Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
fast neutrinos?
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Puppet_Sock
Sep 23, 2011, 7:29:06 AM9/23/11
to
So a news story is going round the net.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos
Assuming that these folks have not simply
got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
relativity properly into account. Moving along
the surface of the Earth in a north-south
direction, while keeping the same elevation
above local sea level, means you are moving
in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
means your relative time rate is changing due
to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
doing the math in my head to estimate if the
effect is the right size to account for this report.
They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
range to be a relativistic effect?
Socks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos
Assuming that these folks have not simply
got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
relativity properly into account. Moving along
the surface of the Earth in a north-south
direction, while keeping the same elevation
above local sea level, means you are moving
in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
means your relative time rate is changing due
to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
doing the math in my head to estimate if the
effect is the right size to account for this report.
They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
range to be a relativistic effect?
Socks
Rich L.
Sep 24, 2011, 8:46:55 AM9/24/11
to
I am very skeptical of this report. The reported time difference, 60
nanoseconds, is so short, and the distance so great, that I wonder how
they can be sure the timing is so good? To put this into perspective,
the 60 secondtime difference corresponds to a propagation distance in
vacuum of only 60feet. How did they synchronize the clocks in the two
locations 730km apart? By radio waves? If so, how did they model the
exact propagation path so accurately. By coax cable? If so, again how
did they calculate the exact length of cable so accurately. If they did
it via round trip signal delays, there is still the problem of modeling
the exact propagation path so that the signal delay is the same (or
correctable to) the neutrino propagation delay. I'd need to read the
paper (which I haven't done yet) to assess the experimental method, but
I see these as very difficult problems over such a long distance,
especially when the neutrinos are necessarily following a path different
from the timing signals.
Rich L.
nanoseconds, is so short, and the distance so great, that I wonder how
they can be sure the timing is so good? To put this into perspective,
the 60 secondtime difference corresponds to a propagation distance in
vacuum of only 60feet. How did they synchronize the clocks in the two
locations 730km apart? By radio waves? If so, how did they model the
exact propagation path so accurately. By coax cable? If so, again how
did they calculate the exact length of cable so accurately. If they did
it via round trip signal delays, there is still the problem of modeling
the exact propagation path so that the signal delay is the same (or
correctable to) the neutrino propagation delay. I'd need to read the
paper (which I haven't done yet) to assess the experimental method, but
I see these as very difficult problems over such a long distance,
especially when the neutrinos are necessarily following a path different
from the timing signals.
Rich L.
eric gisse
Sep 24, 2011, 8:46:57 AM9/24/11
to
Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:791ec0f9-eb99-464f...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-
particl
> es-neutrinos
That picture is wrong. Neutrinos do not show up in cloud chambers.
The SuperK PMT chamber would be a better picture, or perhaps the 'shadow
of the moon' composite picture...
>
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
>
>
( Actual preprint link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 )
Yeah.
Sortof. It isn't like we are sending clocks along with the neutrinos,
and measuring that but rather it reads like this is a direct time-of-
flight test.
Personally I think it is slightly more likely that absent a systematic
effect, the source comes from uncertainty in the distance measurement
because light speed is about a foot per nanosecond and a 60 foot error
in a 640km beam through the Earth (Remember, Earth = not flat) is not
the most unlikely of things.
If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
news:791ec0f9-eb99-464f...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-
particl
> es-neutrinos
The SuperK PMT chamber would be a better picture, or perhaps the 'shadow
of the moon' composite picture...
>
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
>
>
Yeah.
Sortof. It isn't like we are sending clocks along with the neutrinos,
and measuring that but rather it reads like this is a direct time-of-
flight test.
Personally I think it is slightly more likely that absent a systematic
effect, the source comes from uncertainty in the distance measurement
because light speed is about a foot per nanosecond and a 60 foot error
in a 640km beam through the Earth (Remember, Earth = not flat) is not
the most unlikely of things.
If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
drl
Sep 24, 2011, 7:14:01 PM9/24/11
to
On Sep 23, 7:29 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-parti...
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
>
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
Assuming they have ruled out systematic errors (a lot of apparatus, so
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
a huge task), then they still have to know precisely the geometry of
the crust as well as precisely when the neutrinos are emitted. I don't
believe they know either with absolute precision. In any case, the
speed of light is a fact of geometry, not of matter, and is 1
everywhere that matter exists "in" spacetime, and not some amalgam of
"spacetimematter" that has a wider transformation group.
-drl
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Sep 24, 2011, 7:14:31 PM9/24/11
to
On Sep 24, 7:46 am, "Rich L." <ralivings...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I am very skeptical of this report. The reported time difference, 60
> nanoseconds, is so short, and the distance so great, that I wonder how
> they can be sure the timing is so good? To put this into perspective,
> the 60 secondtime difference corresponds to a propagation distance in
> vacuum of only 60feet. How did they synchronize the clocks in the two
> locations 730km apart? By radio waves? If so, how did they model th=
> I am very skeptical of this report. The reported time difference, 60
> nanoseconds, is so short, and the distance so great, that I wonder how
> they can be sure the timing is so good? To put this into perspective,
> the 60 secondtime difference corresponds to a propagation distance in
> vacuum of only 60feet. How did they synchronize the clocks in the two
e
> exact propagation path so accurately. By coax cable? If so, again h=
ow
> did they calculate the exact length of cable so accurately. If they di=
d
> it via round trip signal delays, there is still the problem of modeling
> the exact propagation path so that the signal delay is the same (or
> correctable to) the neutrino propagation delay. I'd need to read the
> paper (which I haven't done yet) to assess the experimental method, but
> I see these as very difficult problems over such a long distance,
> especially when the neutrinos are necessarily following a path different
> from the timing signals.
>
> Rich L.
I am wondering if it makes a difference that the measurements were
> it via round trip signal delays, there is still the problem of modeling
> the exact propagation path so that the signal delay is the same (or
> correctable to) the neutrino propagation delay. I'd need to read the
> paper (which I haven't done yet) to assess the experimental method, but
> I see these as very difficult problems over such a long distance,
> especially when the neutrinos are necessarily following a path different
> from the timing signals.
>
> Rich L.
taken on a non-inertial rotating frame (the earth spinning on its
axis). Maybe that would account for the measurement. I admit that I
am sufficiently ignorant of relativity to perform the calculations.
But I didn't see any attempt to figure this into the calculations in
the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897.
Rich L.
Sep 25, 2011, 5:38:08 AM9/25/11
to
In my earlier post I failed to consider GPS as a way to sychonize timing
equipment at the two locations. According to Wikipedia GPS time is
accurate to 14ns (to 1 sigma at the receiver, I assume). Considering
two locations with separate GPS receivers the net timing accuracy would
be 19.8ns. I don't know to what extent this can be improved by
averaging many calculations, nor to what extent there might be
systematic errors due to atmospheric conditions, etc. 60 ns still
impresses me as a very small effect, and I'd like to see anyone else
duplicate this result before I'd believe it.
equipment at the two locations. According to Wikipedia GPS time is
accurate to 14ns (to 1 sigma at the receiver, I assume). Considering
two locations with separate GPS receivers the net timing accuracy would
be 19.8ns. I don't know to what extent this can be improved by
averaging many calculations, nor to what extent there might be
systematic errors due to atmospheric conditions, etc. 60 ns still
impresses me as a very small effect, and I'd like to see anyone else
duplicate this result before I'd believe it.
Rich
Anon E. Mouse
Sep 26, 2011, 3:15:26 AM9/26/11
to
On Sep 24, 7:14=A0pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <step...@missouri.edu>
wrote:
> > I am very skeptical of this report. =A0The reported time difference, 60
o
> > locations 730km apart? =A0By radio waves? =A0If so, how did they model =
th=3D
> e
> > exact propagation path so accurately. =A0By coax cable? =A0If so, again=
h=3D
> ow
> > did they calculate the exact length of cable so accurately. =A0If they =
di=3D
was first observed in canon fire and was eventually found to be caused
by Coriolis effect. I computed the worst case, a shot due east along
the equator and got a apparent distance reduction during a 730km
flight of 1.13 meters. This factor does not seem to be mentioned
anywhere in the paper and so could be a source of systemic error and
an error in the direction of a shorter flight distance as thus a
shorter time of flight. However, this factor alone, estimated worst
case as so actual foreshortening of flight distance is less than my
rough estimate seems insufficient for the difference found.
The second source of systemic error the change in relative rate of
time passage due to the difference in Earth center elevation and thus
difference in the space-time density of the gravitational field
between the source at Cern and the detector at Gran Sasso I did not
find in the paper at all. I can not estimate the effect of this
without the elevation data, not to my finding given in the body of the
paper. Of course this information is available somewhere, but because
I did not find this information upon first a casual reading I suspect
it may be a source of systemic error which could account for the data
reported.
Because matter is composed of mass, but all the mass is clustered in
the nucleus the density of space time nearly about the nucleus is
actually lower than that of the vacuum of outer space. Thus a beam
passing through the (non-nuclear)vacuum space beneath the Earth's
crust could be found to be of lower specific gravity than the vacuum
of outer space.
By applying the theory, principles, and mathematics of relativity more
precisely than appears to have been done in this case the gap between
the predicted time of flight for muon nutrinos and the measured time
of flight may be found to be much closer than is reported in this
article.
The authors do not show their work in terms of calculating the
TOFsub_c but the result they report seems consistent with a
calculation based on TOFc =3D distance*c.
