alpha2cen Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 I don't know what this means really. And whether a supernova should cause such weird changes to spacetime curvature is beyond me. Black hole -----------------> very big gravity --------> even lights are dragged Supernova explosion ---->minus gravity state ----> every matters repel each other.
imatfaal Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 The 1st test with neutrino that exceeded speed of light was made in September at CERN, but everybody was skeptical, now we had the second confirmation that is convincing the mainstream physic and shaking the Relativity Theory fundamentally. This article also relieve another reality regarding Relativistic invariance and Lorentz Symmetry which are claimed to be inconsistence. People so far been skeptical but nobody so far claimed that it would be wrong either. It is maybe the time to reevaluate the counterarguments. I am assuming that you are Koorosh Shahdaei (if you are not I apologize in advance) - do you not think it is slightly disingenuous to pose this question as merely an interested third party? Your posts read as if it is a call to look over forgotten corpus of work - whereas i read it as a plug for your theory, with a Wikipedia page written largely by you, based on a theory published recently in a little known and brand new journal that does not appear on any of the lists of peer-reviewed academic work. Aside from the axiom that science must question received wisdom and accepted reality on a regular basis and with reference to the question posed - no it is not yet time. The second experiment at OPERA/Gran Sasso has shown that one major possibility for snafu has been ruled out and that the correlation between the proton burst and the neutrino detection is sound; this still leaves open the massive possibility of the existence of systematic error in the timing of the proton release from SPS and its connection with the neutrinos detected at OPERA. The MINOS / Fermilab experiment will not suffer from this problem as MINOS can marry up the proton burst with detection of a portion of the neutrinos at the beginning of the run AND at the end of the run; as MINOS has a neutrino detector at each end of the 734km separation. IF both MINOS and OPERA have similar results then we have a confirmation and much thought will be needed, but until that independent confirmation there is no need for lost sleep and SR isn't gonna stop working in the meantime ;-)
swansont Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Black hole -----------------> very big gravity --------> even lights are dragged Supernova explosion ---->minus gravity state ----> every matters repel each other. ! Moderator Note My admonishment on speculation applies to this as well. Discuss it in speculations, please
mmsmears Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) The OPERA experiment results still need some further testing to rule out errors. It may be too early to schedule supercomputer time but particle and theoretical physicists may want to find and dust off some of their old notebooks and theories. Imagine how many theories that seemed sound but were abandoned because the math pointed to the existence of other dimensions or particles that broke the light speed limit. If this experiment is proven, it will be as big as discovering that the earth revolves around the sun. After that discovery, all of the observations of astronomers fell into place. Particle and theoretical physicists may want to try operating under the assumption that we do not know what the speed limit of our vibrating universe is. They should try to see where observations and the math take them without a speed limit. The biggest hurdle to overcome in particle physics is the observation of subatomic particles. Just because we have not figured how to observe them does not mean that, they do not exist. I cannot wait for the full exploration of this discovery. This could usher in a new era of particle and theoretical physics where the possibilities are limitless. Imagine the implications of E=mc2 being recalculated with a different c value or using E=mx2 where you can spend an eternity discovering x. Edited November 22, 2011 by mmsmears
swansont Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 The OPERA experiment results still need some further testing to rule out errors. It may be too early to schedule supercomputer time but particle and theoretical physicists may want to find and dust off some of their old notebooks and theories. Imagine how many theories that seemed sound but were abandoned because the math pointed to the existence of other dimensions or particles that broke the light speed limit. I think dusting off old theories, or formulating new ones, has to wait until some other lab — with at least some difference in the set of systematic errors — replicates the results. OPERA thus far has only addressed one objection. There's still the issue of proton pules measurements properly translating into neutrino measurements. MINOS measures the neutrino pulse before and after, so that's one difference a new measurement will test.
dragonstar57 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 if neutrinos moved faster than light shouldn't it be possible to detect neutrinos from Stellar events prior to the light reaching us?
swansont Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 if neutrinos moved faster than light shouldn't it be possible to detect neutrinos from Stellar events prior to the light reaching us? That was a comparison that was already made. The neutrinos from SN1987a reached us a few hours ahead of the light but that's to be expected, because the light has to scatter its way through all of the matter during the explosion, while the neutrinos zip right through. But if the 60ns differential is correct, then they should have arrived a few years before the light. However: the neutrinos in the two cases had different energy, and I don't know if anyone was looking for the neutrino burst in 1983/84. 1
rabe Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Not only space, but also time is bent by big masses. Is it not just this ? Time is not necessarily assumed to be existent everywhere in the same linear form. This is also postulated by the not yet accepted all-theory: http://www.ars-una.net/thealltheory.htm
Daedalus Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 That was a comparison that was already made. The neutrinos from SN1987a reached us a few hours ahead of the light but that's to be expected, because the light has to scatter its way through all of the matter during the explosion, while the neutrinos zip right through. But if the 60ns differential is correct, then they should have arrived a few years before the light. However: the neutrinos in the two cases had different energy, and I don't know if anyone was looking for the neutrino burst in 1983/84. I was wondering if there have been any neutrino bursts which have reached us a few years before the observance of a super nova? Surely we could've detected something like this by now. If not, are there any groups checking the data to see if we have observed this?
