Neutrinos speed

[lbiarge]

In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly reported neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

Very probably is an anomaly, I go not treat this now, but the physics say then that cannot to be true and that it’s against measures of the “theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

In all this explanations and beliefs they forget that light is a wave and neutrino is matter, waves travel at a constant speed in an environment but matter can travel at different speeds (maybe c is the maximum speed).

So “believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly is only a lie probably subjective by their belief.

Matter can travel at different speeds, so it’s completely probably and reconcile that any neutrinos travel at different speed.

Really they say the same and not sure the real speed: “The delay of Icarus "only" 0.3 ns +-4ns +- 9ns (though still "in favor" of neutrinos), still leaves a large randomness of uncertainty about what the neutrinos have approached the speed of light” - http://marius-gravity.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/opera-phantom.html

 

They use average “measured proton pulses to get an average distribution in time of the individual protons in a pulse.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly because really each neutrino has a different speed, like “each of which traveled with a slightly different speed!” in http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/neutrinos/neutrino-types-and-neutrino-oscillations/velocity-differences-of-neutrinos/

 

So it’s necessary to say that light in a environment travel at constant speed (is a wave) but neutrinos have different speeds (is a particle and by that is matter).

Also we need to consider that we have not a supernova to proof the speed, only can accelerate in accelerator, by that is probably that in supernova, accelerator, Sun, … can have different speeds.

 

Supernova 1987A – “thus 1.000000002 times the speed of light. This value was obtained by comparing the arrival times of light and neutrinos. The difference of approximately three hours was explained by the circumstance, that the almost noninteracting neutrinos could pass the supernova unhindered while light required a longer time” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed , quicker but always with explanation to all against their ideas

Good, good, all time with subjective for explain the things without contradict the loved theory. The neutrinos also are curved by gravity like the light and light and neutrinos start in same point. Light not travel from the backside of the supernova and by that this affirmation is totally false.

Really I would obtain other probabilities in the Supernova:

1 – Maybe that the light in vacuum not be the maximum speed and that light travel more speed in other environment, so the neutrinos not exceed light speed but exceeding the light speed in vacuum.

2 - Really neutrinos exceed light speed, this is according to the Opera experiment and also very probably also according to the Icarus that also is not sure that exceed or not light speed.

3 – Other probabilities but not false solutions. Maybe that boot neutrinos from accelerator and supernova are according to light speed but not with lies.

Really the value of Supernova 1987A and experiments are very reconciling against that say subjective scientists. The result in supernova only is less that light speed with that explanation without any evidence and against any proof and physic.

In same form that they explain the reconcile of Supernova 1987A and light speed you could reconcile everything.

Here I’m not saying that neutrinos exceed or not light speed, is probably that light speed is more that c and by that the result are error, but treat to reconcile with lies, it’s not good and say bad of the subjective procedure.

If the theory of relativity works fine or not is another team, but reject the proofs and the reality is another thing, like belief and religion.

To say “theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” only is a true lie, and more over a particle that like matter can travel at different speeds (with maximum speed or not).

Good work for the science that make resigned to that people that offer the result with courage and probably errors - http://io9.com/dario-autiero/ and many more good work to the science that permit that the cowardly that work and not sign obtain the recompense. This is a very good work. A courage people is that admit the obtained result with errors or not and show them with errors or not.

And after all, neutrinos can travel and really travel at different speeds, by that they speak over average. Not compare with waves that travel at constant speed in each environment (vacuum, …) .

But in general good time for science.

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks.

© Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

[Klaynos]

The opera result was found to be anomalous due to a mistake in the equipment set up. This produced a large enough change to explain the apparent faster than light result.

 

Your idea that light as it is a wave and neutrinos as they are particles are very different is flawed as they both exhibit wave like ans particle like behaviours.

 

You seem to have missunderstood why it is expected that light will propagate slower through space than neutrinos. The light will interact with things like hydrogen clouds reducing its effective speed, neutrinos will not (or is massively reduced). Given what we know about the density of space the time distance was consistent with neutrinos moving close to but below c. This was a prediction not an after the fact modification.

 

c, has been found to be the speed of massless particles. It it wasn't invariant and a limit then electromagnetism wouldn't work. You relied on relativity to use the technology to make your post, just without knowing it. Relativity has stood every test so far.

[lbiarge]

The opera result was found to be anomalous due to a mistake in the equipment set up. This produced a large enough change to explain the apparent faster than light result.

 

Your idea that light as it is a wave and neutrinos as they are particles are very different is flawed as they both exhibit wave like ans particle like behaviours.

 

You seem to have missunderstood why it is expected that light will propagate slower through space than neutrinos. The light will interact with things like hydrogen clouds reducing its effective speed, neutrinos will not (or is massively reduced). Given what we know about the density of space the time distance was consistent with neutrinos moving close to but below c. This was a prediction not an after the fact modification.