This simple calculation would have the unstated and incorrect
assumption of a uniformly rotating frame of reference being equivalent
to a stationary frame - or no Coriolis effect and the apparent neglect
of the prediction of general relativity that changing elevation in a
gravity well will effect the TOFc, for particles having and apparent
mass, such as muon neutrinos.
In keeping with the general effects of precession of the equinox and
the bending of light the flight of neutrinos should be effected by
gravitation in a way that would give a shorter time of flight, even if
the source and observation locations were at the same relative radius,
but this effect should be found to be well below the limits of
precision expressed in this article.
If there is error to be found I predict that it will be found in the
simplistic method used to calculate the predicted time of flight and
not in the direct measurement of either distance or time.
Interestingly, the effect of the acceleration caused by constant
rotary motion here on Earth was first dealt with by Einstein himself
in his 1905 paper, and I have not, as yet, found any error in that
portion of his work!
There are rumors floating about that his 1917 paper is even better, as
it details a method by which one may correctly calculate and predict
the effects of both accelerations due to relative motion (subtly
different than Coriolis effect) and those due to gravitation.
In conclusion, these authors do seem to accurately report a Muon
neutrino particle wave moving in excess of the presently accepted
speed of light. However, this result was previously reported by Bailey
et al for atmospheric muon decays, however in that paper the raw TOFc
calculation was corrected for change in elevation and the result was
then found to be consistent with the predictions of general
relativity. Perhaps that will be the case here as well if such a
calculation is undertaken by these authors.
wrote:
> > I am very skeptical of this report. =A0The reported time difference, 60
> > nanoseconds, is so short, and the distance so great, that I wonder how
> > they can be sure the timing is so good? =A0To put this into perspective=
,
> > the 60 secondtime difference corresponds to a propagation distance in
> > vacuum of only 60feet. =A0How did they synchronize the clocks in the tw=
> > the 60 secondtime difference corresponds to a propagation distance in
o
> > locations 730km apart? =A0By radio waves? =A0If so, how did they model =
th=3D
> e
> > exact propagation path so accurately. =A0By coax cable? =A0If so, again=
h=3D
> ow
> > did they calculate the exact length of cable so accurately. =A0If they =
di=3D
> d
> > it via round trip signal delays, there is still the problem of modeling
> > the exact propagation path so that the signal delay is the same (or
> > correctable to) the neutrino propagation delay. =A0I'd need to read the
> > it via round trip signal delays, there is still the problem of modeling
> > the exact propagation path so that the signal delay is the same (or
> > paper (which I haven't done yet) to assess the experimental method, but
> > I see these as very difficult problems over such a long distance,
> > especially when the neutrinos are necessarily following a path differen=
> > I see these as very difficult problems over such a long distance,
t
> > from the timing signals.
>
> > Rich L.
>
> I am wondering if it makes a difference that the measurements were
> taken on a non-inertial rotating frame (the earth spinning on its
> axis). =A0Maybe that would account for the measurement. =A0I admit that I
> > from the timing signals.
>
> > Rich L.
>
> I am wondering if it makes a difference that the measurements were
> taken on a non-inertial rotating frame (the earth spinning on its
> am sufficiently ignorant of relativity to perform the calculations.
> But I didn't see any attempt to figure this into the calculations in
> the paperhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897.
The difference due to non-inertial rotating frame of reference effects
> But I didn't see any attempt to figure this into the calculations in
> the paperhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897.
was first observed in canon fire and was eventually found to be caused
by Coriolis effect. I computed the worst case, a shot due east along
the equator and got a apparent distance reduction during a 730km
flight of 1.13 meters. This factor does not seem to be mentioned
anywhere in the paper and so could be a source of systemic error and
an error in the direction of a shorter flight distance as thus a
shorter time of flight. However, this factor alone, estimated worst
case as so actual foreshortening of flight distance is less than my
rough estimate seems insufficient for the difference found.
The second source of systemic error the change in relative rate of
time passage due to the difference in Earth center elevation and thus
difference in the space-time density of the gravitational field
between the source at Cern and the detector at Gran Sasso I did not
find in the paper at all. I can not estimate the effect of this
without the elevation data, not to my finding given in the body of the
paper. Of course this information is available somewhere, but because
I did not find this information upon first a casual reading I suspect
it may be a source of systemic error which could account for the data
reported.
Because matter is composed of mass, but all the mass is clustered in
the nucleus the density of space time nearly about the nucleus is
actually lower than that of the vacuum of outer space. Thus a beam
passing through the (non-nuclear)vacuum space beneath the Earth's
crust could be found to be of lower specific gravity than the vacuum
of outer space.
By applying the theory, principles, and mathematics of relativity more
precisely than appears to have been done in this case the gap between
the predicted time of flight for muon nutrinos and the measured time
of flight may be found to be much closer than is reported in this
article.
The authors do not show their work in terms of calculating the
TOFsub_c but the result they report seems consistent with a
calculation based on TOFc =3D distance*c.
This simple calculation would have the unstated and incorrect
assumption of a uniformly rotating frame of reference being equivalent
to a stationary frame - or no Coriolis effect and the apparent neglect
of the prediction of general relativity that changing elevation in a
gravity well will effect the TOFc, for particles having and apparent
mass, such as muon neutrinos.
In keeping with the general effects of precession of the equinox and
the bending of light the flight of neutrinos should be effected by
gravitation in a way that would give a shorter time of flight, even if
the source and observation locations were at the same relative radius,
but this effect should be found to be well below the limits of
precision expressed in this article.
If there is error to be found I predict that it will be found in the
simplistic method used to calculate the predicted time of flight and
not in the direct measurement of either distance or time.
Interestingly, the effect of the acceleration caused by constant
rotary motion here on Earth was first dealt with by Einstein himself
in his 1905 paper, and I have not, as yet, found any error in that
portion of his work!
There are rumors floating about that his 1917 paper is even better, as
it details a method by which one may correctly calculate and predict
the effects of both accelerations due to relative motion (subtly
different than Coriolis effect) and those due to gravitation.
In conclusion, these authors do seem to accurately report a Muon
neutrino particle wave moving in excess of the presently accepted
speed of light. However, this result was previously reported by Bailey
et al for atmospheric muon decays, however in that paper the raw TOFc
calculation was corrected for change in elevation and the result was
then found to be consistent with the predictions of general
relativity. Perhaps that will be the case here as well if such a
calculation is undertaken by these authors.
Dr J R Stockton
Sep 26, 2011, 3:15:26 AM9/26/11
to
In sci.physics.research message <3952418.1733.1316828254065.JavaMail.geo
-discussion-forums@yqmw31>, Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:46:55, Rich L.
<ralivi...@sbcglobal.net> posted:
Position and time can be measured with considerable accuracy by using
modern GPS, between sites which can see several GPS satellites,
particularly between stationary stations equipped with atomic clocks.
If necessary, one hopes that they have benefited from the military
signals
Atomic clocks can be portable; after all, each GPS satellite has at
least one.
The difficulty may lie in transferring from the "GPS points" to the site
of the actual neutrino measurements. For example, if the measurements
are taken below ground, it will be necessary to determine the local
vertical accurately. In lumpy countries like Switzerland and Italy,
gravity will not be exactly downwards; consider
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion#The_Schiehallion_experiment>.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)
-discussion-forums@yqmw31>, Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:46:55, Rich L.
<ralivi...@sbcglobal.net> posted:
modern GPS, between sites which can see several GPS satellites,
particularly between stationary stations equipped with atomic clocks.
If necessary, one hopes that they have benefited from the military
signals
Atomic clocks can be portable; after all, each GPS satellite has at
least one.
The difficulty may lie in transferring from the "GPS points" to the site
of the actual neutrino measurements. For example, if the measurements
are taken below ground, it will be necessary to determine the local
vertical accurately. In lumpy countries like Switzerland and Italy,
gravity will not be exactly downwards; consider
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion#The_Schiehallion_experiment>.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)
Dr J R Stockton
Sep 26, 2011, 11:43:04 AM9/26/11
to
In sci.physics.research message <3952418.1733.1316828254065.JavaMail.geo
-discussion-forums@yqmw31>, Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:46:55, Rich L.
<ralivi...@sbcglobal.net> posted:
-discussion-forums@yqmw31>, Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:46:55, Rich L.
<ralivi...@sbcglobal.net> posted:
Robert L. Oldershaw
Sep 26, 2011, 4:56:13 PM9/26/11
to
On Sep 24, 8:46=A0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
> baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
> trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
> baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
> trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
(1) There is the minor inconvenience that the OPERA result is in
serious conflict with the photon and neutrino arrival times (OPERA
result would predict a difference of years, while real-world
observations measured hours) observed for SN 1987A.
[Moderator's note: The SN1987A results are for other neutrino types, so
a comparison isn't straightforward. -P.H.]
(2) Note that this latest "mystery result" from our intrepid particle
physicists is touted by its proponents as a 6-sigma event! The
typical Platonist puts that right into the "can't be wrong" category.
I think we may learn something about statistical reasoning from this
latest excercise in pseudo-reality.
[Moderator's note: To be fair, while formally it is a six-sigma result,
of course there can always be systematic errors, and that is the purpose
of the publication: here's what we did, here's the formal result, you
probably don't believe it, we probably don't believe it, take a look and
show us where we went wrong. I'm sure some consideration took place
between the results and the publication. This is the honourable thing
to do; surely you don't suggest suppressing a result just because it
goes against the current paradigm?! -P.H.]
