Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks

PD wrote in
:

[...]

Actually, they did change something. The pulses are now much narrower,
so that the chief complaint -- pulse-shape matching -- can be ruled
out as a systematic error.


Which is why I take this result much more seriously now, and hope it can be
replicated by an independent group.

There's a Nobel in the works should this pan out, and hopefully a new
assault on relativity that'll let us break the light barrier.

On 24/11/2011 9:03 PM, eric gisse wrote:
wrote in
:

[...]

Actually, they did change something. The pulses are now much narrower,
so that the chief complaint -- pulse-shape matching -- can be ruled
out as a systematic error.


Which is why I take this result much more seriously now, and hope it can be
replicated by an independent group.

There's a Nobel in the works should this pan out, and hopefully a new
assault on relativity that'll let us break the light barrier.

Since it hasn't really been replicated at any other neutrino detection
locations, my assumption is that this is a measurement error, perhaps
caused by the geologic instability in the region. Perhaps a kink in the
tectonic plates that created a closer than expected distance between the
source and target.

Yousuf Khan

On Nov 20, 8:40*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 20, 7:07*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:





On 19/11/2011 7:59 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Nov 19, 4:08 am, Yousuf *wrote:
On 18/11/2011 4:21 PM, dlzc wrote:
... But they never took care of the possible 65ns
timing error, for the fact the two sets of detectors are
many miles apart, and they did not discern between
gamma photons created in spallation processes, and
those form the original event.

Still so not news...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What difference
do gamma rays make here?

The race is between neutrinos that were created in the
target event, and propagated to the detector site... and
gamma photons passing through solid rock.

Ah! You have a misconception here. There is no direct
head-to-head race here, it's all just timed runs. Gamma
rays cannot make it more than a few feet through the Earth
before they are stopped; gamma rays cannot even make it
through Earth's atmosphere. So no actual light beam is
racing against the neutrino beam.

Early bad press I guess. *Sorry.

Instead, they are just measuring the neutrino beam speed
against a hypothetical light beam -- which is obviously
travelling at the speed of light.

That's why they are paying so much attention to GPS
accuracy and atomic clock synchronization. In the absence
of actual light beams that can go through the Earth, they
are measuring it against light's calculated arrival times.

I wonder what they are using to calibrate their neutrino detector?
They don't really detect neutrinos, they detect Cerenkov radiation
from neutrino interactions that liberate charged particles. *Seems
like others, with their calibrations, see no issues with arrival
times.





Are you saying that neutrinos are also emitted within
spallation events beside the gamma rays?

No. *I am saying the gammas detected may not have
been generated in the same collision back at the source,
but a daughter products of gammas interacting with
intervening rock.

Where is the spallation taking place?

Scattering in rock.

Well, obviously now you know that we're not talking about
an actual light beam, but a hypothetical one, so this is
now irrelevant.

I suspect that if they could drill through all of this rock and
open up a dead straight hole through which actual light can
travel, alongside the neutrino beam, they will find that they
have identical arrival times. There is an inaccuracy in their
measurement of either time or distance that they haven't
figured out yet. My bet is on distance.

Mine is on calibration of their detectors.

Anyways, my favored theory is still that this is an
underground geological anomaly caused by the
Aquila Earthquake. It's simple, and it's mundane
compared to all of the other theories out there.

And doesn't explain that the data was obtained over a
two year period, not just at the starting point. *They are
obtaining current GPS locations for things, I believe.

The GPS signal, like other forms of light, cannot penetrate
all of the way towards the underground mineshaft cavern
where the neutrino detector is actually located.

They claim it does. *They claim they have current data on that.





So the GPS reading is done at the surface near the mouth
of the cavern entrance, and then the underground neutrino
detector position is estimated down nearly 1 mile
underground.

I'm saying that there is plenty of room for error at this stage
because the GPS measurement is not taken at the actual
neutrino detector but a mile away, at the entrance to the
neutrino detector. Especially in an earthquake zone like
this region, a very slight positional change at the surface
could translate into a much more substantial positional
change 1 mile down, since we can't actually measure with
GPS down there. I think one way to resolve this issue
might be to take a very accurate submarine inertial
navigation system and measure from the cavern entrance
to the neutrino detector chamber.

Maybe. *But I figure this foofaraw will be good for helping Italy
balance its budget.