 

c, has been found to be the speed of massless particles. It it wasn't invariant and a limit then electromagnetism wouldn't work. You relied on relativity to use the technology to make your post, just without knowing it. Relativity has stood every test so far.

 

Sorry, I only make this affirmation:

 

“theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” - http://en.wikipedia....eutrino_anomaly

 

This is false, matter can travel at any speed below the maximum speed.

 

"Your idea that light as it is a wave and neutrinos as they are particles are very different is flawed as they both exhibit wave like ans particle like behaviours."

 

This theory until today (Higgs boson, ...) has not find waves with mass and 1 only particle that travel in all direction like waves or for example 1 photon.

Edited March 6, 2013 by lbiarge

[swansont]

Sorry, I only make this affirmation:

 

“theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations” - http://en.wikipedia....eutrino_anomaly

 

This is false, matter can travel at any speed below the maximum speed.

 

The signals indicated superluminal speed, so what's your point?

 

"Your idea that light as it is a wave and neutrinos as they are particles are very different is flawed as they both exhibit wave like ans particle like behaviours."

 

This theory until today (Higgs boson, ...) has not find waves with mass and 1 only particle that travel in all direction like waves or for example 1 photon.

 

Wave behavior has been observed with electrons, atoms and molecules. All have been observed to diffract and interfere.

[ydoaPs]

Wave behavior has been observed with electrons, atoms and molecules. All have been observed to diffract and interfere.

This has been done with fairly large molecules as well. Iirc, they've observed Buckminsterfullerene exhibiting wave behaviour.

[lbiarge]

The signals indicated superluminal speed, so what's your point?

 

 

Wave behavior has been observed with electrons, atoms and molecules. All have been observed to diffract and interfere.

 

"The signals indicated superluminal speed, so what's your point?"

 

I don't say this, I say that a particle can to travel at any speed below their maximum speed, so any speed is compatible with any other, different to waves that travel a constant speed in each environment (vacuum, ...)

 

So neutrinos traveling near to light speed is totally compatible with neutrinos traveling at 1000 times less speed. In same form that a car traveling at 200 km/hour is totally compatible to another car traveling at 10 km/hour

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

"Wave behavior has been observed with electrons, atoms and molecules. All have been observed to diffract and interfere."

 

Yes, but until today nobody has observed particles without mass and also nobody has observed waves with mass.

[swansont]

"The signals indicated superluminal speed, so what's your point?"

 

I don't say this, I say that a particle can to travel at any speed below their maximum speed, so any speed is compatible with any other, different to waves that travel a constant speed in each environment (vacuum, ...)

 

So neutrinos traveling near to light speed is totally compatible with neutrinos traveling at 1000 times less speed. In same form that a car traveling at 200 km/hour is totally compatible to another car traveling at 10 km/hour

 

 

If it has mass, yes. Any speed below c is possible.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

"Wave behavior has been observed with electrons, atoms and molecules. All have been observed to diffract and interfere."

 

Yes, but until today nobody has observed particles without mass and also nobody has observed waves with mass.

 

Massive particles have been seen to interfere. That's wave behavior. With mass,

 

Photons have no mass.

 

Wrong on both counts.

[lbiarge]

If it has mass, yes. Any speed below c is possible.

 

 

Massive particles have been seen to interfere. That's wave behavior. With mass,

 

Photons have no mass.

 

Wrong on both counts.

 

Photon is wave, by that have not mass.

[swansont]

Photon is wave, by that have not mass.

 

Photoelectric effect is not a wave behavior. Bunching and antibunching is not a wave behavior.

[lbiarge]

Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles - laws of quantum field theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics

 

Today is a theory over duality.

 

Also is string theory and Higgs boson, ...

 

"Photoelectric effect is not a wave behavior" - in same form a electronic circuit (matter) can make waves.

 

If you like I can say that a photon is a particle, but a photon like the light has a constant speed in any environment (vacuum, ...) and has not mass, against that a neutrino has mass and by that can have different speeds and this last are not theories.

[swansont]

If you like I can say that a photon is a particle, but a photon like the light has a constant speed in any environment (vacuum, ...) and has not mass, against that a neutrino has mass and by that can have different speeds and this last are not theories.

 

Yes. So what's your point?

[lbiarge]

Really is strange the construction of particle acceleratorns, according to duality wave-particles the sub-atomic particles would not need to be accelerated.

 

Do you know inf the particles accelerators accelerate the photons?

 

Do you understand why make construction of accelerators more powerfull that the already exist?

[swansont]

Really is strange the construction of particle acceleratorns, according to duality wave-particles the sub-atomic particles would not need to be accelerated.

 

Um, no. Why do you think this?

 

 

Do you know inf the particles accelerators accelerate the photons?

 

No, they don't.

 

Do you understand why make construction of accelerators more powerfull that the already exist?

 

Yes, to achieve a higher energy, which is necessary to potentially make more massive particles and investigate conditions that had this higher energy, such as shortly after the big bang.