(3) I'll bet the whole farm against one double-latte that Albert is
right on this one, as he was with all the previous false-positives.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
David Staup
Sep 27, 2011, 3:00:40 AM9/27/11
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:d3333a59-164f-4726...@8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
not have had three peaks in arrival times of what ever type you were
detecting?
news:d3333a59-164f-4726...@8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 8:46=A0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
>> baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
>> trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) There is the minor inconvenience that the OPERA result is in
> serious conflict with the photon and neutrino arrival times (OPERA
> result would predict a difference of years, while real-world
> observations measured hours) observed for SN 1987A.
>
> [Moderator's note: The SN1987A results are for other neutrino types, so
> a comparison isn't straightforward. -P.H.]
If neutrinos oscillate (and have slightly different masses) then would you
>>
>> If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
>> baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
>> trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) There is the minor inconvenience that the OPERA result is in
> serious conflict with the photon and neutrino arrival times (OPERA
> result would predict a difference of years, while real-world
> observations measured hours) observed for SN 1987A.
>
> [Moderator's note: The SN1987A results are for other neutrino types, so
> a comparison isn't straightforward. -P.H.]
not have had three peaks in arrival times of what ever type you were
detecting?
eric gisse
Sep 27, 2011, 3:00:41 AM9/27/11
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:d3333a59-
164f-4726-acd...@8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 24, 8:46=A0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
>> baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
>> trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) There is the minor inconvenience that the OPERA result is in
> serious conflict with the photon and neutrino arrival times (OPERA
> result would predict a difference of years, while real-world
> observations measured hours) observed for SN 1987A.
Not relevant. You can shove a neutrino through a light year of lead and
only have something like a 50% shot of it not making it through.
The neutrino pulse from a core collapse SNE will always, always get here
first because the fact is that photons take time to scatter out and have
the news visually reach the surface of a star.
>
> [Moderator's note: The SN1987A results are for other neutrino types, so
> a comparison isn't straightforward. -P.H.]
>
> (2) Note that this latest "mystery result" from our intrepid particle
> physicists is touted by its proponents as a 6-sigma event! The
> typical Platonist puts that right into the "can't be wrong" category.
> I think we may learn something about statistical reasoning from this
> latest excercise in pseudo-reality.
You need to learn a little physics.
A six sigma result means that assuming the error budget is correctly
handled, which in this case is highly doubtful in terms of the location of
the pulse center as well as the geodesy, then the odds of a normal
distribution of results allowing a result that far away from the mean is
something like one in a billion.
It does not mean the result is unassailable.
Note that your theory is excluded from observation by far, far more than
that. I note a lack of equivalent skepticism.
[...]
164f-4726-acd...@8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 24, 8:46=A0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the effect is real, then it can be modulated with variable
>> baseline experiments and independently confirmed. Then 117 people get a
>> trip to Stockholm, and the standard model + SR get smashed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) There is the minor inconvenience that the OPERA result is in
> serious conflict with the photon and neutrino arrival times (OPERA
> result would predict a difference of years, while real-world
> observations measured hours) observed for SN 1987A.
only have something like a 50% shot of it not making it through.
The neutrino pulse from a core collapse SNE will always, always get here
first because the fact is that photons take time to scatter out and have
the news visually reach the surface of a star.
>
> [Moderator's note: The SN1987A results are for other neutrino types, so
> a comparison isn't straightforward. -P.H.]
>
> (2) Note that this latest "mystery result" from our intrepid particle
> physicists is touted by its proponents as a 6-sigma event! The
> typical Platonist puts that right into the "can't be wrong" category.
> I think we may learn something about statistical reasoning from this
> latest excercise in pseudo-reality.
A six sigma result means that assuming the error budget is correctly
handled, which in this case is highly doubtful in terms of the location of
the pulse center as well as the geodesy, then the odds of a normal
distribution of results allowing a result that far away from the mean is
something like one in a billion.
It does not mean the result is unassailable.
Note that your theory is excluded from observation by far, far more than
that. I note a lack of equivalent skepticism.
[...]
Frisbieinstein
Sep 29, 2011, 5:59:39 PM9/29/11
to
On Sep 23, 7:29 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-parti...
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
>
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
If the result is from CERN I would think they would have had quite a
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
few very good minds going over the result. On the other hand if it is
real, then why don't neutrinos emit Cherenkov radiation?
intuitionist1
Sep 29, 2011, 6:00:09 PM9/29/11
to
On Sep 23, 12:29 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-parti...
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
>
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
Suppose that the claim is correct, and neutrinos do indeed travel
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account. Moving along
> the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> direction, while keeping the same elevation
> above local sea level, means you are moving
> in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> means your relative time rate is changing due
> to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> effect is the right size to account for this report.
> They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> range to be a relativistic effect?
> Socks
faster than the speed of light. Would that not suggest that relativity
is likely to be an emergent theory rather than a fundamental one
(consider for example Hagen Kleinert's world crystal model, which
seems also to be supported by Padmanabhan's recent work)?
In that context, I am also reminded of the neutrino theory of light,
developed by Jordan et al based upon an original idea of de Broglie,
where the photon is modelled as a neutrino-antineutrino pair,
presumably with the two neutrinos in some kind of helical motion about
each other - if the photon travels at the speed of light (i.e. this is
the average velocity of the rotating pair of particles), then the
constituent neutrinos would have to travel just that little bit faster
due to the additional rotation about their mean position.
If the world crystal model is correct, it would also be natural to
expect that gravitational interactions can also propagate faster than
the speed of light.
Best wishes,
Sabbir.
harald
Sep 29, 2011, 6:00:40 PM9/29/11
to
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:791ec0f9-eb99-464f...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
I suppose that you mean the motion of the labs while the neutrinos
travel from one lab to the other.
The second order effects that you refer to are negligible. There's also
a first order effect.
However, assuming that they overlooked that "Sagnac" effect, it's still
not enough.
The max. effect from motion of labs is with the trajectory along the
equator:
40000 km / (24*3600 s) = 0.46 km/s.
Their paper, if I saw it correctly, suggests a fault of about 7.5km/s.
news:791ec0f9-eb99-464f...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
travel from one lab to the other.
The second order effects that you refer to are negligible. There's also
a first order effect.
However, assuming that they overlooked that "Sagnac" effect, it's still
not enough.
The max. effect from motion of labs is with the trajectory along the
equator:
40000 km / (24*3600 s) = 0.46 km/s.
Their paper, if I saw it correctly, suggests a fault of about 7.5km/s.
GSS
Sep 30, 2011, 2:44:52 AM9/30/11
to
On Sep 30, 3:00=A0am, "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
..
Let me present a completely different point of view.
Neutrino time of flight anomaly is not a case of superluminal neutrino
velocity. It is a natural consequence of not accounting for the
absolute motion of the neutrino target in space. But the special
theory of Relativity (SR), through the operation of its second
postulate, rules out the existence of any absolute motion. Hence the
neutrino time of flight anomaly is essentially challenging the
validity of the second postulate of SR.
Let us consider the time of flight of a signal pulse from a
transmitter A on the ground to a receiver B on a spacecraft. At an
instant t1 let a signal pulse be emitted from the transmitter when the
instantaneous locations of A and B are A1 and B1 in space. Let the
signal pulse reach B at an instant t2 when the instantaneous locations
of A and B are A2 and B2 respectively in space. The total time of
flight of the signal pulse will now depend on the instantaneous
separation distance A1B1 as well as the distance B1B2 which represents
the motion of the receiver during the pulse propagation time. For
monitoring any spacecraft the motion of the receiver, during the
signal pulse propagation time, is always taken into account.
In the case of OPERA neutrino experiment, the absolute motion of the
neutrino target (in the direction of the source) during the neutrino
flight time influences the total flight time of the neutrino bunch.
The known motions of the earth around the sun and that of the solar
system within the galaxy, obviously contribute to the absolute motion
of the neutrino 'source and the target' in space. Since this absolute
motion of the neutrino target has not been taken into account, it has
resulted in the present time of flight anomaly.
In this experiment, the effect of absolute motion gets mitigated to
some extent due to the continuous synchronization of the source and
target master clocks with the GPS time. This effect will produce a
greater neutrino time of flight anomaly if instead of GPS synchronized
clocks, two primary standard Cs atomic clocks are used at the source
and target locations. Of course these two master clocks will have to
be first mutually synchronized in close by position before moving them
to the two locations. Then the times of flight of neutrino bunches
measured during a 24 hour cycle will show a cyclic variation (over and
above some constant anomaly) of their time of flight during the 24
hour period. This experiment can be repeated within the existing
facility without any major alterations. Alternatively, the two master
clocks at the source and target sites may be allowed to run free
(without GPS link) after initially synchronizing them with the GPS
time. The neutrino flight time measurements conducted during 24 hour
period of 'stand alone' operation of the master clocks will show a
larger time of flight anomaly.
In this regard kindly refer to my paper titled, "Proposed experiment
for detection of absolute motion" published in Physics Essays [Phys.
Essays 23, 442 (2010)].
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Abs=
olute_motion.pdf?attredirects=3D0&d=3D1
Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We establish by
definition that the time required by light to travel from A to B
equals the time it requires to travel from B to A." This arbitrary
definition of 'time' constitutes a fundamental departure from the
Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has ultimately obscured the
notion of absolute motion. Einstein had essentially employed his
second postulate to establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from
B to A.
