c (phase velocity,
group velocity).
--
Hendrik van Hees
Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies
D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/
Jos Bergervoet
Dec 22, 2011, 12:59:42 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 22, 12:36 am, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>
wrote:
encoded information! It can't be worse than that (or better,
depending on your point of view :-) ). And in the CERN
results, we clearly see the whole pulse shape shifted, so
it looks like group velocity exceeding c.
Also, evanescent waves have been mentioned here, but
those would only be fast with an adjacent medium where
the speed is genuinely greater than c. (out of the frying-pan
into the fire..)
--
Jos
wrote:
> On 21/12/11 14:04, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
..
> > I'm not sure about this. What if SLIGHTLY faster than light is
> > possible, but no more? Qualitatively, this wouldn't change much.
> > (Think of the matter-antimatter asymmetry with kaons. It's there, but
> > not nearly enough to explain all the observed preponderance of matter
> > over antimatter.)
>
> It's not so clear to me yet, whether there is really something faster
> than light, which is not allowed to be in relativistic physics. The
> propagation of Neutrinos is a wave phenomenon, and there are a lot of
> "velocities" that are allowed to be greater than c (phase velocity,
> group velocity).
Phase velocity is fine, but group velocity is the speed of
> > possible, but no more? Qualitatively, this wouldn't change much.
> > (Think of the matter-antimatter asymmetry with kaons. It's there, but
> > not nearly enough to explain all the observed preponderance of matter
> > over antimatter.)
>
> It's not so clear to me yet, whether there is really something faster
> than light, which is not allowed to be in relativistic physics. The
> propagation of Neutrinos is a wave phenomenon, and there are a lot of
> "velocities" that are allowed to be greater than c (phase velocity,
> group velocity).
encoded information! It can't be worse than that (or better,
depending on your point of view :-) ). And in the CERN
results, we clearly see the whole pulse shape shifted, so
it looks like group velocity exceeding c.
Also, evanescent waves have been mentioned here, but
those would only be fast with an adjacent medium where
the speed is genuinely greater than c. (out of the frying-pan
into the fire..)
--
Jos
hadi motamedi
Dec 22, 2011, 8:31:46 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 19, 3:55 am, clifford wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz>
wrote:
[[Mod. note -- 24 quoted-lines-that-aren't-relevant-to-this-post
snipped here. -- jt]]
Excuse me, regarding the energy spectrum of the travelling neutrinos ,
if they travel faster than light so they must have lost most of their
energy (a phenomenon that does not being observed in OPERA
experiment).
Regards
wrote:
[[Mod. note -- 24 quoted-lines-that-aren't-relevant-to-this-post
snipped here. -- jt]]
Excuse me, regarding the energy spectrum of the travelling neutrinos ,
if they travel faster than light so they must have lost most of their
energy (a phenomenon that does not being observed in OPERA
experiment).
Regards
Hendrik van Hees
Dec 24, 2011, 3:37:02 PM12/24/11
to
On 22/12/11 18:59, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> Phase velocity is fine, but group velocity is the speed of
> encoded information! It can't be worse than that (or better,
> depending on your point of view :-) ). And in the CERN
> results, we clearly see the whole pulse shape shifted, so
> it looks like group velocity exceeding c.
That the group velocity can be faster than light without contradicting
> Phase velocity is fine, but group velocity is the speed of
> encoded information! It can't be worse than that (or better,
> depending on your point of view :-) ). And in the CERN
> results, we clearly see the whole pulse shape shifted, so
> it looks like group velocity exceeding c.
the relativistic space-time structure and Einstein causality is known
for more than 100 years. Already in 1907 Sommerfeld answered Wien's
question, how anomalous dispersion of electromagnetic waves in media,
which always occurs close to a resonance, can be compatible with the
special theory of relativity.
