Customer Discussions > Science forum

Neutrino was just clocked going faster than the speed of light at the hadron collider!?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 236 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 20, 2011 2:01:36 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
"...new data from OPERA's sister experiment ICARUS have failed to yield any evidence for superluminal neutrinos."

Found in 10/19/11 news release at:
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2011/10/subluminal_neutrino_news_from.html

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 2:43:46 PM PDT
There are few uncertain developments.

First, the disputing paper, basing its objection on electron-positron pairs emission, is a Letter and not a Full Article. That means the authors are merely guessing but not very sure.

Second, peer review of new discoveries is unreliable unless farther experiments could lend more data in regard to the reproducibility of the earlier discovery.

Third, the fact that scientists are uncomfortable with the speed of light being the upper limit of motion has a long history and might not put to rest by the present failure.

Fourth, Einstein was not the one who suggested the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. It was Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, in 1887, who was compelled to fix c in two frames of reference moving relative to each other. Lorentz transformation was based on the simple equations x' - ct' = μ (x - ct) and x' + ct' = λ (x + ct) from which Lorentz proved his famous factor ß = 1/ √(1-v²/c²).

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on Oct 20, 2011 3:41:29 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"However, Lorentz's local time was only an auxiliary mathematical tool to simplify the transformation from one system into another - it was Poincaré in 1900 who recognized that "local time" is actually indicated by moving clocks.[20][21][22] Lorentz also recognized that his theory violated the principle of action and reaction, since the aether acts on matter, but matter cannot act on the immobile aether.[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

"Fourth, Einstein was not the one who suggested the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum."

Actually that is why special relativity was so exceptional. As noted above, Lorentz viewed the transformations as a mathematical tool without understanding what they meant physically. Einstein was the first to stated that the speed of light would be c for all observers and that there was no preferred reference frame.

"Third, the fact that scientists are uncomfortable with the speed of light being the upper limit of motion has a long history and might not put to rest by the present failure."
You have not been around for the past century have you? We find no trouble in accepting it. (Yes, "we" as in those who have degree labeled "physics" rather than "medical doctor")

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 3:49:46 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
more wonderful absurdity -

mo says -> First, the disputing paper, basing its objection on electron-positron pairs emission, is a Letter and not a Full Article. That means the authors are merely guessing but not very sure.

where do you get this stuff! various published letters were introduced as a fast way to publish results, and thereby get recognition for priority, not because the authors are unsure of their results.

the second point is just butt scratch

then mo mumbles -> Third, the fact that scientists are uncomfortable with the speed of light being the upper limit of motion has a long history and might not put to rest by the present failure.

hate to break it to you mo, and i think i'm representative here, but i've never met one physicist that's uncomfortable with 'c' being the upper speed limit, and i know quite a few.

what else do you have big guy?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 3:59:33 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I believe you will find several explanations for the OPERA experiment. There was one general relativity argument based on the local gravity. However, my favorite (i.e. the one I think is most likely) is that they forgot to take into account the motion of the GPS satellites and introduced an error of about 64 ns. I posted a link on the previous page.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 4:05:59 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
i'm with you geek, it's got occam written all over it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 1:53:59 AM PDT
Karl Schmitt says:
By the way: It`s all a question of space. Read "The Spatial Classification of Time" more carefully, then you will understand it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 5:49:59 AM PDT
tom kriske says:
karl, i like toy models of reality as much as the next guy, but to be worth anything they have to be experimentally testable. is yours? if so, have the experiments been performed? if not, why should anyone invest any intellectual capital in it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 6:15:15 AM PDT
Karl Schmitt says:
Hi tom kriske: Note, each experiment is subject to the space-time interpretation of the human brain. See also Kant´s "Critic of Pure Reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 6:23:06 AM PDT
anne says:
I read this is being reported after months of analyzing the data. Does anyone here know when the test was run--what date?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 6:43:49 AM PDT
tom kriske says:
nonsense karl. you can't float a philosophical model to scientifically explain the world, we've thankfully moved beyond that.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 7:05:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2011 7:08:31 AM PDT
A customer says:
Karl Schmitt - "See also Kant´s 'Critic of Pure Reason'."