Let me outline the above referred 'proposed experiment' to show the
invalidity of the second postulate of SR. Let us consider two points A
and B fixed on the surface of earth and aligned along east-west
direction. Let the separation distance AB be about 30 km. Position two
mutually synchronized identical precision atomic clocks at stations A
and B. Now as part of the experiment, send a light pulse from A to B
and record its time of flight with the two clocks at A and B. Let this
measured time of flight be T_ab. Then send another light pulse from B
to A and record its time of flight with the two clocks. Let this
measured time of flight be T_ba. Repeat these 'to and fro' time of
flight measurements for a period of 24 hours. Plot the difference in
the 'to and fro' flight times, [T_ab-T_ba] over the test period. As
per SR (if the second postulate is true), this 'to and fro' flight
time difference |T_ab-T_ba| must be of the order of zero. On the other
hand, if the second postulate is not true, then the plot of 'to and
fro' flight time differences, [T_ab-T_ba] will be a sinusoidal curve
with amplitude in the range of about 100 to 200 nano-seconds.
Since at present it is extremely important for the scientific
community to "explain the observed neutrino flight time anomaly", it
becomes equally important to actually conduct the 'proposed
experiment' referred above. You are, therefore, requested to kindly
confirm if the 'proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion'
could be conducted at your end.
G S Sandhu
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
..
> I suppose that you mean the motion of the labs while the neutrinos
> travel from one lab to the other.
> ...
> travel from one lab to the other.
Let me present a completely different point of view.
Neutrino time of flight anomaly is not a case of superluminal neutrino
velocity. It is a natural consequence of not accounting for the
absolute motion of the neutrino target in space. But the special
theory of Relativity (SR), through the operation of its second
postulate, rules out the existence of any absolute motion. Hence the
neutrino time of flight anomaly is essentially challenging the
validity of the second postulate of SR.
Let us consider the time of flight of a signal pulse from a
transmitter A on the ground to a receiver B on a spacecraft. At an
instant t1 let a signal pulse be emitted from the transmitter when the
instantaneous locations of A and B are A1 and B1 in space. Let the
signal pulse reach B at an instant t2 when the instantaneous locations
of A and B are A2 and B2 respectively in space. The total time of
flight of the signal pulse will now depend on the instantaneous
separation distance A1B1 as well as the distance B1B2 which represents
the motion of the receiver during the pulse propagation time. For
monitoring any spacecraft the motion of the receiver, during the
signal pulse propagation time, is always taken into account.
In the case of OPERA neutrino experiment, the absolute motion of the
neutrino target (in the direction of the source) during the neutrino
flight time influences the total flight time of the neutrino bunch.
The known motions of the earth around the sun and that of the solar
system within the galaxy, obviously contribute to the absolute motion
of the neutrino 'source and the target' in space. Since this absolute
motion of the neutrino target has not been taken into account, it has
resulted in the present time of flight anomaly.
In this experiment, the effect of absolute motion gets mitigated to
some extent due to the continuous synchronization of the source and
target master clocks with the GPS time. This effect will produce a
greater neutrino time of flight anomaly if instead of GPS synchronized
clocks, two primary standard Cs atomic clocks are used at the source
and target locations. Of course these two master clocks will have to
be first mutually synchronized in close by position before moving them
to the two locations. Then the times of flight of neutrino bunches
measured during a 24 hour cycle will show a cyclic variation (over and
above some constant anomaly) of their time of flight during the 24
hour period. This experiment can be repeated within the existing
facility without any major alterations. Alternatively, the two master
clocks at the source and target sites may be allowed to run free
(without GPS link) after initially synchronizing them with the GPS
time. The neutrino flight time measurements conducted during 24 hour
period of 'stand alone' operation of the master clocks will show a
larger time of flight anomaly.
In this regard kindly refer to my paper titled, "Proposed experiment
for detection of absolute motion" published in Physics Essays [Phys.
Essays 23, 442 (2010)].
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Abs=
olute_motion.pdf?attredirects=3D0&d=3D1
Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We establish by
definition that the time required by light to travel from A to B
equals the time it requires to travel from B to A." This arbitrary
definition of 'time' constitutes a fundamental departure from the
Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has ultimately obscured the
notion of absolute motion. Einstein had essentially employed his
second postulate to establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from
B to A.
Let me outline the above referred 'proposed experiment' to show the
invalidity of the second postulate of SR. Let us consider two points A
and B fixed on the surface of earth and aligned along east-west
direction. Let the separation distance AB be about 30 km. Position two
mutually synchronized identical precision atomic clocks at stations A
and B. Now as part of the experiment, send a light pulse from A to B
and record its time of flight with the two clocks at A and B. Let this
measured time of flight be T_ab. Then send another light pulse from B
to A and record its time of flight with the two clocks. Let this
measured time of flight be T_ba. Repeat these 'to and fro' time of
flight measurements for a period of 24 hours. Plot the difference in
the 'to and fro' flight times, [T_ab-T_ba] over the test period. As
per SR (if the second postulate is true), this 'to and fro' flight
time difference |T_ab-T_ba| must be of the order of zero. On the other
hand, if the second postulate is not true, then the plot of 'to and
fro' flight time differences, [T_ab-T_ba] will be a sinusoidal curve
with amplitude in the range of about 100 to 200 nano-seconds.
Since at present it is extremely important for the scientific
community to "explain the observed neutrino flight time anomaly", it
becomes equally important to actually conduct the 'proposed
experiment' referred above. You are, therefore, requested to kindly
confirm if the 'proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion'
could be conducted at your end.
G S Sandhu
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
Joe Warner
Sep 30, 2011, 6:11:32 AM9/30/11
to
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:791ec0f9-eb99-464f...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> So a news story is going round the net.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos
>
> Assuming that these folks have not simply
> got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> relativity properly into account.
20 ns. They had an outside independent group look things over for
errors and the outside group's suggestion didn't change the
results.
I have a slightly different questions.
Which neutrino were they detecting and its mass?
The other ones on relativity are:
What are the current thoughts on the applicability limits of
relativity?
Does the speed of light apply only to particles with mass?
Does it apply to only hadrons?
Must the maximum speed be the same between mass particles that
are the instruments of the different type of forces in the
universe?
J. J. Lodder
Sep 30, 2011, 4:59:36 AM9/30/11
to
Travel time is order 2 millisecond, earth rotates at about 300 m/s,
(at mid-latitude) so Gran Sasso rotates -away- from CERN
by abaut one meter while a neutrino is in flight.
Note that the effect has the 'wrong' sign:
The earth rotates from west to east,
increasing the path length,
hence the speed excess,
Jan
Aetherist
Oct 1, 2011, 4:39:11 AM10/1/11
to
affect predicted in Lorentz/Poincare' variation. To check this one
must look a the actual direction relative to the CMBR dipole. If it
is it would be:
c - v[Cos a]
Where a is the angle relative to the direction of the max blueshift.
This should be look into.
drl
Oct 1, 2011, 5:27:00 AM10/1/11
to
On Sep 30, 6:11=A0am, "Joe Warner" <joseph.d.war...@nasa.gov> wrote:
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> What are the current thoughts on the applicability limits of
> relativity?
> Does the speed of light apply only to particles with mass?
> Does it apply to only hadrons?
> Must the maximum speed be the same between mass particles that
> are the instruments of the different type of forces in the
> universe?
There has been a serious misunderstanding, it seems to me, widespread
and very bad.
The speed of light is not really the speed of anything - when the
metric is indefinite and the space is affine, then from the point of
view of projective geometry, the fundamental domain that defines the
projective metric is a real cone - the light cone. The parameter C
defines the generators of this cone - we pick the physical space and
time dimensions as seconds, feet, whatever, but in fact it is the cone
that is important, not any number, and in physical units, C=3D1, without
exception for any matter at all, because this is an idea of order for
space and time, not a physical hypothesis.
It is therefore impossible for anything, neutrinos or otherwise, to
even HAVE a defined velocity greater than 1, much less be measured
going at such a speed.
So, if the neutrinos get there early, then it is not so much a
statement about neutrino speed as it is about LIGHT speed, which must
now be less than C. Which would in turn imply that it is massive. It's
not.
You can also consider the point of view of the neutrino. If it's not
going at C, then as it approaches C, the world around it devolves to a
mathematical point in the direction of its motion. Beyond is nothing.
If it IS going at C already, then it can never go more or less than C
- it's confined to the cone. This is just a way of saying that the
cone is real.
In other words, the real evidence for C=3D1 does not come from neutrinos
or light or from any particular model of matter. It is a fact of the
geometry of the world. You cannot just revise the principles of
geometry on a whim, and adding extra dimensions will not avail you,
because you're still stuck with the light cone and what that implies
(propagation). C is not the speed of anything, it's the expression of
the relation of space to time in the most fundamental way.
Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
-drl
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> What are the current thoughts on the applicability limits of
> relativity?
> Does the speed of light apply only to particles with mass?
> Does it apply to only hadrons?
> Must the maximum speed be the same between mass particles that
> are the instruments of the different type of forces in the
> universe?
and very bad.
The speed of light is not really the speed of anything - when the
metric is indefinite and the space is affine, then from the point of
view of projective geometry, the fundamental domain that defines the
projective metric is a real cone - the light cone. The parameter C
defines the generators of this cone - we pick the physical space and
time dimensions as seconds, feet, whatever, but in fact it is the cone
that is important, not any number, and in physical units, C=3D1, without
exception for any matter at all, because this is an idea of order for
space and time, not a physical hypothesis.