The answer is that nothing in relativity forbids an electromagnetic wave
(and any other kind of wave) to have a group velocity greater than the
speed of light in vacuo. In his short note in 1907 Sommerfeld just gave
a nice explanation by using the analytic properties of the in-medium
dielectric function, which is in modern terms nothing else than a
retarded propagator. It turns out that the velocity of the wave front is
always smaller or equal to c, no matter how fast the phase or group
velocities are. The original paper is in German:
Sommerfeld, A. (1907). Ein Einwand gegen die Relativtheorie der
Elektrodynamik und seine Beseitigung. Phys. Zeitschr.,
8:841--842.
More detailed studies by Sommerfeld and Brillouin in 1914 are given in
the (also German) articles,
Sommerfeld, A. (1914). Über die Fortpflanzung des Lichtes in
dispergierenden Medien. Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 349:177--202
Brillouin, L. (1914). Über die Fortpflanzung des Lichtes in
dispergierenden Medien. Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 349:203
There they investigate in great detail how a (semi-)finite signal
propagates in a medium with normal and anomalous dispersion,
particularly the early-time behavior of the signal when entering the
medium.
As it turns out the physical compatibility of group velocities greater
than c with relativity becomes clear from the fact that the physical
meaning of the group velocity as a measure of the "speed of a wave
packet" (more precisely the speed of the center of the wave packet)
becomes obsolete around a resonance and particularly in the realm of
anomalous dispersion since the corresponding stationary-phase
approximation of the Fourier integral from the frequency to the time
domain becomes obsolete, and a more sophisticated method of
approximation has to be applied, leading to the fascinating phenomena
nowadays called the Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors.
The best English source I know is the translation of Sommerfeld's
Lecture Notes in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 4 (Optics).
Of course this topic is also treated in the usual theory texts on
electromagnetism like Jackson. There you also find a reference to a nice
experimental study on the precursor phenomena:
Pleshko, P. and Palacz, I. (1969). Experimental observation of
Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in the microwave domain. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 22:1201.
Jos Bergervoet
Dec 26, 2011, 3:54:24 AM12/26/11
to
On Dec 24, 9:37 pm, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>
wrote:
is /not/ the speed of encoded information. But in
the case at hand it looks as if the enveloping shape
of the pulse is preserved very well and is transferred
faster than light. Of course the latest shape used in
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
(Figs. 17 and 18) is not a random bit pattern, so it
doesn't /prove/ that information would be transferred
at this speed.
But the shape in the first results was a much
longer pulse with amplitude fluctuations over its
entire length. It was analyzed, as far as I understood,
by assuming a uniform shift in time. So the 60 ns
obtained there actually measured the speed of the
modulation, i.e. the information transfer. (And
admittedly, the term group velocity should better
not be used. Although it is of course the group
velocity if the finding is correct..)
> The best English source I know is the translation of Sommerfeld's
> Lecture Notes in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 4 (Optics).
>
> Of course this topic is also treated in the usual theory texts on
> electromagnetism like Jackson. There you also find a reference to a nice
> experimental study on the precursor phenomena:
And it will be clear that in these cases you certainly won't
see the exact original pulse shape arriving with v>c!
> Pleshko, P. and Palacz, I. (1969). Experimental observation of
> Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in the microwave domain. Phys. Rev.
> Lett., 22:1201.
Merry Christmas to all,
--
Jos
wrote:
> On 22/12/11 18:59, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
...
> > Phase velocity is fine, but group velocity is the speed of
> > encoded information! It can't be worse than that (or better,
> > depending on your point of view :-) ). And in the CERN
> > results, we clearly see the whole pulse shape shifted, so
> > it looks like group velocity exceeding c.
>
> That the group velocity can be faster than light without contradicting
> the relativistic space-time structure and Einstein causality is known
> for more than 100 years.
I was sloppy. There are cases where group velocity
> > encoded information! It can't be worse than that (or better,
> > depending on your point of view :-) ). And in the CERN
> > results, we clearly see the whole pulse shape shifted, so
> > it looks like group velocity exceeding c.