David A. Smith

Thank you.
You said something that I knew, but the
way you said it invoked an angle on the neutrino thing
that I also knew, but hadn't really distilled:
you said " I wonder what they are using to calibrate their neutrino
detector?
They don't really detect neutrinos, they detect Cerenkov radiation
from neutrino interactions that liberate charged particles"

I heard "Neutrinos liberate charge."

Thank you.

john

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
On 24/11/2011 9:03 PM, eric gisse wrote:
wrote in
:

[...]

Actually, they did change something. The pulses are now much narrower,
so that the chief complaint -- pulse-shape matching -- can be ruled
out as a systematic error.


Which is why I take this result much more seriously now, and hope it can
be
replicated by an independent group.

There's a Nobel in the works should this pan out, and hopefully a new
assault on relativity that'll let us break the light barrier.

Since it hasn't really been replicated at any other neutrino detection
locations, my assumption is that this is a measurement error, perhaps
caused by the geologic instability in the region. Perhaps a kink in the
tectonic plates that created a closer than expected distance between the
source and target.

Yousuf Khan

===================

The odds are better for shorter paths existing unrecognized than for
faster than light travel....a straighter length in curvature neutrinos can
travel and light can't, or there being different shapes to space and time
(though light would probably take to it just as well as neutrinos resulting
in light itself being detected to travel faster or slower than c as far as
observation and other detection were concerned). The ramifications of
differing shorter and longer paths through space and time are just as great
though, maybe greater, than finding out neutrinos could travel faster than
light. Remember that lengths and distances, and thus *position* and
positioning, regarding space and time are just as flexibly relative as
*velocity*. Curvature can translate to a (one direction or another)
ballooning of space and time. Space, too, is differential, is flexible, is
even manipulative.

But space being found out to be such an exact equal of time -- rather than
simply being subjectively descriptive of an objective time, being found out
to be actually 1:1 with time, must literally frighten so many mentally
incapacitated physicists almost to death....turn their mental backbones to
jelly and make them **** all over themselves (because no matter if even
their lives depended on it, one-dimensional minds and thinkers literally
can't see, literally can't conceive of, such a multi-dimensional thing in
their mind's eyes, much less handle it). To go to two dimensions, and two
dimensional thinking, is a leap much greater than the many think it is. To
go on to three or more dimensions, and especially three or more dimensional
thought, is to practically reach infinitely beyond one dimensionality.

To have the case be faster than light travel is to have it be
1-dimensional (making things so much easier on physicists). To realize the
case to be shorter pathing means having to go multi-dimensional in many more
ways than one (making things so damned much harder on physicists).

GLB

=================

Yousuf Khan wrote in
:

On 24/11/2011 9:03 PM, eric gisse wrote:
wrote in
news:af8c6d1d-3b68-44f3-bcbf-09bc3752c9a7
@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com
:

[...]

Actually, they did change something. The pulses are now much
narrower, so that the chief complaint -- pulse-shape matching -- can
be ruled out as a systematic error.


Which is why I take this result much more seriously now, and hope it
can be replicated by an independent group.

There's a Nobel in the works should this pan out, and hopefully a new
assault on relativity that'll let us break the light barrier.

Since it hasn't really been replicated at any other neutrino detection
locations, my assumption is that this is a measurement error, perhaps
caused by the geologic instability in the region. Perhaps a kink in
the tectonic plates that created a closer than expected distance
between the source and target.

Yousuf Khan


Since my favored explanation was the bunching of the pulses being
incorrectly characterized but with the measurement persisting, it would
have to be some sort of systematic error like you mention or something
else like new physics.

I really doubt a systematic error of a hundred feet or so in the geodesy
survived the initial survey much less the increased scrutiny after
publication.

On 27/11/2011 6:58 PM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in
:

On 24/11/2011 9:03 PM, eric gisse wrote:
There's a Nobel in the works should this pan out, and hopefully a new
assault on relativity that'll let us break the light barrier.

Since it hasn't really been replicated at any other neutrino detection
locations, my assumption is that this is a measurement error, perhaps
caused by the geologic instability in the region. Perhaps a kink in
the tectonic plates that created a closer than expected distance
between the source and target.

Yousuf Khan


Since my favored explanation was the bunching of the pulses being
incorrectly characterized but with the measurement persisting, it would
have to be some sort of systematic error like you mention or something
else like new physics.

