Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Neutrino FTL refuted www.faster-than-light.us
1 view
Skip to first unread message
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 4:36:11 PM11/24/11
to
7
Nov 24, 2011, 5:48:47 PM11/24/11
to
admformeto wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDlWp0r6SY
Pretty *crap* reductionism going on there!
'our experiment didn't find neutrinos lost
energy because the neutrinos should have lost
it because we thought it should, may be, yup,
we know we are right by our own righteous claims,
and since we didn't find energy loss, ergo we
conclude neutrinos did not travel faster than light.
'
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDlWp0r6SY
Pretty *crap* reductionism going on there!
'our experiment didn't find neutrinos lost
energy because the neutrinos should have lost
it because we thought it should, may be, yup,
we know we are right by our own righteous claims,
and since we didn't find energy loss, ergo we
conclude neutrinos did not travel faster than light.
'
Sam Wormley
Nov 24, 2011, 5:57:17 PM11/24/11
to
bbwilliams
Nov 24, 2011, 8:45:27 PM11/24/11
to
Just got through posting on FTL Neutrinos, and noticed this link.
It seems the neutrinos did not lose the energy they should have in
flight. I would like to know if anyone can direct me to the
ICIRRUS(sp?) site and their calculations?
Bruce Williams
It seems the neutrinos did not lose the energy they should have in
flight. I would like to know if anyone can direct me to the
ICIRRUS(sp?) site and their calculations?
Bruce Williams
james thomas
Nov 24, 2011, 9:26:49 PM11/24/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neutrino fundamental energy is effected by gravity strength alone.
It is fastest matter at Gamma infinity for motion that never
accelerated. Its Gamma infinity is conserved always.
James
bbwilliams
Nov 25, 2011, 12:01:46 AM11/25/11
to
Found their paper in arXive.
The ICARUS team states in their Abstract that:
"For this value of δ a very significant deformation of the neutrino
energy spectrum and an abundant production of photons and e+e-‐ pairs
should be observed at LNGS."
And in their paper they also say:
"As well known, a charged particle travelling at a speed exceeding the
one of light is necessarily emitting coherent radiation (Cherenkov
radiation) in a characteristic light cone."
And here appears to be the fault in their logic. A particle born at a
speed lower than c in a vacuum would be emitting Cherenkov radiation
when it entered an area with a lower value of c because its transfer of
energy would cause it to slow down.
This may not be true of a particle born above c in a vacuum. This may
be true because, looking at the mathematical curve for mass/length/time
on the side for a particle born above c we see that as the particle
sheds energy it goes faster, not slower. This increase in speed has not
been studied and as such we don't know its effects yet.
+E
.|.
.|.
Born < c - | - Born > c
- | -
-- | --
-- | --
--- | ---
---- | ----
0 c 2c
|0E
The data ICARUS supplies may point to this anomaly because:
Figure 2 - Does show that the muon momentum distribution is consistent
with the neutrinos going slower than c.
Figure 3 -They used data before it was completely corrected, so its
usefulness is very suspect. And even then this data shows a slight
reduction from the expected results, but within range of the expected
results.
Figure 4 - The Monty Carlo distribution result is out range from the
data results. The two peaks do not line up either. This would be just
an anomaly in the data except the curve fit to the data points shows a
consistent shift in the data to a lower value than we would expect.
Figure 5 - If Cherenkov radiation is not emitted when a particle born >
c speeds up, or if the radiation emitted is out of the detector expected
energy ranges then this graph becomes inapplicable. This may be the
case, since Cherenkov radiation is emitted in the region of the graph
where a particle goes from above the c for that material to below the c
for that material. In this case, no Cherenkov radiation may be present
and no pair production may occur.
Putting 3, 4 and 5 together would say that there is something in the
data that does not quite fit.
Overall, the ICARUS data is suspect enough both in values and concept to
the extent that it can not refute the FTL times by OPERA.
Bruce Williams
The ICARUS team states in their Abstract that:
"For this value of δ a very significant deformation of the neutrino
energy spectrum and an abundant production of photons and e+e-‐ pairs
should be observed at LNGS."
And in their paper they also say:
"As well known, a charged particle travelling at a speed exceeding the
one of light is necessarily emitting coherent radiation (Cherenkov
radiation) in a characteristic light cone."
And here appears to be the fault in their logic. A particle born at a
speed lower than c in a vacuum would be emitting Cherenkov radiation
when it entered an area with a lower value of c because its transfer of
energy would cause it to slow down.
This may not be true of a particle born above c in a vacuum. This may
be true because, looking at the mathematical curve for mass/length/time
on the side for a particle born above c we see that as the particle
sheds energy it goes faster, not slower. This increase in speed has not
been studied and as such we don't know its effects yet.
+E
.|.
.|.
Born < c - | - Born > c
- | -
-- | --
-- | --
--- | ---
---- | ----
0 c 2c
|0E
The data ICARUS supplies may point to this anomaly because:
Figure 2 - Does show that the muon momentum distribution is consistent
with the neutrinos going slower than c.
Figure 3 -They used data before it was completely corrected, so its
usefulness is very suspect. And even then this data shows a slight
reduction from the expected results, but within range of the expected
results.
Figure 4 - The Monty Carlo distribution result is out range from the
data results. The two peaks do not line up either. This would be just
an anomaly in the data except the curve fit to the data points shows a
consistent shift in the data to a lower value than we would expect.
Figure 5 - If Cherenkov radiation is not emitted when a particle born >
c speeds up, or if the radiation emitted is out of the detector expected
energy ranges then this graph becomes inapplicable. This may be the
case, since Cherenkov radiation is emitted in the region of the graph
where a particle goes from above the c for that material to below the c
for that material. In this case, no Cherenkov radiation may be present
and no pair production may occur.
Putting 3, 4 and 5 together would say that there is something in the
data that does not quite fit.
Overall, the ICARUS data is suspect enough both in values and concept to
the extent that it can not refute the FTL times by OPERA.
Bruce Williams
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Nov 26, 2011, 2:37:11 PM11/26/11
to
Experiment rules.
--
Dirk
Full Spectrum Praxis : ZERO STATE : http://zerostate.net
eric gisse
Nov 26, 2011, 7:31:45 PM11/26/11
to
"admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu> wrote in news:jamdce$ubk$1...@news.onet.pl:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDlWp0r6SY
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>
Someone likes to over-promise and under-deliver. Site still hasn't
launched, you still haven't uploaded your videos, etc.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDlWp0r6SY
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>
launched, you still haven't uploaded your videos, etc.
0 new messages