Ooh..oh..
These things have long been defined by defining the speed and introduction of vector calculus. This is to facilitate your job.
After your method:
The speed of light may have been broken.
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
These things have long been defined by defining the speed and introduction of vector calculus. This is to facilitate your job.
After your method:
But not all neutrinos are created equally and faster than light is just another flavor.
And if it move faster than light, than neutrino move faster than light speed.
Do you read the OP?
Well, yeah. We just did.
You should read through the thread I started on neutrino speed here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110170
The neutrino speed is already well established from that Supernova Data at no more than 1/500,000,000 variation from c, and likely at c. Moreover, because of the very close spacing in time of the arrival of the first 40% of the prompt neutrino burst at within the first 1 second, in a total 13 second burst (100%) the variation in speed of neutrinos without regard to their energy is less than 1 part in 10^13.
The lack of variation in arrival time of the SN1987A neutrinos places serious constraints on their properties. In order to equate to the reported Gran Sasso data, the SN1987A neutrinos would have had to have arrived 4 years in advance of the photons, not 3 hours as actually occurred. Moreover, as noted in the thread, those 3 hours are almost certainly the head-start time of the neutrinos, which did not have to churn through the overlying mass of the star as did the kinetic energy, which took presumptively 3 hours following the core-collapse to reach the outer surface, and begin that race with the neutrinos.
While the SN1987A data does not absolutely rule out a very slight mass for a neutrino (micro eV/c^2 range), and ultra-relativistic speeds indistinguishable from c, it does effectively negate the Gran Sasso report. Further, the nearly identical experiment was done with the Minos detector at Fermilab in which a neutrino beam travelled ~750 km underground, arriving at a detector in a deep mine at very close to c, to within an accuracy comparable to SN1987A. In other words, Minos does not report neutrinos arriving way early to within 1/40,000 of c as does Gran Sasso.
Point well taken, and I would very much like to see these results duplicated by other scientists before any texts get rewritten. However neutrinos are not the easiest particles in nature to study and not very many labs are set up that can do it at all.
Walter, I still think you are jumping to conclusions here. The CERN/GRAN SASSO neutrinos were about 100 times the energy of the SN 1987A neutrinos. Unless you can establish that the SN 1987A neutrinos started out with an energy comparable to the CERN/GRAN SASSO neutrinos, you are comparing apples and oranges.
It is already suggested that neutrino velocity is energy dependent, and that makes comparing neutrinos with that kind of energy differential.., well on the speculative side of reason.
We need a great deal more hard data before those kinds of comparisons rise to any significant level of confidence.
Yes, but with more energy they should be even closer to c if they have slight mass. That is what Minos shows, i.e. very close to c, and not readily distinguishable from c within the accuracy of the experiment.
Somehow, Gran Sasso believes that increasing the energy from SN1987A levels, in which the speed is at or below c, with an increase by a factor of 100, would magically make them cross the c-barrier.
In other words, according to the Gran Sasso 'results', one would expect even higher energy neutrinos to continue at speeds well above c, directly contradicting Einsteinian physics which equates increasing energy with increasing relativistic mass the closer one gets to c, but never crossing c.
And, as mentioned, the Minos data has highly energetic neutrinos too, and they do not report a variation as far from c as does Gran Sasso (1/40,000), but rather a variation from c that could be entirely accountable due to their errors of timing, etc., and comparable to the SN1987A range (1/490,000,000).
I suspect that is why several researchers refused to sign on to the Gran Sasso report, as per the last paragraph of the article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/sep/24/1?commentpage=3#start-of-comments
The last paragraph reads: "I received a comment on this piece from Luca Stanco, a senior member of the Opera collaboration (who also worked on the ZEUS experiment with me several years ago). He points out that although he is a member of Opera, he did not sign the arXiv preprint because while he supported the seminar and release of results, he considers the analysis "preliminary" due at least in part to worries like those I describe, and that it has been presented as being more robust than he thinks it is. Four other senior members of Opera also removed their names from the author list for this result. He wished to comment, and agreed to me adding this text."
Apparently, the author of the Guardian article used to work with Stanco, and was contacted by him to express his displeasure at the premature publication.
So, what is your response? That they were lying when saying that neutrino moved faster than light just to draw some financial sponsors?
Walter, I think you are still grasping at straws and talking apples and oranges.
I don't think Gran Sasso believes anything. The data released seems very clearly released as preliminary data. It reads more to me as publishing results and calling for comment and confirmation, than making any claim of discovery at this point.