It is therefore impossible for anything, neutrinos or otherwise, to
even HAVE a defined velocity greater than 1, much less be measured
going at such a speed.
So, if the neutrinos get there early, then it is not so much a
statement about neutrino speed as it is about LIGHT speed, which must
now be less than C. Which would in turn imply that it is massive. It's
not.
You can also consider the point of view of the neutrino. If it's not
going at C, then as it approaches C, the world around it devolves to a
mathematical point in the direction of its motion. Beyond is nothing.
If it IS going at C already, then it can never go more or less than C
- it's confined to the cone. This is just a way of saying that the
cone is real.
In other words, the real evidence for C=3D1 does not come from neutrinos
or light or from any particular model of matter. It is a fact of the
geometry of the world. You cannot just revise the principles of
geometry on a whim, and adding extra dimensions will not avail you,
because you're still stuck with the light cone and what that implies
(propagation). C is not the speed of anything, it's the expression of
the relation of space to time in the most fundamental way.
Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
-drl
Dieter Britz
Oct 2, 2011, 8:24:46 AM10/2/11
to
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:46:57 +0200, eric gisse wrote:
[...]
the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
--=20
Dieter Britz
[...]
> Personally I think it is slightly more likely that absent a systematic
> effect, the source comes from uncertainty in the distance measurement
> because light speed is about a foot per nanosecond and a 60 foot error
> in a 640km beam through the Earth (Remember, Earth =3D not flat) is not
> effect, the source comes from uncertainty in the distance measurement
> because light speed is about a foot per nanosecond and a 60 foot error
> the most unlikely of things.
I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
--=20
Dieter Britz
eric gisse
Oct 2, 2011, 2:44:24 PM10/2/11
to
drl <antimat...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0a9afebc-ae58-4f4a-8d67-
1591bd...@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
> inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
>
> -drl
>
For the curious: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562
1591bd...@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
> inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
>
> -drl
>
cmaj
Oct 2, 2011, 10:03:22 PM10/2/11
to
On Sep 29, 2:59 pm, Frisbieinstein <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:29 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So a news story is going round the net.
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-parti...
>
> > Assuming that these folks have not simply
> > got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> > assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> > relativity properly into account. Moving along
> > the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> > direction, while keeping the same elevation
> > above local sea level, means you are moving
> > in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> > means your relative time rate is changing due
> > to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> > doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> > effect is the right size to account for this report.
> > They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> > a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> > range to be a relativistic effect?
> > Socks
>
> If the result is from CERN I would think they would have had quite a
> few very good minds going over the result. On the other hand if it is
> real, then why don't neutrinos emit Cherenkov radiation?
> On Sep 23, 7:29 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So a news story is going round the net.
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-parti...
>
> > Assuming that these folks have not simply
> > got some inaccuracy hiding (yes, a very large
> > assumption), I'm wondering if they've taken
> > relativity properly into account. Moving along
> > the surface of the Earth in a north-south
> > direction, while keeping the same elevation
> > above local sea level, means you are moving
> > in or out from the centre of the Earth. And it
> > means your relative time rate is changing due
> > to both SR and GR effects. I'm having trouble
> > doing the math in my head to estimate if the
> > effect is the right size to account for this report.
> > They report 60 nanoseconds over 730 km on
> > a roughly south-east path. Is that in the right
> > range to be a relativistic effect?
> > Socks
>
> If the result is from CERN I would think they would have had quite a
> few very good minds going over the result. On the other hand if it is
> real, then why don't neutrinos emit Cherenkov radiation?
Why would they? They have no electric charge.
[[Mod. note -- Note, however, that superluminal neutrinos would emit
bremsstrahlung electron-positron pairs. Cogen & Glashow (arXiv:1109.6562)
have used this to show that
"For the claimed superluminal neutrino velocity and at the stated
mean neutrino energy, we find that most of the neutrinos would
have suffered several pair emissions en route, causing the beam
to be depleted of higher energy neutrinos. Thus we refute the
superluminal interpretation of the OPERA result."
-- jt]]
Rich L.
Oct 2, 2011, 10:15:45 PM10/2/11
to
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Frisbieinstein wrote:
...
Rich L.
...
> If the result is from CERN I would think they would have had quite a
> few very good minds going over the result. On the other hand if it is
> real, then why don't neutrinos emit Cherenkov radiation?
Because neutrinos are uncharged, hence they don't couple to the EM fields.
> few very good minds going over the result. On the other hand if it is
> real, then why don't neutrinos emit Cherenkov radiation?
Rich L.
J. J. Lodder
Oct 2, 2011, 10:17:52 PM10/2/11
to
Jan
John Park
Oct 3, 2011, 3:58:40 AM10/3/11
to
equivalent effect based on the weak interaction).
--John Park
drl
Oct 3, 2011, 3:58:40 AM10/3/11
to
supposed to read "Cee equals one".
-drl
hadi motamedi
Oct 3, 2011, 3:58:41 AM10/3/11
to
clock is ticking slower than that of our own so how it can be used as
basis for the experiment?
Thank you very much
Norbert Dragon
Oct 3, 2011, 11:17:20 AM10/3/11
to
* drl writes:
> It is therefore impossible for anything, neutrinos or otherwise, to
> even HAVE a defined velocity greater than 1, much less be measured
> going at such a speed.
Your argument proves lack of imagination rather than the impossibility
> It is therefore impossible for anything, neutrinos or otherwise, to
> even HAVE a defined velocity greater than 1, much less be measured
> going at such a speed.
of velocities larger than 1:
I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
a light cone and a neutrino cone.
Together they would spoil the principle of relativity, that one cannot
distinguish in the vacuum between rest and uniform motion, but so what?
The principle would be replaced by the statement, that one can hardly
distinguish between rest and motion.
There is also the investigation of
Nicolas Boulanger, Thibault Damour, Leonardo Gualtieri and Marc Henneaux,
Inconsistency of interacting, multi-graviton theories,
Nucl. Phys. B 597 (2001) 127 -- 171
which theoretically excludes manifolds with two interacting metrics,
but let time clarify issues related to quantized spin-2 particles.
The main difficulty is the conflicting observation of the
neutrinos from SN1987a with a velocity which coincided with the speed
of light at least in the first 9 digits, while now the reported
meusured neutrinos differ from the calculated photons in their time
of arrival such that their velocities differ already in the 5^th
decimal.
Leo Stodolsky, The speed of light and the speed of neutrinos,
Phys. Lett. B 201 (1988) 353
--
Superstition brings Bad Luck
www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon
intuitionist1
Oct 3, 2011, 4:52:40 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 2, 7:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> drl <antimatter3...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0a9afebc-ae58-4f4a-8d67-
> 1591bdcb8...@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
prediction of pair brehmsstrahllung of superluminal neutrinos in the
framework of a model that does not even allow for superluminal
particles of any kind?
I would have thought that if superluminal neutrinos do exist (as are
claimed experimentally to have been observed), then the model is
broken and a better one needs to be found. Yes, the experimental setup
needs to be checked for systematic errors and the like, but it seems a
bit silly and/or pointless to state that the experiments must be wrong
because the theoretical model, i.e. the model which the experimental
observations appear to invalidate, says so.
- Sabbir
> drl <antimatter3...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0a9afebc-ae58-4f4a-8d67-
> 1591bdcb8...@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> [...]
>
> > Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
> > inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
>
> > -drl
>
> For the curious:http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562
This may be a dumb question, but how can one make a calculation/
> [...]
>
> > Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
> > inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
>
> > -drl
>
> For the curious:http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562
prediction of pair brehmsstrahllung of superluminal neutrinos in the
framework of a model that does not even allow for superluminal
particles of any kind?
I would have thought that if superluminal neutrinos do exist (as are
claimed experimentally to have been observed), then the model is
broken and a better one needs to be found. Yes, the experimental setup
needs to be checked for systematic errors and the like, but it seems a
bit silly and/or pointless to state that the experiments must be wrong
because the theoretical model, i.e. the model which the experimental
observations appear to invalidate, says so.
- Sabbir
eric gisse
Oct 3, 2011, 10:28:44 PM10/3/11
to
intuitionist1 <intuit...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b78a7053-5dc3-
47d2-8c28-d...@fx14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
47d2-8c28-d...@fx14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 2, 7:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> drl <antimatter3...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0a9afebc-ae58-4f4a-8d67-
>> 1591bdcb8...@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Only Cohen and Glashow have been clear lately - they understand the
>> > inter-connectedness of physics, and the world it describes.
>>
>> > -drl
>>
>> For the curious:http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562
>
> This may be a dumb question, but how can one make a calculation/
> prediction of pair brehmsstrahllung of superluminal neutrinos in the
> framework of a model that does not even allow for superluminal
> particles of any kind?
You don't.
>
> I would have thought that if superluminal neutrinos do exist (as are
> claimed experimentally to have been observed), then the model is
> broken and a better one needs to be found. Yes, the experimental setup
> needs to be checked for systematic errors and the like, but it seems a
> bit silly and/or pointless to state that the experiments must be wrong
> because the theoretical model, i.e. the model which the experimental
> observations appear to invalidate, says so.
That's not what the calculation states.
The key observation is from SN1987A which contradicts this experiment.
In order for both to be simultaneously true, neutrinos must lose energy.
There are a limited number of reactions at that energy range, which
conserve quantum number / angular momentum. The paper lists them.
[[Mod. note -- I think that should be
"which conserve quantum number / angular momentum / linear momentum."
-- jt]]
The paper then argues because of the rate of energy loss that would be
required is large enough to put the maximum energy of the neutrino beam
far below what was observed, there is a big problem with the experiment.
Or fundamental physics, but most likely the experiment.
intuitionist1
Oct 4, 2011, 5:51:22 PM10/4/11
to
> >> For the curious:http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562
>
> > This may be a dumb question, but how can one make a calculation/
> > prediction of pair brehmsstrahllung of superluminal neutrinos in the
> > framework of a model that does not even allow for superluminal
> > particles of any kind?
>
> You don't.
Well, I don't, but they most certainly do (or at least claim that they
>
> > This may be a dumb question, but how can one make a calculation/
> > prediction of pair brehmsstrahllung of superluminal neutrinos in the
> > framework of a model that does not even allow for superluminal
> > particles of any kind?
>
> You don't.
do). I quote from p3 regarding the pair bremsstrahllung process:- "We
have computed both... the rate of pair emission by an energetic
superluminal neutrino, and... the rate at which it loses energy..."
So, my original statement holds. One should also note that their
calculations are based upon the _assumption_ that factors that appear
in scattering formulae for low energy weak interactions (a theory in
which all particles are assumed to be subluminal) still hold when the
particles involved are superluminal. This is of course pure
speculation on their part, and their guesses, while no doubt
intelligent, are just that - i.e. _guesses_, and cannot be used as a
basis for refuting anything at all.
Also, on p2, consider their statement that, "...As in all cases of
superluminal propagation, certain otherwise forbidden processes are
kinematically permitted, even in vacuum...". The statement is clearly
nonsense. What cases of superluminal propagation are they are talking
about? I thought there weren't any? So clearly what they really mean
to say is something like, "...As in all _theoretical models proposed
to date_ of superluminal propagation....", but even this is nonsense,
because even if the statement that "forbidden processes are
kinematically permitted" happens to be true in _all_ the models
proposed so far (notwithstanding the fact that it is hardly to believe
that they, or anyone else, are aware of all such models), this does
not imply that such processes must be kinematically permitted in any
future proposed model.
The fact is that pretty much every statement made in their paper is
model dependent, and some of the models those statements depend upon
must be speculative as they attempt to model superluminal particles.
It would perhaps have been helpful if they had actually stated
explicitly which, if any, superluminal particle models they
specifically had in mind.
> > I would have thought that if superluminal neutrinos do exist (as are
> > claimed experimentally to have been observed), then the model is
> > broken and a better one needs to be found. Yes, the experimental setup
> > needs to be checked for systematic errors and the like, but it seems a
> > bit silly and/or pointless to state that the experiments must be wrong
> > because the theoretical model, i.e. the model which the experimental
> > observations appear to invalidate, says so.
>
> That's not what the calculation states.
they say, "For the claimed superluminal neutrino velocity... we find
[i.e. we _calculate_] that the neutrinos would have suffered several
pair emissions en route... THUS WE REFUTE the superluminal
interpretation of the OPERA result". As you can clearly see, they
claim to have refuted a physical observation using calculations from a
(speculative, as it happens) theoretical model!!
> The key observation is from SN1987A which contradicts this experiment.
> In order for both to be simultaneously true, neutrinos must lose energy.
>
> There are a limited number of reactions at that energy range, which
> conserve quantum number / angular momentum. The paper lists them.
mentioned, the _assumption_ is made here that certain forbidden
processes become permitted in superluminal propagation.
> The paper then argues because of the rate of energy loss that would be
> required is large enough to put the maximum energy of the neutrino beam
> far below what was observed, there is a big problem with the experiment.
observations are correct, then the model is broken, and needs to be
fixed. One cannot use a theoretical model to refute the very
experimental observations that claim to disprove the theory, and
neither can one use a speculative model to refute the observations
that claim to disprove an established theory. To allow theory to
refute experimental observations would set a very bad precedent
indeed.
> Or fundamental physics, but most likely the experiment.
understanding of fundamental physics may not be complete, the authors
of the paper were, sadly, not quite as generous - clearly their faith
is too strong for them to allow for such a possibility!
- Sabbir
Dr J R Stockton
Oct 4, 2011, 10:35:48 PM10/4/11
to
In sci.physics.research message <1k8imwd.aef8vd1kzhucgN@de-
ster.xs4all.nl>, Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:17:52, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-
ster.demon.nl> posted:
>Dieter Britz <dieterh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
>> the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
>> a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
>
>Much better than the final 20 meter/60ns discrepancy,
It appears that either you have not understood the question asked, or
you have not understood the original publication at
<http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf>, which includes near the top
of Page 8 : "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
decay tunnel is unknown." Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
ster.xs4all.nl>, Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:17:52, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-
ster.demon.nl> posted:
>Dieter Britz <dieterh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
>> the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
>> a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
>
>Much better than the final 20 meter/60ns discrepancy,
you have not understood the original publication at
<http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf>, which includes near the top
of Page 8 : "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
decay tunnel is unknown." Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
eric gisse
Oct 5, 2011, 4:41:04 AM10/5/11
to
intuitionist1 <intuit...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cb1608e8-b6f7-
4f0e-b0a1-9...@i9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
[...]
>
> Also, on p2, consider their statement that, "...As in all cases of
> superluminal propagation, certain otherwise forbidden processes are
> kinematically permitted, even in vacuum...". The statement is clearly
> nonsense. What cases of superluminal propagation are they are talking
> about?
Sounds like a reference to a body of work that someone more familiar
with QFT than myself can answer.
Someone else who knows better will have to take up that mantle because
my knowledge is in astrophysics not particle physics.
> I thought there weren't any?
The kinematics of SR are such that you cannot accelerate particles from
_below_ the speed to light _to_ or _beyond_ it. However, there are no
restrictions on particles that are created at faster than light speed.
They are known as tachyons, and there's a wide body of work, and a fair
bit of experimental searches, for them from what I remember.
[...]
> That is _exactly_ what they state. Indeed, if you read the abstract,
> they say, "For the claimed superluminal neutrino velocity... we find
> [i.e. we _calculate_] that the neutrinos would have suffered several
> pair emissions en route... THUS WE REFUTE the superluminal
> interpretation of the OPERA result". As you can clearly see, they
> claim to have refuted a physical observation using calculations from a
> (speculative, as it happens) theoretical model!!
You are only reading half of the argument! stop!
In order for the OPERA observation to be self consistent with the
neutrino observations from SN1987a, which contradicts the OPERA
observation, there needs to be some sort of mechanism that manages this.
If the theory is wrong, then there is no known mechanism that does this
and the OPERA has an *EVEN LARGER* problem than it did before.
Having different neutrinos traveling at different speeds would do this,
but there's a wide body of work which refutes that notion. The paper
discusses this.
The only self consistent possibility is some sort of shedding of energy
as the particles travel, that depends on the kinetic energy of the
neutrinos themselves.
There's ample precedent for this - take the GKZ (GZK, whatever) limit on
cosmic ray energies. Cosmic rays will clip a CMB photon and scatter, and
shoot some pions out in a well known process that limits the energy of
what we can see.
I'm sure a wandering particle physicists can cite better examples.
With that energy shedding process, there's a limited number of reactions
that make sense for that energy level that are probable while preserving
quantum number and obeying other relevant conservation laws.
Using knowledge of those processes, a limitation on the amount of energy
the neutrinos can have at arrival is determined. The answer is
significantly wrong.
Sure, that's a theory-dependent statement but that theory has been
farrrrrr better confirmed than "FTL neutrinos".
This is all explained in the paper in what I consider, especially since
I have never studied that part of physics too strongly, pretty easy to
follow.
Why don't you read it again? Maybe read the references and do some
reading of your own before looking sillier?
[...]
> While it is noble of you to at least accept the _possibility_ that our
> understanding of fundamental physics may not be complete, the authors
> of the paper were, sadly, not quite as generous - clearly their faith
> is too strong for them to allow for such a possibility!
Before breaking out nonsense like "clearly their faith is too strong",
would you care to share your experiences with particle physics that let
you make statements as strong as this?
Otherwise, try to remember that as an amateur you don't know the whole
story and need to approach the subject from that angle rather than
arguing as if you already know everything.
4f0e-b0a1-9...@i9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
[...]
>
> Also, on p2, consider their statement that, "...As in all cases of
> superluminal propagation, certain otherwise forbidden processes are
> kinematically permitted, even in vacuum...". The statement is clearly
> nonsense. What cases of superluminal propagation are they are talking
> about?
with QFT than myself can answer.
Someone else who knows better will have to take up that mantle because
my knowledge is in astrophysics not particle physics.
> I thought there weren't any?
_below_ the speed to light _to_ or _beyond_ it. However, there are no
restrictions on particles that are created at faster than light speed.
They are known as tachyons, and there's a wide body of work, and a fair
bit of experimental searches, for them from what I remember.
[...]
> That is _exactly_ what they state. Indeed, if you read the abstract,
> they say, "For the claimed superluminal neutrino velocity... we find
> [i.e. we _calculate_] that the neutrinos would have suffered several
> pair emissions en route... THUS WE REFUTE the superluminal
> interpretation of the OPERA result". As you can clearly see, they
> claim to have refuted a physical observation using calculations from a
> (speculative, as it happens) theoretical model!!
In order for the OPERA observation to be self consistent with the
neutrino observations from SN1987a, which contradicts the OPERA
observation, there needs to be some sort of mechanism that manages this.
