Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep3_banner.thumb.jpg.5533fb830ae914798f4dbbdd2c8a5853.jpg

ncjunk

Neutrinos moving faster than light?

Recommended Posts

Juliano, yes in other words perceived faster than light is impossible from two separate reference frames. I am well aware that speed is a scalar quantity. It does mean you can't remain in a non inertial reference frame indefinitely. Say you fell into a hypothetical black hole gravitational field the size of a Galaxy you would be accelerating continuously for thousands of years measured from your own reference frame. You would feel a G force.

The current Big Bang model is in crisis at the moment. Space is too smooth, does not account for dark energy, does not explain what caused the big bang,and superclusters clusters of galaxies near the theoretical maximum distance 13.7billion ly away did not have time to form. Note:Galaxy formation is not fully understood clearly yet.

Particle pair production in a vacuum is a very well understood concept in Quantum theory as part of the Uncertainty principle, it has been measured, it is used to initiate inflation in the current big bang model. If the energy of nothing which I can go into deeper later, is sufficient to produce particle pairs of extremely high energies,why do we need a huge hot long duration big bang at a specific moment in time,that does not have enough time to pay back the energy it stole from nothing. Faster than light Inflation is a abhorrent an idea, which is not even good enough to explain why the CMB is so smooth on opposite sides of the Universe.What about dark flow how does the BB model explain that?What is so special about the 'nothing'13.7billion years ago when most of what makes up atoms is today is nothing. Finally the vacuum of space, the quantum foam if you like, produces equal numbers of particle pairs.Where do you think all the antiparticles go? The antineutrino may be the answer. It is my hypothesis for the faster than light detection, my hypothesis for the dark energy particle as well.. Time will tell...

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mystery solved like a methodological problem, OPERA scientists have done the calculations as if the clocks were on land, but the GPS is in orbit, apparently they simply ignored the own Relativity ?

“Consequently, in this reference frame the distance traveled by the [particles] is shorter than the distance separating the source and detector,” van Elburg writes. This phenomenon is overlooked because the OPERA team thinks of the clocks as on the ground — which they are, physically — and not in orbit, which is where their synchronizing reference point is located."

Ronald A.J. van Elburg

More in:

- Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity - Technology Review

- [1110.2685] Time-of-flight between a Source and a Detector observed from a Satellite

[ ]´s

Edited by hukadarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Schoolboy errors" and "particle accelerators" should never be used in the same sentence.

I wonder if I'll get the credit with this rather than van Elburg? :)

Edited by blackparticle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice links and I had to read back through the posts for Blackparticles comments.....you should have stuck your hand up and shouted louder! how the heck do you publish a rebuttal? I suppose it comes down to the abilty to submit it to Cern and publish it with the resources to issue a press release. I don´t think anyone would pay attention if I issued a press release ;-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I still have a modicum of faith in the Opera guys. GPS seems to be well understood technology re. both general and special relativistic correction? If the error was trivial, I'm surprised noone else amidst the potentially VOCAL sea of critics hasn't suggested it. But it's an odd situation. Short of getting my 'scope out (As in oscilloscope?), how can anyone comment on timing errors (or indeed other blunders) of a complex particle physics experiment, remotely and "abstractly? :)

I was amused to see someone pointing out (rather obviously) that this "isn't CERN's problem". But then, I doubt any of *us* would be credited (publically) with a solution - Unless you offer (on Twitter) to "Eat your shorts", live from the summit of Mont Blanc, in a wheelchair etc. ... If you're WRONG! (No disrespect to the differently-enabled) But such is "modern physics"? :):evil6:

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very nice links and I had to read back through the posts for Blackparticles comments.....you should have stuck your hand up and shouted louder!

I let Jim al-Khalili know who then told Marcus Du Soutoy as he had started work on a BBC2 documentary about the experiment.

Me calling those that work at CERN a bunch of 'nobbers' will make for great TV. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... I still have a modicum of faith in the Opera guys. GPS seems to be well understood technology re. both general and special relativistic correction? If the error was trivial, I'm surprised noone else amidst the potentially VOCAL sea of critics hasn't suggested it. But it's an odd situation. Short of getting my 'scope out (As in oscilloscope?), how can anyone comment on timing errors (or indeed other blunders) of a complex particle physics experiment, remotely and "abstractly? :)

I was amused to see someone pointing out (rather obviously) that this "isn't CERN's problem". But then, I doubt any of *us* would be credited (publically) with a solution - Unless you offer (on Twitter) to "Eat your shorts", live from the summit of Mont Blanc, in a wheelchair etc. ... If you're WRONG! (No disrespect to the differently-enabled) Such is "modern physics" now? :):evil6:

I think a lot of ideas are postulated in passing and that a fair few people would be able to say "I said that". It´s the few who have the ability to commit their ideas to paper and then advertise the fact enabling peer review that are the important ones.