It was actually a very smart release. If the data is confirmed CERN/GRAN SASSO get credit of first publication. If it is proven wrong they made no real claim.
If the data is confirmed and/or repeated, yes it could mean that neutrinos of even higher energies could be even faster.(note) That is a long way off and what it will mean ultimately will be the subject of less emotional discussions and research, by cooler minds.
There seems to be a lot of people caught up in the emotions of what this might mean..... Reactions often seem more frightened at the implications than excited about the potential...
Note: If the FTL data is confirmed, the difficulty in just detecting neutrinos let alone setting up controlled experiments, makes projecting what that means over significantly greater distances, exceedingly difficult. For all we know those neutrinos would shed the extra energy and associated velocity in seconds if not minutes and wind up with velocities right where we expected them to be all along. (See I do like to speculate.)
It is my understanding, that the timing capability at Minos is a couple orders of magnitude short of what CERN/GRAN SASSO claim. Are they not currently planning to upgrade their timing capability? Projected for a three year completion date?
If so none of their current data is really comparable to the CERN data, at this time or yet...
I suspect that most of those who signed the early release believe that conclusions from the data are premature. Though I am willing to speculate, I have that luxury sitting here at home watching from afar, I also believe that conclusions are premature.
I also understand that Japan may have some historical records that can be reviewed and may also be able to begin attempts to recreate the CERN data in as little as three months.
I don't think Gran Sasso believes anything. The data released seems very clearly released as preliminary data. It reads more to me as publishing results and calling for comment and confirmation, than making any claim of discovery at this point.
It was actually a very smart release. If the data is confirmed CERN/GRAN SASSO get credit of first publication. If it is proven wrong they made no real claim.
If the data is confirmed and/or repeated, yes it could mean that neutrinos of even higher energies could be even faster.(note) That is a long way off and what it will mean ultimately will be the subject of less emotional discussions and research, by cooler minds.
There seems to be a lot of people caught up in the emotions of what this might mean..... Reactions often seem more frightened at the implications than excited about the potential...
Note: If the FTL data is confirmed, the difficulty in just detecting neutrinos let alone setting up controlled experiments, makes projecting what that means over significantly greater distances, exceedingly difficult. For all we know those neutrinos would shed the extra energy and associated velocity in seconds if not minutes and wind up with velocities right where we expected them to be all along. (See I do like to speculate.)
It is my understanding, that the timing capability at Minos is a couple orders of magnitude short of what CERN/GRAN SASSO claim. Are they not currently planning to upgrade their timing capability? Projected for a three year completion date?
If so none of their current data is really comparable to the CERN data, at this time or yet...
I suspect that most of those who signed the early release believe that conclusions from the data are premature. Though I am willing to speculate, I have that luxury sitting here at home watching from afar, I also believe that conclusions are premature.
I also understand that Japan may have some historical records that can be reviewed and may also be able to begin attempts to recreate the CERN data in as little as three months.
I call that wishy-washy, not 'smart'.
They were well aware of the Minos data showing a very slight excess in speed above c, but that Minos did not publish claiming c exceeded because the excess was only at 1.8 sigma, and well within experimental error as being at c. Moreover, Minos also knew of SN1987A and their results were comparable; i.e nowhere near the 1/40,000th above c claimed by Gran Sasso. Minos timing is sufficient to invalidate the Gran Sasso data: http://techie-buzz.com/science/fermilab-faster-than-light-neutrino.html
I suspect that they believed that Minos was seeing a hint of "new physics", rather than simply having a speed at c but showing as less than two sigma above c. So, in 'competition' with Minos, they published without fully checking all of their possible errors, as referenced by the researchers who refused to sign on to the report.
Here is a way to model faster than C.
Say we took piece of string and made a sine wave on the table. After the sine wave is made, we will measure the length of the wave. Next, we pull the string tight and measure that straight length. This stretch length of string will be longer than the wavelength of string in the form of a sine wave.
The particle/wave duality of matter is similar to this in that the particle moves along the center line of the wave, while the wave follows the path of the sine wave, which describes a path (as it were) that is longer than wave. (stretched sine wave).
Say there was a reversible ambiguity between the balance of particle and wave, where the particle is able to follow the longer path of the sine wave. This would allow it to go further in less time. Since C is the limit, the extra length of travel is not possible in space-time, but will show us as a quantum discontinuities within the observed path. This gives a bunny hop to the path that adds length to the path for a given time.
I would say mass potential (particle) was reversibly converted to distance potential and back again after the jump. Time is fixed so the impression we would get is moving farther in time than C, but C is not technically violated since the effect occurs out of space-time; discontinuity.