Or David Deutch's "Against Reality"...

EDIT: Correction, Paul Feyerabend.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 7:09:08 AM PDT
A customer says:
Speaking of Feierabend, catch you later. Alcohol-free beer time.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 7:19:50 AM PDT
Karl Schmitt says:
Oh tom, you forget the unrelated juxaposition of macro and microcosmos. Or, how i could say also: of causality and acausality. Heisenberg and Bohr knew the problem. They also refer to Kant. Nonsens or what?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 8:28:31 AM PDT
tom kriske says:
good luck karl.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 8:43:59 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"On 31 May 2010, OPERA researchers announced the observation of a first tau neutrino candidate event in a muon neutrino beam.[3] In September 2011, CERN and OPERA announced that time of flight measurements made by their collaboration had indicated muon neutrinos traveling at faster than lightspeed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 8:54:24 AM PDT
anne says:
Thank you, Physics Geek!

What does "a first tau neutrino candidate event" mean?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 8:57:29 AM PDT
Yo says:
Stop me if you've heard this one before.

The bartender asks the neutrino: "What'll it be?"
A neutrino goes into a bar.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 8:58:44 AM PDT
This bloke should sober up and go beat some creationists.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 8:59:22 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
That means it was the first event they detected that appeared to come from CERN. Since neutrinos are very hard to detect and there is no way to pinpoint their source, they have to rely on statistics to find the right neutrinos.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 9:35:14 AM PDT
anne says:
oh, ok. Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 10:25:20 AM PDT
Karl Schmitt says:
Probably so. But since Heisenberg, the causality has a problem and thus the speed of photons and neutrinos.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 12:27:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2011 3:12:41 PM PDT
Heisenberg's uncertainty saves the day in many situations when the classical laws of physics are breached. In its simplest form, the uncertainty principle (∆x.∆p ≥ ħ/2) can be written as

(∆v.∆E ≥ ħ/2)

Thus, when the change in energy of a neutrino, ∆E, is finite, the change in its velocity, ∆v, in indeterminate; or extremely large.

The same rationale followed by Wolfgang Pauli in inventing the neutrino in order to preserve the conservation of energy, momentum, and spin, when ß-rays are emitted from the radioactive materials, can be followed by relying on Heisenberg's uncertainty to explain the superluminal neutrinos.

However, the unsettling aspect of special relativity lies in the fixation of the speed of light in an absolute frame reference without acknowledging the existence of universal medium that permeates the space and anchors the light photons in such absolute frame.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 2:32:12 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
time is the correct conjugate variable to energy in the uncertainty relation.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 2:46:21 PM PDT
Don Jennings says:
//tom kriske says:
time is the correct conjugate variable to energy in the uncertainty relation. //

I see you caught that before I posted -- but Mohamed is ignoring me (but not you for some reason) so it would not have mattered.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
was the moon landing real or fake, and why? 5194 25 minutes ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation part 2 2345 50 minutes ago
Questions for Intelligent Design Fans 4596 2 hours ago
Knowledge 1571 3 hours ago
Is there ANY Scientific case that an embryo is NOT a human being? 60 3 hours ago
Hands up, all those who actually believe that the Antarctic is in danger of melting! 70 4 hours ago
The US Government is UnConstitutionally Promoting Creationism. 40 4 hours ago
1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun 145 4 hours ago
Investing in 3 D Printing stocks and pre-public offering opportunities 0 4 hours ago
Words are words-- but results are wanted. No one achieves all that is wanted-- so accept what happens and keep trying until you're dead 14 5 hours ago
Fracking is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma 2 6 hours ago
There has been no global warming in 18 years (as of August, 2014) 77 10 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  42
Total posts:  236
Initial post:  Sep 22, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions