Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
follow up to superluminal neutrinos?
8 views
Skip to first unread message
clifford wright
Jan 12, 2012, 7:01:56 AM1/12/12
to
Recently I have been doing some historical research into the debate on this
CERN experiment. As despite being a retired electronics engineer I have a
degree majoring in the history of science and engineering, I flatter myself
that I am properly qualified to do such research. I am also an experienced
amateur astronomer who has taken part in research projects over many decades
including observations of 1987a.
Frankly I was amazed by what I discovered-
Again and again I saw quoted that the results MUST be incorrect because of
the timing of the Neutrinos observed from Supernova 1987a. In History we call
this selective analysis!
I discovered that 3 detectors had a total of 24 events which slightly
preceded the arrival of the visible light. That is apparently quite true.
However NONE of those using this argument once mentioned that the LVD
detector at Mt Blanc had 5 events 5 HOURS ahead of the light burst!
I appeal to the group moderator to post this as it behoves the Physics
community to look at ALL the data available. Is it too much to ask that they
try and do it with an open mind?
Clifford Wright.
CERN experiment. As despite being a retired electronics engineer I have a
degree majoring in the history of science and engineering, I flatter myself
that I am properly qualified to do such research. I am also an experienced
amateur astronomer who has taken part in research projects over many decades
including observations of 1987a.
Frankly I was amazed by what I discovered-
Again and again I saw quoted that the results MUST be incorrect because of
the timing of the Neutrinos observed from Supernova 1987a. In History we call
this selective analysis!
I discovered that 3 detectors had a total of 24 events which slightly
preceded the arrival of the visible light. That is apparently quite true.
However NONE of those using this argument once mentioned that the LVD
detector at Mt Blanc had 5 events 5 HOURS ahead of the light burst!
I appeal to the group moderator to post this as it behoves the Physics
community to look at ALL the data available. Is it too much to ask that they
try and do it with an open mind?
Clifford Wright.
Oliver Jennrich
Jan 13, 2012, 5:40:24 PM1/13/12
to
clifford wright <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> writes:
> Recently I have been doing some historical research into the debate on this
> CERN experiment. As despite being a retired electronics engineer I have a
> degree majoring in the history of science and engineering, I flatter myself
> that I am properly qualified to do such research. I am also an experienced
> amateur astronomer who has taken part in research projects over many decades
> including observations of 1987a.
>
> Frankly I was amazed by what I discovered-
> Again and again I saw quoted that the results MUST be incorrect because of
> the timing of the Neutrinos observed from Supernova 1987a. In History we call
> this selective analysis!
> I discovered that 3 detectors had a total of 24 events which slightly
> preceded the arrival of the visible light.
By about three hours, yes.
> Recently I have been doing some historical research into the debate on this
> CERN experiment. As despite being a retired electronics engineer I have a
> degree majoring in the history of science and engineering, I flatter myself
> that I am properly qualified to do such research. I am also an experienced
> amateur astronomer who has taken part in research projects over many decades
> including observations of 1987a.
>
> Frankly I was amazed by what I discovered-
> Again and again I saw quoted that the results MUST be incorrect because of
> the timing of the Neutrinos observed from Supernova 1987a. In History we call
> this selective analysis!
> I discovered that 3 detectors had a total of 24 events which slightly
> preceded the arrival of the visible light.
> That is apparently quite true. However NONE of those using this
> argument once mentioned that the LVD detector at Mt Blanc had 5 events
> 5 HOURS ahead of the light burst!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#Neutrino_emissions) it is a bit
beyond belief that this would not have been reported in the literature.
And, contrary to your assertion, it is:
Aglietta et al., "On the event observed in the Mont Blanc Underground
Neutrino Observatory during the occurrence of supernova 1987a.",
Europhys. Lett. (3) 1987
Krauss, L. M., "Neutrino spectroscopy of supernova 1987A", Nature (329)
1987
Just to name two publications that came up in a *very* short research.
--
Space - The final frontier
clifford wright
Jan 14, 2012, 4:03:02 PM1/14/12
to
Oliver Jennrich <oliver....@gmx.net> wrote in
news:yg1obu8...@ID-371.news.uni-berlin.de:
WELL! that is very interesting, if correct, I must confess that I have
not got a specially high opinion of Wikipedia based on previous
experience. I will have to do some follow up, but from memory I
distinctly remember the "time lag" between Neutrino detection and
optical detection being quoted as a few minutes. That would be of the
correct order if our Supernova theory is correct as the star core
collapses. I was basing my complaints largely on this groups postings
combined with reading some of the papers on the CERN experiments
available on line.
You will of course note that BOTH papers you cite are from 1987 at the
time of the LMC supernova. That was NOT my point, the information
obviously exists and has been published. My point was that very many of
those that recently refused to accept ANY possiblity of "superluminal"
Neutrinos, quoted the first 3 results and ignored, or failed to mention
the Mt Blanc result. As an historian as well as an engineer this would
be frowned on as deliberate ignoring of known facts when making a case.
We are supposed to be doing SCIENCE not ignoring the results of our
experiments if they do not agree (even slighty) with current theory.
news:yg1obu8...@ID-371.news.uni-berlin.de:
not got a specially high opinion of Wikipedia based on previous
experience. I will have to do some follow up, but from memory I
distinctly remember the "time lag" between Neutrino detection and
optical detection being quoted as a few minutes. That would be of the
correct order if our Supernova theory is correct as the star core
collapses. I was basing my complaints largely on this groups postings
combined with reading some of the papers on the CERN experiments
available on line.
You will of course note that BOTH papers you cite are from 1987 at the
time of the LMC supernova. That was NOT my point, the information
obviously exists and has been published. My point was that very many of
those that recently refused to accept ANY possiblity of "superluminal"
Neutrinos, quoted the first 3 results and ignored, or failed to mention
the Mt Blanc result. As an historian as well as an engineer this would
be frowned on as deliberate ignoring of known facts when making a case.
We are supposed to be doing SCIENCE not ignoring the results of our
experiments if they do not agree (even slighty) with current theory.
0 new messages