>
> That the group velocity can be faster than light without contradicting
> the relativistic space-time structure and Einstein causality is known
> for more than 100 years.
is /not/ the speed of encoded information. But in
the case at hand it looks as if the enveloping shape
of the pulse is preserved very well and is transferred
faster than light. Of course the latest shape used in
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
(Figs. 17 and 18) is not a random bit pattern, so it
doesn't /prove/ that information would be transferred
at this speed.
But the shape in the first results was a much
longer pulse with amplitude fluctuations over its
entire length. It was analyzed, as far as I understood,
by assuming a uniform shift in time. So the 60 ns
obtained there actually measured the speed of the
modulation, i.e. the information transfer. (And
admittedly, the term group velocity should better
not be used. Although it is of course the group
velocity if the finding is correct..)
> The best English source I know is the translation of Sommerfeld's
> Lecture Notes in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 4 (Optics).
>
> Of course this topic is also treated in the usual theory texts on
> electromagnetism like Jackson. There you also find a reference to a nice
> experimental study on the precursor phenomena:
see the exact original pulse shape arriving with v>c!
> Pleshko, P. and Palacz, I. (1969). Experimental observation of
> Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in the microwave domain. Phys. Rev.
> Lett., 22:1201.
--
Jos
Dr BDO Adams
Jan 11, 2012, 3:12:01 AM1/11/12
to
============================Moderator's note ================================
The Scharnhurst effect is a highly vague hypothesis about the behavior
of em. waves between close conducting plates. It has been claimed that
the refraction index is less than 1 between the plate and thus that
em. waves travel with faster-than light speed. This latter point,
however, has never been proven but only been stated. HvH.
=============================================================================
I think that its caused by the Scharnhurst effect, (anyone rembember
that one, I did soon after I read the OPERA news), increasing the
local speed of a force carrier that interacts mainly with neutrinos,
and the neutrinos of cause. I've blogged about quite loudly, and have
done much of the relevant maths, (lie, I swap the mass of neutrinos
and my force constant, in the Scharnhost formula), and yes it fitted
the 10^-5 increase quite well, for reasonable values of background
field for force on neutrinos. I might write it up for arXiv, if
someone with pass me and endorsement. Meanwhile my investigation of
what neutrinos interacting with an axial force which I wrote some 5
years ago, languishes on Vixra.
I expect there will be many papers on ways to make thing travel faster
than light other the OPERA, result, many of them hogwash.
But it least the Scharnhurst effect, the increase in the speed of light
du=e to a casimir or any negative energy background field density, was
investi=gate in known journals and then survived 10 years plus, with no
citerions t=hat I could find, that killed it. =20 Where does the
negative energy of the axial force field come from then? If neutrino
do interact via a 5 fifth force also shared with one nucleon, than=
dense rock would be pack with them,and at much higher density than they
would like to rest at from they own (analogue too) Bohr
Separation. The positive electromagnetic field of the rock, thus
creates a negative energy for the field the neutrinos interact
with. There still plenty of positive energyin the E-M field, which
doesn't matter because neutrinos are oblivious to it.
There I solved the superluminal neutrino problem, but its not going to
be easy it proof it though.=20
Predictions, same speed increase for all type of neutrinos, same maximum
speed for the same environment, so at CERN energies, no change in the
excess over light speed with energy. The speed up depends on the
density of the medium the neutrino has to pass.=20
The Fermi energy of neutrino, is the main bane of giving neutrinos a
U(1) interaction, eventually i decided i'd need to invoke a very light
circa eV super-symmmetric partner of the neutrino. So another
prediction is that whatever dark matter is, its not the LSP.=20
I post at Axitronics@blogspot and science 2.0, but i'm glad that
S.P.R. is working.
The Scharnhurst effect is a highly vague hypothesis about the behavior
of em. waves between close conducting plates. It has been claimed that
the refraction index is less than 1 between the plate and thus that
em. waves travel with faster-than light speed. This latter point,
however, has never been proven but only been stated. HvH.