I really doubt a systematic error of a hundred feet or so in the geodesy
survived the initial survey much less the increased scrutiny after
publication.

I'd say an underground geological displacement has much more likelihood
of being correct than new physics. I say where there's smoke there's
fire, and we know that this area experienced a very well known
earthquake back in 2009. I guess in this case, that's more like: where
there's fire, there's smoke. The earthquake being the fire, and the land
displacement being the smoke.

A 60-foot/18m displacement doesn't have to be all done on the spot
locally, so a measurement locally may show little or no displacement
relative to other nearby measurement points. It could be an accumulation
of tectonic displacements from the source to the target, which is 700km
afterall. Little crustal plates piling into each other underground over
the 700km length of track could add upto the 60 ft. I think we'll know
if my theory is right when the area experiences the next major
earthquake and it might either increase or decrease the underground
displacement somewhat.

Yousuf Khan

In sci.physics Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 27/11/2011 6:58 PM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in
:

On 24/11/2011 9:03 PM, eric gisse wrote:
There's a Nobel in the works should this pan out, and hopefully a new
assault on relativity that'll let us break the light barrier.

Since it hasn't really been replicated at any other neutrino detection
locations, my assumption is that this is a measurement error, perhaps
caused by the geologic instability in the region. Perhaps a kink in
the tectonic plates that created a closer than expected distance
between the source and target.

Yousuf Khan


Since my favored explanation was the bunching of the pulses being
incorrectly characterized but with the measurement persisting, it would
have to be some sort of systematic error like you mention or something
else like new physics.

I really doubt a systematic error of a hundred feet or so in the geodesy
survived the initial survey much less the increased scrutiny after
publication.

I'd say an underground geological displacement has much more likelihood
of being correct than new physics. I say where there's smoke there's
fire, and we know that this area experienced a very well known
earthquake back in 2009. I guess in this case, that's more like: where
there's fire, there's smoke. The earthquake being the fire, and the land
displacement being the smoke.

A 60-foot/18m displacement doesn't have to be all done on the spot
locally, so a measurement locally may show little or no displacement
relative to other nearby measurement points. It could be an accumulation
of tectonic displacements from the source to the target, which is 700km
afterall. Little crustal plates piling into each other underground over
the 700km length of track could add upto the 60 ft. I think we'll know
if my theory is right when the area experiences the next major
earthquake and it might either increase or decrease the underground
displacement somewhat.

Yousuf Khan

The two positions are monitored constantly using GPS and is so accurate
they have seen the (minor) effects of earthquakes.

The subject of the distance measurement has been beaten to death and is
obviously NOT the source of error.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Originally Posted by Richard D. Saam

On 11/20/11 8:16 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2011 18:34, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks - Technology &
Science - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...neutrinos.html



"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than light by
European researchers after the experiment was revised to rule out a
certain type of error."

I think this is quite fun and look forward to seeing another independent
lab confirm it - for now it is a curiosity.

I don't think it breaks relativity by very much though. I think it just
means that the ultimate speed limit in the universe is very slightly
faster for neutrinos because they barely notice ordinary matter and in
effect see purer true vacuum than does electromagnetic radiation which
is sensitive to quantum fluctuations and virtual photons.

Put another way the refractive index of what we normally think of as
free space vacuum as seen by electromagnetic radiation is very slightly
above unity. Neutrinos see a better purer vacuum and so can go faster.

The concept of refractive index may be key
or the more succinct concept of permittivity and permeability

permittivity * v1^2 = c^2
permittivity * permeablity * v2^2 = c^2
and
v2 = de broglie velocity ~1/x at vacuum uncertainty.

then there exists a phase velocity
v3 = (c/v2)*c

v1 and v2 are subliminal and v3 superluminal at our scale
but within nuclear dimensions
bounded by an undefined de Broglie velocity 'c'
and related nuclear radius x
v1 and v2 are superliminal and v3 subluminal.

The nuclear generated neutrino velocity
in the realm of nuclear superluminal v1 and v2 is naturally =c.
'c' remains a universal constant.
A new look at Asymptotic freedom.

I would not look at the statistical mean neutrino velocity
but the individual event
as it relates to a nuclear event.

Richard D. Saam
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007

Data obtained over two years, not just in the beginning, no explanation. What they receive, the current GPS location, I believe.