md65536 Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) I was wondering if there have been any neutrino bursts which have reached us a few years before the observance of a super nova? Surely we could've detected something like this by now. If not, are there any groups checking the data to see if we have observed this? SN1987a is 168000 LY away. A burst of neutrinos was detected at 3 separate observatories about 3 hours before visible light was detected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A These two observations can fairly confidently be correlated. With OPERA's 60 ns "faster than light" speed, neutrinos (of another flavor I guess) might be expected 4.1 years in advance. With an estimated error of 10 ns, that translates to +/- 0.69 years. So that's over a year's worth of possible observations of a neutrino burst that could be connected with SN1987a. I can only answer your question with more questions: - Are there any other observations of super novae that have occurred recently? - Does the detection of a neutrino burst give you enough information to connect it with a super nova event (such as the direction the neutrinos came from, etc)? If not then it's possible that neutrinos from SN1987a could have been detected over a long period in 1982/83 without any way of determining whether they came from SN1987a or some other source. - Were there any neutrino bursts detected in 1982/83? As swansont mentioned, possibly no one was looking for neutrino bursts in 1983/84. I would hope that if there are any known detections of bursts from back then, that someone has checked to see if they might correlate! Otherwise, with no news about it either way I'd assume that it's because there have been no measurements (either of a burst or of a lack of bursts) that could support or oppose the idea of neutrinos arriving years before a supernova is visible. Edited December 5, 2011 by md65536
imatfaal Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 /snipped - Does the detection of a neutrino burst give you enough information to connect it with a super nova event (such as the direction the neutrinos came from, etc)? If not then it's possible that neutrinos from SN1987a could have been detected over a long period in 1982/83 without any way of determining whether they came from SN1987a or some other source. /snipped i will try and find the source that I read about the water based neutrino detectors - but from memory ..when you detect a neutrino using a huge amount of water (super-k) you are are basically on the lookout for what is called Cherenkov radiation. Cherenkov radiation is the light given off when a charged particle travels through a medium (not a vacuum) faster than the local speed of light. When a neutrino actually interacts with something in these huge water baths (vanishingly small probability) it produces a charged particle which is really moving quickly - so much so it will be going quicker than light does in water. This charged particle will give off cherenkov radiation which is detected by photomultipliers arranged around the edges. If the neutrino that interacts is currently a mu-neutrino you will get a high speed muon formed, an electron-neutrino will form an electron, a tau-neutrino... The tau and the muon (the big leptons not the neutrinos) decay rapidly into unique showers of other particles (most of which are high-speed) the electron bashes into a water molecule. The particle showers of the tau and the muon and the single spark of the electron produce very different patterns of cherenkov radiation - so the detector will know which flavour the neutrino was when it interacted. I seem to remember therefore that tau and mu neutrinos will have a directional shower - how this correlates with the input particle direction I would have to read up upon
StarStuff Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 I heard that what might have happened is that at impact, the neutrinos were somehow temporarily expelled out of our 3D membrane and then they re-entered, thus appearing to have traveled faster than the speed of light. In other words, they were inadvertently forced through a shortcut, kinda like a wormhole.
toastywombel Posted December 26, 2011 Author Posted December 26, 2011 I heard that what might have happened is that at impact, the neutrinos were somehow temporarily expelled out of our 3D membrane and then they re-entered, thus appearing to have traveled faster than the speed of light. In other words, they were inadvertently forced through a shortcut, kinda like a wormhole. While I would say the above is highly unlikely, the longer this story has gone on without anyone finding an error, the more credibility the experiments seem to gain, then more and more theories seem to flood in. I just read an article on some of the theories floating around and I figured I might provide a small collection, that was put together very nicely by the folks at Newscientist.com. While I have not always been a big fan of the site they do a nice job here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228443.900-smart-guide-to-2012-neutrinos-may-be-tachyons.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21010-fasterthanlight-neutrinos-new-answers-flood-in.html I personally find the "diffused glass theory" somewhat interesting. However this should all be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as the experiment has not had the chance to undergo the scrutiny of continual replications and study.