With the neutrino experiment we assume a continuous path in space-time and not discontinuities. If we add the sum of the continuous path C is not violated.
Say we took piece of string and made a sine wave on the table. After the sine wave is made, we will measure the length of the wave. Next, we pull the string tight and measure that straight length. This stretch length of string will be longer than the wavelength of string in the form of a sine wave.
The particle/wave duality of matter is similar to this in that the particle moves along the center line of the wave, while the wave follows the path of the sine wave, which describes a path (as it were) that is longer than wave. (stretched sine wave).
Say there was a reversible ambiguity between the balance of particle and wave, where the particle is able to follow the longer path of the sine wave. This would allow it to go further in less time. Since C is the limit, the extra length of travel is not possible in space-time, but will show us as a quantum discontinuities within the observed path. This gives a bunny hop to the path that adds length to the path for a given time.
I would say mass potential (particle) was reversibly converted to distance potential and back again after the jump. Time is fixed so the impression we would get is moving farther in time than C, but C is not technically violated since the effect occurs out of space-time; discontinuity.
With the neutrino experiment we assume a continuous path in space-time and not discontinuities. If we add the sum of the continuous path C is not violated.
That link was a little cryptic. Still, as I said it was my understanding that at least part of the reason Minos fell in the range it did was because of the difference in their timing accuracy. I also understood that they were upgrading those capabilities and that would process would take three years. Your link suggests they could be running in six months?
The point remains the same. The Minos results fell within the margin of error. If the CERN data holds up it did not.
Everyone is scrambling right now to recheck the CERN data.
And an early release of preliminary data still gives CERN/GRAN SASSO a lead role in publication if the data does prove up and little down side if it does not. In a would of publish or die, publishing something this significant first is a big deal.
Yup! Those are both also wishy-washy. (And that is a generous assessment.)
Don't even try to drag that discussion into this one.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Emil, "wishy-washy" is not a complement.
Minos is expecting to have an upgrade running with new results in 2014; i.e. in 3 years. What they are doing now is going back through their old data to check again for FTL neutrinos, and they expect those results in 6 months.
"The other reason that many are voicing skepticism are past measurements of neutrino speeds obtained from supernovae. Since these are so incredibly distant, the small signal seen here would be huge—the neutrinos should arrive roughly four years ahead of the photons. Other experiments on Earth also suggested insignificant differences. One possible explanation for this is the energy of the neutrinos, since OPERA uses much higher energy than the other sources. But the paper indicates that's not likely to be the case, since the authors saw the same signal with both 10 and 40GeV neutrinos." I.e., they get the same results as for Minos-energy neutrinos, but not the Minos results.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news...d-on-exquisite-measurements-of-time-space.ars
However, to be fair, I did dig up this interesting paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9505117v1
“If superluminal particles couple to ordinary matter, they will not in general be found traveling at a speed higher than c (except near the vertex of accelerator experiments). At superluminal speed, such particles are expected to release ”Cherenkov” radiation (i.e. ordinary particles, whose emission in vacuum is kinematically allowed in such case) until they will be decelerated to a speed v ≤ c”
I cannot speak for its validity - - perhaps AN might check its math. But essentially it indicates a superluminal velocity is possible near a point of creation such as an accelerator, whereupon it sheds energy via a 'Cherenkov-like' process until it drops to c or below. I'm sure the author of the paper is ecstatic with the CERN 'results'.
Here's another take on it: "This reminds me vividly of claims a decade or two ago that quantum tunneling could send information 'faster than light'. None stood up to scrutiny, usual cause was confusing the notional 'group velocity' of a wave packet with the speed at which a signal can be transmitted. Analogy for the present case: the wave train describing the neutrinos is a long surfboard, with a guy in a red suit at the front and one in a blue suit at the back. As the board travels over the waves, not exceeding lightspeed, the red and blue guy are alternately visible (never both together). So at times the guy appears to change colour and leap forward impossibly fast. But you cannot send an instant signal 'from the back to the front' of the surfboard or wavetrain, any more than you can use EPR correlations to signal. This particular case will likely come down to inexact definition of the time at which the 'original neutrinos' were deemed to be emitted. " Colin Bruce - 2011-09-23.
Either way, it shows how little we still actually know about particle physics and neutrinos. For quite a long while, CERN was insisting that the Higgs Boson was an almost certainty, and now that quest is quietly abandoned. What next? And, can we 'know' whether anything new we create in particle physics, not done in nature, is safe?