Neutrinos recorded travelling faster than speed of light!

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
The three
forms of neutrinos: electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino.
They might all be massless.

I don't think "massless" is consistent with neutrino oscillation,
which has been observed in multiple experiments.

The effect of the l'Aquila earthquake was observed in the data and
taken into account (Fig 7). The shift was several cm.

This was a very difficult measurement. I was wondering whether
relativistic corrections in the clock rates were done properly, but I
expect if something such as that were grossly wrong, one of the
174(!) investigators would have spotted it. (I don't promise my
author count is correct.) The actual preprint is at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

wrote:
In sci.physics Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 23/09/2011 1:06 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
My bad. For some reason I thought it was a muon, since they mentioned one
of my old prof's work.

The conventional wisdom is that all massless particles travel at the
speed of light.

Quite frankly, since all the physicist reporting on this are Italians, I
don't think anything interesting has really been found. :-p

It is probably more about phunding than physics.

My money is on the 2009 L'Aquila Italian earthquake changing the
landscape, creating a distance calibration error.

Yousuf Khan

Since it appears they update that in real time, I doubt it.


I haven't been reading this, nor the other, threads. How does
one know that it's the same neutrino?

/BAH

In article ,
says...

.....How does one know that it's the same neutrino?


I would say one does know
it is not the same neutrino.

Neutrino detection is destructive,
using its rare weak force based interaction with matter.

By other words, either is is not detected,
either there is no neutrino any more.

By if I am wrong, I would be glad corrected,
not being expert.

--
Poutnik

In sci.astro message , Fri, 23 Sep 2011
12:48:42, Yousuf Khan posted:

On 23/09/2011 11:39 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:07:24 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 23/09/2011 5:42 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
A theory is based on logical reasoning. Just stating "Nothing moves
faster than light" is dogma.

I give you that stating 'All dogmas will fall' is also a dogma, and
probably with the current state of eeeehhhhh mind ... of humanity all
dogmas it holds will not fall before the species goes extinct. But that
still leaves Einsteins a dogma.

Or perhaps you didn't bother to review the experiments that came before
Einstein that were leading to the conclusion that Einstein came to?

Yousuf Khan

If Muons have mass and they are moving at light speed, then the energy of
the particle is, according to SR, a singularity.

Whoever said muons are travelling at the speed of light? Now if you're
referring to the "muon neutrino" then you might be right. The three
forms of neutrinos: electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino.
They might all be massless.


AIUI, neutrino oscillation is considered to prove a mass difference
between the oscillating types, implying IIRC that at most one type can
be massless.

The most likely explanation seems to be an error in the distance
travelled or the time taken, perhaps due to imperfect comprehension of
exactly what the observed time and distance measures actually mean.

To be really convincing, they need to send light along an exactly
parallel route next to the neutrino route. Drilling a hole of that
length is left as an exercise for the reader.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFC5536/7)

On Sep 22, 1:04*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
There's probably an instrument error responsible for this.

* * * * Yousuf Khan
***
Particles recorded moving faster than light - CERN | Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM3UU...
(Reuters) - An international team of scientists has recorded neutrino particles travelling faster than the speed of light, a spokesman for the researchers said on Thursday -- in what could be a challenge to one of the fundamental rules of physics.

Antonio Ereditato, who works at the CERN particle physics centre on the Franco-Swiss border, told Reuters that measurements over three years showed the neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso, Italy.

"We have high confidence in our results. But we need other colleagues to do their tests and confirm them," he said.

If confirmed, the discovery would overturn a key part of Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, which says that nothing in the universe can travel faster than light. (Reporting by Robert Evans, editing by Tom Miles)

There is good reason for skepticism.
http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf

Jerry

On 24/09/2011 9:23 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
I haven't been reading this, nor the other, threads. How does
one know that it's the same neutrino?

I'm sure they don't know exactly. They are probably just matching up
burst events (i.e. matching up peaks on a graph). If an experiment is
happening in the LHC, when the reactions occur, it'll produce a burst of
neutrinos. They'd know exactly when a reaction occurred at the LHC, and
they'd match that up with a burst of detected neutrinos at the neutrino
detector. If the peaks are proportional, then they know it comes from
the same event.

Yousuf Khan

On 23/09/2011 6:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In ,
Yousuf writes:
The three
forms of neutrinos: electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino.
They might all be massless.

I don't think "massless" is consistent with neutrino oscillation,
which has been observed in multiple experiments.