Sharapovaphan Posted December 29, 2011 Posted December 29, 2011 The thing I detest is people thinking it must be wrong... "just because." I still find Zhang's Dark Energy Theory plausible.
Sorcerer Posted December 29, 2011 Posted December 29, 2011 No. But tachyons would need an imaginary mass to follow relativity, and the question becomes what does it mean to have an imaginary mass? anti higgs boson?
pantheory Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 This article is another weigh-in against faster than light neutrinos. They are saying that few if any neutrinos would be produced if the pions produced by OPERA were moving at the speed of light because time dilatation would prevent decay. Since neutrinos were accordingly produced by pion decay, these pions must accordingly have been traveling slower than the speed of light. Pions decaying at velocities slower than the speed of light can only decay into/ produce particles also traveling at speeds less than the speed of light. To allow for neutrino speeds faster than light not only Special Relativity would be in jeopardy, but also the standard model of particle physics and particle decay rate formulations. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111223114121.htm
imatfaal Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 This article is another weigh-in against faster than light neutrinos. They are saying that few if any neutrinos would be produced if the pions produced by OPERA were moving at the speed of light because time dilatation would prevent decay. Since neutrinos were accordingly produced by pion decay, these pions must accordingly have been traveling slower than the speed of light. Pions decaying at velocities slower than the speed of light can only decay into/ produce particles also traveling at speeds less than the speed of light. To allow for neutrino speeds faster than light not only Special Relativity would be in jeopardy, but also the standard model of particle physics and particle decay rate formulations. http://www.scienceda...11223114121.htm Thanks Pan - I will read the article. However I do deplore this sort of statement in the Sciencedaily Write-up Cowsik and his collaborators put their finger on what appears to be an insurmountable problem with the experiment. A theoretical problem for an experimental result may cast doubt on the accuracy and methodology but it cannot refute the results. If (and it's a big if that I don't think will be realised, but for the sake of argument if...) Fermilab/MINOS and others reproduce the CERN/OPERA results then no amount of theory can gainsay them - theory does and must take a backseat to empirical data. If neutrinos are found to be travelling faster than light then theory must be adapted (probably minor but maybe wholesale) - you cannot just ignore reproducible data because it fails to fit in with your model - no matter how successful that model has been to date 1
md65536 Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) "Faulty Cable To Blame For Superluminal Neutrino Results" http://science.slash...eutrino-results This story got a lot of people thinking. Was it really all for nothing? Edit: I guess I should mention that this isn't confirmed yet, and the article neither explains it very well nor cites sources. Edited February 23, 2012 by md65536 1
imatfaal Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Everyone wanted to believe that maybe we could witness a bit of a paradigm shift - but in reality expected something like this to be the result. I wonder if MINOS/Fermilab will continue with their experiment. The US team's test were expected to have concluded by end of Feb if I remember correctly - I believe the particle beam was going into maintenance in March and they hoped to have done the experiment to be able to check the results before then.
IM Egdall Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Apparently, CERN has identified two possible issues in their faster than light neutrino results. One, a faulty optical fibre, would make the neutrino speeds less than reported. The other, an oscillator used for GPS timing, wouild make the neutrino speeds greater than reported. I guess we have to wait for further analysis to find out the total impact of these anomolies on the measurements. (The devil is in the details.) See link: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48763
imatfaal Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Thanks IME - and to answer my own question, the follow-up experiments around the world are all at a stage that they will go ahead
Moontanman Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Damn, I was hoping for the FTL neutrinos.... I always like to stir... well you know....
pantheory Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Although they have identified a couple of potential error culprits they will be shooting neutrinos again in late March. I would not be surprised if the "problem" is still there. If not the causes they have identified, then I still have my bets upon a distance error of about 20 meters possibly based upon errors in the GPS programming via presently unknown physics .
Amateur -1 Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) This just came out so there is not a lot of clarity on it: "GENEVA (AP) -- Scientists at the world's largest physics lab say they have clocked subatomic particles traveling faster than light, a feat that - if true - would break a fundamental pillar of science." http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT Why ask if these findings would have toppled relativity, well no relativity actually predicts it. Look mass ð> in motion = force/ energy either as expanding steam or hot gasses, even atomic particles. Now look at relativities prediction of atomic energy if fully relieved at one time E=mass at motion / speed of C² and that is the speed of light time itself. I really hope that we never get to that point because our best one now is only 25% o 1% of that. Edited February 26, 2012 by Amateur -1
Recommended Posts