Eating your shorts in a wheelchair live from the summit of Mont Blanc shouldn´t be too difficult should it? they have wheelchair access to certain areas look at the table at the bottom:

The Lift System in Chamonix

now to search for edible shorts....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I let Jim al-Khalili know who then told Marcus Du Soutoy as he had started work on a BBC2 documentary about the experiment.

Me calling those that work at CERN a bunch of 'nobbers' will make for great TV. :)

Ok, I will let you off just this once but I warn you I have contacts too....I can let my 78 year old Galician neighbour know. Although first I´ll have to explain the Cern experiment...then a little bit on particle physics possibly in Galician. Ok forget that I´ll just go up Mont blonc with the edible shorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts about that theory, CERN claims they have taken into account things like relativity. And an arvix document doesn't neccessarily count as a peer reviewed document although I'm sure it is being reviewed now. Plus as I understand the GPS was only used to synchronise the clocks not do any of the timing. I think the theory is flawed and the mystery is still open for the getting.

CERN really need to open up the process' used to scrutiny now, simply saying we have accounted for these things is fine but we don't know exactly what they have accounted for.

From the CERN paper.

A key feature of the neutrino velocity measurement is the accuracy of the relative time tagging at CERN and at the OPERA detector. The standard GPS receivers formerly installed at CERN and LNGS would feature an insufficient ~100 ns accuracy for the TOFν measurement. Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications Septentrio PolaRx2e operating in “common-view” mode and a Cs atomic clock Symmetricom Cs4000, were installed at CERN and LNGS. They were calibrated by the Swiss Metrology Institute (METAS) and established a permanent time link between two reference points (tCERN and tLNGS) of the timing chains of CERN and OPERA at the nanosecond level. The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns. This correction was taken into account in the application of the time link.

The relative positions of the elements of the CNGS beam line are known with millimetre accuracy. When these coordinates are transformed into the global geodesy reference frame ETRF2000 by relating them to external GPS benchmarks, they are known within 2 cm accuracy.

The high-accuracy time-transfer GPS receiver allows to continuously monitor tiny

movements of the Earth’s crust, such as continental drift that shows up as a smooth variation of less than 1 cm/year, and the detection of slightly larger effects due to earthquakes

I don't think this one will be answered so easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why nature sets limits for momentum, it has to, otherwise we'd get horrible infinities. Nature sets limits in All directions, that includes angular momentum and towards infinitesimal small scales. If one tried to surpass such a limit the momentum of the object would turn into a higher plane, or dimension if you like.The one most people are familiar with is the speed of light in relation to acceleration in a particular direction of space-time. The speed of light, 300000000m/s is a fixed speed. But why this figure? My guess it some constant relationship between the plank size and the rate of expansion of the universe. If the universe is a black hole then at the plank scale it may be very small, because that's where it's singularity may reside, spread out as quantum foam. Entanglement of particles does suggest this. Two particles spread across large distances and entangled may actually be the very one and same particle!

The thing is this,if the size of the universe is much smaller at lower scales then maybe the speed of light may appear to be different... I'm not convinced with my argument however. I Need to think harder.I'm as stumped as everyone else.

Recently I have been thinking about the arrow of time and antiparticles. Antiparticles have the arrow of time opposite to matter. But when I think about matter when it is accelerated to relativistic speeds, time slows. This slowing of time occurs in any direction at relativistic speeds. But what gives us the rate of time when we are stationary, the initial push if you like. Could it be that matter actually has the opposite time arrow, since matter can slow time down. Maybe the hidden antimatter (perhaps in superposition all around us) may have a forward time arrow and be responsible for our feeling of time, particularly as I think it is responsible for the expansion of the universe (has negative mass so good candidate for the elusive Dark Energy)

Time is like a river it can be be speeded up or slowed to a stop but I can't see time being reversed.. That's silly.

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the other thread CERN and the Neutrino,.. I think it was called. It was mentioned that the reason for the apparent faster than light neutrino was the results of inaccuracies of measuring exactly the position of GPS satellites relative to The experiment. I'm convinced that's the answer.. Faster than light can never happen.