=============================================================================
I think that its caused by the Scharnhurst effect, (anyone rembember
that one, I did soon after I read the OPERA news), increasing the
local speed of a force carrier that interacts mainly with neutrinos,
and the neutrinos of cause. I've blogged about quite loudly, and have
done much of the relevant maths, (lie, I swap the mass of neutrinos
and my force constant, in the Scharnhost formula), and yes it fitted
the 10^-5 increase quite well, for reasonable values of background
field for force on neutrinos. I might write it up for arXiv, if
someone with pass me and endorsement. Meanwhile my investigation of
what neutrinos interacting with an axial force which I wrote some 5
years ago, languishes on Vixra.
I expect there will be many papers on ways to make thing travel faster
than light other the OPERA, result, many of them hogwash.
But it least the Scharnhurst effect, the increase in the speed of light
du=e to a casimir or any negative energy background field density, was
investi=gate in known journals and then survived 10 years plus, with no
citerions t=hat I could find, that killed it. =20 Where does the
negative energy of the axial force field come from then? If neutrino
do interact via a 5 fifth force also shared with one nucleon, than=
dense rock would be pack with them,and at much higher density than they
would like to rest at from they own (analogue too) Bohr
Separation. The positive electromagnetic field of the rock, thus
creates a negative energy for the field the neutrinos interact
with. There still plenty of positive energyin the E-M field, which
doesn't matter because neutrinos are oblivious to it.
There I solved the superluminal neutrino problem, but its not going to
be easy it proof it though.=20
Predictions, same speed increase for all type of neutrinos, same maximum
speed for the same environment, so at CERN energies, no change in the
excess over light speed with energy. The speed up depends on the
density of the medium the neutrino has to pass.=20
The Fermi energy of neutrino, is the main bane of giving neutrinos a
U(1) interaction, eventually i decided i'd need to invoke a very light
circa eV super-symmmetric partner of the neutrino. So another
prediction is that whatever dark matter is, its not the LSP.=20
I post at Axitronics@blogspot and science 2.0, but i'm glad that
S.P.R. is working.
raymond
Jan 13, 2012, 5:46:51 PM1/13/12
to
[[Mod. note -- 53 excessively-quoted lines snipped here. -- jt]]
i wonder why experiment monitoring neutrino activities from the sun
from
one side of the earth (day side) and then crossing the earth to the
exact
opposite side (night side) and then comparing results have not been
consider for explaining the superluminal anomaly?
this type of procedure gives a more general perspective of what
its truly going on with this leptons coming from the best sources
available.
nature
r.y
[[Mod. note -- The solar neutrino flux is only weakly & slowly time-varying
(annually, due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit), so the OPERA
technique of correlating the pulse shape at different detectors wouldn't
work here. And since the only way to observe an individual neutrino is
to have it interact with some other particle (with the side effect that
the neutrino is either scattered to a new trajectory, or destroyed
altogether), there's no way to measure the time-of-flight of individual
neutrinos. So... there's no obvious way to do your proposed experiment. :(
-- jt]]
i wonder why experiment monitoring neutrino activities from the sun
from
one side of the earth (day side) and then crossing the earth to the
exact
opposite side (night side) and then comparing results have not been
consider for explaining the superluminal anomaly?
this type of procedure gives a more general perspective of what
its truly going on with this leptons coming from the best sources
available.
nature
r.y
[[Mod. note -- The solar neutrino flux is only weakly & slowly time-varying
(annually, due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit), so the OPERA
technique of correlating the pulse shape at different detectors wouldn't
work here. And since the only way to observe an individual neutrino is
to have it interact with some other particle (with the side effect that
the neutrino is either scattered to a new trajectory, or destroyed
altogether), there's no way to measure the time-of-flight of individual
neutrinos. So... there's no obvious way to do your proposed experiment. :(
-- jt]]
0 new messages