I did say "might be" in the above quote.

However, it does segue into an interesting possibility. Let's say that
after all of this controversy is done, and a cause is found for the
error, and they correct the error. After the correction, neutrinos are
once again found to travel at *exactly* the speed of photons. We'll be
back to where we started. I suspect that they would've been more happy
to see neutrinos that travelled 1:20,000 _slower_ than photons rather
than the same amount _faster_. Because the slower neutrinos would be
proof that they had mass. But if the correction shows them at exactly
the same speed as photons again, then we can't prove neutrino mass.

If neutrino mass can't be proven, then what other alternatives are there
to explain neutrino oscillation?

The effect of the l'Aquila earthquake was observed in the data and
taken into account (Fig 7). The shift was several cm.

It's not explained where exactly the the GPS measurement beacons are
located. I suspect they are located above ground (to get the GPS
signal), and the neutrino detector is located several km's down a
mineshaft, and the LHC itself is also located several feet below the
surface. They probably take an assumed distance from the surface to the
bottom of the mine and to the LHC tunnels. A larger displacement might
have happened down below ground than is visible on the surface.

They should be sending this to the geologists to get to the bottom of.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 23/09/2011 6:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In ,
Yousuf writes:
The three
forms of neutrinos: electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino.
They might all be massless.

I don't think "massless" is consistent with neutrino oscillation,
which has been observed in multiple experiments.

I did say "might be" in the above quote.

However, it does segue into an interesting possibility. Let's say that
after all of this controversy is done, and a cause is found for the
error, and they correct the error. After the correction, neutrinos are
once again found to travel at *exactly* the speed of photons. We'll be
back to where we started. I suspect that they would've been more happy
to see neutrinos that travelled 1:20,000 _slower_ than photons rather
than the same amount _faster_. Because the slower neutrinos would be
proof that they had mass. But if the correction shows them at exactly
the same speed as photons again, then we can't prove neutrino mass.

If there are neutrino-antineutrino oscillations, as originally conjectured
by Pontecorvo but never observed, then they can be both massless and could
also appear supraluminal. But you might have difficulty matching the rest
of the quantitative solar neutrino data.

Steve

In sci.physics jmfbahciv wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 23/09/2011 1:06 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
My bad. For some reason I thought it was a muon, since they mentioned one
of my old prof's work.

The conventional wisdom is that all massless particles travel at the
speed of light.

Quite frankly, since all the physicist reporting on this are Italians, I
don't think anything interesting has really been found. :-p

It is probably more about phunding than physics.

My money is on the 2009 L'Aquila Italian earthquake changing the
landscape, creating a distance calibration error.

Yousuf Khan

Since it appears they update that in real time, I doubt it.


I haven't been reading this, nor the other, threads. How does
one know that it's the same neutrino?

/BAH

You don't.

The neutrinos are in a burst, sort of like firing a shotgun, and statistical
anaylysis is done on the "clump" of neutrinos at the two ends.

That of course is a big simplification, but the general idea of how it is
done.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 23/09/2011 6:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In ,
Yousuf writes:
The three
forms of neutrinos: electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino.
They might all be massless.

I don't think "massless" is consistent with neutrino oscillation,
which has been observed in multiple experiments.

I did say "might be" in the above quote.

However, it does segue into an interesting possibility. Let's say that
after all of this controversy is done, and a cause is found for the
error, and they correct the error. After the correction, neutrinos are
once again found to travel at *exactly* the speed of photons. We'll be
back to where we started. I suspect that they would've been more happy
to see neutrinos that travelled 1:20,000 _slower_ than photons rather
than the same amount _faster_. Because the slower neutrinos would be
proof that they had mass. But if the correction shows them at exactly
the same speed as photons again, then we can't prove neutrino mass.

If neutrino mass can't be proven, then what other alternatives are there
to explain neutrino oscillation?

The effect of the l'Aquila earthquake was observed in the data and
taken into account (Fig 7). The shift was several cm.

It's not explained where exactly the the GPS measurement beacons are
located. I suspect they are located above ground (to get the GPS
signal), and the neutrino detector is located several km's down a
mineshaft, and the LHC itself is also located several feet below the
surface. They probably take an assumed distance from the surface to the
bottom of the mine and to the LHC tunnels. A larger displacement might
have happened down below ground than is visible on the surface.

All the distances are measured.

It might help if you would at least skim the paper.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.