If the theory is wrong, then there is no known mechanism that does this
and the OPERA has an *EVEN LARGER* problem than it did before.
Having different neutrinos traveling at different speeds would do this,
but there's a wide body of work which refutes that notion. The paper
discusses this.
The only self consistent possibility is some sort of shedding of energy
as the particles travel, that depends on the kinetic energy of the
neutrinos themselves.
There's ample precedent for this - take the GKZ (GZK, whatever) limit on
cosmic ray energies. Cosmic rays will clip a CMB photon and scatter, and
shoot some pions out in a well known process that limits the energy of
what we can see.
I'm sure a wandering particle physicists can cite better examples.
With that energy shedding process, there's a limited number of reactions
that make sense for that energy level that are probable while preserving
quantum number and obeying other relevant conservation laws.
Using knowledge of those processes, a limitation on the amount of energy
the neutrinos can have at arrival is determined. The answer is
significantly wrong.
Sure, that's a theory-dependent statement but that theory has been
farrrrrr better confirmed than "FTL neutrinos".
This is all explained in the paper in what I consider, especially since
I have never studied that part of physics too strongly, pretty easy to
follow.
Why don't you read it again? Maybe read the references and do some
reading of your own before looking sillier?
[...]
> While it is noble of you to at least accept the _possibility_ that our
> understanding of fundamental physics may not be complete, the authors
> of the paper were, sadly, not quite as generous - clearly their faith
> is too strong for them to allow for such a possibility!
would you care to share your experiences with particle physics that let
you make statements as strong as this?
Otherwise, try to remember that as an amateur you don't know the whole
story and need to approach the subject from that angle rather than
arguing as if you already know everything.
ben6993
Oct 6, 2011, 10:39:36 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 3:35 am, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
about 2.4 milliseconds for the 730 km baseline noted in the report.
How does the uncertainty in the position of the production of the
neutrino, that you quote, affect the neurino time of flight
measurement? Note that I don't really understand any of the
production and detector tunnel layouts and equipment.
>
> --
> (c) John Stockton, near London. *...@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stock...@physics.org
wrote:
> In sci.physics.research message <1k8imwd.aef8vd1kzhucgN@de-
> ster.xs4all.nl>, Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:17:52, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl> posted:
>
> ster.xs4all.nl>, Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:17:52, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl> posted:
>
> >Dieter Britz <dieterhansbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
> >> the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
> >> a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
>
> >Much better than the final 20 meter/60ns discrepancy,
>
> It appears that either you have not understood the question asked, or
> you have not understood the original publication at
> <http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf>, which includes near the top
> of Page 8 : "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
> decay tunnel is unknown." Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
> about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
Is 'nanoseconds' a typing error? I calculate time of flight to be
>
> >> I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
> >> the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
> >> a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
>
> >Much better than the final 20 meter/60ns discrepancy,
>
> It appears that either you have not understood the question asked, or
> you have not understood the original publication at
> <http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf>, which includes near the top
> of Page 8 : "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
> decay tunnel is unknown." Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
> about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
about 2.4 milliseconds for the 730 km baseline noted in the report.
How does the uncertainty in the position of the production of the
neutrino, that you quote, affect the neurino time of flight
measurement? Note that I don't really understand any of the
production and detector tunnel layouts and equipment.
>
> --
> (c) John Stockton, near London. *...@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stock...@physics.org
ben6993
Oct 8, 2011, 6:05:41 AM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 3:39�am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:35 am, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
> On Oct 5, 3:35 am, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
<snip>
> > "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
> > decay tunnel is unknown." �Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
> > about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
<snip>
> Is 'nanoseconds' a typing error? �I calculate time of flight to be
> about 2.4 milliseconds for the 730 km baseline noted in the report.
Sorry, I now realise that 3,300 ns is fine and I believe I understand
the point being made. I was mixing up the time of flight over the 730
km baseline (about 2.4 ms, I think) with the time for the decay to a
neutrino on a 1 km approach run to the start point of the baseline.
The speed of the neutrino is not much different to that of the parent
particle so it doesn't matter much exactly where the decay occurs.
[Note to moderator: I would have retracted earlier but I didn't think
it was needed as I thought you had blocked my first post because it
was in error.]
Dr J R Stockton
Oct 9, 2011, 3:29:48 AM10/9/11
to
In sci.physics.research message <22dd6775-39a3-4a61-8e78-dab9d201e7ce@z8
g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:39:36, ben6993
<ben...@hotmail.com> posted:
>On Oct 5, 3:35 am, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In sci.physics.research message <1k8imwd.aef8vd1kzhucgN@de-
>> ster.xs4all.nl>, Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:17:52, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-
>> ster.demon.nl> posted:
>>
>> >Dieter Britz <dieterhansbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
>> >> the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
>> >> a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
>>
>> >Much better than the final 20 meter/60ns discrepancy,
>>
>> It appears that either you have not understood the question asked, or
>> you have not understood the original publication at
>> <http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf>, which includes near the top
>> of Page 8 : "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
>> decay tunnel is unknown." Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
>> about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
>
>Is 'nanoseconds' a typing error? I calculate time of flight to be
>about 2.4 milliseconds for the 730 km baseline noted in the report.
No : 3,300 ns is the approximate time of flight in the decay tunnel.
As the parent mesons are (IIRC) also travelling at nearly c towards Gran
Sasso, the position of the decay does not much matter.
>How does the uncertainty in the position of the production of the
>neutrino, that you quote, affect the neurino time of flight
>measurement? Note that I don't really understand any of the
>production and detector tunnel layouts and equipment.
There is a diagram in their paper.
As the parent mesons are (IIRC) also travelling at nearly c towards Gran
Sasso, the position of the decay does not much matter.
The time of flight and the distance of flight of the neutrinos are
almost equally uncertain, and they are highly correlated, so there is
little contribution to the uncertainty of the result.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:39:36, ben6993
<ben...@hotmail.com> posted:
>On Oct 5, 3:35 am, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In sci.physics.research message <1k8imwd.aef8vd1kzhucgN@de-
>> ster.xs4all.nl>, Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:17:52, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-
>> ster.demon.nl> posted:
>>
>> >Dieter Britz <dieterhansbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I wonder how precisely the start and finish points are localised. Do
>> >> the neutrinos have a precisely localised origin, and are detected at
>> >> a precisely localised point? Within what limits?
>>
>> >Much better than the final 20 meter/60ns discrepancy,
>>
>> It appears that either you have not understood the question asked, or
>> you have not understood the original publication at
>> <http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf>, which includes near the top
>> of Page 8 : "The point where the parent meson produces a neutrino in the
>> decay tunnel is unknown." Figure 2 shows the length of the tunnel to be
>> about 1 km, time of flight about 3,300 ns.
>
>Is 'nanoseconds' a typing error? I calculate time of flight to be
>about 2.4 milliseconds for the 730 km baseline noted in the report.
As the parent mesons are (IIRC) also travelling at nearly c towards Gran
Sasso, the position of the decay does not much matter.
>How does the uncertainty in the position of the production of the
>neutrino, that you quote, affect the neurino time of flight
>measurement? Note that I don't really understand any of the
>production and detector tunnel layouts and equipment.
As the parent mesons are (IIRC) also travelling at nearly c towards Gran
Sasso, the position of the decay does not much matter.
The time of flight and the distance of flight of the neutrinos are
almost equally uncertain, and they are highly correlated, so there is
little contribution to the uncertainty of the result.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
Oct 19, 2011, 1:07:59 PM10/19/11
to
Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Norbert Dragon
Oct 22, 2011, 12:03:43 PM10/22/11
to
* p.ki...@ic.ac.uk writes:
>* Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
I could not have stated my view more elegantly.
In particular, that closed, timelike loops may occur but that they
imply restrictions on the freedom to choose initial data which make it
impossible to shoot one's own grandfather.
Thank you for the reference.
--
Aberglaube bringt Ungl?ck
www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon
>* Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
In particular, that closed, timelike loops may occur but that they
imply restrictions on the freedom to choose initial data which make it
impossible to shoot one's own grandfather.
Thank you for the reference.
--
Aberglaube bringt Ungl?ck
www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon
Matej Pavsic
Oct 25, 2011, 3:09:11 PM10/25/11
to
Norbert Dragon wrote:
> * p.ki...@ic.ac.uk writes:
>
>> * Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>
>>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>
>> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>
> I could not have stated my view more elegantly.
>
> In particular, that closed, timelike loops may occur but that they
> imply restrictions on the freedom to choose initial data which make it
> impossible to shoot one's own grandfather.
Another possibility is that there are no restrictions on the freedom
> * p.ki...@ic.ac.uk writes:
>
>> * Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>
>>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>
>> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>
> I could not have stated my view more elegantly.
>
> In particular, that closed, timelike loops may occur but that they
> imply restrictions on the freedom to choose initial data which make it
> impossible to shoot one's own grandfather.
to choose initial data. Then the causality paradoxes of tachyons
can be resolved [1] in the same way as David Deutsch resolved [2]
the time travel paradoxes of wormholes: By considering multiverse
and the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. The existence
of superluminal particles, as well as the existence of time travel,
is in agreement with the Everett interpretation, but not with
the other known interpretations of quantum mechanics.
[1] M. Pavsic, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 30 (1981) 111;
M. Pavsic, The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View;
From Point Particles to the Brane World and Beyond, in Search of
a Unifying Principle (Kluwer, 2001) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610061
[2] D. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3197
Frisbieinstein
Oct 28, 2011, 5:53:42 PM10/28/11
to
On Oct 20, 1:07 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> > I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
> > a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>
> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>
> --
> ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
> Dr. Paul Kinsler
> Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
> Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
> Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> > I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
> > a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>
> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>
> --
> ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
> Dr. Paul Kinsler
> Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
> SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~=
kinsle/
As far as I understand it:
Special relativity is about information as transmitted by
electromagnetic signals or via particles with rest mass.
If transmission of information does not fall into these categories,
then SR does not apply.
There is the famous EPR paradox which is resolved by saying that the
signal contains no information, which always struck me as odd. From
the point of view of human beings it contains no useful information,
but from the point of view of the photon it does. The signal is of
some unknown nature.
----
On the other hand, as far as there neutrons [neutrinos?! --mod.] go, my
pet theory is this:
The three flavors of neutrino have differing rest mass, one of which
might be zero. Let's suppose that the fast neutrinos have zero rest
mass. The higher speed is similar to the Casimir effect, since the
neutrinos have fewer vacuum interactions than does visible light.
Rich L.
Nov 1, 2011, 10:01:51 PM11/1/11
to
On Friday, October 28, 2011 4:53:42 PM UTC-5, Frisbieinstein wrote:
...
...
> As far as I understand it:
>
> Special relativity is about information as transmitted by
> electromagnetic signals or via particles with rest mass.
It is much more than that. You cannot get the result of the constancy
>
> Special relativity is about information as transmitted by
> electromagnetic signals or via particles with rest mass.
of the speed of light without a reconception of the behavior of space
and time, and their relationship to each other. SR is not just about
light.
...
>
> On the other hand, as far as there neutrons [neutrinos?! --mod.] go, my
> pet theory is this:
>
> The three flavors of neutrino have differing rest mass, one of which
> might be zero. Let's suppose that the fast neutrinos have zero rest
> mass. The higher speed is similar to the Casimir effect, since the
> neutrinos have fewer vacuum interactions than does visible light.
Light also has zero rest mass. Why would neutrinos go faster than
> On the other hand, as far as there neutrons [neutrinos?! --mod.] go, my
> pet theory is this:
>
> The three flavors of neutrino have differing rest mass, one of which
> might be zero. Let's suppose that the fast neutrinos have zero rest
> mass. The higher speed is similar to the Casimir effect, since the
> neutrinos have fewer vacuum interactions than does visible light.
light? SR suggests that the speed of light is a universal speed limit,
and that light travels at that speed because it has zero rest mass, not
that this speed is based on some interactions with the vacuum.
I can understand why one might get this idea from classical
electromagnetism, but it is not the understanding from SR.
Rich L.
eric gisse
Nov 1, 2011, 10:01:52 PM11/1/11
to
Frisbieinstein <patmp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:759801a1-7ce6-402d-
ae8c-c7d...@s35g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 20, 1:07 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>> Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>> > I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two
cones:
>> > a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>>
>> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
>> Dr. Paul Kinsler
>> Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
>> Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
>> SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~=
> kinsle/
>
> As far as I understand it:
>
> Special relativity is about information as transmitted by
> electromagnetic signals or via particles with rest mass.
No, special relativity is a statement about the structure of space-time.
It is not a theory of light, or things that aren't light.
>
> If transmission of information does not fall into these categories,
> then SR does not apply.
This is wrong.
>
> There is the famous EPR paradox which is resolved by saying that the
> signal contains no information, which always struck me as odd.
Because its' true. The disentanglement happens at faster than light
speeds but the uncertainty principle prevents you from picking the
quantum state you get so no information is transmitted at FTL.
[ Mod. note: This interpretation is questionable. What is certain is
that entanglement in no way allows superluminal communication. -ik ]
> From
> the point of view of human beings it contains no useful information,
> but from the point of view of the photon it does. The signal is of
> some unknown nature.
Signals communicate information. This does not.
>
> ----
>
> On the other hand, as far as there neutrons [neutrinos?! --mod.] go,
my
> pet theory is this:
>
> The three flavors of neutrino have differing rest mass, one of which
> might be zero. Let's suppose that the fast neutrinos have zero rest
> mass. The higher speed is similar to the Casimir effect, since the
> neutrinos have fewer vacuum interactions than does visible light.
>
Problem is, neutrinos oscillate between flavors. You can't have one of
them be of zero mass otherwise you get a bit of a conservation of mass
problem going on there.
ae8c-c7d...@s35g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 20, 1:07 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>> Norbert Dragon <dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>> > I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two
cones:
>> > a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>>
>> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
>> Dr. Paul Kinsler
>> Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
>> Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
>> SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~=
> kinsle/
>
> As far as I understand it:
>
> Special relativity is about information as transmitted by
> electromagnetic signals or via particles with rest mass.
It is not a theory of light, or things that aren't light.
>
> If transmission of information does not fall into these categories,
> then SR does not apply.
>
> There is the famous EPR paradox which is resolved by saying that the
> signal contains no information, which always struck me as odd.
speeds but the uncertainty principle prevents you from picking the
quantum state you get so no information is transmitted at FTL.
[ Mod. note: This interpretation is questionable. What is certain is
that entanglement in no way allows superluminal communication. -ik ]
> From
> the point of view of human beings it contains no useful information,
> but from the point of view of the photon it does. The signal is of
> some unknown nature.
>
> ----
>
> On the other hand, as far as there neutrons [neutrinos?! --mod.] go,
my
> pet theory is this:
>
> The three flavors of neutrino have differing rest mass, one of which
> might be zero. Let's suppose that the fast neutrinos have zero rest
> mass. The higher speed is similar to the Casimir effect, since the
> neutrinos have fewer vacuum interactions than does visible light.
>
them be of zero mass otherwise you get a bit of a conservation of mass
problem going on there.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Nov 13, 2011, 2:00:36 PM11/13/11
to
On 19/10/2011 18:07, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> Norbert Dragon<dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>
> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>
If he has no problem with the possibility of two cones, how about
> Norbert Dragon<dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>
> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
>
three... or a thousand?
--
Dirk
The New Futurism : ZERO STATE : http://zerostate.net
Norbert Dragon
Nov 16, 2011, 6:37:26 AM11/16/11
to
>* Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>* Norbert Dragon had written:
>>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
> If he has no problem with the possibility of two cones, how about
> three... or a thousand?
In a coupled system, the causal cone it the convex hull of all cones
no matter how many cones there are.
Two different cones in the vacuum would however violate the relativity
principle that in the vacuum one cannot distinguish rest from uniform
motion. One would have to modify this statement of impossibility and
posit that one can hardly distinguish rest from uniform motion.
>>* Norbert Dragon had written:
>>> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
>>> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
>> e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
> If he has no problem with the possibility of two cones, how about
> three... or a thousand?
no matter how many cones there are.
Two different cones in the vacuum would however violate the relativity
principle that in the vacuum one cannot distinguish rest from uniform
motion. One would have to modify this statement of impossibility and
posit that one can hardly distinguish rest from uniform motion.
p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
Nov 16, 2011, 3:06:04 PM11/16/11
to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2011 18:07, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> > Norbert Dragon<dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> >> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
> >> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
> >
> > e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
> >
> If he has no problem with the possibility of two cones, how about
> three... or a thousand?
It's not whether they might (or might not) be there that counts,
> On 19/10/2011 18:07, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> > Norbert Dragon<dra...@itp.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> >> I have no difficulties with the theoretical possibility of two cones:
> >> a light cone and a neutrino cone.
> >
> > e.g. "Faster Than Light?", R. Geroch,
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614
> >
> If he has no problem with the possibility of two cones, how about
> three... or a thousand?
but whether we have any way of generating & measuring (ftl waves
on their ftl-cones) that counts.
We can, of course, already generate & detect sound waves (which travels
on sound cones) and many other wave signals. If only I could generate
waves of ice cream, I could have an ice cream cone. :-)
So I have no problem in principle with suggestions for alt-waves on
alt-cones, but whether or not there are any such waves that are ftl
is another matter, as is whether or not they might require an
alt-ether/medium or not. But what's the alt-wave model, and does it
fit any existing evidence, or evidence we might look for? With that
in hand, then we can start counting.
Dr BDO Adams
Jan 12, 2012, 9:39:48 AM1/12/12
to
At second order they're would be radiation from any dipole moment, but
majorana neutrinos aren't allowed a dipole moment either. A Dirac
neutrino could radiate
At second order, a magnetic moment on the neutrinos could radiate.
Majorana (particle=anti-particle) neutrinos can't have a magnetic
moment, but dirac neutrinos could.
If neutrino have there own force carrier, its the speed of that carrier
that counts in the equations, so that they could go faster than light,
but just approach asympotically the speed of there own force carrier,
and so be under the speed limit for Cherekanov radiation. (Note to self,
find reference), they is a theorem and good paper that shows that all
force carriers should tend to the same speed in the vacuum. But in a
material, trading off on refractive index for one carrier with another
makes sense.
majorana neutrinos aren't allowed a dipole moment either. A Dirac
neutrino could radiate
Majorana (particle=anti-particle) neutrinos can't have a magnetic
moment, but dirac neutrinos could.
If neutrino have there own force carrier, its the speed of that carrier
that counts in the equations, so that they could go faster than light,
but just approach asympotically the speed of there own force carrier,
and so be under the speed limit for Cherekanov radiation. (Note to self,
find reference), they is a theorem and good paper that shows that all
force carriers should tend to the same speed in the vacuum. But in a
material, trading off on refractive index for one carrier with another
makes sense.
0 new messages