But why is it 300000000m/s.. Started me thinking. If the plank limit is a limit to angular momentum of a collapsing body, could the speed of light be a constant relationship between this and the maximum expanding rate of the universe?

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if their systematics are out of whack, then that would be expected.

By the way, it's not quite true that Einstein said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. It's more accurate to say that nothing can cross the c barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, yes they have sorted (almost) the time problem, they haven't sorted the distance problem in any way in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happened to the counter challenge about the relative position of the GPS Satellite in Orbit to the timer on ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not convinced. Van Elburg did a very good job of crunching the numbers and backed up what I initially suspected. I don't think the method of clock sync via GPS pulses has changed for the second run of the experiment.

Repeated error in my opinion.

I'd like to be wrong of course. FTL neutrinos would be the start of something new in advanced communications and all sorts of other interesting future tech developments. c+17000mph is a bit pants though.. which is another reason why I think its an error.. The universe has a habit of blowing our minds when we peel away the next layer of the cosmic onion.

If this is the kind of performance increase we can expect from FTL physics then I can't see the point. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the OPERA scientists openly dismissed the VE paper and said it was all accounted for, I do not think that would be the issue and if it had any merit to it then it would of been adjusted for in the next run of tests or at the least not of been dismissed entirely and I doubt that those who didn't sign the original paper would of jumped aboard this paper had they put any weight to it.

It may well be a timing issue but probably a different one than the VE paper suggests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New test finds neutrinos still faster than light | Reuters

Interesting, they still got the same results with even more accurate timings.

Very interesting indeed ! With all the kudos attaining/pertaining to the one who comes up with the killer explanation of why the neutrinos were not exceeding the speed of light in vacuo it makes one wonder why such an explanation (given that the greatest minds must be focussed upon this little problem) has not in these few weeks past past become evident. :) Which makes one think that there is something odd awry here !

There is a little problem with that Reuters report

10 microseconds each, so measuring their exact arrival time at Gran Sasso could have had relatively large errors.

To account for this, the beams sent by CERN in this latest experiment were around three nanoseconds shorter, with large gaps of 524 nanoseconds between them,

they were not 3nS shorter, they were 3nS long total vs. 10000nS total in the original experiment.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2685v3

Much greater time precision/identification but at the loss of visibility (only a few events vs. thousands of events) .

Nevertheless they are satisfied with the statistical significance.

What I find really interesting, regardless of the outcome, is that here are a bunch of scientists in effect scratching their heads and saying "ummm this seems a bit outrageous really but ,,,, help!"

whereas in times gone by one peer reviewed paper would be contradicted by another peer reviewed paper and the argument would be lost in the ensuing slanging match of personalities ! (Fred Hoyle vs. BigBang for just one [brief !] example)

Edit later :

Catch up - Channel 4 News

John Butterworth keeping KrishnanGM nailed to the ground on Ch4 with a resonable (for British popular TV) attempt/treatment of the latest "science is broke" news.:):D

Edited by Ptarmigan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if their systematics are out of whack, then that would be expected.

By the way, it's not quite true that Einstein said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. It's more accurate to say that nothing can cross the c barrier.

Very good point. For example light in different medium travels at different speeds. One possibility is that the vacuum of space that of 3D/4D space-time is less perfect than we think, although I must of admit although I'm as perplexed as you guys. In my brain storming thread of 6 degrees of separation it is interesting to note that I single out the neutrino as being the only particle that can travel through a 6th dimension unimpeded. There is something special about this guy the Neutrino. ... Do you agree NeutrinoWave :)

The simplest hypothesis is usually the right one. So my money is on an inaccuracy of the measurement ie GPS satellites being in error due to dark energy around the Earth. In other words the Earths magnetic field. This would explain why Supernova 1987As neutrinos were on time. Dark energy (magnetic field) with an overall spread out negative mass effect would increase the

rate of time slightly. I suggest they do another test pointing the neutrinos in a different direction through the Earth to check for this.

Don't forget we do have observational evidence of space craft flyby inaccuracies.

http://www.the-origin.org/Flyby%20Anomalies.pdf

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no errors in the experiment then maybe, MAYBE...

c is the limit within 4D spacetime

and

neutrinos tunnel through higher dimensions, thus perceived to appear to travel faster in our spacetime, but in fact define their own limit in a higher dimensional spacetime.

It just defies belief how a particle with some minimal rest(Invariant) mass, negilgible though it may be, can travel faster than c in vacuum in 4D spacetime

You can only achieve c for massless particles, is that not so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.